text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'The Sagnac effect is an important phase coherent effect in optical and atom interferometers where rotations of the interferometer with respect to an inertial reference frame result in a shift in the interference pattern proportional to the rotation rate. Here we analyze for the first time the Sagnac effect in a mesoscopic semiconductor electron interferometer. We include in our analysis Rashba spin-orbit interactions in the ring. Our results indicate that spin-orbit interactions increase the rotation induced phase shift. We discuss the potential experimental observability of the Sagnac phase shift in such mesoscopic systems.'
author:
- 'Marko Zivkovic, Markku Jääskeläinen, Christopher P. Search, and Ivana Djuric'
title: 'Sagnac Rotational Phase Shifts in a Mesoscopic Electron Interferometer with Spin-Orbit Interactions'
---
Introduction
============
In the last decade experimental developments in mesoscopic condensed matter and AMO (atomic, molecular, and optical) physics, such as the explosive growth in semiconductor nanostructures, the creation of atomic Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) and ultra-cold atom interferometers, and the interest in quantum computation and information, have caused phase coherence and related phenomena to receive extraordinary attention. Particularly interesting are quantum interference phenomena in ballistic transport through high mobility nanostructures in which electron propagation is described by quantum mechanics rather than by classical transport. This has lead to novel experiments with matter wave interferometers (MI’s) for electrons [@electron-interferometers] and quantum dot structures [@quantum-dots] demonstrating quantum interference between different paths.
Matter wave interferometry is a key paradigm for quantum interference and dates back to the early electron-diffraction experiments. Recent advances show considerable promise for the development of new devices, mostly because the sensitivity of MI’s [@Clauser; @Berman] far exceeds that of their optical counterparts for many important applications. Although both optical interferometers and MI’s are able to detect rotations due to the Sagnac effect, the sensitivity of atom-interferometer (AI) based rotation sensors, however, can be as much as $Mc^{2}/\hbar \omega \sim 10^{10}$ times greater [@Clauser; @Scully] than that of optical ones [@Chow]. (Here $M$ is the atomic mass and $\hbar \omega$ is the energy of a photon.) Current generation laboratory AI’s [@Gustavson] already outperform commercially available ring laser gyroscopes [@Chow]. Optical gyroscopes are now used on virtually all commercial aircraft as well as on spacecraft for inertial navigation. The potential improvement for rotation sensing with AI’s, along with their ability to accurately detect small changes in gravitational fields, has resulted in intense activity within the AMO community to develop AI sensors for inertial navigation, geophysical prospecting, and tests of general relativity [@Gustavson; @McGuirk; @Durfee].
In 1913, Sagnac demonstrated that it is possible to detect rotations with respect to an inertial frame of reference with an interferometer, using the rotation-induced path length difference between its two arms. The phase shift is easily understood if one considers a ring shaped Mach-Zehnder interferometer of radius $R$ rotating about its axis at the rate $\Omega$. In one arm of the interferometer, the particles are co-propagating with the rotation, which increases the distance particles have to travel before exiting by $\approx R\Omega t$. For the other arm, particles are moving opposite to the direction of rotation and the distance they must travel before exiting is decreased by the same amount. As a result, there is a path length difference proportional to $\Omega$.
It should in principle be possible to observe this effect in another type of matter wave device - electron interferometers (EI’s). Mesoscopic semiconductor EI’s have been predominantly used for studying transport and quantum interference in low dimensional systems [@electron-interferometers]. Recently there has been a number of papers on their use to control and generate spin currents in the presence of spin-orbit(SO) coupling [@Junsaku; @Konig; @Frustaglia; @shelykh; @BranislavNikolic]. Surprisingly, there has been no discussion of using them as gyroscopes. To date, the only experiments on the rotation induced Sagnac effect for electrons were done with electron beams in vacuum [@Hasselbach]. In comparison to optical or atom interferometers, EI’s are much smaller, can be integrated with other solid state devices, and are in many ways more robust due to the monolithic solid state structure.
The practical importance of the Sagnac effect for navigation combined with the technological advantages of solid state devices, raises the question as to how easily this effect could be exploited in solid state EI’s. For electrons with effective mass $m^*\approx 0.1m_e$, the enhancement factor relative to an optical interferometer with equal area is $m^*c^2/\hbar\omega\sim 10^5-10^6$. On the other hand, the main disadvantage of electron interferometers is the phase coherence length ${L_\Phi} \approx
l_{mfp}$, which for electrons in solids limits the area of an interferometer to approximately ${L_\Phi}^{2}/\pi$. Since the rotational phase shift is proportional to the enclosed area, this limitation implies a phase shift several orders of magnitude smaller than for current AI’s [@Gustavson; @Durfee]. At the same time we note that each order of magnitude improvement in the mean free path $l_{mfp}$, resulting from improved fabrication techniques, yields a hundred-fold increase in the maximum area, and as a consequence, in the rotational phase shift. It is worth mentioning, however, that recently several papers have pointed out that the rotation induced Sagnac effect could be observed in arrays of coupled optical microring waveguides by using ’slow’ light [@peng; @Scheuer]. The radii of the microrings is $\sim 10 \mu m$, which is only about one order of magnitude larger than already demonstrated semiconductor rings for electrons and holes [@Konig; @morpurgo; @yau]. Recently, the Sagnac effect has been observed in the electronic conductance of carbon nanotube loops with diameters $\sim 1\mu m$ although the origin of the Sagnac phase difference was not due to an externally applied rotation of the loops [@refael].
The main goal of this paper is to investigate a way to enhance the Sagnac phase shift to readily detectable values. To this end, we analyze the coherent interplay of the Sagnac effect and Rashba spin-orbit interaction and estimate the resulting enhancement of the Sagnac phase shift. Indeed, we find that the interplay between the spin interference driven by the spin-orbit interaction and the Sagnac effect result in a larger phase shift for a given rotation rate. This increase in the phase shift can be interpreted as a larger effective area for the interferometer.
The paper is organized as follows: Section \[Model\] establishes the model and introduces the slowly varying envelope approximation as a mathematical technique for solving the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation in the ring. To justify the applicability of the SVE, we compare our results to exact numerical solutions of the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation for several parameter values. In Sec. \[Results\] we present the results of our simulations, and calculate the enhancement of rotational phase shifts. We also discuss the effect of quantum noise on the detectability of rotational phase shifts. Finally, Sec. \[Discussion\] is a summary and outlook where we discuss how to optimize the phase shift by integrating a series of EI’s into an array.
Theoretical Model {#Model}
=================
We consider a quasi-one-dimensional ring of radius $r_0$, which could be defined in a two-dimensional electron [@Konig; @morpurgo] or hole [@yau] semiconductor heterostructure \[Fig. 1(a)\]. We presume that the arms of the ring behave as a ballistic conductor (i.e. the length of the arms is smaller then the electron mean free path). The ring is coupled to two electron reservoirs with a bias voltage $V_1-V_2$ resulting in a current $I=G(V_1-V_2)$. In the growth direction (z-axis), which is perpendicular to the plane of the ring, a static magnetic field ${\bf B}=\nabla \times {\bf A}$ and electric field ${\bf E}$ are applied. The electric field comes from the electrostatic potential of a biased gate above the plane of the ring and has no contribution from the static vector potential ${\bf A}$. Due to the applied magnetic field [**B**]{}, there is a nonzero Zeeman splitting between electron spin states as well as a finite magnetic flux through the ring that would give rise to Aharonov-Bohm oscillations.
In semiconductor heterostructures with structure inversion asymmetry, such as InGaAs/InAlAs [@Nitta2] or HgTe/HgCdTe [@Konig] quantum wells, the dominant spin-orbit interaction is given by the Rashba Hamiltonian [@Rashba], $$H_{int}=\alpha {\bf{\sigma}} \cdot {\bf E} \times \Pi =\alpha_R\hat{z}\cdot({\bf \sigma} \times {\Pi})
\label{Hrashba}$$ where $\sigma$ is the vector of the Pauli spin operators, $\Pi={\bf p}-e{\bf
A}$ the electron momentum, and ${\alpha_R}=\alpha E_z$ the Rashba constant. For electrons traveling around the ring, [**E**]{} gives rise to a momentum dependent magnetic field ${\bf B}_R$ in the plane of the ring due to the SO coupling of the electron spin with its center-of-mass motion. An important feature of the Rashba interaction is that the strength of the SO interaction is proportional to the external electric field, which enables easy control by the gate above the ring. The spins precess around ${\bf
B}_{eff}={\bf B}+{\bf B}_R$ \[Fig. 1(b)\] as they propagate around the ring. This leads to interference between the spin directions of an electron whose wave function is coherently split between the two paths of the interferometer and then later coherently recombined upon exiting. Note that because we consider only ballistic transport here, the Rashba term only gives rise to coherent coupling between the spin states and does not cause dephasing of the spin coherence due to scattering of the orbital wave function.
![(a) Schematic diagram of an electron interferometer: 1D ring of radius $r_0$ subject to Rashba spin-orbit coupling and in the presence of an external magnetic field ${\bf B}$. (b) Effective magnetic, ${\bf B}_{eff}={\bf B}+{\bf
B}_r$ field that spins perceive while traveling around the ring. (c) A one dimensional array of ring interferometers in series. []{data-label="PIC.1"}](Figure1.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The effective 1D Hamiltonian for electrons (charge $e<0$ and effective mass $m^*$) propagating in ring subject to Zeeman and Rashba coupling, with coupling constants $\mu$ and $\alpha_{R}$, respectively, is [@Frustaglia; @Meijer], $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_{1D}(\varphi)=\frac{\hbar \omega_0}{2} (-i \frac{\partial}{\partial \varphi} + \frac{\Phi}{\Phi_0})^2
+\frac{\hbar \omega_B}{2}\sigma_Z
\nonumber\\
+ \frac{\hbar \omega_R}{2}(\cos\varphi \sigma_x +\sin\varphi \sigma_y)(-i\frac{\partial}
{\partial \varphi} + \frac{\Phi}{\Phi_0})
\nonumber\\
- i\frac{\hbar \omega_R}{4}(\cos\varphi \sigma_y - \sin\varphi \sigma_x)
\label{H1D}\end{aligned}$$ where the frequencies $\omega_0=\hbar/(m^*r_0^2)$, $\omega_B=2 \mu B/\hbar$, and $\omega_R=2\alpha_R/\hbar r_0$, $\Phi=\pi r_0^2 B$, and the flux quantum $\Phi_0=h/e$ have been introduced. Here we have made use of the form of the vector potential for a uniform B-field in the z-direction, ${\bf A}={\bf \hat{e}}_\varphi rB/2$, to reexpress all quantities involving ${\bf A}$ in terms of the magnetic flux through the ring.
If the ring is rotating with angular velocity $\Omega$ about the axis perpendicular to the ring, the effective distance that particles have to travel before exiting the ring is increased by $\delta l_{\alpha}={r_0}\Omega t_{\alpha}$ for particles co-propagating with the rotation and decreased by the amount $\delta l_{\beta}={r_0}\Omega t_{\beta}$ for particles that are moving in the opposite direction. Here we assume that particles going from left to right in the upper arm ($\alpha$) in Fig. 1(a) are co-propagating with the rotation while those going in the same direction through the lower arm ($\beta$) are counter-propagating. For small $\Omega$ such that $\delta l_{\alpha (\beta)} \ll
l_{\alpha (\beta)}$ where $l_{\alpha (\beta)}$ is the path length of the upper co-propagating (lower counter-propagating) arm, then $t_{\alpha (\beta)}=(l_{\alpha
(\beta)}\pm \delta l_{\alpha (\beta)} )/v \approx \l_{\alpha (\beta)}/v= \pi {r_0}/v$ where $v$ is the velocity of the particles. This causes a Sagnac phase difference between two counter-propagating de Broglie waves in the ring of $\Delta\phi= k[(l_{\alpha}+\delta
l_{\alpha}) -(l_{\beta}-\delta l_{\beta})]=k 2 \pi {{r_0}^2} \Omega /v =2A \Omega
m^*/\hbar$, where $k=m^{*}v/\hbar$ is the wave number of an electron, $A={{r_0}^2}\pi$ is the area enclosed by the arms of the interferometer[@Scully]. This derivation of the Sagnac phase shift assumes that the spin of the particle is not affected by the rotation. However, in addition to the normal Sagnac phase shift, the rotation of the ring changes the distance that the spins precess around ${\bf B}_{eff}$ as they propagate along the two arms. The relative orientations of the spins from the two arms when recombined has now been changed as a result of the rotation. The resulting spin interference will give a contribution to the Sagnac phase shift, $\Delta\phi$, that is a function of $\Omega$ and $|{\bf B}_{eff}|$.
When the ring is rotating, the system could be described by the same Hamiltonian as the one given in Eq. (\[H1D\]), but the point where the two counter-propagating electron waves recombine and interfere would change its position with time. An easier way to analyze interference in a rotating ring is to change the reference system in which we observe the process from the non-rotating to the rotating one. In the rotating frame of reference, the angular momentum of particles co-propagating with the rotation is decreased while those that are counter-propagating is increased, similar to the Doppler effect. The wave functions in the two reference frames are related by $\Psi_R=\hat{R}\Psi$, where $\Psi_R$ and $\Psi$ are the wave functions in the rotating and non-rotating frames, respectively, and $\hat{R}=\exp[i\Omega t
\hat{n} \cdot \vec{L}/\hbar]$ is the rotation operator ($\hat{n}$ is the rotation axis and $\vec{L}$ the angular momentum operator). Only rotations around the axis perpendicular to the plane of the ring will result in a relative phase shift between the two arms. For this reason we set $\vec{L}\rightarrow L_z$ without loss of generality. The Hamiltonian for an electron in the rotated frame is then given by: $$\hat{H}_R (\varphi)= \hat{H}_{1D} (\varphi) + i\hbar\Omega\frac{\partial}{\partial \varphi}
\label{H_R}$$
The energy eigenfunctions can be expressed in the following form: $$\Psi_R(\varphi,t)=e^{-\frac{iE}{\hbar}t}\Psi_R(\varphi)=e^{-\frac{iE}{\hbar}t} \left[ \begin{array}
{ccc} S_\uparrow(\varphi) \\
S_\downarrow(\varphi) \end{array} \right ] e^{iKr_0\varphi} \label{ansatz}$$ where $S_\uparrow, S_\downarrow$ are the angular dependent spinors for spin states oriented along the z-axis with energy $E$ and momentum $K$ propagating inside the ring with radius $r_0$. This is inserted into the time-dependent Schr[ö]{}dinger equation for the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[H\_R\]), giving us a system of second order differential equations for the envelope function $S_\uparrow, S_\downarrow$. If the envelopes functions are smooth functions that vary much slower than the carrier wave, $$|\partial S_{\sigma}(\varphi)/ \partial \varphi| \ll Kr_0
|S_{\sigma}(\varphi)|,$$ we can neglect the second order derivatives. This is known as the slowly varying envelope (SVE) approximation in optics [@Meystre]. While SVE is a widely used technique in nonlinear and atom optics, it is not common in mesoscopic transport. With this approximation the system becomes,
$$\left [ \begin{array}{ccc} \dot{S_\uparrow} \\ \dot{S_\downarrow} \end{array} \right ] = M \left [ \begin{array}
{ccc} i \left ( aP_1 - \left(\frac{\omega_R}{\omega_0}\right)^2 (b+1) \right ) & i(ab-P_2)\frac{\omega_R}{\omega_0}
e^{-i\varphi} \\
i(a(b+1)-P_1)\frac{\omega_R}{\omega_0}e^{i\varphi} & i\left (aP_2-\left(\frac{\omega_R}{\omega_0}\right)^2 b \right)
\end{array} \right ] \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} S_\uparrow \\ S_\downarrow \end{array} \right]
\label{system}$$
where dots over $S_\uparrow, S_\downarrow$ denote derivatives with respect to the angular position in the ring $\varphi$, and
$$\begin{aligned}
M = \left ( \left(\frac{\omega_R}{\omega_0} \right)^2 -a^2 \right)^{-1},\qquad \quad \nonumber\\
a=2\left(Kr_0+\frac{\Phi}{\Phi_0}-\frac{\omega}
{\omega_0}\right), b=Kr_0+\frac{\Phi}{\Phi_0}-\frac{1}{2}, \nonumber \\
P_{1/2}=\left[2\frac{2E}{\hbar \omega_0}+\left(Kr_0+\frac{\Phi}{\Phi_0} \right)^2 - 2Kr_0\frac{\omega}{\omega_0} \pm
\frac{\omega_B}{\omega_0} \right] \nonumber
\label{Mab}\end{aligned}$$
These coupled first order differential equations are numerically easier to integrate than the second order coupled equations for $S_{\sigma}$ that would be directly obtained from the Schrodinger equation.
In the Landauer-Buttiker formalism, the zero-temperature conductance of a ballistic conductor is given by: $$G=\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} G^{\sigma'\sigma}=\frac{e^{2}}{h} \sum_{\sigma',\sigma} \sum_{m',m=1}^M T_{m'm}^{\sigma'\sigma}
\label{conductance}$$ where $T_{m'm}^{\sigma'\sigma}$ denotes the quantum mechanical probability of transmission between incoming $(m,\sigma)$ and outgoing $(m',\sigma')$ asymptotic states. The labels $m, m'$ and $\sigma, \sigma'$ refer to the corresponding orbital mode and spin quantum numbers, respectively. From Eq. (\[conductance\]) it can be seen how a change of the transmission coefficients due to interference from rotation induced phase shifts causes a modulation of the current through the ring. For convenience, we will restrict our discussion to a single orbital mode and drop the subscripts for the transmission probabilities.
By specifying the spin states of the electrons when they enter the ring, $S_{\sigma,
\alpha(\beta)}(0)$, we can obtain $S_{\sigma', \alpha(\beta)}(\pm \pi)$ at the end points of the interferometer arm where the wave function is recombined. From this the transmission coefficients, $T^{\sigma'\sigma}$, and hence the conductance can be directly calculated. For example, if spin up polarized current enters the ring and the wave functions is equally split between the two arms, $S_{\uparrow,\alpha}(0)=S_{\uparrow,\beta}(0)=1/\sqrt{2}$, then the probability of measuring a spin down electron leaving the ring on the other side is then $T^{\downarrow,\uparrow}=|S_{\downarrow,\alpha}(\pi)+S_{\downarrow,\beta}(-\pi)|^2/4$.
If the leads connected to the ring are unpolarized, i.e. the leads are an incoherent mixture of spin-up and down, then it is only the total charge conductance that will be measured. On the other hand, the field of spintronics has been making rapid progress towards methods for generating and measuring spin polarized currents by such methods as ferromagnetic leads and the spin hall effect [@zutic; @awschalom; @tinkham]. One can then imagine that incident on the ring from the left lead is a current that is spin polarized along the z-direction and that in the second lead one can measure the spin polarization of the current exiting the ring. In this case, one is directly measuring the spin polarized conductances, $G^{\sigma'\sigma}$. In the next section we consider both scenarios.
![Comparison between SVE and numerical solution of Schrodinger equation without SVE: Probabilities for spin up ($P_{\uparrow}=|S_{\uparrow}(\varphi)|^2$) and spin down ($P_{\downarrow}=|S_{\downarrow}(\varphi)|^2$) states, along one arm of interferometer assuming spin-down electrons enter that arm. Here $r_0=1000nm$, $Q_R=3$, and there is no external magnetic field. []{data-label="PIC.2"}](Figure2.eps){width="48.00000%"}
Results {#Results}
=======
In our simulation of the electron interferometer we used $r_0=1000nm$ for the radius of ring and for the electron we chose an effective mass $m^*=0.067 m_0$ and wave number $K=0.1nm^{-1}$. In addition to this we focus on ${\bf B}=0$ from here on since this is expected to produce the maximal spin interference between the two arms. We solved Eq. (\[system\]) numerically using the SVE approximation, and in order to check its validity we did the same calculation including the second order derivatives. The comparison between the two methods is shown in Fig.\[PIC.2\], where we see that the difference between results derived without the approximation (solid line) and with the SVE approximation (dashed line) is negligibly small. The SVE approximation is justified only when $1/K$ is much less than the distance over which the envelope functions change significantly, which is given by the spin precession length, $\ell_{SO}=\hbar\pi/\alpha_R
m^*$. In terms of $\alpha_R$ and $K$ this condition is then, $$\frac{\hbar\pi K}{\alpha_R m^*} \gg 1$$ Application of this mathematical technique in the future can considerably reduce calculation time needed for more complex problems. In particular, it provides an alternative to other techniques currently used such as numerical evaluation of real space Greens functions [@BranislavNikolic].
The spatial Rabi oscillations between spin states in Fig. 2 are not of full amplitude. This is because the diagonal terms in Eq. \[system\] are not the same, which means that the slowly varying envelope functions are not degenerate. It is well known from the theory of two-level quantum systems that the amplitude of the oscillations between states decreases with increasing energy difference between the states. How this ’energy difference’ arises from the underlying Hamiltonian Eq. \[H1D\] can be understood by noting that to obtain Eq. \[system\] for the stationary states in an arm of the ring, we have expressed the spatial equations of motion in the form $$i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial \varphi} \Psi=\tilde{H}\Psi.$$ This has the form of a Scrodinger equation but with the substitution $t\rightarrow \varphi$. To obtain this form from Eq. \[H1D\] one must multiply both sides by $[\frac{\hbar \omega_R}{2}(\cos\varphi \sigma_x +\sin\varphi \sigma_y)]^{-1}$, which gives rise to terms proportional to $\sigma_z$.
![Spin polarized transmission coefficient, $T^{\downarrow,\downarrow}$, for an electron propagating through EI for $B=0$, for different values of Rashba SO coupling strength ($Q_R=\omega_R/\omega_0$) and Sagnac strength ($Q_S=\Omega/\omega_0$). This is the probability that an electron with spin down at the entrance of the ring has the same spin when it exits the ring[]{data-label="PIC.3"}](Figure3.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![Total conductance in units of $e^2/h$ for an electron propagating through EI for $B=0$ and different values of Rashba SO coupling strength ($Q_R=\omega_R/\omega_0$) and Sagnac strength ($Q_S=\Omega/\omega_0$).[]{data-label="PIC.3"}](Figure4.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Having found values for $S_\uparrow$ and $S_\downarrow$ we determined the transmission coefficients for different magnitudes of Rashba SO coupling and rotation rates. Figures 3 and 4 shows $G^{\downarrow,\downarrow}$, assuming a spin down polarized current incident on the ring, as well as the total conductance, $G$, for unpolarized currents in units of $e^2/h$, respectively. One can conclude from both figures that the Rashba and Sagnac effect do not give rise to separate contributions to the transmission phase since the interference pattern does not lie along horizontal or vertical lines.
Let us focus on Fig. 3, which involves only a single transmission probability that can be written in the form $T^{\sigma,\sigma}\propto \cos^2 (\Delta\phi)$. Now let us assume that the phase shift can be written as $\Delta\phi=f(Q_S)+g(Q_R)$ where $f(Q_S)$ and $g(Q_R)$ are some functions of the dimensionless rotations rate, $Q_S=\Omega/\omega_0$, and the dimensionless Rashba term $Q_R=\omega_R/\omega_0$. In this case one can see that if $Q_R (Q_S)$ is fixed and $Q_S (Q_R)$ allowed to vary, which corresponds to moving along a vertical (horizontal) line in Fig. 3, then the minima and maxima of the interference pattern should lie entirely along the vertical (horizontal) line. As one can see, however, the minima and maxima of the interference pattern follow lines that deviate from vertical and horizontal. This indicates that the phase of $T^{\sigma,\sigma}$ is a nonlinear combination of $Q_R$ and $Q_S$.
![ (a) Sagnac rotational phase shift as a function of the rotation rate $Q_S=\Omega/\omega_0$ for different values of the Rashba SO interaction strength, $Q_R$. Phase shift, $\Delta \phi$ is in units of $\pi$ radians (b) Dimensionless enhancement factor, $\xi$, as a function of $Q_R$. Dots are slopes of the curves in (a) as well as for other values of $Q_R$ not shown in (a). The solid line is a numerical fit to the points.[]{data-label="PIC.4"}](Figure5.eps){width="48.00000%"}
![ Dimensionless enhancement factor for the total conductance, $\xi_G=\left[\partial G(Q_R,Q_S)/\partial Q_S\right]_{max}/\left[\partial
G(Q_R=0,Q_S)/\partial Q_S\right]_{max}$, as a function of $Q_R$. Dots are numerically calculated values of $\xi_G$ for different $Q_R$ The solid line is a numerical fit to the points. Inset, $\xi_{\omega}(Q_R)=T(Q_R=0)/T(Q_R)$ is the frequency of the oscillations in $G$ as a function of $Q_S$ for different $Q_R$. Here, $T(Q_R)$ is the period of the oscillations in $G$ for fixed $Q_R$ as $Q_S$ is increased.[]{data-label="PIC.4"}](Figure6.eps){width="48.00000%"}
In the case of spin polarized transport, the rotational phase shift $\Delta\phi$ can be uniquely equated with the phase of the interference pattern in Fig. 3 since it results from only a single transmission probability. In Fig. 5 we have extracted $\Delta\phi$ as a function of $\Omega$ for different values of $Q_R$ from our numerical results for $T^{\downarrow,\downarrow}$. The Sagnac phase shift with no Rashba effect is given by the dash-dotted line, which is indistinguishable from the line for $Q_R\!\!=\!\!5$ (thick solid line). This confirms that for weak SO coupling ($Q_R\lesssim 10$) there is only negligible mixing between the SO coupling and the rotational phase shift. For higher values of $Q_R$, the mixing becomes stronger, which is manifested by a steeper slope. Our numerical results indicate that the rotation induced phase shift is approximately $$\Delta\phi\cong \xi 2\pi r_0^2 \Omega m^*/\hbar \label{polarized-enhancement}$$ where $\xi \geq 1$ is an enhancement factor due to the SO coupling, which is shown in Fig. 5(b), and for which a numerical fit yields, $$\xi(Q_R)\approx 0.9\exp(0.007Q_R)+0.003\exp(0.05Q_R)$$ By increasing $Q_R$, it is possible to more easily detect small changes in the angular velocity.
By contrast, the total conductance involves a summation of four transmission probabilities that do not necessarily oscillate in phase with each other. In this case it is harder to define the rotation induced phase shift. However, the quantity that is of most interest experimentally is how much the conductance changes due to a small change in $Q_S$, $\Delta G\approx \left(\partial G/ \partial Q_S\right)\Delta Q_S$. This allows us to define an enhancement, $\xi_G$, $$\xi_G(Q_R)=\frac{\left[ \partial G(Q_R,Q_S)/ \partial Q_S\right]_{max}}{\left[ \partial
G(Q_R=0,Q_S)/ \partial Q_S\right]_{max}} \label{G-enhancement}$$ where $max$ means the maximum magnitude of the slope for fixed $Q_R$. It is worth noting that if we assume a simple interference pattern of the form $G=A\cos^2[\Delta\phi]$ and use $\Delta\phi$ in Eq. \[polarized-enhancement\], then we obtain from Eq. \[G-enhancement\] $\xi_G=\xi$, which shows that Eq. \[G-enhancement\] is consistent with our definition of $\xi$ for the spin polarized case. Fig. 6 shows $\xi_G$ as a function of $Q_R$. As one can see, $\xi_G\sim \xi$ for all $Q_R$. Thus the enhancement can just as easily be seen in the total conductance. Finally, the inset of Fig. 6 shows the oscillation frequency for the interference pattern in $G$ for different values of $Q_R$ (moving along vertical lines in Fig. 4). As one can see, the oscillation frequency increases more rapidly than $\xi_G$. This is because the amplitude of the oscillations decrease at a rate that is smaller than the rate of increase in the frequency. As a result $\xi_G$ increases but more slowly than the oscillation frequency.
The enhancement factors, $\xi$ and $\xi_G$, are a result of the different spin orientations of electrons created in the two arms. The spin of electrons going through the upper arm precess around ${\bf B}_{eff}$ by a larger angle before exiting as compared to the lower arm. This is due to the longer path length of the upper arm. As a result, the orientations of the spins from the upper and lower arms are different when recombined at the second lead and this imbalance in the spin precession angles changes the spin resolved conductances. Recently it was demonstrated [@Gvozdic] that by using holes instead of electrons it is possible to increase the strength of the Rashba interaction by about three orders of magnitude. Based on the results presented here, such extremely large Rashba strengths ($Q_R\sim 1000-10000$) should lead to Sagnac phase shifts that are orders of magnitude larger than shown here. However, for such large $Q_R$ the SVE approximation breaks down and new numerical techniques must be sought.
The minimum detectable phase difference in matter wave interferometers, $\Delta
\varphi_{min}$, is determined by the quantum fluctuations in the measured phase difference. These fluctuations are the result of the partition noise (also referred to as shot noise) that results from the splitting and recombining of the particles at the beam splitters. For uncorrelated particles the noise is Poissonian and the minimum detectable phase shift is [@Scully] $$|\Delta\varphi_{min}| = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \label{phasedifference}$$ where $N$ is the total number of particles that pass through the interferometer during the measurement time. This result ignores quantum statistics. If quantum statistics are accounted for, it is found that $|\Delta\varphi_{min}|$ continues to scale like $N^{-1/2}$ for bosons and fermions [@search-meystre]. The number of electrons passing through the ring per unit time is proportional to the current through the ring $I$. By equating the rotational phase shift with the shot-noise limited minimum detectable shift, $|\Delta \phi|=|\Delta\varphi_{min}|$ and using Eqs. (\[phasedifference\]) and (\[polarized-enhancement\]), we find that the minimum detectable rotation rate $\Omega_{min}$ is $$\Omega_{min}\cong \frac{\hbar}{\xi 2\pi r_0^2 m^*} \left (\frac{I t_m}{|e|}
\right )^{-\frac{1}{2}} \label{omegamin}$$ where $t_m$ is the measurement time. Strong SO interaction yields $\xi \gg 1$ and reduces $\Omega_{min}$ accordingly. However, even if we take $\xi=1$ corresponding to no SO interactions and a ring of radius $10\mu m$ with $I=100nA$, one finds that $\Omega_{min}=3.48 t_m^{-1/2} rad/s$ with $t_m$ measured in seconds. The quantum shot noise represents the only fundamental physical limit to the phase resolution. However, even if the ring itself is limited only by shot noise, the electrical current from the ring must be amplified to more readily detectable values. Current cold amplifiers have noise that is still well above the shot noise limit although recent experiments have demonstrated novel very low noise mesoscopic amplifiers based on single electron transistors [@wu] and Josephson junctions [@delahaye]. Also, theoretical work has shown how to reach the quantum limit in linear electronic amplifiers [@gavish]. It is then reasonable to assume then that future generation amplifiers will reach the quantum noise limit.
Conclusion {#Discussion}
==========
This is the first study of the Sagnac effect in solid state electron ring conductors. We have demonstrated that the SVE approximation is justified for typical spin-orbit coupling strengths and also shown that the Rashba spin-orbit interaction can enhance the sensitivity of rotation measurements. The spin-orbit enhancement can be regarded as an increased effective area for the interferometer. Moreover, our estimates indicate that the Sagnac phase shift can easily be made larger than the quantum shot noise limit, which is the only fundamental obstacle. It is our hope that this work will stimulate further interest in this problem and that next generation experiments will be able to measure the Sagnac effect in semiconductors.
Another possible method for enhancing the Sagnac effect is to use a serial array of $N$ ring interferometers as depicted in Fig. 1(c). Transport within each ring is assumed to be ballistic. In this case the resistivity of the rings (ignoring the contact resistance and the resistance of the channels connecting the rings) is given by (ignoring for the sake of simplicity here spin dependent transport)[@datta] $$G_{rings}^{-1}=\frac{h}{2e^2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{1-T_i}{T_i} =\frac{h}{2e^2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\tan^2 \left(\Delta\phi^{(i)}/2 \right)
\label{Gmin1}$$ where $T_i=\cos^2(\Delta\phi^{(i)}/2)$ is the transmission probability through the $i^{th}$ ring with Sagnac phase shift $\Delta\phi^{(i)}$. For small phase shifts and ignoring differences between the rings, one sees that the resistance is $G_{rings}^{-1}\propto N(\Delta\phi /2)^2$. If we do not assume ballistic transport between the rings, this device should be scalable to large $N$ since then the total size of the array can be $\gg l_{mfp}$. Even though the phase shift in each ring may be too small too measure, the effect is compounded as the electron passes through each successive ring resulting in a phase shift that is enhanced by $\sqrt{N}$ in comparison to that of a single ring. A similar idea was proposed for light propagating coherently in a two dimensional array of coupled microring optical waveguides [@Scheuer] where the enhancement relative to a single ring was found to be $N^2$. One of our goals in a future publication is to explicitly calculate the contribution to the resistance due to the channels connecting the rings assuming either incoherent transport or ballistic transport between rings as well as the effect of SO coupling in the rings.
Yang Ji, Yunchul Chun, D. Sprinzak, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and Hadas Shtrikman, Nature [**422**]{}, 415 (2003); I. Neder, M. Heiblum, Y. Levinson, D. Mahalu, and V. Umansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 016804 (2006); I. Neder, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and V. Umansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 036803 (2007).
W.G. van der Wiel, S. De Franchesi, J.M. Elzerman, T. Fujisawa, S. Tarucha, L.P. Kouwenhoven, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 1 (2003); A. Yacoby, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, H. Shtrikman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 4047 (1995); R. Shuster, E. Buks, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, V. Umansky, H. Shtrikman, Nature [**385**]{}, 417 (1997).
J. F. Clauser, Physica B & C, vol. [**151**]{}, pp. 262-272, 1988.
Paul R. Berman, *Atom Interferometry*, Academic Press, San Diego, 1997.
W. W. Chow, J. Gea-Banacloche, L. M. Pedrotti, V. E. Sanders, W. Schleich, M. O. Scully, Rev. Mod. Phys., [**57**]{}, 61 (1985). M. O. Scully and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. A [**48**]{}, 3186 (1993).
T. L. Gustavson, A. Landragin, and M. A. Kasevich, Classical and Quantum Gravity [**17**]{}, 2385 (2000). J. M. McGuirk, G. T. Foster, J. B. Fixler, M. J. Snadden, M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 033608 (2002). D. S. Durfee, Y. K. Shaham, M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**97**]{}, 240801 (2006). Junsaku Nitta, Frank E. Meijer, and Hideaki Takayanagi, App. Phys. Lett., [**75**]{}, 695 (1999). M. Konig, A. Tschetschetkin, E. M. Hankiewicz, Jairo Sinova, V. Hock, V. Daumer, M. Schafer, C. R. Becker, H. Buhmann, and L. W. Molenkamp, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 076804 (2006). D. Frustaglia and K. Richter, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 235310 (2004). I. A. Shelykh, N. G. Galkin, and N. T. Bagraev, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 235316 (2005).
S. Souma and B. Nikolic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 106602 (2005).
F. Hasselbach and M. Nicklaus, Phys. Rev. A [**48**]{}, 143 (1993); Richard Neutze and Franz Hasselbach, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, 557 (1998).
C. Peng, Z. Li, A. Xu, Optics Express [**15**]{}, 3864 (2007).
Jacob Scheuer and Amnon Yariv, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**96**]{}, 053901 (2006). A. F. Morpurgo, J. P. Heida, T. M. Klapwijk, and B. J. van Wees, and G. Borghs, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1050 (1998).
Jeng-Bang Yau, E. P. De Poortere, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 146801 (2002).
G. Refael, J. Heo, and M. Bockrath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 246803 (2007).
Junsaku Nitta, Tatsushi Akazaki, Hideaki Takayanagi, and Takatomo Enoki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{} 1335 (1997).
F. E. Meijer, A. F. Morpurgo, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. B, [**66**]{}, 033107, pp. 2002. Emmanuel I. Rashba, Physica E, [**20**]{}, 189 (2004). P. Meystre and M. Sargent III, *Elements of Quantum Optics 3rd Ed.* (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.) I. Zutic, J. Fabian, S. Das Darma, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**76**]{}, 323 (2004).
Y. K. Kato, R. C. Myers, A. C. Gossard, D. D. Awschalom, Science [**306**]{}, 1910 (2004).
S. O. Valenvuela and M. Tinkham, Nature [**442**]{}, 176 (2006).
D. M. Gvozdi$\acute{c}$ and U. Ekenberg, Europhys. Lett. [**73**]{}, 927 (2006). C. P. Search and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A [**67**]{}, 061601(R) (2003).
C. S. Wu, C. F. Lin, W. Kuo, C. D. Chen, New J. Phys. [**8**]{}, 300 (2006).
J. Delahaye, J. Hassel, R. Lindell, M. Sillanpaa, M. Paalanen, H. Seppa, P. Hakonen, Science [**299**]{}, 1045 (2003).
U. Gavish, B. Yurke, Y. Imry, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 133602 (2006).
Supriyo Datta, *Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the context of finite elasticity, we propose plate models describing the spontaneous bending of nematic elastomer thin films due to variations along the thickness of the nematic order parameters. Reduced energy functionals are deduced from a three-dimensional description of the system using rigorous dimension-reduction techniques, based on the theory of $\Gamma$-convergence. The two-dimensional models are nonlinear plate theories in which deviations from a characteristic target curvature tensor cost elastic energy. Moreover, the stored energy functional cannot be minimised to zero, thus revealing the presence of residual stresses, as observed in numerical simulations. The following three nematic textures are considered: *splay-bend* and *twisted* orientation of the nematic director, and uniform director perpendicular to the mid-plane of the film, with variable degree of nematic order along the thickness. These three textures realise three very different structural models: one with only one stable spontaneously bent configuration, a bistable one with two oppositely curved configurations of minimal energy, and a shell with zero stiffness to twisting.'
address:
- 'SISSA, via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste - Italy'
- 'SISSA, via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste - Italy'
author:
- Virginia Agostiniani
- Antonio DeSimone
title: |
Rigorous derivation of active plate models for\
thin sheets of nematic elastomers
---
Introduction
============
The interest in designing objects whose shape can be controlled at will through the application of external stimuli is fuelling a renewed interest in questions at the interface between elasticity and geometry. Which shapes are accessible to elastic sheets through the prescription of non-euclidean metrics that model states of pre-stress or pre-stretch induced by phase-transitions, plastic deformations, or growth [@Kle_Efr_Sha_2007]? Besides their fundamental mathematical interest [@Ciarlet_book; @Lew_Pak2011], these questions are very relevant in biology (e.g., in morphogenesis where shape emerges from growth and remodelling processes) and engineering (e.g., for motion-planning problems in soft robotics and, more generally, for the design of bio-inspired structures with programmable shapes).
A general paradigm to generate bending deformations in thin films is to induce non-constant strains through the thickness[^1]. These can in turn be triggered by the spontaneous strains associated with a phase transformation. An example is provided by strips of nematic elastomers in which specific textures of the director have been imprinted in the material at fabrication. The process relies on pouring a nematic liquid between two plates which have been treated to induce a given uniform alignment of the director on one of them and a different one on the other one. This induces a non-constant director profile which is then frozen in the material by the photo-polymerization process that transforms a liquid crystal into a nematic elastomer. When the isotropic-to-nematic phase transformation takes place, the spontaneous deformations associated with it induce differential expansions along the film thickness, and hence curvature of its mid-surface. We refer the interested reader to, e.g., [@hybrid; @Sawa2011; @Urayama2013] for more details about the preparation of such materials, and to [@AgDe2; @BarDeS; @Ce_DeSim; @CoDeDo; @DeS99; @DeSim_Dolz; @DeTe; @FukDyn] and the references quoted therein for further information on the mathematical modelling of their interesting behaviour.
Two-dimensional models (plate models) for the bending deformation of thin films made of active material have already been proposed in the literature. They account for bending deformations through a curvature tensor (second fundamental form of the deformed mid-surface). The bending energy penalizes deviations of the curvature from a characteristic target curvature arising from the spontaneous strains triggered by a phase transition. Expressions for these bending energies are typically *postulated* on the basis of symmetry arguments, or deduced formally from an ansatz on the displacement fields (Kirchoff-Love assumption). By contrast, in our approach two-dimensional energy densities and target curvatures are *deduced* from 3D elasticity, i.e., from those geometric and material parameters that are available to the material scientists synthesizing the material and shaping it into a thin film.
In this paper, employing rigorous dimension reduction techniques based on the theory of $\Gamma$-convergence, and following [@Schmidt2007], we derive new models for the bending behavior of thin films made of nematic elastomers in the regime of large deformations. Starting from three-dimensional finite elasticity, and considering the limit of a vanishingly small thickness, we obtain the following two-dimensional reduced “energy” functional $$\label{energia_limite}
\mathscr E^{lim}(y)
\,=\,
\frac{\mu}{12}\int\limits_{\omega}
\left\{\Big|{\rm A}_y(x')\,-\,\overline A\Big|^2
+\gamma
\Big({{\rm tr}}{\rm A}_y(x')-{{\rm tr}}\overline A\Big)^2\right\}{{\rm d}}x'
+
\bar e,$$ whenever $y$ is an isometry mapping $\omega$ (the planar domain representing the reference configuration of the mid-surface of the film) into ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. Specific expressions of the 2D limit energy in terms of the parameters typically used in the theory of plates (such as the plate bending modulus) are given given in the right-hand-sides of and . In above, which is an expression of the type proposed in [@Aha_Sha_Kup; @Kle_Efr_Sha_2007; @Armon] to model the shaping of elastic sheets or of biological tissues, the symbol $A_y$ denotes the curvature tensor, namely, the second fundamental form associated with the deformed configuration $y(\omega)$ and the coefficients $\mu$ and $\gamma$ are positive constants (material parameters characterising the three-dimensional stored energy density of the material). Moreover, the $2{\times}2$ symmetric matrix $\overline A$ is the target curvature tensor and $\bar e$ is a nonnegative constant. The characteristic quantities $\overline A$ and $\bar e$ are deduced from the three-dimensional model and given by explicit formulas, issuing from the specific variation of the spontaneous strain along the thickness. The constant $\bar e$ is irrelevant in the selection of energy minimising or equilibrium shapes $y$. However, a term $\bar e>0$ is typical for those cases in which the spontaneous strains of the 3D model are not kinematically compatible[^2]. Thus, just like its parent 3D energy functional, the limit 2D energy can never be minimised to zero: there will always be energy trapped in the system, indicating the presence of residual stresses.
Two special geometries of the director field are of particular interest, since they have been realized in practice in the laboratory. In the *splay bend* geometry (SB), also called *hybrid* in [@hybrid; @Urayama2013], the explicit formulas we obtain for $\overline A$ and $\bar e$ are $$\overline A
\,=\,
\overline A_{SB}(\delta_0)
\,=\,
\frac{12\,\delta_0}{\pi^2}\,
{\rm diag}\big(-1,0\big)
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\bar e
\,=\,
\bar e_{SB}(\delta_0)
\,=\,
\mu\,(1+\gamma)\delta_0^2\left(\frac{\pi^4-12}8\right)|\omega|,$$ where $\delta_0$ is a positive constant, with dimension of inverse length, which quantifies the variability along the thickness of the spontaneous strain (see – and the first formula in ). We recall that, in a three-dimensional film with splay-bend geometry, the director continuously rotates by $\pi/2$ from planar to vertical alignment (see and Figure \[fig:splay\_twist\]). The other geometry we consider is the *twisted* one (T), see [@Sawa2011] and [@Urayama2013], where instead the director (continuously) rotates perpendicularly to the vertical axis from a typical orientation at the bottom of the film to another typical orientation at the top of the film (see and Figure \[fig:splay\_twist\]). In this case, it turns out that $$\overline A
\,=\,
\overline A_T(\delta_0)
\,=\,
\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2}\,
{\rm diag}\big(-1,1\big)
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\bar e
\,=\,
\bar e_T(\delta_0)
\,=\,
\frac{\mu\,\delta_0^2}{\pi^4}
\left(\frac{\pi^4-4\pi^2-48}2\right)|\omega|.$$ The difference in the formulas for the two cases arises because of a different distribution of spontaneous strains along the thickness, see – and .
The two geometries of the director field described above lead to plates with two very different structural behaviours. Both of them arise from kinematically incompatible spontaneous strains, which generate residual stresses leading to a strictly positive constant $\bar e$. They differ in the fact that in the splay-bend geometry, the integral term in can be minimised to zero (by any developable surface $y(\omega)$ whose second fundamental form $A_y$ coincides with $\overline A_{SB}$). Hence, the target curvature $\overline A_{SB}$ is the curvature the plate spontaneously exhibits in the absence of external loads (spontaneous curvature). By contrast, in the twisted case, also the minimum of the integral term is strictly positive. In fact, there exists no isometry $y$ such that $A_y\equiv\overline A_T$, because in a developable surface the product of the principal curvatures must be zero at each point of the surface. This means that, in fact, the target curvature $\overline A_T$ is never observed in the absence of external loads.
The spontaneous curvature exhibited in the absence of external loads by a nematic film with twisted texture cannot be read off directly from the target curvature, but is has to be computed by minimising the integrand in , subject to the isometry constraint. It turns out that this system has *two* distinct configurations of minimal energy, with opposite curvature, hence it is *bistable*. By contrast, in the splay-bend case, there is only one stable bent configuration. Motivated by these observations, we also consider the following geometry for the nematic parameters: a uniform director orientation perpendicular to the mid-plane of the film, with variable degree of nematic order along the thickness. Even though this configuration has not yet been realised in the laboratory, it leads to a very interesting mechanical behaviour. Namely, a structure possessing a continuum of spontaneously bent, minimal energy configurations, representing a shell with zero stiffness to twisting.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Section \[sec\_2\], the 3D elasticity models are presented and a discussion of the kinematic compatibility of the 3D spontaneous strains is provided. Then, in Section \[sec\_3\], we present the theoretical basis for our dimension reduction procedure, and the derivation of the formulas allowing to deduce the target curvature $\overline A$ and the constant $\bar e$ from 3D elasticity. This is the content of Theorems \[main\_thm\_SB\], \[main\_thm\_T\] and of formulas and . As already mentioned, we work in the framework of the dimension reduction approach which traces back to the seminal paper [@F_J_M_2002]. In particular, to obtain our results we use the plate theory for stressed heterogeneous multilayers developed by Schmidt in [@Schmidt2007], which has recently motivated some new computational schemes [@Bartels]. Our models are valid for arbitrarily large elastic deformations. A plate model covering the regime of small deformations has been presented in [@He].
Section \[sec\_4\] is devoted to the physical interpretation of our results: We derive explicit formulas for the deformations realising the minimal free-energy of the (reduced) plate models, which represent the configuration the nematic sheets exhibit in the absence of applied loads. We show that there is one spontaneously bent configuration in the splay bend case, while there are two distinct ones in the twist case. Thus, twist nematic plates are bistable structures, a fact that has gone unnoticed until now, and has not yet been observed in the laboratory. Moreover, the behaviour of splay-bend and twisted nematic elastomer sheets is compared to the case in which the nematic director field is constant (perpendicular to the mid-surface), and the thickness-dependence of the spontaneous strain is induced by the variation of the degree of nematic order along the thickness. Although a system like this has not yet been synthesised in the laboratory, we hope that the predictions of our model will motivate researchers to investigate experimentally the mechanical response it would produce. In fact, our prediction is that, in the thin film limit, this texture should produce a plate with soft response to twisting, see Figure \[fig:sharon\].
Splay-bend and twisted nematic elastomers thin sheets {#sec_2}
=====================================================
In this section, we present a three-dimensional model for a thin sheet of nematic elastomer with splay-bend and twisted distribution of the director along the thickness. The kinematic compatibility of the corresponding spontaneous strains is discussed in Subsection \[sec:kin\_com\], where the case of strains distributed quadratically along the thickness is analyzed as well.
A three-dimensional model {#subsec:three_dim_model}
-------------------------
We consider a thin sheet of nematic elastomer occupying the reference configuration $$\label{nostra_ref_con}
{\Omega}_h=\omega\times(-h/2,h/2),$$ for some $h>0$ small, where $\omega$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with sufficiently regular boundary.
Throughout the paper we will denote by $\{\mathsf e_1,\mathsf e_2,\mathsf e_3\}$ the canonical basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ and by $z=(z_1,z_2,z_3)$ an arbitrary point in the physical reference configuration $\Omega_h$. The term “physical” here and throughout the paper is used in contrast to the corresponding rescaled quantities we will introduce later on. Also, ${{\rm SO}}(3)$ is the set of the $3{\times3}$ rotations and ${\rm I}\in{{\rm SO}}(3)$ the identity matrix, whereas the symbol ${\rm I}_2$ denotes the identity matrix of ${\mathbb{R}}^{2\times2}$.
We suppose the sheet to be heterogeneous along the thickness with associated stored energy density $$w^h:(-h/2,h/2)\times{\mathbb{R}^{3{\times}3}}\longrightarrow[0,+\infty].$$ More precisely, in the two models we are going to consider, the $z_3$-dependence of the energy density is induced via the $z_3$-dependence of the spontaneous strain distribution.
If $n\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$ is a unit vector representing the local order of the nematic director, the (local) response of the nematic elastomer is encoded by a volume preserving spontaneous strain (technically, a right Cauchy-Green strain tensor) given by $$\label{nem_tens}
L(n)=a^{\frac23}n\otimes n+a^{-\frac13}
({\rm I}-n\otimes n),$$ for some material parameter $a>1$, which is usually temperature-dependent. Suppose that the nematic director $n$ varies along the thickness according to a given function $z_3\mapsto n^h(z_3)$ and coincides with two given constant directions at the top and at the bottom of the sheet: $$n^h(-h/2)=n_{\rm b},\qquad\qquad
n^h(h/2)=n_{\rm t},
\qquad\qquad\qquad
\mbox{for every small}\quad h>0,$$ for fixed $n_{\rm b},n_{\rm t}\in{\mathbb{S}}^2$. The through-the-thickness variation of the nematic director translates into a variation of the corresponding spontaneous strain according to , namely, $$\label{bar_c_h}
\bar c_h(z_3)
\,:=\,
L(n^h(z_3))
\,=\,
a_h^{2/3}n^h(z_3)\otimes n^h(z_3)
+a_h^{-1/3}\big({\rm I}-n^h(z_3)\otimes n^h(z_3)\big).$$ Notice that, in this expression, we allow the material parameter $a$ to be $h$-dependent. More precisely, from now on we will assume that $$\label{a_h}
a_h=1+\alpha_0\frac h{h_0},$$ where $\alpha_0$ is a positive dimensionless parameter, while $h_0$ and $h$ have the physical dimension of length. This assumption is easily understandable if one thinks that curvature is related to the ratio between the magnitude of the strain difference along the thickness and the thickness itself. Hence, the linear scaling in $h$ in is needed in order to obtain finite curvature in the limit $h\to0$. Observe that $\bar c_h(z_3)$ is positive definite for every $z_3\in(-h/2,h/2)$ and every $h>0$ sufficiently small.
In the framework of finite elasticity, a prototypical energy density $w^h:(-h/2,h/2){\times}{\mathbb{R}^{3{\times}3}}\to[0,\infty]$ modelling a nematic elastomer is $$\label{prot_energy}
w^h(z_3,F):=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
\frac{\mu}2\Big[(F^TF)\cdot\bar c_h^{-1}(z_3)-3-2\log(\det F)\Big]
+W_{vol}(\det F) & \quad\mbox{if }\det F>0,\\
+\infty & \quad\mbox{if }\det F\leq0,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\mu>0$ is a material constant (shear modulus) and the function $W_{vol}:(0,\infty)\to[0,\infty)$ is ${\rm C}^2$ around $1$ and fulfills the conditions: $$W_{vol}(t)=0 \iff t=1,
\qquad
W_{vol}(t)\longrightarrow\infty\ \,{\rm as}\ \,t\to 0^+,
\qquad
W_{vol}''(1) >0.$$ It is easy to show (see Remark \[rmk\_W\_0\], , and ) that $w^h$ is indeed nonnegative and such that $$w^h(z_3,F)=0\qquad\qquad\mbox{iff}
\qquad\qquad
F\in{\rm SO}(3)\sqrt{\bar c_h(z_3)}.$$ Expression is a natural generalization, see [@Ag_DeS_1], of the classical trace formula for nematic elastomers derived by Bladon, Terentjev and Warner [@Bla_Ter_War], in the spirit of Flory’s work on polymer elasticity [@Flo]. The presence of the purely volumetric term $W_{vol}(\det F)$ guarantees that the Taylor expansion at order two of the density results in isotropic elasticity with two independent elastic constants (shear modulus and bulk modulus).
If $\{\hat f_h\}_{h>0}$, with $\hat f_h:{\Omega}_h\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$, represents a family of applied loads, the (physical) stored elastic energy and total energy of the system associated with a deformation $v:{\Omega}_h\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ are given by $$\label{phys_quan}
\hat{\mathscr E}^h(v)
\,=\,
\int\limits_{{\Omega}_h}w^h(z_3,{\nabla}v(z))\,{\rm d}z,
\qquad\qquad
\hat{\mathscr F}^h(v)
\,=\,
\hat{\mathscr E}^h(v)
-
\int\limits_{{\Omega}_h}\hat f_h\cdot v\,{{\rm d}}z,$$ respectively.
Let us now focus on the nematic director field in the splay-bend and twisted cases, which we denote by $n^h_{SB}$ and $n^h_T$, respectively. We recall that these distributions are solutions to the problem $$\min_{\begin{array}{r}n(-h/2)=n^b\\n(h/2)=n^t\end{array}}
\int\limits_{\omega_h}|{\nabla}n|^2{\rm d}z,$$ where in the splay-bend case $n^b=\mathsf e_1$ and $n^t=\mathsf e_3$, whereas in the twisted case $n^b=\mathsf e_1$ and $n^t=\mathsf e_2$. We have $$\label{director_splay}
n^h_{SB}(z_3)
\,=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos\big(\frac{\pi}4+\frac\pi2\frac{z_3}h\big)\\
0\\
\sin\big(\frac{\pi}4+\frac\pi2\frac{z_3}h\big)
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
n^h_T(z_3)
\,=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos\big(\frac{\pi}4+\frac\pi2\frac{z_3}h\big)\\
\sin\big(\frac{\pi}4+\frac\pi2\frac{z_3}h\big)\\
0
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad\quad
z_3\in(-h/2,h/2),$$ and we refer the reader to Figure \[fig:splay\_twist\] for a sketch of these two geometries.
We define the (physical) spontaneous strain distributions $\bar c_{h,SB}$ and $\bar c_{h,T}$ as that in with $n^h_{SB}$ and $n^h_T$ in place of $n^h$, respectively. Correspondingly, we denote by $w^h_{SB}$ and $w^h_T$ the stored energy densities, by $\hat{\mathscr E}^h_{SB}$ and $\hat{\mathscr E}^h_T$ the stored energy functional, and by $\hat{\mathscr F}^h_{SB}$ and $\hat{\mathscr F}^h_T$ the total energies.
![ Sketch of the splay-bend director field (left) and of the twisted director field (right). []{data-label="fig:splay_twist"}](splay_twist_Vir.pdf){width="13cm"}
Kinematic compatibility {#sec:kin_com}
-----------------------
Here, we want to discuss the *kinematic compatibility* of some given field of (physical) spontaneous strains. Let $\mathcal O$ be the (physical) reference configuration of a given system and suppose that it is a simply connected open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. We say that a smooth map ${G}:\mathcal O\longrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^{3{\times}3}$, representing a distribution of spontaneous strains and such that ${G}(z)\in{\rm Psym}(3)$ for every $z\in\mathcal O$, is *kinematically compatible* if there exists a smooth function $v:\mathcal O\longrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^3$, representing a deformation and such that $\det{\nabla}v(z)>0$ for every $z\in\mathcal O$, satisfying $$\label{kin_com}
{\nabla}v^T{\nabla}v={G}\qquad\mbox{in}\quad\mathcal O.$$ Following [@Ciarlet_book], we reformulate this concept in the framework of Riemannian geometry. In order to do this, let us denote by $g_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}$ the Euclidean metric of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ and recall that for a given immersion $\varphi:\mathcal O\longrightarrow({\mathbb{R}}^3,g_{{\mathbb{R}}^3})$ the pull-back metric of $g^{{\mathbb{R}}^3}_{|\varphi(\mathcal O)}$ via $\varphi$ is the metric $h$ defined in $\mathcal O$ by the identity $$h_{|p}(X,Y)
\,=\,
g^{{\mathbb{R}}^3}_{|\varphi(p)}
\left(\,{\rm d}\varphi_{|p}[X],{\rm d}\varphi_{|p}[Y]\,\right),
\qquad\qquad
\mbox{for every }
\quad
X,Y\in{\rm T}_p\mathcal O={\mathbb{R}}^{3{\times}3}.$$ The pull-back metric of $g$ via $\varphi$ is usually denoted by $\varphi^*\,g_{|\varphi(\mathcal O)}$. If $(z^i)_{i=1,2,3}$ and $(x^{\alpha})_{\alpha=1,2,3}$ are systems of coordinates for $\mathcal O$ and $\varphi(\mathcal O)$, respectively, the above identity specialized to $X={\partial}/{\partial}z^i_{|p}$ and $Y={\partial}/{\partial}z^j_{|p}$ gives $${h_{ij}}_{|p}
\,=\,
{g^{{\mathbb{R}}^3}_{\alpha\beta}}_{|\varphi(p)}
{\frac{{\partial}\,\varphi^{\alpha}}{{\partial}z^i}}_{|p}
\frac{{\partial}\,\varphi^{\beta}}{{\partial}z^j}_{|p},$$ where $\varphi^{\alpha}:=x^{\alpha}\circ\varphi$. If, in addition, we assume $(x^{\alpha})_{\alpha=1,2,3}$ to be the standard Euclidean coordinates, then the coefficient ${g^{{\mathbb{R}}^3}_{\alpha\beta}}_{|\varphi(p)}$ is just $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$. Note that here and in what follows the Einstein summation convention for the sum over repeated indices is adopted. We identify the given spontaneous strain distribution ${G}$ with a metric defined in $\mathcal O$, so that asking if there is an orientation-preserving deformation $v:\mathcal O\longrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^3$ such that holds true corresponds to seeking for a local diffeomorphism $v:\mathcal O\longrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^3$ such that the pull-back metric of $g_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}$ via $v$ coincides with the metric ${G}$. In formulas, $${{G}_{ij}}_{|p}
\,=\,
\delta_{\alpha\beta}
{\frac{{\partial}\,v^{\alpha}}{{\partial}z^i}}_{|p}
\frac{{\partial}\,v^{\beta}}{{\partial}z^j}_{|p},$$ where we have fixed standard Euclidean coordinates in the target manifold $v(\mathcal O)$. Note that since $v$ is a local differmorphism, the equivalence $$\label{kin_com_2}
v^*g^{{\mathbb{R}}^3}_{|v(\mathcal O)}={G}\qquad\mbox{in}\qquad\mathcal O$$ establishes a local isometry (through $v$) between the manifolds $\big(\mathcal O,{G}\big)$ and $\Big(v(\mathcal O),g^{{\mathbb{R}}^3}_{|v(\mathcal O)}\Big)$. Now, we have from Theorem 1.5-1 and Theorem 1.6-1 in [@Ciarlet_book] that, since $\mathcal O$ is simply connected, a necessary and sufficient condition for to hold is that $$\label{kin_com_3}
{\rm Riem}_{G}\equiv0\qquad\mbox{in}\qquad\mathcal O,$$ where ${\rm Riem}_{G}$ is the fourth-order Riemann curvature tensor associated with the metric ${G}$. We recall that, in the given local chart $(z^i)_{i=1,2,3}$ of $\mathcal O$, the $(3,1)$–coefficients ${\rm R}_{ijk}^l$’s of ${\rm Riem}_{{G}}
=
{\rm R}_{ijk}^l
\big(
{\rm d}z^i\otimes{\rm d}z^j\otimes{\rm d}z^k
\otimes\partial/\partial z^l
\big)$ are given by $${\rm R}_{ijk}^l
\,:=\,
\frac{\partial}{\partial z^j}
\Gamma_{ik}^l
-\frac{\partial}{\partial z^k}
\Gamma_{ij}^l
+\Gamma_{js}^l\Gamma_{ik}^s
-\Gamma_{ks}^l\Gamma_{ij}^s,$$ where the Christoffel’s symbols $\Gamma_{ij}^k$’s are defined as $$\label{K_symbols}
\Gamma_{ij}^k
\,:=\,
{G}^{kl}\,\Gamma_{ijl},
\qquad\qquad
\Gamma_{ijl}
\,:=\,
\frac12\Big(\partial_i{G}_{jl}
+\partial_j{G}_{il}
-\partial_l{G}_{ij}
\Big),$$ and the symbols ${G}^{ij}$’s stand for the components of the inverse ${G}^{-1}$ of ${G}$. To simplify the computations it is sometimes useful to introduce the $(4,0)$–coefficients ${\rm R}_{lijk}$’s of ${\rm Riem}_L$, defined as $${\rm R}_{lijk}
\,:=\,
{G}_{ls}\,{\rm R}_{ijk}^s
\,=\,
\partial_j\Gamma_{ikl}
-
\partial_k\Gamma_{ijl}
+
\Gamma_{ij}^p\Gamma_{klp}
+
\Gamma_{ik}^p\Gamma_{jlp}.$$ It is clear that ${\rm Riem}_{G}\equiv0$ if and only if ${\rm R}_{lijk}\equiv0$ for every $l,i,j,k\in\{1,2,3\}$. Finally, let us recall that, since we are in dimension $3$, condition is equivalent to ${\rm Ric}_{{G}}\equiv 0$ in $\mathcal O$, where ${\rm Ric}_{{G}}$ denotes the second-order Ricci curvature tensor associated with ${G}$, which is defined as ${\rm Ric}_{{G}}={\rm R}_{ij}\,{\rm d}z^i\otimes{\rm d}z^j$, with $${\rm R}_{ij}\,:=\,\partial_l\Gamma_{ij}^l-\partial j\Gamma_{il}^l
+\Gamma_{lk}^l\Gamma_{ij}^k-\Gamma_{jk}^l\Gamma_{il}^k.$$ From now on in this section, we restrict our attention to the case where $\mathcal O=\Omega_h$ (see ) and the spontaneous strain distribution ${G}$ is a function of the thickness variable $z_3\in(-h/2,h/2)$. Note that a material point of $\Omega_h$, normally referred to as a point of components $(z_1,z_2,z_3)$ throughout the paper, is a point of the manifold $\Omega_h$ with coordinates $(z^1,z^2,z^3)$ from the point of view of Riemannian geometry. In the following subsections, we discuss the kinematic compatibility of $z_3\mapsto{G}(z_3)$ in three cases: the case where ${G}(z_3)$ depends quadratically on $z_3$ and two cases (splay-bend and twisted nematic elastomer sheets) where the dependence of ${G}(z_3)$ on $z_3$ is more complicated and gives rise to incompatible strains. Throughout this section we use the variable $t$ in place of $z_3$ and we use the index/apex “$t$” in place of “$3$”.
### The splay-bend case
In this case, setting $$\label{f_h}
f_h(t):=\frac{\pi}4+\frac{\pi}{2h}t,
\qquad\qquad t\in(-h/2,h/2),$$ and looking at and , we have that, up to a multiplicative constant, the spontaneous strain distribution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{G}={G}(t)&=
{\rm I}
+(a_h-1)n^h_{SB}\otimes n^h_{SB}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+(a_h-1)\cos^2f_h
& 0 &
\left(\frac{a_h-1}2\right)\sin(2f_h)\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
\left(\frac{a_h-1}2\right)\sin(2f_h)
& 0 &
1+(a_h-1)\cos^2f_h
\end{array}
\right),\\
{G}^{-1}(t)&=
{\rm I}+\left(\frac1{a_h}-1\right)
n^h_{SB}\otimes n^h_{SB}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+\left(\frac1{a_h}-1\right)\cos^2f_h
& 0 &
\left(\frac{1-a_h}{2a_h}\right)\sin(2f_h)\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
\left(\frac{1-a_h}{2a_h}\right)\sin(2f_h)
& 0 &
1+\left(\frac1{a_h}-1\right)\cos^2f_h
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ It turns out that the coefficient ${\rm R}_{1t}$ of ${\rm Ric}_{{G}}$ has the quite simple expression $$R_{1t}
\,:=\,
\partial_l\Gamma_{1t}^l-\partial_t\Gamma_{1l}^l
+\Gamma_{lk}^l\Gamma_{1t}^k+\Gamma_{tk}^l\Gamma_{1l}^kì
\,=\,
-\partial_t(\Gamma_{11}^1+\Gamma_{12}^2)
+\Gamma_{lk}^l\Gamma_{1t}^k+\Gamma_{tk}^l\Gamma_{1l}^k
\,=\,
-\partial_t\Gamma_{11}^1
+\Gamma_{1t}^1\Gamma_{1t}^t+\Gamma_{tt}^1\Gamma_{11}^t,
\label{R_1t}$$ where we have first used the fact that the Christoffel symbols depend only on $t$ and secondly the property $$\Gamma_{ij}^k=0\qquad\mbox{whenever}\qquad
2\in\{i,j,k\}.$$ This can be easily checked using the definition of $\Gamma_{ij}^k$ in . The same definition and simple computations also give $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{11}^1
&\,=\,
-\Gamma_{1t}^t
\,=\,
-\frac{(a-1)^2}a\left(\frac{\pi}{2h}\right)
\sin^2f_h\cos^2f_h,\\
\Gamma_{1t}^1
&\,=\,
-(a-1)\left(\frac{\pi}{2h}\right)
\sin f_h\cos f_h
\left[1+\left(\frac 1a-1\right)\cos^2f_h\right],\\
\Gamma_{tt}^1
&\,=\,
(a-1)\left(\frac{\pi}{2h}\right)
(\cos^2f_h-\sin^2f_h)
\left[1+\left(\!\frac 1a-1\!\right)\sin^2f_h\right]
-
\frac{(a-1)^2}a\left(\frac{\pi}{2h}\right)
\sin^2f_h\cos^2f_h,\\
\Gamma_{11}^t
&\,=\,
(a-1)\left(\frac{\pi}{2h}\right)
\sin f_h\cos f_h
\left[1+\left(\!\frac 1a-1\!\right)\sin^2f_h\right]\!.\end{aligned}$$ Plugging these expressions into yields $${\rm R}_{1t}
=
-\frac{(a-1)^2}a\left(\frac{\pi}{2h}\right)
\sin f_h\cos f_h
(\cos^2f_h-\sin^2f_h)
=
-\frac{(a-1)^2}a\left(\frac{\pi}{8h}\right)
\sin\left(\pi+\frac{2\pi}ht\right).$$ Thus, we can conclude that ${\rm R}_{1t}$ is not identically zero in ${\Omega}_h$. In turn, ${\rm Ric}_{{G}}$ is not identically zero, so that the splay-bend spontaneous strain distribution is not kinematically compatible.
### The twisted case
In this case, following the same notation as in , we have $$\begin{aligned}
{G}={G}(t)&=
{\rm I}
+(a_h-1)n^h_T\otimes n^h_T
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+(a_h-1)\cos^2f_h
&
\left(\frac{a_h-1}2\right)\sin(2f_h) & 0\\
\left(\frac{a_h-1}2\right)\sin(2f_h)
&
1+(a_h-1)\cos^2f_h & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),\\
{G}^{-1}(t)&=
{\rm I}
+\left(\frac1{a_h}-1\right)
n^h_T\otimes n^h_T
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+\left(\frac1{a_h}-1\right)\cos^2f_h
&
\left(\frac{1-a_h}{2a_h}\right)\sin(2f_h) & 0\\
\left(\frac{1-a_h}{2a_h}\right)\sin(2f_h)
&
1+\left(\frac1{a_h}-1\right)\cos^2f_h & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ For the twisted geometry, the coefficient ${\rm R}_{tt}$ of ${\rm Ric}_{{G}}$ has a simple expression. Indeed, we have $${\rm R}_{tt}
\,:=\,
\partial_l\Gamma_{tt}^l-\partial_t\Gamma_{tl}^l
+\Gamma_{lk}^l\Gamma_{tt}^k+\Gamma_{tk}^l\Gamma_{tl}^k
\,=\,
-\partial_t(\Gamma_{1t}^1+\Gamma_{2t}^2)
-
\big(\Gamma_{tk}^1\Gamma_{1t}^k+\Gamma_{tk}^2\Gamma_{2t}^k\big)
\,=\,
-\Big[
(\Gamma_{1t}^1)^2+2\,\Gamma_{1t}^2\Gamma_{2t}^1
+(\Gamma_{2t}^2)^2
\Big],
\label{R_tt}$$ since $$\label{conti}
\Gamma_{tt}^k=0\quad\mbox{for every}\quad k=1,2,t,
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\Gamma_{1t}^1\,=\,-\Gamma_{2t}^2
\,=\,
-\left(\frac{a^2-1}{2a}\right)\left(\frac{\pi}{2h}\right)
\sin f_h\cos f_h.$$ This can be easily checked from the definition of the Christoffel symbols in . Similar computations yield $$\Gamma_{1t}^2
\,=\,
\left(\frac{a-1}2\right)\left(\frac{\pi}{2h}\right)
\left(\cos^2f_h-\frac{\sin^2f_h}a\right),
\qquad
\Gamma_{2t}^1
\,=\,
\left(\frac{a-1}2\right)\left(\frac{\pi}{2h}\right)
\left(\frac{\cos^2f_h}a-\sin^2f_h\right).$$ Using these formulas together with and the second equation in gives $${\rm R}_{tt}
\,=\,
-\frac{(a-1)^2}{2a}\left(\frac{\pi}{2h}\right)^2.$$ This fact implies, in particular, that ${\rm Ric}_{{G}}$ is not identically zero and in turn that the twisted spontaneous strain distribution is not kinematically compatible.
### The quadratic case {#comp_quadrat}
In this subsection, we consider the case where $$\label{SS_quadratic}
{G}\,=\,{G}(t)\,=\,
{\rm I}
+t\,A+t^2\,B,\qquad\qquad t\in(-h/2,h/2),$$ for some diagonal matrices $A={\rm diag}(A_{11},A_{22},A_{tt})$ and $B={\rm diag}(B_{11},B_{22},B_{tt})$. Note that ${G}(t)=:{\rm diag}({G}_{11}(t),{G}_{22}(t),{G}_{tt}(t))$ is positive definite for every $t$ sufficiently small. Elementary computations yield $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm R}_{11}
&=
-\frac14\left(\frac{{G}_{11}}{{G}_{tt}}\right)
\left\{
2\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\left(\frac{\dot{G}_{11}}{{G}_{11}}\right)
+
\left(\frac{\dot{G}_{11}}{{G}_{11}}\right)
\left[
\frac{\dot{G}_{11}}{{G}_{11}}
+
\frac{\dot{G}_{22}}{{G}_{22}}
-
\frac{\dot{G}_{tt}}{{G}_{tt}}
\right]
\right\},\\
{\rm R}_{22}
&=
-\frac14\left(\frac{{G}_{22}}{{G}_{tt}}\right)
\left\{
2\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\left(\frac{\dot{G}_{22}}{{G}_{22}}\right)
+
\left(\frac{\dot{G}_{22}}{{G}_{22}}\right)
\left[
\frac{\dot{G}_{11}}{{G}_{11}}
+
\frac{\dot{G}_{22}}{{G}_{22}}
-
\frac{\dot{G}_{tt}}{{G}_{tt}}
\right]
\right\},\\
{\rm R}_{tt}
&=
-\frac14
\left\{
2\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}
\left(
\frac{\dot{G}_{11}}{{G}_{11}}+\frac{\dot{G}_{22}}{{G}_{22}}\right)
-
\left(\frac{\dot{G}_{tt}}{{G}_{tt}}\right)
\left(
\frac{\dot{G}_{11}}{{G}_{11}}
+
\frac{\dot{G}_{22}}{{G}_{22}}
\right)
+
\left(
\frac{\dot{G}_{11}}{{G}_{11}}
\right)^2
+
\left(
\frac{\dot{G}_{22}}{{G}_{22}}
\right)^2
\right\},\\
{\rm R}_{ij}
&=0,
\qquad\mbox{for every }i\neq j,\end{aligned}$$ where $\dot{G}_{ii}$ is the derivative of ${G}_{ii}$ with respect to $t$. Now, set $$\xi:=\log{G}_{11},\qquad\quad
\eta:=\log{G}_{22},\qquad\quad
\tau:=\log{G}_{tt},$$ so that $\dot{G}_{11}/{G}_{11}=\dot\xi$, $\dot{G}_{22}/{G}_{22}=\dot\eta$, $\dot{G}_{tt}/{G}_{tt}=\dot\tau$, and in turn $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm R}_{11}
&\,=\,
-\frac14\left(\frac{{\rm e}^\xi}{{\rm e}^\tau}\right)
\left[
2\,\ddot\xi
+
\dot\xi
\left(
\dot\xi+\dot\eta-\dot\tau
\right)
\right],
\qquad\qquad
{\rm R}_{22}
\,=\,
-\frac14\left(\frac{{\rm e}^\eta}{{\rm e}^\tau}\right)
\left[
2\,\ddot\eta
+
\dot\eta
\left(
\dot\xi+\dot\eta-\dot\tau
\right)
\right],\\
{\rm R}_{tt}
&\,=\,
-\frac14\left[2\,(\ddot\xi+\ddot\eta)
-\dot\tau\,(\dot\xi+\dot\eta)
+
(\dot\xi)^2+(\dot\eta)^2
\right].\end{aligned}$$
The condition ${\rm Ric}_{G}\equiv0$, which guarantees the kinematic compatibility of $t\mapsto{G}(t)$ as discussed above, is then equivalent to the following system of ODEs: $$\begin{cases}
&2\,\ddot\xi
+
\dot\xi
\left(
\dot\xi+\dot\eta-\dot\tau
\right)=0,\\
&2\,\ddot\eta
+
\dot\eta
\left(
\dot\xi+\dot\eta-\dot\tau
\right)=0,\\
&2\,(\ddot\xi+\ddot\eta)
-\dot\tau\,(\dot\xi+\dot\eta)
+
(\dot\xi)^2+(\dot\eta)^2=0.
\end{cases}$$ Solving this system translates into compatibility conditions on $A$ and $B$ in . It then turns out that a spontaneous strain distribution $t\mapsto{G}(t)$ of the form is kinematically compatible if and only if one of the following four conditions is satisfied: $$\begin{aligned}
(i)\quad&
A_{11}=A_{22}=A_{tt}=0\quad\mbox{and}\quad B_{11}=B_{22}=B_{tt}=0,\\
(ii)\quad&
A_{22}=A_{tt}=0,\quad B_{22}=B_{tt}=0,\quad
\mbox{and}\quad B_{11}=A_{11}^2/4\neq0,\\
(iii)\quad&
A_{11}=A_{tt}=0,\quad B_{11}=B_{tt}=0,\quad
\mbox{and}\quad B_{22}=A_{22}^2/4\neq0,\\
(iv)\quad&
A_{11}=A_{22}=0,\quad B_{11}=B_{22}=0,\quad
\mbox{and}\quad A_{tt}^2+B_{tt}^2\neq0.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the first condition corresponds to the trivial case ${G}={\rm I}$ and the second one tells us in particular that a strain of the form $$\label{SS_specifico}
{G}(t)
:=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1-2\,k\,t+k^2\,t^2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad\qquad t\in(-h/2,h/2),$$ for some constant $k\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus\{0\}$, is kinematically compatible. A prototypical deformation $v$ giving rise to such ${G}$ can be provided in the following way. Let $I$ be an open interval of ${\mathbb{R}}$, let $\gamma:I\longrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^3$ be a smooth curve, and define $$T(s):=\gamma'(s),
\qquad\qquad
N(s):=\frac{T'(s)}{|T'(s)|},
\qquad\qquad
B(s):=T(s)\wedge N(s),$$ for every $s\in I$, where the apex stands for differentiation with respect to $s$. Suppose that the curve is parameterized by arc length, so that $|T|=1$ and the curvature $k$ is defied as $k:=|T'|$. Then the Frenet–Serret formulas read $$\begin{cases}
T'
&=
\ k\,N,\\
N'
&=
\ -k\,T+\tau\,B,\\
B'
&=
\ -\tau\,N.
\end{cases}$$ Note that multiplying the first equation by $N$ gives $k=T'\cdot N=-N'\cdot T$. Let us restrict to the case of $B$ being constantly equal to $\mathsf e_2$, where $\{\mathsf e_1,\mathsf e_2, \mathsf e_2\}$ is the canonical basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. This means that $\gamma$ is a planar curve and the above formulas imply in particular that $\tau=-B'\cdot N=0$ and $|N'|^2=k^2$. Now, let us define $v:\Omega_h\longrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^3$ as $$v(s,z_2,t)
\,:=\,
\gamma(s)+t\,N(s)+z_2\,\mathsf e_2,$$ where we have supposed $\omega_h=\omega\times(-h/2,h/2)$ with $\omega=I\times J$, for some open intervals $I$, $J\subset{\mathbb{R}}$. Then ${\nabla}v=(T+t\,N'\,|\,\mathsf e_2\,|\, N)$ and therefore $${\nabla}v^T{\nabla}v
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
|T|^2+2\,t\,T{\cdot}N'+t^2|N'|^2
&
\mathsf e_2{\cdot}(T+t\,N')
&
N{\cdot}(T+t\,N')\\
\mathsf e_2{\cdot}(T+t\,N')
&
|\mathsf e_2|^2
&
\mathsf e_2\cdot N\\
N{\cdot}(T+t\,N')
&
\mathsf e_2\cdot N
&
|N|^2
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1-2\,k\,t+k^2\,t^2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right).$$ Supposing the curvature $k$ to be constant, we have thus derived a strain ${G}$ of the form .
Finally, note that the analysis performed in this session shows that in the linear case where ${G}(t)$ is of the form $${G}\,=\,{G}(t)\,=\,
{\rm I}
+t\,A,\qquad\qquad t\in(-h/2,h/2),$$ for some diagonal matrix $A\neq0$, the kinematic compatibility of the spontaneous strain distribution is never fulfilled.
Derivation of the plate model {#sec_3}
=============================
In this section, we first rewrite the three-dimensional model previously introduced in a rescaled reference configuration. Then, in Subsection \[rigorous\_res\], we recall two rigorous dimension reduction results of compactness and $\Gamma$-convergence. This mathematical technique is subsequently employed in Subsection \[nostra\_derivazione\], where our main results, Theorems \[main\_thm\_SB\] and \[main\_thm\_T\], are stated and proved.
The rescaled three-dimensional model {#3D_rescaled}
------------------------------------
As it is standard for dimension reduction techniques, let us now operate a change of variables in order to rewrite the energies in a fixed, $h$-independent rescaled reference configuration.
We denote by $x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(x',x_3)$ an arbitrary point in the rescaled reference configuration ${\Omega}:=\omega\times(-1/2,1/2)$.
For every $h>0$ small, we define the rescaled energy density $W^h:(-1/2,1/2)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3}\longrightarrow[0,+\infty]$ and the rescaled applied loads $f_h:{\Omega}\longrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^3$ as $$\label{eq:resc_ener}
W^h(x_3,F)
\,:=\,
w^h(hx_3,F),
\qquad\qquad\quad
f_h(x)
\,:=\,
\hat f_h(x',hx_3).$$ Note that $W^h$ fulfills $$W^h(x_3,F)=0\qquad\quad\mbox{iff}
\qquad\quad
F\in{\rm SO}(3)\sqrt{\overline C_h(z_3)},
\qquad\qquad
\overline C_h(x_3):=\bar c_h(hx_3).$$ Setting $$\label{resc_grad}
{\nabla}_hy:=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\!\!\partial_{x_1}y\!\! & \!\!\bigg|\!\!
& \!\!\partial_{x_2}y\!\! & \!\!\bigg|\!\!
& \!\!\displaystyle\frac{\partial_{x_3}y}h\!\!
\end{array}
\right)
=:
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\!\!{\nabla}'y\!\!
& \!\!\bigg|\!\!
& \!\!\displaystyle\frac{\partial_{x_3}y}h\!\!
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad\qquad
\mbox{for every}\quad y:{\Omega}\longrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^3,$$ the correspondence between the original quantities and the rescaled ones is through the formulas $$\label{correspondence}
\hat{\mathscr E}^h(v)
\,=\,
h\,\mathscr E^h(y),
\qquad\quad
\hat{\mathscr F}^h(v)
\,=\,
h\,\mathscr F^h(y),
\qquad\qquad
v(z):=y(z',z_3/h)
\quad\mbox{a.e.}\ z\ \mbox{in}\ \Omega_h.$$ Here, the rescaled stored elastic energy functional $\mathscr E^h$ and the rescaled total energy functional $\mathscr F^h$ are defined, on a deformation $y:{\Omega}\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$, as $$\label{mathscr_E_h}
\mathscr E^h(y)
:=
\int\limits_{{\Omega}}W^h(x_3,{\nabla}_h y(x))\,{{\rm d}}x,
\qquad\qquad
\mathscr F^h(y)
\,:=\,
\mathscr E^h(y)
-
\int\limits_{{\Omega}}f_h\cdot y\,{{\rm d}}x.$$ Following the notation already introduced in Section \[subsec:three\_dim\_model\], we use the indexes $SB$ and $T$ to denote the quantities related to the splay-bend case and twisted case, respectively. Hence, we write $\overline C_{h,SB}$, $W^h_{SB}$, $\mathscr E^h_{SB}$, and $\mathscr F^h_{SB}$ for the splay-bend model, and $\overline C_{h,T}$, $W^h_T$, $\mathscr E^h_T$, and $\mathscr F^h_T$ for the twisted model.
We now focus attention on the (rescaled) spontaneous strains $\overline C_h(x_3)$. Looking at , we first note that for both models $n^h(hx_3)$ is independent of $h$, namely $$\label{tensor_N}
N_{SB}(x_3)
:=
n^h_{SB}(hx_3)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos\big(\frac{\pi}4+\frac\pi2x_3\big)\\
0\\
\sin\big(\frac{\pi}4+\frac\pi2x_3\big)
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad\quad
N_T(x_3)
:=
n^h_T(hx_3)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos\big(\frac{\pi}4+\frac\pi2x_3\big)\\
\sin\big(\frac{\pi}4+\frac\pi2x_3\big)\\
0
\end{array}
\right),$$ for every $x_3\in(-1/2,1/2)$. Hence, referring to the (above) definition of $\overline C_h$ and to expression , we have for the splay-bend case as well as for the twisted case $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:resc_SS}
\overline C_h(x_3)
&
=a_h^{2/3}N(x_3)\otimes N(x_3)
+a_h^{-1/3}\big(
{\rm I}
-N(x_3)\otimes N(x_3)\big)\nonumber\\
&
=\big(a_h^{2/3}-a_h^{-1/3}\big)
\left(\frac{{\rm I}}{a_h-1}+N(x_3)\otimes N(x_3)\right)\nonumber\\
&
={\rm I}
+\frac{\alpha_0h}{h_0}\left(N(x_3)\otimes N(x_3)-
\frac{{\rm I}}3\right)
+R^h(x_3),\end{aligned}$$ where $\|R^h\|_{\infty}=o(h)$ and $\|\cdot\|_{\infty}$ is the norm in the space ${\rm L}^{\infty}\big((-1/2,1/2),{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3}\big)$. Note that in the third equality we have plugged in expression for $a_h$ and used the expansion $$a_h^{2/3}-a_h^{-1/3}
=
\frac{\alpha_0h}{h_0}
-\frac13\left(\frac{\alpha_0h}{h_0}\right)^2
+o(h^2).$$
A rigorous mathematical result for the limiting theory {#rigorous_res}
------------------------------------------------------
For the convenience of the reader, we collect in this section, in a slightly simplified version, two results proved in [@Schmidt2007] (Theorems \[compattezza\] and \[thm\_Schmidt\_Gamma\] below), which we are going to use later on. In this paper, an arbitrary family of energy densities $W^h:(-1/2,1/2)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3}\longrightarrow[0,+\infty]$ is considered, with the property that $$\label{cond_W_h_cruc}
W^h(x_3,F)
\,=\,
W_0\big(F(
{\rm I}
+hB^h(x_3))\big),$$ where the function $W_0:{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3}\longrightarrow[0,+\infty]$ satisfies Assumption \[assunzione\_W\_0\] below, and $$B^h\longrightarrow B
\qquad\qquad
\mbox{in}
\qquad
{\rm L}^{\infty}((-1/2,1/2),{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3}),
\qquad
\mbox{as}\quad h\downarrow 0.$$ For each small $h$, let us introduce the functional $\mathscr E^h:{\rm W}^{1,2}(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^3)\to[0,+\infty]$, defined as $$\mathscr E^h(y)
\;:=\,
\int\limits_{\Omega}W^h(x_3,{\nabla}_hy){\rm d}x,$$ with ${\nabla}_h$ given by . Recall that here and throughout the paper $\Omega=\omega\times(-1/2,1/2)$ and $\omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain with sufficiently regular boundary. More precisely, for the following theorems to hold, it is required that there exists a closed subset $\Sigma\subset{\partial}\omega$ with $\mathscr H^1(\Sigma)=0$ such that the outer unit normal exists and is continuous on ${\partial}\omega\setminus\Sigma$.
\[assunzione\_W\_0\] The function $W_0:{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3}\longrightarrow[0,+\infty]$ fulfills the following conditions:
- it is ${\rm C}^2$ in a neighborhood of ${{\rm SO}}(3)$, and it is minimised at ${\rm I}$;
- it is frame-indifferent, i.e. $W_0(F)=W_0(RF)$ for every $R\in{{\rm SO}}(3)$.
- there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for every $F\in{\mathbb{R}^{3{\times}3}}$, $$W_0(F)
\,\geq\,
C\,{{\rm dist}}^2\big(F,{{\rm SO}}(3)\big).$$
The following result states that a sequence $\{y_h\}$ which bounds the energy $\mathscr E^h$ by a factor $h^2$ converges (up to subsequences) to a limit that is constrained to the class of (${\rm W}^{2,2}$-) isometric immersions of $\omega$ into the three-dimensional Euclidean space, namely $$\label{Aiso}
\mathcal A_{iso}
\,:=\,
\Big\{
y\in{\rm W}^{2,2}(\omega,{\mathbb{R}}^3):({\nabla}'y)^T{\nabla}'y=
{\rm I}_2
\ \mbox\ {a.e.\ in}\quad\omega
\Big\}.$$
\[compattezza\] If $\{y^h\}\subset{\rm W}^{1,2}(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^3)$ is a sequence such that $$\label{hyp_comp}
\int\limits_{\Omega}W^h(x_3,{\nabla}_hy_h){\rm d}x\leq Ch^2$$ for every $h>0$ small, then there exists a (not relabelled) subsequence such that $${\nabla}_hy^h\longrightarrow
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\!\!{\nabla}'y\!\!
& \!\!\big|\!\!
& \!\!\nu\!\!
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad\mbox{as}\quad
h\downarrow0,
\quad
\text{strongly in}\quad{\rm L}^2({\Omega},{\mathbb{R}^{3{\times}3}}).$$ Moreover, the function $x\mapsto\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\!\!{\nabla}'y\!\!
& \!\!\big|\!\!
& \!\!\nu\!\!
\end{array}
\right)$ belongs to ${\rm W}^{1,2}(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3})$, is independent of $x_3$, and\
$\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\!\!{\nabla}'y\!\!
& \!\!\big|\!\!
& \!\!\nu\!\!
\end{array}
\right)(x')\in{{\rm SO}}(3)$ for a.e. $x'\in\omega$.
Before proceeding, let us introduce some more notation and denote by $Q_3(M)$, $M\in{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3}$, the quadratic form ${{\rm D}}^2W_0({\rm I})[M,M]$, where ${{\rm D}}^2W_0({\rm I})$ stands for the second differential of $W_0$ evaluated at ${\rm I}$. Moreover, define, for every $G\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times 2}$, $$\label{Q2}
Q_2(G)
\,:=\,
\min_{\stackrel{b\in{\mathbb{R}}^2}{a\in{\mathbb{R}}}}
Q_3
\left(
\left[
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
$G$ & $b$\\
\hline
$0$ & $a$
\end{tabular}
\right]
\right),$$ and in turn $$\label{barQ2}
\overline Q_2(G)
\,:=\,
\min_{D\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times2}}\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
Q_2\big(D+t\,G+\check B(t)\big){\rm d}t,$$ where $\check B$ is obtained from $B$ by omitting the last row and the last column.
\[thm\_Schmidt\_Gamma\] The functionals $\mathscr E^h/h^2$ $\Gamma$-converge as $h\downarrow0$, with respect to the strong and the weak topology of ${\rm W}^{1,2}(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^3)$, to $$\mathscr E^{lim}(y)
\,:=\,
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\frac12\int\limits_{\omega}\overline Q_2(A_y(x')){\rm d}x'
&\qquad\mbox{if}\quad y\in\mathcal A_{iso},\\
\,& \,\\
+\infty &\qquad\mbox{otherwise in}\quad{\rm W}^{1,2}(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^3),
\end{array}\right.$$ where $A_y$ denotes the second fundamental form associated with the surface $y(\omega)$.
Recall that the second fundamental form of $y(\omega)$ at a point $y(x')$ can be expressed as $\big({\nabla}'y(x')\big)^T{\nabla}'\nu(x')$, where $\nu:={\partial}_{x_1}y\wedge{\partial}_{x_2}y$.
Splay-bend and twisted nematic elastomer plates {#nostra_derivazione}
-----------------------------------------------
We want to apply the theory presented in the previous section to our two models. We first focus on the splay-bend case, whose associated rescaled stored energy density, considering expression together with and , is given, for every $x_3\in(-1/2,1/2)$ and every $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3}$ with $\det F>0$, by $$W^h_{SB}(x_3,F)
\,=\,
\frac{\mu}2\Big[(F^TF)\cdot
\overline C_{h,SB}^{-1}(x_3)
-3-2\log(\det F)\Big]
+W_{vol}(\det F).$$ Recall that $$\label{SS_SB}
\overline C_{h,SB}(x_3)
=
{\rm I}
+\frac{\alpha_0h}{h_0}
\left(N_{SB}(x_3)\otimes N_{SB}(x_3)-
\frac{{\rm I}}3\right)
+R^h_{SB}(x_3),
\qquad\quad
\|R^h_{SB}\|_{\infty}=o(h)$$ (see for the definition of $N_{SB}$). Defining $$\label{nostra_W}
W_0(F)
\,:=\,
\frac{\mu}2
\Big[
|F|^2-3-2\log(\det F\,)
\Big]
+
W_{vol}(\det F\,),$$ for every $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3}$ with $\det F>0$, and setting $$\label{delta_0}
\overline U_{h,SB}
:=\sqrt{\overline C_{h,SB}},$$ yields $W^h_{SB}(x_3,F)=W_0\big(F\overline U_{h,SB}^{-1}(x_3)\big)$. Note that $$\overline U_{h,SB}^{-1}
=
{\rm I}
+h\left[-\delta_0\left(M_{SB}-
\frac{{\rm I}}3\right)+
\frac{r^h_{SB}}h\right] ,$$ with $\|r^h_{SB}\|_{\infty}=o(h)$, where we have used the notation $$\label{eq:cose}
\delta_0:=\frac{\alpha_0}{2h_0},
\qquad\qquad
M_{SB}
:=
N_{SB}\otimes N_{SB}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos^2f_1 & 0 &
\frac12\sin(2f_1)\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
\frac12\sin(2f_1)
& 0 &
\sin^2f_1
\end{array}
\right).$$ Here, the function $x_3\mapsto f_1(x_3)$ is defined as in , with $h=1$. All in all, we can write $$\label{W_h_SB}
W^h_{SB}(x_3,F)
=
W_0\big(F(
{\rm I}
+hB^h_{SB}(x_3))\big),
\qquad\qquad
B^h_{SB}:=\left[-\delta_0\left(M_{SB}-
\frac{{\rm I}}3\right)+
\frac{r^h_{SB}}h\right].$$ Since $\|r^h_{SB}\|_{\infty}=o(h)$, we have that $B^h_{SB}\longrightarrow B_{SB}$ in ${\rm L}^{\infty}\big((-1/2,1/2),{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times 3}\big)$, where $
B_{SB}:=-\delta_0\left(M_{SB}(x_3)-
\frac{{\rm I}}3\right)
$. In turn, also in view of Remark \[rmk\_W\_0\] below, we have shown that the splay-bend model introduced in Section \[subsec:three\_dim\_model\] perfectly fits the mathematical theory summarized in the previous section. Hence, we have to compute the 2D energy density according to formula . First of all, we have that $
Q_3(M)
\,=\,
2\mu\,|{{\rm sym}\,}M|^2+W_{vol}''(1)\,{{\rm tr}}^2M.
$ Using this expression, we can compute $Q_2$ for every $G\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times2}$ (see ): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Q2nostra}
Q_2(G)
&\,=\,
\min_{\stackrel{b\in{\mathbb{R}}^2}{a\in{\mathbb{R}}}}
\left\{
2\mu\left|\left(
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
${{\rm sym}\,}G$ & $b/2$\nonumber\\
\hline
$b^T/2$ & $a$
\end{tabular}
\right)\right|^2
+
W_{vol}''(1)
({{\rm tr}}\,G+a)^2
\right\}\\
&\,=\,
2\mu\,|{{\rm sym}\,}G|^2+W_{vol}''(1)\,{{\rm tr}}^2G+
\min_{a\in{\mathbb{R}}}
\Big[\big(2\mu+W_{vol}''(1)\big)a^2+
2\,W_{vol}''(1){{\rm tr}}\,G\,a\Big]
\,=\,
2\mu\left(|{{\rm sym}\,}G|^2+\gamma\,{{\rm tr}}^2G\right),\end{aligned}$$ having introduced the notation $$\label{def:lambda}
\gamma:=
\frac{W_{vol}''(1)}{2\mu+W_{vol}''(1)}.$$ Finally (cfr ), note that $\check B_{SB}$ is given by $$\check B_{SB}=-\delta_0\left(\check M_{SB}-
\frac{{\rm I}_2}3\right),
\qquad
\mbox{with}
\qquad
\check M_{SB}(x_3):=
\big(N_{SB}(x_3)\otimes N_{SB}(x_3)\big)^{\check{}}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos^2\big(\frac{\pi}4+\frac\pi2x_3\big) & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}
\right).$$ We are now in the position to compute, for every $G\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times 2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\overline Q_{2,SB}(G)
&:=
\min_{D\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times2}}\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
Q_2\left(D+t\,G+\check B_{SB}(t)\right){\rm d}t\\
&=
2\mu
\min_{D\in{{\rm Sym}}(2)}\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\!\!\left\{
\left|D+t\,{{\rm sym}\,}G-\delta_0\,\check M_{SB}(t)+\frac{\delta_0}3
{\rm I}_2
\right|^2
\!\!+
\gamma\,
{{\rm tr}}^2\!
\left(D+t\,G-\delta_0\,\check M_{SB}(t)+\frac{\delta_0}3
{\rm I}_2\right)
\!\!\right\}{\rm d}t.\end{aligned}$$ The integrals $$\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}|\check M_{SB}|^2{\rm d}t
=
\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\cos^4\left(\frac{\pi}4+\frac\pi2t\right){\rm d}t
=\frac 38,
\qquad
\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}t\,{{\rm tr}}\,\check M_{SB}{\rm d}t
=
\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}t
\cos^2\left(\frac{\pi}4+\frac\pi2t\right){\rm d}t
=
-\frac1{\pi^2}$$ and other elementary computations imply that $\overline Q_{2,SB}(G)/(2\mu)$ equals $$\frac1{12}\Big(|{{\rm sym}\,}G|^2+\gamma\,{{\rm tr}}^2G\Big)
+
\frac{2\,\delta_0}{\pi^2}
\Big({{\rm sym}\,}G\cdot{\rm diag}(1,0)+\gamma\,{{\rm tr}}\,G\Big)
+
\left(\frac{19+11\,\gamma}{72}\right)\delta_0^2
+
\min_{D\in{{\rm Sym}}(2)}q_{SB}(D),$$ where $$q_{SB}(D):=|D|^2+\gamma\,{{\rm tr}}^2D-
\delta_0\left[{{\rm sym}\,}D\cdot{\rm diag}(1,0)
+\Big(\frac{2+\gamma}3\Big){{\rm tr}}\, D\right].$$ It is easy to see that $$\min_{D\in{{\rm Sym}}(2)}q_{SB}(D)
=
q_{SB}\big({\rm diag}(\delta_0/6,-\delta_0/3)\big)
=
-\Big(\frac{5+\gamma}{36}\Big)\delta_0^2,$$ and in turn that $$\overline Q_{2,SB}(G)=2\mu\bigg[
\frac1{12}\Big(|{{\rm sym}\,}G|^2+\gamma\,{{\rm tr}}^2G\Big)
+
\frac{2\delta_0}{\pi^2}
\Big({{\rm sym}\,}G\cdot{\rm diag}(1,0)+\gamma\,{{\rm tr}}\, G\Big)
+
\Big(\frac{1+\gamma}8\Big)\delta_0^2
\bigg].$$ It is again a simple computation showing that there exist constants $\alpha_{SB},\,\beta_{SB}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\overline A_{SB}\in{{\rm Sym}}(2)$ such that $$\label{barQ_2_SB}
\overline Q_{2,SB}(G)
\,=\,
\alpha_{SB}\,Q_2[G-\overline A_{SB}]^2+\beta_{SB},
\qquad\quad
\mbox{for every}\quad G\in{{\rm Sym}}(2),$$ and they are given by $$\label{const_SB}
\alpha_{SB}\,=\,\frac1{12},
\quad\qquad
\overline A_{SB}\,=\,\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2}\,{\rm diag(-1,0)},
\quad\qquad
\beta_{SB}\,=\,\mu\,(1+\gamma)\delta_0^2\Big(\frac{\pi^4-12}4\Big).$$
To state our result, let us define the functional $\mathscr E^{lim}_{SB}:
\mathcal A_{iso}\longrightarrow[0,\infty)$, where $\mathcal A_{iso}$ is the class defined in , as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr E^{lim}_{SB}(y)
&:=
\frac12
\int\limits_{\omega}\overline Q_{2,SB}(A_y(x')){\rm d}x'\nonumber\\
&=
\frac{\mu}{12}\int\limits_{\omega}
\!\!\left\{\Big|{\rm A}_y(x')\!-\!\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2}\,
{\rm diag}\big(-1,0\big)\Big|^2
\!\!+\gamma
\Big({\rm H}_y(x')\!+\!
\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2}\Big)^2\!\right\}\!{{\rm d}}x'
+
\mu\,(1+\gamma)\delta_0^2
\Big(\frac{\pi^4-12}8\Big)\!|\omega|.
\label{2D_energy_functional_SB}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the symbol ${\rm H}_y$ denotes the mean curvature of $y(\omega)$, hence ${\rm H}_y={{\rm tr}}A_y$. Note that for every $y\in\mathcal A_{iso}$ we have that $|{\rm A}_y|\in{\rm L}^2(\omega)$, and in turn $\mathscr E^{lim}_{SB}(y)<+\infty$.
Theorems \[compattezza\] and \[thm\_Schmidt\_Gamma\] and standard results of the theory of $\Gamma$-convergence, tell us that $3D$ low-energy sequences converge, up to subsequences, to a minimiser of the derived 2D model. This is the content of the following theorem. We refer the reader to and the subsequent paragraph for the definition of the 3D total-energy functionals $\mathscr F_{SB}^h$.
\[Splay-bend plate model\] \[main\_thm\_SB\] Suppose that the rescaled loads $f_h$ are such that $f_h/h^2\rightharpoonup f$ weakly in ${\rm L}^2({\Omega},{\mathbb{R}}^3)$ and satisfy the normalizing condition $\int_{{\Omega}}f_h\,{{\rm d}}x=0$. Define the 2D total energy functional $\mathscr F_{SB}^{lim}:\mathcal A_{iso}\longrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ as $$\mathscr F_{SB}^{lim}(y)
\,:=\,
\mathscr E_{SB}^{lim}(y)
-\int\limits_{\omega} f^{lim}(x')\cdot y(x')\,{{\rm d}}x',$$ where $\mathscr E_{SB}^{lim}$ is defined as in and $f^{lim}(x')
\,:=\,
\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}f(x',x_3)\,{{\rm d}}x_3,$ for a.e. $x'\in\omega.$ Suppose that $\{y_h\}$ is a low-energy sequence, viz. $$\lim_{h\to0}\frac{\mathscr F_{SB}^h(y_h)}{h^2}
\,=\,
\lim_{h\to0}\frac
{\inf_{{\rm W}^{1,2}(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^3)}\mathscr F^h_{SB}}
{h^2}
\,=:\,
m.$$ Then, up to a subsequence, $y_h\longrightarrow y_{SB}$ in ${\rm W}^{1,2}({\Omega},{\mathbb{R}}^3)$, where $y_{SB}\in\mathcal A_{iso}$ is a minimiser of the 2D model, that is $$\mathscr F_{SB}^{lim}(y_{SB})
\,=\,
\min_{\mathcal A_{iso}}\mathscr F_{SB}^{lim}.$$ Moreover, $m=\mathscr F_{SB}^{lim}(y_{SB}).$
If we let $f=0$ in the above theorem, we have $$\min_{\mathcal A_{iso}}\mathscr F_{SB}^{lim}
\,=\,
\min_{\mathcal A_{iso}}\mathscr E_{SB}^{lim}
\,=\,
\mathscr E_{SB}^{lim}(y_{SB})
\,=\,\mu\,(1+\gamma)\delta_0^2\Big(\frac{\pi^4-12}8\Big)\!|\omega|,$$ and the associated fundamental form of $y_{SB}$ is given by $(12\delta_0/\pi^2)\,{\rm diag}(-1,0)$.
Let us now fix a low-energy sequence $\{y_h\}$ converging to a minimiser $y\in\mathcal A_{iso}$ and rephrase the theorem in terms of the physical total energies $\hat{\mathscr F}_{SB}^h$ defined in . Defining the deformations $v_h(z',z_3)=y_h(z',z_3/h)$ in the physical reference configuration $\Omega_h$, we have $\lim_{h\to0}\hat{\mathscr F}_{SB}^h(v_h)/h^3
=
\min_{\mathcal A_{iso}}\mathscr F_{SB}^{lim},
$ in view of . Equivalently, for a given small thickness $h_0$, the approximate identity $$\begin{gathered}
\label{phys_stat_splay}
\hat{\mathscr F}_{SB}^{h_0}(v_{h_0})
\,\cong\,
\frac{\mu\,h_0^3}{12}\int\limits_{\omega}
\!\!\left\{\Big|{\rm A}_y(x')\!+\!\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2}\,
{\rm diag}\big(1,0\big)\Big|^2
\!\!+\gamma
\Big({\rm H}_y(x')\!+\!
\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2}\Big)^2\!\right\}\!{{\rm d}}x'\\
+
\mu\,h_0^3\,(1+\gamma)\delta_0^2
\Big(\frac{\pi^4-12}8\Big)\!|\omega|
-h_0^3\int\limits_{\omega} f^{lim}(x')\cdot y(x')\,{{\rm d}}x'\end{gathered}$$ holds true, modulo terms of order higher than $3$ in $h_0$.
\[rmk\_W\_0\] Clearly, the function $W_0$ defined in vanishes in ${{\rm SO}}(3)$. Also, by the standard inequality between arithmetic and geometric mean we have that $|F|^2\geq3(\det F)^{2/3}$ for every $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3}$ with positive determinant, which proves that $$W_0(F)\,\geq\,\frac{3\mu}2\,\psi\bigg(\frac{|F|^2}3\bigg),
\qquad\qquad
\psi(t)\,:=\,t-1-\log t, \quad t>0.$$ In particular, we have that $W_0(F)=0$ iff $F\in{{\rm SO}}(3)$ and that $W_0(F)\geq C|F|^2$ for every large $|F|$. Moreover, due to the regularity of $W_0$ around ${{\rm SO}}(3)$, the energy density grows quadratically close to ${{\rm SO}}(3)$. These facts show that $W_0$ satisfies Assumption \[assunzione\_W\_0\].
We now move to the twisted geometry. In this case, the (renormalized) spontaneous strain distribution is given by $$\label{SS_T}
\overline C_{h,T}(x_3)
=
{\rm I}
+\frac{\alpha_0h}{h_0}
\left(N_T(x_3)\otimes N_T(x_3)-
\frac{{\rm I}}3\right)
+R^h_T(x_3),
\qquad\quad
\|R^h_T\|_{\infty}=o(h),$$ where $N_T$ is defined as in , and the (rescaled) stored energy density is $$W^h_T(x_3,F)
\,=\,
\frac{\mu}2\Big[(F^TF)\cdot
\overline C_{h,T}^{-1}(x_3)
-3-2\log(\det F)\Big]
+W_{vol}(\det F)$$ on every deformation gradient $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3}$ such that $\det F>0$. Proceeding similarly to the splay-bend case, we set $
\overline U_{h,T}
:=\sqrt{\overline C_{h,T}}
$, so that $W^h_T(x_3,F)=W_0\big(F\overline U_{h,T}^{-1}(x_3)\big)$, being $W_0$ defined as in . Note that, by Taylor-expanding $\sqrt{\overline C_{h,T}}$ around ${\rm I}$, we get $$\overline U_{h,T}^{-1}
=
{\rm I}
+h\left[-\delta_0\left(M_T-
\frac{{\rm I}}3\right)+
\frac{r^h_T}h\right],
\qquad
M_T
:=
N_T\otimes N_T
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos^2f_1 & \frac12\sin(2f_1) & 0 \\
\frac12\sin(2f_1) & \sin^2f_1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ where $\|r^h_T\|_{\infty}=o(h)$, the positive constant $\delta_0$ is defined as in , and where $x_3\mapsto f_1(x_3)$ given by (with $h=1$). Hence, we can write $$\label{W_h_T}
W^h_T(x_3,F)
=
W_0\big(F(
{\rm I}
+hB^h_T(x_3))\big),
\qquad\qquad
B^h_T:=\left[-\delta_0
\left(M_T-\frac{{\rm I}}3\right)+
\frac{r^h_T}h\right],$$ and we have that $B^h_T\longrightarrow B_T$ in ${\rm L}^{\infty}\big((-1/2,1/2),{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times 3}\big)$, where $
B_T:=-\delta_0\left(M_T(x_3)-\frac{{\rm I}}3\right)
$. Now, arguing as for the splay-bend case and using –, we are left to derive (cfr ) the expression for $\check B_T=-\delta_0\left(\check M_T-
\frac{{\rm I}_2}3\right)$, where $$\check M_T(x_3)
:=
\big(N_T(x_3)\otimes N_T(x_3)\big)^{\check{}}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos^2\big(\pi/4+\pi x_3/2\big) &
\frac12\sin\big(\pi/2+\pi x_3\big)\\
\frac12\sin\big(\pi/2+\pi x_3\big) &
\sin^2\big(\pi/4+\pi x_3/2\big)
\end{array}
\right),$$ and to compute, for every $G\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times 2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\overline Q_2(G)
&:=
\min_{D\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times2}}\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
Q_2\big(D+t\,G+\check B_T(t)\big){\rm d}t\\
&=
2\mu
\min_{D\in{{\rm Sym}}(2)}\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\!\!\left\{
\left|D+t\,{{\rm sym}\,}G-\delta_0\,\check M_T(t)+\frac{\delta_0}3
{\rm I}_2
\right|^2
\!\!+
\gamma\,
{{\rm tr}}^2\!
\left(D+t\,G-\delta_0\,\check M_T(t)+\frac{\delta_0}3
{\rm I}_2\right)
\!\!\right\}{\rm d}t.\end{aligned}$$
The integrals
$$\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\!\!\cos^2\left(\frac{\pi}4+\frac{\pi}2t\right)
{\rm d}t
\,\,=
\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\!\!\sin^2\left(\frac{\pi}4+\frac{\pi}2t\right)
=
\frac12,
\qquad
\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\!\!\sin\left(\frac{\pi}2+\pi t\right){\rm d}t
\,=\,\frac2{\pi},$$
and $$\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\!\!t\cos^2\left(\frac{\pi}4+\frac{\pi}2t\right)
{\rm d}t
\,=\,
-\!\!\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\!\!t\sin^2\left(\frac{\pi}4+\frac{\pi}2t\right)
\,=\,
-\frac1{\pi^2},
\qquad
\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\!\!t\,\sin\left(\frac{\pi}2+\pi t\right){\rm d}t
\,=\,0,$$ give $$\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}\!\!\check M_T\,{\rm d}t
\,\,=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1/2 & 1/\pi\\
1/\pi & 1/2
\end{array}
\right)
\qquad
\mbox{and}
\qquad
\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\!\!t\,\check M_T\,{\rm d}t
\,\,=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-1/\pi^2 & 0\\
0 & 1/\pi^2
\end{array}
\right).$$ These computations, together with the fact that ${{\rm tr}}\,\check M_T=|\check M_T|=1$, show that $\overline Q_{2,T}(G)/(2\mu)$ equals $$\frac1{12}\Big(|{{\rm sym}\,}G|^2+\gamma\,{{\rm tr}}^2G\Big)
+
\frac{2\,\delta_0}{\pi^2}\,
{{\rm sym}\,}G\cdot{\rm diag}(1,-1)
+
\left(\frac{5+\gamma}9\right)\delta_0^2
+
\min_{D\in{{\rm Sym}}(2)}q_T(D),$$ where $$q_T(D):=|D|^2+\gamma\,{{\rm tr}}^2D-
\delta_0
\left[{{\rm sym}\,}D\cdot
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 2/\pi \\
2/\pi & 1
\end{array}
\right)
-\frac23(1-\gamma){{\rm tr}}\, D\right].$$ It is easy to see that $$\min_{D\in{{\rm Sym}}(2)}q_T(D)
=
q_T\left(
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\delta_0/6 & \delta_0/\pi\\
\delta_0/\pi & \delta_0/6
\end{array}
\right]
\right)
=
-\Big(\frac{1+2\gamma}{18}+\frac2{\pi^2}\Big)\delta_0^2,$$ and in turn that $$\overline Q_{2,T}(G)=2\mu\bigg[
\frac1{12}\Big(|{{\rm sym}\,}G|^2+\gamma\,{{\rm tr}}^2G\Big)
+
\frac{2\,\delta_0}{\pi^2}\,
{{\rm sym}\,}G\cdot{\rm diag}(1,-1)
+
\Big(\frac12-\frac2{\pi}\Big)\delta_0^2
\bigg].$$ Other straightforward computations show that, setting $$\label{const_T}
\alpha_T\,=\,\frac1{12},
\quad\qquad
\overline A_T\,=\,\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2}\,{\rm diag(-1,1)},
\quad\qquad
\beta_T\,=\,\mu\,\Big(\frac{\pi^4-4\pi^2-48}{\pi^4}\Big)\delta_0^2,$$ one has $$\label{barQ_2_T}
\overline Q_{2,T}(G)
\,=\,
\alpha_T\,Q_2[G-\overline A_T]^2+\beta_T,
\qquad\quad
\mbox{for every}\quad G\in{{\rm Sym}}(2).$$ To state the result pertaining to the twisted model, we define the functional $\mathscr E^{lim}_T:
\mathcal A_{iso}\longrightarrow[0,\infty)$, where the class $\mathcal A_{iso}$ is defined in , as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr E^{lim}_T(y)
&:=
\frac12
\int\limits_{\omega}\overline Q_{2,T}(A_y(x')){\rm d}x'\nonumber\\
&=
\frac{\mu}{12}\int\limits_{\omega}
\left\{\Big|{\rm A}_y(x')-\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2}
{\rm diag}\big(-1,1\big)\Big|^2
+\gamma\,
{\rm H}_y^2(x')\right\}{{\rm d}}x'
+
\frac{\mu\,\delta_0^2}{\pi^4}
\Big(\frac{\pi^4-4\pi^2-48}2\Big)|\omega|.
\label{2D_twist_model}\end{aligned}$$ We recall that $\mu$ and $\gamma$ are the elastic constants appearing in and defined in , respectively. As for the splay-bend case, well-known results of the theory of $\Gamma$-convergence easily imply the following theorem. We refer to and to the subsequent paragraph for the notation related to the 3D models.
\[Twisted plate model\] \[main\_thm\_T\] Under the same assumptions on the family of (rescaled) loads $\{f_h\}$ as in Theorem \[main\_thm\_SB\], define $\mathscr F_T^{lim}:\mathcal A_{iso}\longrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ as $$\label{2D_total_energy_T}
\mathscr F_T^{lim}(y)
\,:=\,
\mathscr E_T^{lim}(y)
-\int\limits_{\omega} f^{lim}(x')\cdot y(x')\,{{\rm d}}x',$$ where $\mathscr E_T^{lim}$ is given by and $f^{lim}(x')
:=
\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}f(x',x_3)\,{{\rm d}}x_3,$ for a.e. $x'\in\omega.$ Suppose that $\{y_h\}$ is a low-energy sequence, viz. $$\lim_{h\to0}\frac{\mathscr F_T^h(y_h)}{h^2}
\,=\,
\lim_{h\to0}\frac{\inf_{y\in{\rm W}^{1,2}(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^3)}\mathscr F^h_T}{h^2}
\,=:\,
m.$$ Then, up to a subsequence, $y_h\longrightarrow y_T$ in ${\rm W}^{1,2}({\Omega},{\mathbb{R}}^3)$, where $y_T\in\mathcal A_{iso}$ is a minimiser of the 2D model, that is $$\mathscr F_T^{lim}(y_T)\,=\,\min_{\mathcal A_{iso}}\mathscr F_T^{lim}.$$ Moreover, $m=\mathscr F_T^{lim}(y_T)$.
In the case where the limiting load $f$ is identically zero, we have that $\min_{\mathcal A_{iso}}\mathscr F_T^{lim}
=
\min_{\mathcal A_{iso}}\mathscr E_T^{lim}$ and the minimisers of $\mathscr E_{T}^{lim}$ are given by the following lemma.
\[MinPb\] We have that $$\label{min_twisted}
\min_{\mathcal A_{iso}}\mathscr E_T^{lim}
\,=\,
\mathscr E_T^{lim}(y_T)
\,=\,
\frac{\mu\,\delta_0^2}{\pi^4}\left[12
\left(\frac{1+2\gamma}{1+\gamma}\right)
+\frac{\pi^4-4\pi^2-48}2\right]|\omega|,$$ where $y_T\in\mathcal A_{iso}$ is such that $$\mbox{either}\qquad
{\rm A}_{y_T}
\equiv
{\rm diag}\left(-\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2(1+\gamma)},0\right)
\qquad\mbox{or}\qquad
{\rm A}_{y_T}
\equiv
{\rm diag}\left(0,\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2(1+\gamma)}\right).$$
Clearly, a deformation $y\in\mathcal A_{iso}$ which minimises the integrand of $\mathscr E_{T}^{lim}(y)$ pointwise is a minimiser of $\mathscr E_{T}^{lim}$ over the class $\mathcal A_{iso}$. Seeking for such a minimiser and since $\det{\rm A}_y(x')=0$ a.e. in $\omega$ whenever $y\in\mathcal A_{iso}$, we consider the problem $$\label{problemi_minimo}
\min_{A\in{{\rm Sym}}(2):\det A=0}
\left\{
\big|A-
{\rm diag}(\alpha,-\alpha)
\big|^2
+\gamma\,
{{\rm tr}}^2A
\right\}
\,=\,
\min_{\xi\eta=\zeta^2}
\Big\{
(1+\gamma)(\xi+\eta)^2
+2\,\alpha\,(\alpha-\xi+\eta)
\Big\},$$ where we have set $\alpha:=-12\delta_0/\pi^2$ and used the notation $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\xi & \zeta \\
\zeta & \eta\end{array}
\right)
$ to represent an arbitrary matrix $A\in{\rm Sym}(2)$. Setting $$f(\xi,\eta)
\,:=\,
(1+\gamma)(\xi+\eta)^2
+2\,\alpha\,(\alpha-\xi+\eta)
\qquad\quad\mbox{and}\quad\qquad
g_\zeta(\xi,\eta)
\,:=\,
\xi\eta-\zeta^2,$$ we have that the previous minimisation problem can be rewritten as $\min_{\zeta\in{\mathbb{R}}}\min_{g_\zeta(\xi,\eta)=0}f(\xi,\eta)$. Using the method of Lagrange multipliers it is then easy to check that $$\min_{\zeta\in{\mathbb{R}}}\min_{g_\zeta(\xi,\eta)=0}f(\xi,\eta)
\,=\,
\min_{\zeta\in{\mathbb{R}}}f(\xi_\zeta^+,\eta_\zeta^+)
\,=\,
\min_{\zeta\in{\mathbb{R}}}f(\xi_\zeta^-,\eta_\zeta^-)
\,=\,
f(\xi_0^+,\eta_0^+)
\,=\,
f(\xi_0^-,\eta_0^-)
\,=\,
\alpha^2\left(\frac{1+2\gamma}{1+\gamma}\right),$$ where $$\xi_\zeta^{\pm}:=
\frac12\left(\frac{\alpha}{1+\gamma}\right)
\pm
\frac12\sqrt{
\left(\frac{\alpha}{1+\gamma}\right)^2+4\zeta^2
},
\qquad\quad
\eta_\zeta^{\pm}:=
-\frac12\left(\frac{\alpha}{1+\gamma}\right)
\pm
\frac12\sqrt{
\left(\frac{\alpha}{1+\gamma}\right)^2+4\zeta^2.
}$$ Correspondingly, we have that the solutions to the minimum problem on the left hand side in are $$A^+
:=\,
{\rm diag}\left(\xi_0^+,\eta_0^+\right)
=
{\rm diag}\left(\frac{\alpha}{1+\gamma},0\right)
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
A^-
:=\,
{\rm diag}\left(\xi_0^-,\eta_0^-\right)
=
{\rm diag}\left(0,-\frac{\alpha}{1+\gamma}\right).$$ Now, since there exists $y\in\mathcal A_{iso}$ such that ${\rm A}_y\equiv A^+$ or ${\rm A}_y\equiv A^-$ (this corresponds to $y(\omega)$ being locally isometric to a cylinder), we have obtained that $$\min_{y\in\mathcal A_{iso}}
\int\limits_{\omega}
\left\{\Big|{\rm A}_y(x')-\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2}
{\rm diag}\big(-1,1\big)\Big|^2
+\gamma\,
{\rm H}_y^2(x')\right\}{{\rm d}}x'
\,=\,
|\omega|
\min_{A\in{{\rm Sym}}(2):\det A=0}
\left\{
\big|A-
{\rm diag}(\alpha,-\alpha)
\big|^2
+\gamma\,
{{\rm tr}}^2A
\right\},$$ and in turn that $$\min_{\mathcal A_{iso}}\mathscr E_T^{lim}
\,=\,
\frac{\mu}{12}\,|\omega|\,f(\xi_0^+,\eta_0^+)
+
\frac{\mu\,\delta_0^2}{\pi^4}
\left(\frac{\pi^4-4\pi^2-48}2\right)|\omega|\\
\,=\,
\frac{\mu}{12}\,|\omega|\,
\alpha^2\left(\frac{1+2\gamma}{1+\gamma}\right)
+
\frac{\mu\,\delta_0^2}{\pi^4}
\left(\frac{\pi^4-4\pi^2-48}2\right)|\omega|.
$$ Substituting in the last expression the definition of $\alpha$ gives .
Similarly to formula , the limiting plate theory for the twisted case can be expressed in terms of physical parameters by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{phys_stat_twist}
\hat{\mathscr F}_T^{h_0}(v_{h_0})
\,\cong\,
\frac{\mu\,h_0^3}{12}\int\limits_{\omega}
\left\{\Big|{\rm A}_y(x')-\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2}
{\rm diag}\big(-1,1\big)\Big|^2
+\gamma\,
{\rm H}_y^2(x')\right\}{{\rm d}}x'\\
+
\frac{\mu\,h_0^3\delta_0^2}{\pi^4}
\Big(\frac{\pi^4-4\pi^2-48}2\Big)|\omega|
-h_0^3\int\limits_{\omega} f^{lim}(x')\cdot y(x')\,{{\rm d}}x',\end{gathered}$$ for a given small thickness $h_0$, where the approximate identity holds modulo terms of order higher than $3$ in $h_0$, and where $y\in\mathcal A_{iso}$ and $v_{h_0}$ are a minimiser of the 2D model – and a low-energy (physical) deformation, respectively. To put into perspective the two plate models which we have derived for splay-bend and twisted nematic elastomer thin sheets, we conclude this section with a comparison with the case where a limiting plate model originates from a three-dimensional spontaneous strain distribution which is simpler, i.e., quadratic in the thickness variable. We see that, as expected, when the spontaneous strains are kinematically compatible, the limiting two-dimensional stored energy functional is minimised at the value zero.
Consider a system in the (physical) reference configuration ${\Omega}_h$ endowed with a stored energy density $w^h$ of the form , with the spontaneous strain distribution given by $$\label{derivazione_quadrat}
\bar c_h(z_3)=
{\rm I}
+\delta_0\,z_3\,P+\eta_0\,z_3^2\,R,$$ for some constant and dimensionless symmetric matrices $P$ and $R$. Moreover, $\delta_0$ and $\eta_0$ are real constants whose dimensions are inverse length and square of inverse length, respectively. Let us denote by $\overline C_h(x_3)$ the rescaled spontaneous strain $$\overline C_h(x_3):=\bar c_h(hx_3)
=
{\rm I}
+\delta_0\,hx_3\,P+\eta_0\,(hx_3)^2\,R,$$ and by $(x_3,F)\mapsto W^h(x_3,F)$ the corresponding stored energy density. Defining $\overline U_h:=\sqrt{\overline C_h}$, we have $
W^h(x_3,F)=W_0\big(F\overline U_h^{-1}(x_3)\big)
=
W_0\big(F(
{\rm I}
+h\,B^h(x_3))\big)$, with $W_0$ defined as in and $B^h(x_3):=(-\delta_0\,x_3\,P/2+r_h/h)$ Since $B^h\longrightarrow B$ in ${\rm L}^{\infty}((-1/2,1/2),{\mathbb{R}}^{3\times3})$, with $B(x_3):=-\delta_0\,x_3\,P/2$, then Theorems \[compattezza\] and \[thm\_Schmidt\_Gamma\] tell us that the limiting two-dimensional plate model is described by the energy functional $$\label{funzionale_limite_lineare}
\mathcal A_{iso}\ni
y\mapsto
\frac1{24}\int\limits_{\omega}
Q_2\left(A_y(x')-\frac{\delta_0}2\check P\right){\rm d}x.$$ Indeed, for every $G\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times 2}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\overline Q_2(G)
&=
2\mu
\min_{D\in{{\rm Sym}}(2)}\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\!\!\left\{
\Big|D+t\,{{\rm sym}\,}G-\frac{\delta_0}2t\check P\Big|^2
+
\gamma\,
{{\rm tr}}^2
\left(D+t\,G-\frac{\delta_0}2t\check P\right)
\right\}{\rm d}t
\\
&=
2\mu
\min_{D\in{{\rm Sym}}(2)}\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\!\!\left\{
|D|^2+\gamma\,{{\rm tr}}^2D+t^2\left[\,
\Big|{{\rm sym}\,}G-\frac{\delta_0}2\check P\Big|^2
+
\gamma\,
{{\rm tr}}^2
\Big(G-\frac{\delta_0}2\check P\Big)
\right]
\right\}{\rm d}t\\
&=
\int\limits_{-1/2}^{1/2}
t^2\,Q_2\Big(G-\frac{\delta_0}2\check P\Big){\rm d}t
=
\frac1{12}\,
Q_2\Big(G-\frac{\delta_0}2\check P\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Note that the coefficient multiplying the purely quadratic term $z_3^2$ in does not play any role. Referring to Subsection \[comp\_quadrat\] for a discussion on the kinematic compatibility of , we observe that in each of the four cases where is kinematically compatible, listed in the mentioned subsection, we have that $\check P$ has at least one zero eigenvalue. Hence, we have that the functional can be minimised to zero by a deformation $y\in\mathcal A_{iso}$ such that $y(\omega)$ is locally isometric to a plane when both the eigenvalues of $\hat P$ are zero, and such that $y(\omega)$ is locally a cylinder in all the other cases.
Energy minimising shapes under zero loads {#sec_4}
=========================================
The aim of this section is to give an explicit representation of the minimal energy configurations of the nematic sheets and to gain some physical insight on their behaviour. To do this, we start by characterising the deformations $y$ realising the condition $A_y\equiv{\rm diag}(k,0)$, for some constant $k\neq0$, under the constraint of being isometries. More explicitly, we look for a (smooth) deformation $y:\omega\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ such that $$\label{cond_realised}
({\nabla}'y)^T{\nabla}'y={\rm I}_2,
\qquad\qquad\qquad
{\rm A_y}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
k & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}
\right),$$ or, equivalently, such that $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
|{\partial}_1y|^2 & {\partial}_1y\cdot{\partial}_2y\\
{\partial}_1y\cdot{\partial}_2y & |{\partial}_2y|^2
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad\qquad
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\partial}_1 y\cdot{\partial}_1\nu & {\partial}_1 y\cdot{\partial}_2\nu\\
{\partial}_2 y\cdot{\partial}_1\nu & {\partial}_2 y\cdot{\partial}_2\nu
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
k & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\nu:={\partial}_1y\wedge{\partial}_2y$. It is easy to check that deformations $y$ satisfying these conditions are defined up to arbitrary translations and superposed rotations. Hence, we will use the normalising conditions $$\label{extra_cond}
y(0,0)=0,
\qquad\qquad
{\nabla}y(0,0)=(\mathsf e_1|\mathsf e_2),$$ to construct one specific representative.
Note that from the condition ${\partial}_2y\cdot{\partial}_1\nu=0$ and from the identity $({\partial}_1{\partial}_2y)\cdot\nu+{\partial}_2y\cdot{\partial}_1\nu=0$, obtained by differentiating ${\partial}_2y\cdot\nu=0$ with respect to $x_1$, one gets $({\partial}_1{\partial}_2y)\cdot\nu=0$. Moreover, by differentiating the conditions $|{\partial}_1y|^2=1$ and $|{\partial}_2y|^2=1$ with respect to $x_2$ and $x_1$, respectively, we obtain $$({\partial}_1{\partial}_2y)\cdot{\partial}_1y=({\partial}_1{\partial}_2y)\cdot{\partial}_2y=0.$$ Hence, we have that ${\partial}_1{\partial}_2y=0$ in $\omega$. Similarly, using the condition ${\partial}_2y\cdot{\partial}_2\nu=0$ and suitably differentiating the identities ${\partial}_2y\cdot\nu=0$, $|{\partial}_2y|^2=1$, and ${\partial}_1y\cdot{\partial}_2y=0$, one gets that ${\partial}_2{\partial}_2y=0$ in $\omega$. This fact, coupled with the information that the mixed derivatives of $y$ vanish, says that $y$ must be of the form $$y(x_1,x_2)
\,=\,
x_2\,\mathsf c+w(x_1),$$ for some $\mathsf c\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$ and some smooth $w:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ such that $|\mathsf c|=|\dot w(x_1)|=1$ and $\mathsf c\cdot\dot w(x_1)=0$ for every $x_1$, where we use the notation $\dot w={\partial}_1w$. Observe that ${\nabla}'y=(\dot w\,|\,\mathsf c)$, that ${\nabla}'\nu=(\dot\nu\,|\,0)$, with $$\nu
\,:=\,
{\partial}_1y\wedge{\partial}_2y
\,=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\mathsf c_3\dot w_2-\mathsf c_2\dot w_3\\
\mathsf c_1\dot w_3-\mathsf c_3\dot w_1\\
\mathsf c_2\dot w_1-\mathsf c_1\dot w_2
\end{array}
\right),$$ and that condition ${\partial}_1 y\cdot{\partial}_2\nu=0$ in now automatically satisfied. Note also that we have not exploited yet the information that ${\partial}_1 y\cdot{\partial}_1\nu=\dot w\cdot\dot\nu=k$, which is going to determine the explicit expression of $w$. More precisely, the function $w$ has to satisfy the following system of equations: $$\begin{cases}
|\dot w|^2=1,\\
\dot w\cdot\mathsf c=0,\\
\dot w\cdot\dot\nu=k.
\end{cases}$$ To proceed, we set $f:=\dot w$ and choose $\mathsf c=\mathsf e_2$, so that the above system reduces to $$\begin{cases}
f_1^2+f_3^2=1,\\
f_2=0,\\
-f_1\dot f_3+\dot f_1f_3=k.
\end{cases}$$ Setting $
f_1(x_1)=\cos\big(\theta(x_1)\big)
$ and $
f_3(x_1)=\sin\big(\theta(x_1)\big),
$ we have that the first equation is satisfied, while the third equation reduces to $\dot\theta(x_1)=-k$, which yields $\theta(x_1)=-kx_1+\xi$, for some $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}$. In the end, we have obtained that $$f
\,=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
f_1\\
f_2\\
f_3
\end{array}
\right)
\,=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos(-kx_1+\xi)\\
0\\
\sin(-kx_1+\xi)\\
\end{array}
\right)
\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad
w
\,=\,
\int^{x_1}f
\,=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-\frac1k\sin(-kx_1+\xi)+\mathsf m_1\\
\frac1k\cos(-kx_1+\xi)+\mathsf m_2\\
\mathsf m_3
\end{array}
\right)\!,$$ for some constant $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $\mathsf m\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$. All in all, we have that if $y:\omega\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ is a smooth deformation satisfying , then ${\partial}_2y=\mathsf c$ for some constant $\mathsf c\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$ of unit length. Under the normalising assumption that $\mathsf c=\mathsf e_2$, the deformation $y$ has the following expression $$\label{espressione_def_min}
y(x_1,x_2)
\,=\,
x_2\,\mathsf e_2+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-\frac1k\sin(-kx_1+\xi)\\
0\\
\frac1k\cos(-kx_1+\xi)
\end{array}
\right)
+
\mathsf m,$$ for some constants $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\mathsf m\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$. We can now choose $\xi=0$ and $m=(0,0,-1/k)^T$, so that ${\partial}_1y(0,0)=\mathsf e_1$ and $y(0,0)=0$. Summarizing, the deformation $$\label{def_min_uno}
y(x_1,x_2)
\,=\,
\left(
\frac1k\sin(kx_1),
x_2,
\frac1k\big(\cos(kx_1)-1\big)
\right)^T$$ fulfills condition and the extra conditions .
If we now look for some isometric deformation $\tilde y$ realising the condition $A_y\equiv{\rm diag}(0,k)$, for some constant $k\neq0$, namely, such that $$\label{cond_realised_tilde}
({\nabla}'\tilde y)^T{\nabla}'\tilde y={\rm I}_2,
\qquad\qquad\qquad
{\rm A_{\tilde y}}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & k
\end{array}
\right)\!,$$ we can proceed similarly to the above and check that it must be of the form $
\tilde y(x_1,x_2)
=
x_1\,\tilde{\mathsf c}+\tilde w(x_2),
$ for some $\tilde{\mathsf c}\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$ and some smooth $\tilde w:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$ such that $|\tilde{\mathsf c}|
=|{\partial}_2\tilde w(x_2)|=1$ and $\tilde{\mathsf c}\cdot{\partial}_2\tilde w(x_2)=0$ for every $x_2$. Choosing $\tilde{\mathsf c}=\mathsf e_1$, we easily arrive to the expression $$\tilde y(x_1,x_2)
\,=\,
x_1\,\mathsf e_1+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
\frac1k\sin(kx_2+\xi)\\
\frac1k\cos(kx_2+\xi)
\end{array}
\right)
+
\tilde{\mathsf m}.$$ Choosing $\xi=0$ and $\tilde{\mathsf m}=(0,0,-1/k)^T$, we obtain the deformation $$\label{def_min_due}
\tilde y(x_1,x_2)
\,=\,
\left(x_1,
\frac1k\sin(kx_2),
\frac1k\big(\cos(kx_2)-1\big)
\right)^T\!\!\!,$$ fulfilling conditions and the same extra conditions as $y$ in .
The spontaneous curvature exhibited by minimal energy configurations in twisted nematic elastomer sheets cannot be read off directly from the target curvature tensor. This is because the two-dimensional bending energy cannot be minimised by minimising the integrand to zero, due to a geometric obstruction (there is no isometry of the plane with non-vanishing Gaussian curvature). This curvature is instead obtained by solving a minimisation problem, as shown in Lemma \[MinPb\]. This lemma, coupled with the above discussion, says that the deformation $y$ defined as in with $k=-\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2(1+\gamma)}$ (a portion of a cylinder with axis parallel to the image through $y$ of the line spanned by $\mathsf e_2$, and with radius $\bar\rho:=\pi^2(1+\gamma)/(12\delta_0)$) and the deformation $\tilde y$ defined as in with $k=\frac{12\delta_0}{\pi^2(1+\gamma)}$ (in this case, a portion of a cylinder with axis parallel to the image through $\tilde y$ of the line spanned by $\mathsf e_1$, and with the same radius $\bar\rho$) both realise the minimum for the 2D twisted energy functional. Nematic sheets with twisted texture are therefore *bistable* under zero loads, see Figure \[fig:bistable\].
![Plot of minimal energy configurations for the free-energy functional $\mathscr E^{lim}_T$ defined in , arising from a twisted texture of the nematic director. Under zero loads, the system is stable in each of the two configurations, hence *bistable*.[]{data-label="fig:bistable"}](bistable.pdf){width="7cm"}
In the case of splay-bend textures, the curvature giving minimal energy can be predicted by simply reading it off from the target curvature tensor of the two-dimensional model and therefore only deformations of type with $k=12\delta_0/\pi^2$ (a portion of a cylinder with axis parallel to the image through $y$ of the line spanned by $\mathsf e_2$, and with radius $\pi^2/(12\delta_0)$) are minimal energy states. This means that Gaussian curvature is suppressed in the splay-bend as well as in the twisted case, in the sense that the configurations exhibited by elastomer thin sheets in the absence of applied loads will be portions of cylindrical surfaces (with zero Gaussian curvature, as predicted in [@War_Mod_Cor_1; @War_Mod_Cor_2] and observed experimentally in [@hybrid; @Sawa2011; @Urayama2013]). In both cases, these configurations carry non-zero residual stresses. In the twisted case, there will be also non-zero residual internal bending moments, due to the additional *frustration* caused by the non-attainability of the target curvature. In the splay-bend case the target curvature is attained, the bending energy is minimised to zero, and no residual moments arise.
It is worth comparing the case of twist and splay-bend textures with a different scenario, in which the nematic director is kept constant along the thickness of the thin sheet, whereas the spontaneous strain varies along the thickness through the magnitude parameter $a$. To the best of our knowledge, a system with these features has not yet been synthesized in a laboratory. At least in principle, this should be possible by realising a film with uniform alignment of the director perpendicular to the mid-suface (direction $\mathsf e_3$), and variable degree of order along the thickness ($x_3$ coordinate).
Using the notation of Subsection \[subsec:three\_dim\_model\], let us suppose that the nematic director $n^h(z_3)$ is now constant, and equal to some $\mathsf n\in{\mathbb{S}}^2$, and that the (constant) parameter $a_h$ in is now given by $$\bar a_h(z_3)
\,:=\,
1+\frac{\alpha_0}{h_0}z_3,
\qquad\qquad
z_3\in(-h/2,h/2).$$ The (physical) spontaneous strain of this system is therefore defined as $$\bar c_h(z_3)
\,:=\,
\bar a_h^{2/3}(z_3)\,\mathsf n\otimes\mathsf n
+\bar a_h^{-1/3}(z_3)\big({\rm I}-\mathsf n\otimes\mathsf n\big).$$ Modelling the system using again the prototypical energy density , as in Subsection \[3D\_rescaled\] we can define the rescaled energy densities $W_h(x_3,\cdot)$, $x_3\in(-1/2,1/2)$, characterised by the (rescaled) spontaneous strains $$\begin{aligned}
\overline C_h(x_3)
\,:=\,
\bar c_h(hx_3)
&
\,=\,\Big(1+\frac{\alpha_0}{h_0}h\,x_3\Big)^{2/3}
\!\mathsf n\otimes\mathsf n
+
\Big(1+\frac{\alpha_0}{h_0}h\,x_3\Big)^{-1/3}
\big({\rm I}-\mathsf n\otimes\mathsf n\big)\nonumber\\
&
\,=\,{\rm I}-2\,h\,B(x_3)+R^h(x_3),
\qquad\quad
B(x_3)
\,:=\,
\frac{x_3}2\frac{\alpha_0}{h_0}
\left(\frac{\rm I}3-\mathsf n\otimes\mathsf n\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\|R^h\|_{\infty}=o(h)$. Proceeding as in Subsection \[nostra\_derivazione\], we obtain a limit 2D model whose free-energy functional is given by $$\label{funzionale_Sharon}
\mathscr E^{lim}(y)
\,=\,
\frac12
\int\limits_{\omega}
\overline Q_2(A_y(x'))
{\rm d}x'
\,=\,
\frac1{24}
\int\limits_{\omega}
Q_2\left(A_y(x')-\check M\right)
{\rm d}x',$$ for every $y\in\mathcal A_{iso}$. Here, the $2{\times}2$ symmetric matrix $\check M$ is given by the formula $$\check M
\,=\,
\frac12\frac{\alpha_0}{h_0}
\left[(\mathsf n\otimes\mathsf n)^{\check{}}-
\frac{{\rm I}_2}3\right],$$ and $(\mathsf n\otimes\mathsf n)^{\check{}}$ is the $2{\times}2$ upper left part of $\mathsf n\otimes\mathsf n$. In the case where $\mathsf n=\mathsf e_3$, the spontaneous curvature tensor $\check M$ reduces to $$\label{funzionale_Sharon_2}
\check M
\,=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
m_0 & 0\\
0 & m_0
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad\qquad
m_0\,:=\,
-\frac{\alpha_0}{6h_0}.$$ Note that the Gaussian curvature associated with $\check M$ is positive. However, as for the twisted case, where the spontaneous Gaussian curvature is negative, the observable minimal energy configurations will always exhibit zero Gaussian curvature (see Lemma \[MinPb\]), because of the isometry constraint they are subjected to. More precisely, some calculations show that every isometric deformation $\bar y\in\mathcal A_{iso}$ such that $A_{\bar y}\equiv\bar A_+(s)$ or $A_{\bar y}\equiv\bar A_-(s)$ for some $s\in[-\bar k/2,\bar k/2]$, with $$\label{bar_k}
\bar A_\pm(s)
\,:=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{\bar k\pm\sqrt{\bar k^2-4s^2}}2 & s\\
s & \frac{\bar k\mp\sqrt{\bar k^2-4s^2}}2
\end{array}
\right)\!,
\qquad\qquad\quad
\bar k
\,:=\,
m_0\Big(\frac{1+2\gamma}{1+\gamma}\Big),$$ is such that $$\mathscr E^{lim}(\bar y)
\,=\,
\min \mathscr E^{lim}
\,=\,
\frac{\mu}{12}\,m_0^2\,\Big(\frac{1+2\gamma}{1+\gamma}\Big)
|\omega|,$$ where the expression of $\gamma$ in terms of the 3D parameters is given in formula . Note that $\bar A_-(-\bar k/2)=\bar A_+(-\bar k/2)$ and $\bar A_-(\bar k/2)=\bar A_+(\bar k/2)$, whereas $\bar A_-(s_1)\neq\bar A_+(s_2)$ for every $s_1,s_2\in(-\bar k/2,\bar k/2)$. Note also that the eigenvalues of $\bar A_+(s)$ and $\bar A_-(s)$ are always $\bar k$ and $0$ for every $s\in[-\bar k/2,\bar k/2]$, and that $$\label{bar_A_+_e_-}
\bar A_+(s)
\,=\,
R_+(s)
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\bar k & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)
R_+(s)^T,
\qquad\qquad
\bar A_-(s)
\,=\,
R_-(s)
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0\\
0 & \bar k
\end{array}
\right)
R_-(s)^T,$$ where the columns of the rotation matrices $R_+(s)$ and $R_-(s)$ are the eigenvectors corresponding to $\bar k$ and $0$ and to $0$ and $\bar k$, respectively. The explicit expressions of $R_+(s)$ and $R_-(s)$ are the following: $$\label{rotazione_1}
R_\pm(s)
\,=\,
\sqrt{\frac{\bar k+\sqrt{\bar k^2-4s^2}}{2\bar k}}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & \mp\frac{2s}{\bar k+\sqrt{\bar k^2-4s^2}}\\
\pm\frac{2s}{\bar k+\sqrt{\bar k^2-4s^2}} & 1
\end{array}
\right)\!,$$ In particular, for $\bar A_+$, the directions corresponding to the eigenvalue $0$ are given, respectively, by the vector $(1,1)$ in the case $s=-\bar k/2$, by $(0,1)$ in the case $s=0$, and by $(1,-1)$ in the case $s=\bar k/2$. For $\bar A_s$, the directions corresponding to the eigenvalue $0$ are given, respectively, by the vector $(1,1)$ in the case $s=-\bar k/2$, by $(1,0)$ in the case $s=0$, and by $(1,-1)$ in the case $s=\bar k/2$. Therefore, through the matrices $\bar A_+$ and $\bar A_-$ all the possible directions corresponding to the eigenvalue $0$ (and in turn all the corresponding orthogonal eigenspaces corresponding to the eigenvector $\bar k$) are represented. All in all, we have that $$\mathscr A\,:=\,
\left\{\bar A_+(s):s\in
\left[-\frac{\bar k}2,\frac{\bar k}2\right]
\right\}
\cup
\left\{\bar A_-(s):s\in
\left[-\frac{\bar k}2,\frac{\bar k}2\right]
\right\}
\,=\,
\Big\{R\,{\rm diag}(\bar k,0)\,R^T: R\in{\rm SO}(2)\Big\}$$
From the discussion leading to expression , we have that, given $\bar\rho>0$, the deformation defined as $$y(x_1,x_2)
\,:=\,
\left(\bar\rho\sin\Big(\frac{x_1}{\bar\rho}\Big),
x_2,
\bar\rho\cos\Big(\frac{x_1}{\bar\rho}\Big)\right)^T$$ is an isometry such that $A_y\equiv{\rm diag}(1/\bar\rho,0)$. Moreover, we have that $$\label{norm}
y(0,0)\,=\,(0,0,\bar\rho)^T,
\qquad\qquad
{\nabla}y(0,0)=(\mathsf e_1|\mathsf e_2).$$ Consider the rotation matrices $$R_{\alpha}
\,:=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\sin\alpha & -\cos\alpha & 0\\
\cos\alpha & \sin\alpha & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad\qquad
\check R_{\alpha}
\,:=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\sin\alpha & -\cos\alpha\\
\cos\alpha & \sin\alpha
\end{array}
\right),$$ and note that $\check R_{\alpha}$ is a $(\pi/2-\alpha)$-counterclockwise rotation taking the vector $(\cos\alpha,\sin\alpha)^T$ into $(0,1)^T$. Now, setting $\bar\rho=1/\bar k$, where $\bar k$ is defined as in , we define the deformation $$\label{deformazioni_minime}
y^\alpha(x')
\,:=\,
R_{\alpha}^T\,\circ\,y\,\circ\,\check R_{\alpha}(x')
\,=\,
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\bar\rho\sin\alpha\sin\Big(\frac{x_1\sin\alpha-x_2\cos\alpha}{\bar\rho}\Big)
+
\cos\alpha
(x_1\cos\alpha+x_2\sin\alpha)\\
-\bar\rho\cos\alpha
\sin\Big(\frac{x_1\sin\alpha-x_2\cos\alpha}{\bar\rho}\Big)
+
\sin\alpha
(x_1\cos\alpha+x_2\sin\alpha)\\
\bar\rho\cos\alpha
\cos
\Big(\frac{x_1\sin\alpha-x_2\cos\alpha}{\bar\rho}\Big)
\end{array}
\right).$$ Simple computations show that $y^\alpha\in\mathcal A_{iso}$ and that, setting $\nu^\alpha:={\partial}_1y^\alpha\wedge{\partial}_2y^\alpha$, $$A_{y^\alpha}(x')
\,:=\,
({\nabla}'y^\alpha(x'))^T{\nabla}'\nu^\alpha(x')
\,=\,
\check R_{\alpha}^T\,A_{y} (\check R_{\alpha}x')\,
\check R_{\alpha}
\,=\,
\check R_{\alpha}^T
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac1{\bar\rho} & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\check R_{\alpha}
\,\in\,
\mathscr A.$$ Therefore, we have that $A_{y^\alpha}\equiv\bar A_+(s)$ for some $s\in[-\bar k/2,\bar k/2]$ and $\alpha\mapsto y^{\alpha}$ is a continuous family of deformations minimising $\mathscr E^{lim}$. Note also that $y^\alpha$ satisfies the normalizing conditions , for every $\alpha$. Figure \[fig:sharon\] shows minimal energy deformed configurations obtained from the family $\alpha\mapsto y^{\alpha}$.
The existence of a continuous family of deformations with (constant) minimal energy shows that a nematic elastomer sheet with constant director (perpendicular to the mid-surface) and thickness-dependent magnitude of the spontaneous strain (this can be realised by varying the degree of the nematic order along the thickness) realises a “zero-stiffness” structure in the sense of [@Guest]. These are structures that can undergo large elastic deformations without requiring external work. Figure \[fig:sharon\] show that the nematic sheet can accomodate any level of twisting with negligible elastic energy in between two extreme states ($\alpha=0$ and $\alpha=\pi/2$). Of course, zero-stiffness is an idealisation and, in a real system, effects that have not been taken into account in the model will lead to small, but non-zero loads in order to change shape. In the example of Sharon [@Levin_Sharon], edge effects cause energy storage which scales as $h^{7/2}$. This is a higher scaling (with smaller stored energy in the thin film limit $h\to 0$) with respect to the bending one ($h^3$) that our dimensionally reduced theory is designed to resolve. As a consequence, the observed response is much “softer” than the one expected from the bending stiffness of a sheet.
By contrast, sheets with twist texture are “bistable” in the sense of [@Guest_BIS]: they exhibit two distinct possible stable shapes in the absence of loads (see Figure \[fig:bistable\]). Splay-bend sheets have only one shape minimising the energy under zero loads.
![ Plot of minimal energy configurations for the free-energy functional $\mathscr E^{lim}$ defined in –, arising from constant director $\mathsf e_3$ along the thickness of the sheet. The configurations are elements of the continuous family of deformations . Under zero loads, the system has the same (minimal) energy in each of these configurations, hence it realises a structure with *zero-stiffness* to twisting.[]{data-label="fig:sharon"}](sharon.pdf){width="10cm"}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We gratefully acknowledge the support by the European Research Council through the ERC Advanced Grant 340685-MicroMotility. We thank S. Guest, R. V. Kohn, and E. Sharon for valuable discussions.
[10]{}
V. Agostiniani and A. DeSimone. -convergence of energies for nematic elastomers in the small strain limit. , 23(3):257–274, 2011.
V. Agostiniani and A. DeSimone. Ogden-type energies for nematic elastomers. , 47(2):402 – 412, 2012.
H. Aharoni, E. Sharon, and R. Kupferman. Geometry of thin nematic elastomer sheets. , 113:257801, Dec 2014.
M. Arroyo and A. DeSimone. Shape control of active surfaces inspired by the movement of euglenids. , 62:99–112, 2014.
M. Arroyo, L. Heltai, D. Millan, and A. DeSimone. Reverse engineering the euglenoid movement. , 109(44):17874–17879, October 2012.
M. Barchiesi and A. DeSimone. Frank energy for nematic elastomers: a nonlinear model. , 21(2):372–377, 2015.
S. Bartels, A. Bonito, and R. H. Nochetto. Bilayer plates: model reduction, [$\Gamma$]{}-convergent finite element approximation, and discrete gradient flow. , 2015.
K. Bhattacharya, M. Lewicka, and M. Sch[ä]{}ffner. Plates with incompatible prestrain. , 221(1):143–181, 2016.
P. Bladon, E. M. Terentjev, and M. Warner. Transitions and instabilities in liquid crystal elastomers. , 47:R3838–R3840, Jun 1993.
P. Cesana and A. DeSimone. Quasiconvex envelopes of energies for nematic elastomers in the small strain regime and applications. , 59(4):787–803, 2011.
P.G. Ciarlet. . Available online. Springer, 2006.
S. Conti, A. DeSimone, and G. Dolzmann. Soft elastic response of stretched sheets of nematic elastomers: a numerical study. , 50(7):1431–1451, 2002.
A. DeSimone. Energetics of fine domain structures. , 222(1–4):275–284, 1999.
A. DeSimone and G. Dolzmann. Macroscopic response of nematic elastomers via relaxation of a class of [$\rm SO(3)$]{}-invariant energies. , 161(3):181–204, 2002.
A. DeSimone and L. Teresi. Elastic energies for nematic elastomers. , 29(2):191–204, 2009.
P.J. Flory. . Baker lectures 1948. Cornell University Press, 1953.
G. Friesecke, R. D. James, and S. M[ü]{}ller. A theorem on geometric rigidity and the derivation of nonlinear plate theory from three-dimensional elasticity. , 55(11):1461–1506, 2002.
A. [Fukunaga]{}, K. [Urayama]{}, T. [Takigawa]{}, A. [DeSimone]{}, and L. [Teresi]{}. Dynamics of electro-opto-mechanical effects in swollen nematic elastomers. , 41(23):9389–9396, 2008.
S. D. Guest, E. Kebadze, and S. Pellegrino. A zero–stiffness elastic shell structure. , 6(1–4):203–212, 2011.
S. D. Guest and S. Pellegrino. Analytical models for bistable cylindrical shells. , 462:839–854, 2006.
L.H. He. Response of constrained glassy splay-bend and twist nematic sheets to light and heat. , 36(8), 2013.
Y. Klein, E Efrati, and E Sharon. Shaping of elastic sheets by prescription of non-euclidean metrics. , 315(5815):1116–1120, 2007.
I. Levin and E. Sharon. Anomalously soft non-euclidean springs. , 116:035502, Jan 2016.
M. Lewicka and R. Pakzad. . , 17(4):1158–1173, 11 2011.
Alessandro Lucantonio and Antonio DeSimone. Computational design of shape-programmable gel plates. , page submitted, 2017.
C. D. Modes, K. Bhattacharya, and M. Warner. Gaussian curvature from flat elastica sheets. , 467(2128):1121–1140, 2011.
C. D. Modes and M. Warner. . , 92:010401, Jul 2015.
C. Mostajeran. Curvature generation in nematic surfaces. , 91:062405, Jun 2015.
L. M. Pismen. Metric theory of nematoelastic shells. , 90:060501, Dec 2014.
Y. [Sawa]{}, K. [Urayama]{}, T. [Takigawa]{}, A. [DeSimone]{}, and L. [Teresi]{}. Thermally driven giant bending of liquid crystal elastomer films with hybrid alignment. , 43:4362–4369, May 2010.
Y. Sawa, F. Ye, K. Urayama, T. Takigawa, V. Gimenez-Pinto, R. L. B. Selinger, and J. V. Selinger. Shape selection of twist-nematic-elastomer ribbons. , 108(16):6364–6368, 2011.
B. Schmidt. Plate theory for stressed heterogeneous multilayers of finite bending energy. , 88(1):107 – 122, 2007.
A. Shahaf, E. Efrati, R. Kupferman, and E. Sharon. Geometry and mechanics in the opening of chiral seed pods. , 333(6050):1726–1730, 2011.
K. Urayama. Switching shapes of nematic elastomers with various director configurations. , 73(7):885–890, 2013. Challenges and Emerging Technologies in the Polymer Gels.
M. Warner, C. D. Modes, and D. Corbett. Curvature in nematic elastica responding to light and heat. , 466(2122):2975–2989, 2010.
M. Warner, C. D. Modes, and D. Corbett. Suppression of curvature in nematic elastica. , pages 3561–3578, 2010.
[^1]: Another route, which exploits Gauss’ Theorema Egregium, is to induce curved configurations through nematic director textures generating (spontaneous) strains that are constant along the thickness but variable in the in-plane direction in such a way to be incompatible with having zero Gaussian curvature [@Aha_Sha_Kup; @Arroyo2014; @Arroyo2012; @Bat_Lew_Sch; @LucantonioJCP2017; @Bat_Mod_War; @Mod_War2015; @Mostajeran; @Pismen].
[^2]: To put the incompatible nematic elastomer cases in perspective, we also analyze a kinematically compatible case where the three-dimensional spontaneous strain distribution along the thickness depends quadratically on the thickness variable. We show that, as expected, this distribution leads to plates with no residual stresses and where the limiting energy corresponding to attains its minimum value zero.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Matija Bucić[^1]'
- 'Eoin Long[^2]'
- 'Asaf Shapira[^3]'
- 'Benny Sudakov[^4]'
title: Tournament quasirandomness from local counting
---
Introduction
============
A combinatorial structure is said to be ‘quasirandom’ if it behaves in a similar manner to a random structure, where the comparison is made with respect to some deterministic property. The systematic study of quasirandomness was initiated by Thomason [@Th1] [@Th2], and Chung, Graham and Wilson [@CGW], who examined notions of quasirandomness arising from various graph properties. One of the surprising conclusions of these papers is that a wide-range of natural graph properties all lead to essentially the same notion of quasirandomness, in the sense that a graph satisfying one of the properties necessarily satisfies them all. Since then, notions of quasirandomness have been extensively studied in a wide variety of contexts, including hypergraphs [@CGsetsystems], [@GowHR], [@NRS], [@RS], permutations [@Cooper], [@KP] and groups [@Gow]. The reader is referred to the survey [@KS] for an overview of this extensive topic.
In this paper we will study notions of quasirandomness for tournaments. The first paper on this topic is due to Chung and Graham [@CG] who proved that, as in the graph case, a wide range of natural tournament properties give rise to the same notion of quasirandomness. Before stating some of their results we require a little notation. A tournament $T = (V,E)$ consists of a set of vertices $V = V(T)$, together with a set of edges $E = E(T) \subset V \times V$, with the property that (i) $(u,u) \notin E$ for all $u\in V$ and (ii) exactly one of $(u,v)$ or $(v,u)$ lies in $E$ for all distinct $u,v \in V$. We often write $\overrightarrow {uv}$ to denote an edge $(u,v)$. A tournament $H$ appears as a subtournament of $T$ if there is a map $\phi: V(H) \to V(T)$ such that $\overrightarrow {uv} \in E(H)$ if and only if $\overrightarrow {\phi (u)\phi (v)} \in E(T)$. The map $\phi $ is said to be a labelled embedding of $H$ into $T$. Let $$N^*_T(H)
=
\big | \big \{ \phi : V(H) \to V(T):
\phi \mbox{ is a labelled embedding of } H \mbox { into } T \big \} \big |.$$ Given $U \subset V(T)$ let $T[U]$ denote the subtournament of $T$ induced by the vertex set $U$. Also let $N^*_T(H;U) := N^*_{T[U]}(H)$. For $u \in V(T)$ let $d^+_T(u) = |\{v\in V(T): \overrightarrow{uv} \in E(T)\}|$ and $d^-_T(u) = |\{v\in V(T): \overrightarrow{vu} \in E(T)\}|$. A tournament $T$ is regular if $d^+_T(u) = d^-_T(u)$ for all $u\in V(T)$. For $U,W \subseteq V(T)$ we denote by $e(U,W)$ the number of edges starting in $U$ and ending in $W$.
We say that $T$ is an $n$-vertex tournament if $|V(T)| = n$. An ordering of $T$ is a bijective map $\sigma : V \to [n]$ and the set of all orderings of $T$ is naturally identified with $S_n$, the symmetric group on $n$ elements. An edge $\overrightarrow {uv} \in E$ is a $\sigma $-forward edge if $\sigma (u) < \sigma (v)$ and we write $F_{\sigma ,T} \subset E$ to denote the set of $\sigma $-forward edges of $T$. Let $B_{\sigma , T} = E \setminus F_{\sigma ,T}$, the set of $\sigma $-backward edges. $T$ is said to be transitive if $F_{\sigma ,T} = E$ for some $\sigma \in S_n$ and write $Tr_n$ to denote the unique (up to isomorphism) $n$-vertex transitive tournament. Lastly, we will write $a \pm b$ to denote some value $c$ with $a-b \leq c \leq a+b$.
Our starting point in this paper is a result due to Chung and Graham [@CG], which gives two equivalences of tournament quasirandomness.
\[thm: chung-graham\] Let $h \in {\mathbb N}$ with $h\geq 4$. Then for any $n$-vertex tournament $T$, the following properties are equivalent:
- ${\cal P}_1$: $|F_{\sigma ,T}| =
\frac {1}{2} \binom {n}{2} \pm o(n^2)$ for every ordering $\sigma $ of $T$.
- ${\cal P}_2(h)$: $N^*_T(H) = 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}n^h \pm
o(n^h)$ for every $h$-vertex tournament $H$.
In fact, there are nine further equivalences given in this paper (see also [@Griffiths], [@KSh]). Equivalence here is understood in the following sense, focusing on the implication ${\cal P}_1 \implies {\cal P}_2(h)$: given $\varepsilon >0$ there is $\delta >0$ and $n_0 \in {\mathbb N}$ so that if $T$ is an $n$-vertex tournament which satisfies $|F_{\sigma ,T}| = \frac {1}{2} \binom {n}{2} \pm \delta n^2$ for every ordering $\sigma $ of $T$ and $n\geq n_0$ then $N^*_T(H) = 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}n^h \pm \varepsilon n^h$ for every $h$-vertex tournament $H$.
It is easily seen that both properties ${\cal P}_1$ and ${\cal P}_2(h)$ hold for a random $n$-vertex tournament $T$ with high probability. We will say $T$ is *quasirandom* if it satisfies ${\cal P}_1$, that is $|F_{\sigma ,T}| = \frac {1}{2}\binom {n}{2} \pm o(n^2)$. In light of Theorem \[thm: chung-graham\], this notion is equivalent to the analogous notion arising from ${\cal P}_2(h)$.
Globally forcing tournaments
----------------------------
Although ${\cal P}_2(h)$ guarantees that $T$ is quasirandom, it is natural to ask whether this can already be deduced from the count of a *single* tournament $H$. That is, does quasirandomness of $T$ already follow if $N^*_T(H) = 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}n^h \pm o(n^h)$ for a [single]{} $h$-vertex tournament $H$?
Let $H$ be an $h$-vertex tournament. Given an $n$-vertex tournament $T$, consider the following property:
- ${\cal P}_2(H)$: $N^*_T(H) = 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}n^h \pm o(n^h)$.
The tournament $H$ is said to be *globally forcing* if ${\cal P}_2(H) \implies
{\cal P}_1$.
It follows easily from exercise 10.44(b) of [@lovasz-book] that for $h\geq 4$ each transitive tournament $Tr_h$ is globally forcing. This statement was recently reproved in the language of flag-algebras by Coregliano and Razborov [@CR]. Our first observation is that for $h \geq 7$, the transitive $h$-vertex tournament is the *only* tournament with this property.
\[prop: forcing iff transitive\] Let $H$ be an $h$-vertex tournament with $h\geq 7$. Then $H$ is globally forcing if and only if $H$ is transitive.
We remark that, while the condition that $h\geq 7$ may seem unusual in Proposition \[prop: forcing iff transitive\], it has been proven by Coregliano, Parente and Sato [@CPS] that there is a non-transitive globally forcing tournament $H$ on five vertices (see Theorem 1.1 from [@CPS]). It would perhaps be interesting to determine which, if any, of the remaining small tournaments are also globally forcing.
Locally forcing tournaments
---------------------------
We have seen that having ‘correct count’ of a fixed tournament $H$ is not enough to guarantee quasirandomness, for essentially any non-transitive $H$. This is a fairly common situation when studying quasirandom properties in general and the key insight to understand why came from Simonovits and Sós [@SS1] who observed that quasirandomness is a hereditary property, in the sense that any large subgraph of a random structure must also be random-like.
This leads us to the natural question of whether requiring that $T$ contains the ‘correct count’ of $H$ in all large subsets of $V(T)$ is sufficient to guarantee quasirandomness of $T$. To be more precise, consider the following definition.
Let $H$ be an $h$-vertex tournament. Given an $n$-vertex tournament $T$, consider the following property:
- ${\cal P}^*_2(H)$: $N^*_T(H;U) = 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}|U|^h \pm o(n^h)$ for every set $U \subset V(T)$.
The tournament $H$ is said to be *locally forcing* if ${\cal P}^*_2(H) \implies {\cal P}_1$.
An analogous property for graphs was studied by Simonovits and Sós for both induced [@SS1] and not-necessarily induced subgraphs [@SS2] as well as for hypergraphs by Conlon, Hàn, Person and Schacht [@CHPS] and Dellamonica and Rödl [@DR]. In case of graphs the not-necessarily induced case turned out to be much easier and was resolved by Simonovits and Sós [@SS2] who showed that all non-empty graphs must be ‘locally forcing’. This was recently reproved, without use of the regularity lemma, by Conlon, Fox and Sudakov [@CFS]. On the other hand the induced case is still very much open and seems to be the closer analogue to our problem. Indeed, in the case of embedding a tournament one needs to ensure that each pair of vertices get mapped to an edge with one of two possible orientations, while in the induced case each pair needs to be sent to one of two possible states (is an edge or is not an edge). One of the main conjectures in the area, due to Simonovits and Sós [@SS2] says that all graphs on $4$ or more vertices must be ‘locally forcing’ in the appropriate induced sense. They prove their conjecture holds for regular graphs and for various other families of graphs.
In the rest of this subsection we present our main results, which give a good understanding of locally forcing tournaments and show a surprisingly different behaviour compared to the one conjectured by Simonovits and Sós in the graph case. Our first result shows that in order for a tournament to be locally forcing it must be quite strongly quasirandom in several ways.
\[thm: locally-forcing\] Any non-transitive, locally forcing $h$-vertex tournament $H$ satisfies
(i) $$\sum _{v \in V(H)} \big (d^+_H(v) - d^-_H(v)\big )^2 \leq h(h-1).$$
(ii) $|F_{\sigma, H}|=\frac{1}{2}\binom{h}{2} \pm h^{3/2}\sqrt{\log h}$ for every ordering $\sigma$ of $H$.
(iii) For any disjoint subsets $U,W \subseteq T$ we must have $|e(U,W)|\le \frac{1}{2}|U||W| + 2h^{3/2}$
Given that Theorem \[thm: locally-forcing\] says that any locally forcing graph must be strongly quasirandom a natural guess for an example might be to take the random tournament, obtained by orienting each edge of a complete graph uniformly at random, independently between edges. Our next result shows that quite surprisingly with positive probability the random tournament fails condition (i) of Theorem \[thm: locally-forcing\].
\[cor:random-is-not-locally-forcing\] The random tournament is not locally forcing with positive probability.
This tells us that a positive proportion of all tournaments are in fact not locally forcing, in stark contrast to the induced graph problem in which Simonovits-Sós conjecture states that all graphs on $4$ or more vertices should be locally forcing. In particular, one can easily find a regular tournament which fails conditions (ii) or (iii) whereas in the induced graph case any regular graph is known to be locally forcing.
This might suggest that there are essentially no non-transitive locally forcing tournaments, as in the global forcing case. We show that this is also not the case and find many non-transitive examples of locally forcing tournaments.
\[thm: exist-locally-forcing\] For any large enough $h$ there exist non-transitive, $h$-vertex, locally forcing tournaments.
Our examples of locally forcing tournaments come from the following random construction. We take a Steiner triple system on $h$ vertices, that is a partition of the edge set of the complete graph on $h$ vertices into edge disjoint triangles. Now we orient each of these triangles into one of two cycles of length three uniformly at random and independently between triangles. We show that this produces with high probability a locally forcing tournament. It is well known (see [@Kirkman]) that Steiner triple systems exist provided $h\equiv 1,3 \pmod{6}$ and our arguments allow us a lot of freedom to modify the above procedure in order to obtain examples for other $h$ as well.
All our results are based on a characterisation of locally forcing tournaments in terms of certain graph polynomials. In order to motivate how these polynomials arise let us describe two natural candidates for tournaments with correct local counts of a tournament $H$, which are not quasirandom.
Given $\alpha \in [0,1]$, let ${\cal T}(n,\alpha )$ denote the distribution on the set of tournaments with vertex set $\{1,\ldots, n\}$ in which each pair $\{i,j\}$ with $1 \leq i < j \leq n$ appears independently as $\overrightarrow {ij}$ with probability $\alpha$. We denote by $\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$ the collection of all distributions ${\cal T}(n,\alpha )$ as $\alpha$ varies.
Loosely speaking we say that a graph $H$ is [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} if no ${\cal T}(n,\alpha )$ shows that $H$ is not locally forcing. In other words if there is no $\alpha \neq 1/2$ such that ${\cal T}(n,\alpha )$, which is clearly not quasirandom, has the same local counts of $H$ as ${\cal T}(n,1/2)$ (which [*is*]{} quasirandom).
Given $\alpha \in [0,1]$, let ${\cal T}(n,n, \alpha)$ denote the distribution on the set of tournaments with vertex set $\{1,\ldots, 2n\}$ in which both $\{1,\ldots, n\}$ and $\{n+1,\ldots, 2n\}$ are oriented according to $\mathcal{T}(n,1/2)$ and each pair $\{i,j\}$ with $1 \leq i \leq n, n+1 \le j \le 2n$ appears as $\overrightarrow {ij}$ with probability $\alpha$, with all choices made independently. We denote by $\mathcal{T}_{bip}$ the collection of all distributions ${\cal T}(n,n,\alpha )$ as $\alpha$ varies.
Loosely speaking a graph $H$ is [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{} if no ${\cal T}(n,n,\alpha )$ shows that $H$ is not locally forcing. I.e. if there is no $\alpha \neq 1/2$ such that ${\cal T}(n,n,\alpha )$, which is not quasirandom, has the same local counts of $H$ as ${\cal T}(n,n,1/2)={\cal T}(2n,1/2)$.
Both properties [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} and [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{} can be expressed in terms of certain polynomial equations depending on the graph $H$. Our actual definitions of both properties go directly via these polynomial equations and we refer the reader to Section \[sec: counting polynomial\] for exact definitions.
Quite remarkably it turns out that if $H$ is not locally forcing one must be able to find an $\alpha$ such that either ${\cal T}(n,\alpha )$ or ${\cal T}(n,n,\alpha )$ show $H$ is not locally forcing. In particular, we show:
\[thm:-simple and esimple iff locally forcing\] $H$ is locally forcing if and only if it is [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} and [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}.
This result allows us to answer the question of whether a fixed graph $H$ is locally forcing or not in terms of whether certain polynomial equations have a common real root in a bounded interval. This can be answered using a combination of Sturm’s Theorem (see [@BPR]) and the Euclidean Algorithm for computing the greatest common divisor of a sequence of polynomials. See the concluding remarks for more details.
**Organisation of the paper:** The short proof of Proposition \[prop: forcing iff transitive\] is given in the next section. In Section \[sec: counting polynomial\] a counting polynomial associated with [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} is introduced. In the same section we show that a locally forcing tournament must be [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} and that this property imposes many restrictions on $H$, which gives us a proof of Theorem \[thm: locally-forcing\]. Despite this in Section \[sec: simple tournaments\] we find many [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} tournaments. In Sections \[sec: reg simple tourns are forcing\] and \[sec: proof of simple and esimple implies local forcing\] we introduce the polynomials related to the property of [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}, show that any nearly regular tournament must be [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} and show Theorem \[thm:-simple and esimple iff locally forcing\]. Using this we prove that many of our examples of [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} tournaments are in fact locally forcing.
**Notation:** Before closing this section we introduce some further notation. Given $m,n \in {\mathbb N}$, let $[n] = \{1,\ldots ,n\}$ and $(n)_m$ denote the falling factorial $(n)_m = n(n-1)\cdots (n-m+1)$. Given a set $X$ we write $\binom{X}{k}$ for the collection of $k$-element subsets of $X$. Given a probability distribution ${\cal D}$ on $X$ we write $x \sim {\cal D}$ to denote an element $x\in X$ selected randomly according to ${\cal D}$. We simply write $x \sim X$ when ${\cal D}$ is taken to be the uniform distribution on $X$. All our logarithms are natural so in base $e$.
Globally forcing tournaments
============================
In this section we will give the short proof of Proposition \[prop: forcing iff transitive\]. We first show that asymptotically the number of transitive subtournaments of order $h$ in a tournament of order $n$ is minimised by the random tournament. This is precisely the content of Exercise 10.44(b) of [@lovasz-book]. We need a variation of this proof, which allows us to also show the fact that any asymptotic minimiser must be quasirandom. This implies that $Tr_h$ is globally forcing for $h \ge 4$ showing the ‘if’ part of the statement of Proposition \[prop: forcing iff transitive\].
We will first prove that $N^*_T(h):= N^*_T(Tr_h)$ satisfies $N^*_T(h) \geq f_h(n)=(2^{-\binom {h}{2}}-o(1) \big ) { n^h }$ for all $n$-vertex tournaments $T$ where $$f_h(n)=
\begin{cases}
\prod_{j=0}^{h-1}\left(\frac{n+1}{2^j}-1\right) \quad &\text{ if } n\ge 2^{h-1}-1\\
0 \quad &\text{ else.}
\end{cases}$$
We will prove this by induction on $h$. For $h=1$ and $2$ the result is immediate. Furthermore, $$\label{equation: special case k=3}
N^*_T(3)
=
\sum _{v \in V(T)} \binom {d^+(v)}{2}
\geq
n \binom {\frac {n-1}{2}}{2} = n(n-1)(n-3)/8=f_3(n).$$ Now assume $h\geq 4$ and $n \ge 2^{h-1}-1$ as otherwise the result is trivial. For each edge $e = \overrightarrow{uv} \in E(T)$ let $N(e) = \{w \in V(T): \overrightarrow{uw}, \overrightarrow{vw} \in E(T)\}$. Clearly $$\label{equation: directed triangle count}
N^*_T(3) = \sum _{e \in E(T)}
|N(e)|.$$ Letting $T[N(e)]$ be the subtournament of $T$ with vertex set $N(e)$, by induction on $h$ $$N^*_T(h) =
\sum _{e\in E(T)}
N^*_{T[N(e)]}({h-2})
\geq
\sum _{e \in E(T)}
f_{h-2}(|N(e)|).$$ It is easy to see that $f_h$ is convex so Jensen’s inequality together with implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equation: transitive subtournaments lower
bound}
N^*_T(h)
\geq
\binom {n}{2}
f_{h-2}{\Bigg (
\frac {N^*_T(3)}{\binom {n}{2}} \Bigg )}
& =
n \cdot \frac{n-1}{2} \cdot f_{h-2}\left(\frac{n-3}{4}\right)
\nonumber \\
& =
n \cdot \frac{n-1}{2} \cdot \prod_{j=0}^{h-3}\left(\frac{n+1}{2^{j+2}}-1\right)
\nonumber \\
& =
\prod_{j=0}^{h-1}\left(\frac{n+1}{2^j}-1\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Where in the second equality we used that $\frac{n-3}{4}\ge \frac{2^{h-1}-1-3}{4}=2^{h-3}-1$.
We now show that $Tr_h$ is globally forcing for $h\geq 4$. To see this, suppose that $N^*_T(h) \leq (2^{-\binom {h}{2}} + o(1)) n^{h}$. From this gives $N^*_T(3) \le (1+o(1)) n^3 / 8$. As $h\geq 4$, the function $x^{h-2}$ is strictly convex and by the application of Jensen in we find $|N(e)| = (1 \pm o(1))\frac{n}{4}$ for almost all $e \in E(T)$. However, by a result of Chung and Graham (see property $P_4$ and Theorem 1 in [@CG]) this property implies that $T$ is quasirandom. Thus $Tr_h$ is globally forcing for $h\geq 4$.
To complete the proof of the proposition, it remains to show that any non-transitive $h$-vertex tournament $H$ with $h\geq 7$ is not globally forcing. To see this, let $V(H) = \{u_1,\ldots ,u_h\}$. For each $n\in {\mathbb N}$ construct an $n$-vertex tournament ${T_1}$ as follows. Let $V(T_1) = V = \{v_1,\ldots , v_n\}$ denote a set of order $n$ and let $V = \cup _{i\in [h]} V_i$ denote a partition with $|V_i| = \lfloor n/h \rfloor $ or $\lceil n/h \rceil $ for all $i\in [h]$. For each edge $\overrightarrow{u_iu_{i'}}$ of $H$, orient all edges from $V_i$ to $V_{i'}$ in $T_1$. Orient the remaining edges of $T_1$ arbitrarily. As each map $\phi : V(H) \to V(T_1)$ with $\phi (u_i) \in V_i$ for all $i\in [h]$ is a labelled embedding, we see that $$\label{equation: T_1 count}
N^*_{T_1}(H) \geq \big (h^{-h} - o(1) \big )n^h.$$ Now, starting from $T_1$, construct a sequence of tournaments $T_1, \ldots , T_{n}$ on vertex set $V(T_1)$, where for $i\geq 1$ each $T_{i+1}$ is obtained from $T_i$ by reorienting all edges to go from $v_i$ to $\{v_{i+1},\ldots , v_{n}\}$. Using that $h^{-h} > 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}$ for $h\geq 7$, by there is $\delta >0$ such that $N^*_{T_1}(H) > (2^{-\binom {h}{2}} + \delta ) n^h$ for large $n$. On the other hand $T_{n} = Tr_n$ and as $H$ is not transitive we have $N^*_{T_{n}}(H) = 0$. Since $N^*_{T_{i}}(H) = N^*_{T_{i+1}}(H) \pm hn^{h-1}$, by an intermediate value property $N^*_{T_{i}}(H) = (2^{-\binom {h}{2}} + o(1))n^h$ for some $i\in [n]$. However, $T_i$ is not quasirandom. Indeed as $\big (2^{-\binom {h}{2}} + o(1) \big )n^h = N^*_{T_{i}}(H) \geq (2^{-\binom {h}{2}} + \delta )n^h - ihn^{h-1}$ we have $i \geq \delta n/2h$. As $|d^+_{T_i}(v_j) - d^-_{T_i}(v_j)| = n-2j+1 \geq n/2$ for all $j\in [\min ( i-1, n/4)]$, this contradicts the quasirandom property $\mathcal{P}_5$ from [@CG] which requires that $$\sum_{v \in V(T_i)}|d^+_{T_i}(v)-d^-_{T_i}(v)|=o(n^2).$$ Thus $T_i$ is not quasirandom and so $H$ cannot be globally forcing.
**Remark:** Note that our argument shows that in order for $H$ to be globally forcing $N^*_T(H)$ must be asymptotically maximised when $T$ is the random tournament. In other words if we can find a sequence of $n$-vertex tournaments $T_n$ such that $N^*_{T_n}(H) \ge (2^{-\binom{h}{2}}+\delta)n^h$ our argument above (switching edges incident to one vertex at a time) shows that $H$ is not globally forcing. In fact it is enough to find a single such $T_m$ for some $m\ge h$ since if we let $T'_n$ be the blow up of $T_m$ with parts of size $\frac{n}{m}$ then $N^*_{T'_n}(H) \ge (2^{-\binom{h}{2}}+\delta)m^h\left(\frac{n}{m}\right)^h=(2^{-\binom{h}{2}}+\delta)n^h$ so $T'_n$ provides us with our sequence.
Local forcing and the counting polynomial {#sec: counting polynomial}
=========================================
To study locally forcing tournaments we introduce the following polynomial.
\[dfn: counting poly\] The *counting polynomial* of an $h$-vertex tournament $H$ is given by $$p_H(x)
:=
{\mathbb E}_{\sigma \sim S_h}
\Big ( x^{|F_{\sigma ,H}|} (1-x)^{|B_{\sigma ,H}|}\Big ) =
\frac {1}{h!} \sum _{\sigma \in S_h} \Big ( x^{|F_{\sigma ,H}|} (1-x)^{|B_{\sigma ,H}|} \Big ).$$
The following lemma collects a number of useful basic facts concerning $p_H(x)$.
\[lemma: properties of counting poly\] Given an $h$-vertex tournament $H$, the following hold:
(i) For $\alpha \in [0,1]$ we have ${\mathbb E}_{T \sim {\cal T}(n,\alpha )} \big (N^*_T(H) \big ) =
(n)_h \times p_H(\alpha )$.
(ii) $p_H(1/2) = 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}$ and $p_H(1) = 0$ if $H$ is not transitive.
(iii) For all $\alpha \in [0,1/2]$ we have $p_H(1/2+\alpha)=p_H(1/2-\alpha)$.
Let $V(H) = \{u_1,\ldots, u_h\}$. A set $\{{i_1},\ldots ,{i_h}\} \subset [n] = V(T)$ with $i_1< i_2 < \ldots < i_h$ forms a $\sigma $-copy of $H$ if $\overrightarrow{{i_j}{i_k}} \in E(T)$ if and only if $\overrightarrow{u_{\sigma (j)}u_{\sigma (k)}} \in E(H)$. For $T \sim {\cal T}(n,\alpha )$, the probability that a fixed $h$-set forms a $\sigma $-copy of $H$ is $\alpha ^{|F_{\sigma ,H}|}(1-\alpha )^{|B_{\sigma ,H}|}$. Letting $N^*_{T}(H,\sigma )$ denote the number of $\sigma $-copies of $H$ in $T$ gives $${\mathbb E}_{T \sim {\cal T}(n,\alpha )} (N^*_T(H,\sigma ) \big )
=
\binom n h \alpha ^{|F_{\sigma ,H}|}(1-\alpha )^{|B_{\sigma ,H}|}.$$ As $N^*_T(H) = \sum _{\sigma \in S_h} N^*_T(H,\sigma )$ we have $${\mathbb E}_{T \sim {\cal T}(n,\alpha )}
\big ( N^*_T(H) \big )
=
\sum _{\sigma \in S_h}
{\mathbb E}_{T \sim {\cal T}(n,\alpha )} \big ( N^*_{T}(H,\sigma ) \big )
=
(n)_h \times p_H(\alpha ).$$ This gives *(i)*.
To see *(ii)*, note that $p_H(1/2) = 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}$ from the definition of $p_H(x)$ since $|F_{\sigma ,H}| + |B_{\sigma ,H}| = \binom h 2$ for every $\sigma \in S_h$. Also note that if $T$ is non-transitive then $B_{\sigma, H}>0$ for all $\sigma$. So, each term of $p_H(x)$ is zero for $x=1$ implying $p_H(1) = 0$.
Lastly, we show *(iii)*. For each $\sigma \in S_h$ let $\overline {\sigma }$ denote the ‘reversal of $\sigma $’, given by $\overline {\sigma } (i) = {\sigma }(h+1-i)$ for all $i\in [h]$. As this gives a bijection from $S_h$ to itself and $F_{\sigma ,H}=B_{\overline{\sigma} ,H}$, for all $\sigma \in S_h$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
p_H(x) & = \frac {1}{2h!} \sum _{\sigma \in S_h} \Big ( x^{|F_{\sigma ,H}|} (1-x)^{|B_{\sigma ,H}|}+x^{|F_{\overline{\sigma} ,H}|} (1-x)^{|B_{\overline{\sigma} ,H}|} \Big )\\
& = \frac {1}{2h!} \sum _{\sigma \in S_h} \Big ( x^{|F_{\sigma ,H}|} (1-x)^{|B_{\sigma ,H}|}+x^{|B_{\sigma ,H}|} (1-x)^{|F_{\sigma ,H}|} \Big )
\end{aligned}$$ As $x^a(1-x)^b+x^b(1-x)^a$ is symmetric around $1/2$ for any $a,b\in[0,1/2]$ so is $p_H(x)$.
We are now ready to give the formal definition of [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} which plays a central role in our arguments.
A tournament $H$ is said to be *[$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{}* if $p_H(x) \neq 2^{-\binom{h}{2}}$ for $x \in [0,1] \setminus \{\frac {1}{2}\}$.
Note that if $H$ is not locally forcing then there is a tournament $T$ which is not quasirandom but has the same local counts of $H$ as the random tournament $\mathcal{T}(n,1/2).$ We will see that not being [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} implies that there exists an $\alpha \neq 1/2$ such that $\mathcal{T}(n,\alpha)$ has the same local counts of $H$ as the random tournament $\mathcal{T}(n,1/2)$. Indeed, in the next theorem we prove that any locally forcing tournament must be [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{}, which will allow us to pass any restrictions imposed on the tournament by being [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} to locally forcing tournaments and in particular prove Theorem \[thm: locally-forcing\].
\[thm: locally-forcing-is-simple\] Every locally forcing tournament is [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{}.
Suppose that $H$ is not [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{}. Then by definition ${p_H}(\alpha ) = 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}$ for some $\alpha \in [0,1] \setminus \{1/2\}$. As $p_H(x)$ is symmetric about $1/2$ by Lemma \[lemma: properties of counting poly\] *(iii)* we can assume $\alpha > 1/2$. Now select $T \sim {\cal T}(n,\alpha )$. For a set $U \subset V(T)$ let $X_U$ denote the random variable $X_U(T) = N^*_{T}(H;U)$. Noting that for $T \sim {\cal T}(n,\alpha )$ we have $T[U] \sim {\cal T}(|U|,\alpha )$, by Lemma \[lemma: properties of counting poly\] *(i)* we have $${\mathbb E}_{T \sim {\cal T}(n,\alpha )}(X_U) = (|U|)_h \times p_H(\alpha ) = (|U|)_h \times 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}.$$ Since each edge belongs to at most $\binom{h}{2}n^{h-2}$ copies of $H$, $X_U$ is sharply concentrated by Azuma’s inequality (see Chapter 7 [@AS]) $$\mathbb{P}(|X_U-\mathbb{E}(X_U)|>
\varepsilon n^h) \le 2e^{\frac{-\varepsilon^2n^{2h}}{2\binom{n}{2}\left(\binom{h}{2}n^{h-2}\right)^2}}=e^{-\Omega(n^2)}.$$ In particular, by a union bound with probability $1-o(1)$ we have $X_U = 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}|U|^h + o(n^h)$ for every $U \subset V(T)$.
On the other hand the number of forward edges of $T$ is distributed as $\operatorname{Bin}(\binom{n}{2},\alpha)$ so by standard Chernoff type estimates $T$ has $\alpha \binom {n}{2} \pm o(n^2)$ forward edges with probability $1 - o(1)$ (see Appendix A of [@AS]). Combined with the previous paragraph, we have shown that there is an $n$-vertex tournament $T$ which satisfies ${\cal P}^*_2(H)$ but not ${\cal P}_1$. Thus $H$ cannot be locally forcing.
For the rest of this section it will be more convenient to work with a rescaled and recentered counting polynomial $q_H(x) := 2^{\binom {h}{2}} \times p_H\big ( \frac{1+x}{2} \big )$. We now show several restrictions that the [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} condition imposes on a tournament. The first one is that a [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} tournament should be almost regular.
\[lem: restrict-simple-degree\] If $H$ is a non-transitive $h$-vertex [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} tournament then $$\label{equation: degree control}
\sum _{u \in V(H)} {\big (d^+_H(u) - d^-_H(u) \big )^2}
\leq
h(h-1).$$
We start by determining the coefficient of $x^2$ in ${q_H}$. We claim it is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:x2-coefficient}
\frac {1}{6} \times \Big ( \sum _{u \in V(H)}
{\big (d^+_H(u) - d^-_H(u) \big )^2} - {h(h-1)} \Big ).\end{aligned}$$
Given $e \in E(H)$ let $I_e$ denote the function $I_e: S_h \to \{-1,1\}$ with $I_e(\sigma ) = 1$ if $e \in F_{\sigma ,H}$ and $I_e(\sigma ) = -1$ if $e \in
B_{\sigma ,H}$. Then we have $$\label{equation: diff_expression_p_H}
{q_H}(x)
=
{\mathbb E} _{\sigma \sim S_h} \Big ( (1+x)^{|F_{\sigma ,H}|} (1-x)^{|B_{\sigma, H }|}
\Big )
=
{\mathbb E} _{\sigma \sim S_h} \Big ( \prod _{e \in E(H)}(1+I_e(\sigma ) x)
\Big ).$$ This implies that the coefficient of $x^2$ in ${q_H}(x)$ is $$\label{equation: x^2-expression}
\sum _{\{e,e'\} \in \binom {E(H)}{2}} \Big ( {\mathbb E}_{\sigma \sim S_h}
I_e(\sigma )I_{e'}(\sigma ) \Big ).$$ The contribution of each pair $\{e,e'\} \in \binom {E(H)}{2}$ to this sum is determined by how these edges meet. If $e \cap e' = \emptyset $ then the contribution to the sum is $0$. If $e$ and $e'$ are both out-edges of a single vertex, say $e = \overrightarrow{u_1u_2}$ and $e' = \overrightarrow {u_1 u_3}$, the contribution to the sum is $1/3$. This is also true if $e$ and $e'$ are both in-edges of a single vertex. Lastly, if $e$ is an out-edge of a vertex $v$ and $e'$ is an in-edge then the contribution to the sum is $-1/3$. By counting the non-zero contributions of pairs $\{e,e'\}$ according to the vertex of $V(H)$ which intersect in, by the coefficient of $x^2$ in ${q_H}(x)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum _{u \in V(H)} \Big ( \frac{1}{3} \binom {d^+_H(u)}{2}
+ \frac {1}{3}\binom {d^-_H(u)}{2}
-\frac {1}{3} {d^+_H(u)}{d^-_H(u)} \Big )
& =
\sum _{u \in V(H)} \frac {(d^+_H(u) - d^-_H(u))^2}{6}
- \frac {h(h-1)}{6}.
\end{aligned}$$ as claimed.
Finally, if fails, ${q_H}(\varepsilon ) = 1 + a \varepsilon ^2 + O(\varepsilon ^4)$ with $a > 0$, where we used Lemma \[lemma: properties of counting poly\] *(ii)* to get ${q_H}(0)=1$ and *(iii)* to get that ${q_H}$ is even. This implies that ${q_H}(\varepsilon ) > 1$ for sufficiently small $\varepsilon >0$. As $H$ is not transitive, Lemma \[lemma: properties of counting poly\] *(ii)* gives ${q_H}(1) = 0$, and so by the intermediate value theorem ${q_H}(\varepsilon ) = 1$ for some $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$. But this gives $p_H\big ( \frac {1+\varepsilon }{2} \big ) = 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}$ and so $H$ is not [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{}.
The following lemma shows that, in addition to being almost regular, any [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} $H$ must be strongly quasirandom.
\[lem:simple-is-quasirandom1\] If $H$ is a non-transitive $h$-vertex [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} tournament then for every ordering $\sigma$ of $H$ $$|F_{\sigma, H}|=\frac{1}{2}\binom{h}{2} \pm h^{3/2}\sqrt{\log h}.$$
Assume that there is an ordering $\sigma$ such that $f=|F_{\sigma, H}|\ge h^2/4+h^{3/2}\sqrt{\log h}$. If we let $b=|B_{\sigma,H}|$ since $f+b=\binom{h}{2}$ we get $b \le h^2/4- h^{3/2}\sqrt{\log h}$ and $f-b \ge 2h^{3/2}\sqrt{\log h}.$
We will show that a single term of $q_H(x)$, $(1+x)^f(1-x)^b>h!$ if we choose $x=\frac34 h^{-1/2}\sqrt{\log h}$. This shows that $q_H(x)>1$ and we can complete the argument as in the previous lemma. To show the above inequality note that $$\begin{aligned}
(1+x)^f(1-x)^b & > e^{(x-x^2)f+(-x-x^2)b}\\
& > e^{x(f-b)-x^2h^2/2}\\
& > e^{h \log h} =h^h >h!
\end{aligned}$$ where in the first inequality we used $1+t>e^{t-t^2}$ for $|t| \le 1/\sqrt{3}$.
By a result of Spencer [@spencer1] it is known that for any tournament $H$ there is an ordering of its vertices $\sigma$ for which $|F_{\sigma, H}| = \frac{1}{2}\binom{h}{2} + \Omega(h^{3/2}).$ So the above result is best possible up to the $\sqrt{\log h}$ factor. Fernandez de la Vega [@vega] showed that for the random tournament $H \sim \mathcal{T}(h,1/2)$ w.h.p. there is no ordering with $|F_{\sigma, H}|>\frac{1}{2}\binom{h}{2} + 2h^{3/2}.$ So it seems quite likely that the $\sqrt{\log h}$ term in the above lemma is not necessary. In fact for a different definition of quasirandomness we do obtain a result which is best possible up to a constant factor.
\[lem:simple-is-quasirandom2\] If $H$ is a non-transitive $h$-vertex [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} tournament then for any disjoint subsets $U,W \subseteq V(T)$ we must have $|e(U,W)|\le \frac{1}{2}|U||W| + 2h^{3/2}$.
Assume towards a contradiction that there are disjoint sets $U,W\subseteq V(T)$ for which $|e(U,W)| > \frac{1}{2}|U||W| + 2h^{3/2}$. Using these sets we will find many orderings $\sigma$ such that $|F_{\sigma, H}|\ge h^2/4+2h^{3/2}$. Let $S= V(H) \setminus (U \cup W).$ We will always place all vertices of $U$ before all vertices of $W$ in the orderings $\sigma$. Also if $e(S,U \cup W) \ge e(U \cup W, S)$ we place all the vertices of $S$ before all vertices of $U \cup W$ and behind otherwise. Within the sets $U,W,S$ we take the orderings which have more forward edges than backward edges. Note that for any subset of $T$ exactly one out of each of its orderings and its reverse has at least half of the edges going forwards. Therefore, we get at least $\frac{|U|!}{2}\cdot \frac{|W|!}{2}\cdot \frac{|S|!}{2}= \frac{h!}{8\binom{h}{|U|,|W|,|S|}}> h!/(8 \cdot 3^h)$ such orderings (where we used the trinomial expansion). Note that each such ordering $\sigma$ of $H$ has $|F_{\sigma, H}|\ge \frac12 \binom{h}{2}+2h^{3/2}$ since inside each set and between each pair of sets there are at least half of them going forwards and there is a gain of at least $2h^{3/2}$ between $U$ and $W$.
Assume now $\sigma$ is an ordering of $H$ with $f=|F_{\sigma, H}|\ge h^2/4+2h^{3/2}$. If we let $b=|B_{\sigma,H}|$ similarly as in the previous lemma we obtain that if we choose $x=h^{-1/2}$ then $$\begin{aligned}
(1+x)^f(1-x)^b & > e^{(x-x^2)f+(-x-x^2)b}\\
& > e^{x(f-b)-x^2h^2/2}\\
& > e^{7h/2} >8 \cdot 3^h.
\end{aligned}$$
From the previous two paragraphs we get $q_H(x) >1$ and complete the proof as in Lemma \[lem: restrict-simple-degree\].
Spencer showed in [@spencer1] that for some constant $c>0$ in any tournament there are disjoint sets of vertices $U,W$ such that $e(U,W) \ge \frac{1}{2}|U||W|+cn^{3/2}.$ So the above lemma is best possible up to the constant factor.
Combining Theorem \[thm: locally-forcing-is-simple\] with Lemmas \[lem: restrict-simple-degree\], \[lem:simple-is-quasirandom1\] and \[lem:simple-is-quasirandom2\] proves Theorem \[thm: locally-forcing\].
Lemmas \[lem:simple-is-quasirandom1\] and \[lem:simple-is-quasirandom2\] show that in order for $H$ to be [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} it needs to be quasirandom in 2 different ways introduced by Chung and Graham in [@CG]. But it shows even more, namely that the error term should not only be qualitatively small (as in the definition of quasirandom properties in the introduction) but should in fact be close to their extremal value.
Since the previous two lemmas require $H$ to be quasirandom and are both satisfied for the random tournament $ \mathcal{T}(h,1/2)$ w.h.p. a natural guess would be that it should be [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} w.h.p.. This turns out to be false, due to Lemma \[lem: restrict-simple-degree\].
Let $H \sim \mathcal{T}(h,1/2).$ We show that with positive probability $\sum _{v \in V(H)}(d^+_H(v) - d^-_H(v)\big )^2 > h(h-1)$ which will show the result by Lemma \[lem: restrict-simple-degree\] through Theorem \[thm: locally-forcing-is-simple\].
Let us set $V(H)=[h]$ and define $I_{ij}=1$ if $ij \in E(H)$ and $I_{ij}=-1$ if $ji \in E(H)$, so $\mathbb{P}(I_{ij}=1)=\mathbb{P}(I_{ij}=-1)=1/2$. Note that $I_{ij}=-I_{ji}$ and that otherwise indicators $I_{ij}$ are mutually independent. We have $$\sum _{i \in [h]}(d^+_H(i) - d^-_H(i)\big )^2 = \sum_{i \in [i]} \left(\sum_{j \in [h], j\neq i}I_{ij} \right)^2=h(h-1)+ 2\sum_{i,j,k \in [h], j \neq k} I_{ij}I_{ik}.$$
Let $X=\sum_{i,j,k \in [h], j \neq k} I_{ij}I_{ik}$. Note that $\mathbb{E}(X)=\sum_{i,j,k \in [h], j \neq k} \mathbb{E}(I_{ij})\mathbb{E}(I_{ik})=0$ since each $I_{ij}$ is independent of $I_{ik}$ when $j\neq k$ and $\mathbb{E}(I_{ij})=0$. Our goal is to show $\mathbb{P}(X>0)>c$ for some $c>0$ independent of $h$. To do this we need to determine some higher moments of $X$. Note first that
$$\mathbb{E}(X^2)=\sum_{i,j,k \in [h], j \neq k}\quad \sum_{i',j',k' \in [h], j' \neq k'} \mathbb{E}(I_{ij}I_{ik}I_{i'j'}I_{i'k'})=h \binom{h-1}{2}$$
where we used the fact that unless $i=i',j=j',k=k'$ at least one of the sets $\{i,j\},\{i,k\},\{i',j'\},$ $\{i',k'\}$ is distinct from the others, so its indicator is independent of the others and its contribution vanishes.
It is not hard to estimate $\mathbb{E}X^4$ directly but it requires some case analysis. Instead note that if we replace every occurrence of $I_{ji}$ with $i<j$ with $-I_{ij}$ we get a degree $2$ polynomial whose variables are independent indicators. Thus, by a special case of Bonami-Beckner’s hypercontractive inequality (see [@odonnell] for a simple proof) we have that $\mathbb{E}(X^4)\le (9\mathbb{E}(X^2))^2=81[\mathbb{E}(X^2)]^2$.
Now a simple lemma (see [@AGK]) says that if a random variable $Y$ has expectation $0$, $\mathbb{E}Y^2>0$ and $\mathbb{E}Y^4/(\mathbb{E}Y^2)^2 \le b$ then $\mathbb{P}(Y>0)>1/(2^{4/3}b)$. So in our case $b=81$ and $\mathbb{P}(X>0) \ge 1/205$.
Finding T cliq-forcing tournaments {#sec: simple tournaments}
==================================
In the previous section we saw that in order for a tournament to be [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} it needs to be strongly quasirandom. We have also seen that the random tournament is not regular enough to be [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} w.h.p. It is natural to try to avoid this obstruction by trying next the random regular tournaments. However, the probability space of random regular tournaments is not at all easy to work with so instead we consider a modification of a different probability space on regular tournaments first introduced by Adler, Alon and Ross in [@AAR] to study the maximum number of Hamilton paths in tournaments. Using it we show that there are many [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} $h$-vertex tournaments for any large enough $h$.
To describe the construction, suppose that triangles $\Delta _1,\ldots , \Delta _L$ and edges $e_1,\ldots, e_F$ form a partition $\mathcal{P}$ of the edge set of the complete graph $K_h$. We now generate a random tournament on the vertex set $[h]$ as follows. Orient the edges of each $\Delta _i$ as a cyclic triangle, each orientation appearing with probability $1/2$ and then orient each $e_j$ uniformly at random as well, so that all the triangles and edges are oriented independently. Write ${\cal D}_{\cal P}$ for the resulting distribution on the set of $h$-vertex tournaments.
\[lem: exists-regular-simple-tournaments\] There exists $c>0$ such that for $h \geq h_0$ and $F \le ch^2$, the random tournament $H \sim {\cal D}_{\cal P}$ is [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} w.h.p..
Note that $3L+F=\binom{h}{2}$ so by taking $c$ small enough we may assume $L \ge 10F$, implying $h^2/8 \le L\le h^2/6$.
To prove the lemma, we again work with $q_H(x)$, showing that with positive probability $q_H(x) \neq 1$ for all $x \in [-1,1]\setminus \{0\}$. Note that in any ordering $\sigma$ of the vertices of $H$, the triangle corresponding to $\Delta _i$ either has two forward edges or two backward edges. Let $J_{i, \sigma }(H) = +1$ if the first case and $J_{i,\sigma }(H) = -1$ in the second case. Similarly let $J_{L+j,\sigma}(H)=\pm 1$ depending on whether edge $e_j$ is forwards or backwards. We have $$\begin{aligned}
q_H(x)
& =
{\mathbb E}_{\sigma \sim S_h}\Big (
(1+ x )^{|F_{\sigma ,H}|}
(1- x )^{|B_{\sigma ,H}|} \Big )\\
& =
{\mathbb E}_{\sigma \sim S_h}\Big (
\prod _{i\in [L]} (1+ x )(1-x)
(1+ J_{i,\sigma }(H)x ) \prod _{i\in [L+1,L+F]} (1+ J_{i,\sigma }(H)x )\Big )\\
& =
(1-x^2)^L \times
{\mathbb E}_{\sigma \sim S_h}\Big (
\prod _{i\in [L+F]} (1+ J_{i,\sigma }(H)x ) \Big )\\
& =
(1-x^2)^{L} \times s_H(x).
\end{aligned}$$ As ${q_H}(x)$ is an even polynomial, so is the (random) polynomial $s_H(x)$. Let $s_H(x)
= \sum _{\ell\in [(L+F)/2]} c_{2\ell} x^{2\ell}$, where $\{c_{2\ell}\}_{\ell\in [(L+F)/2]}$ are random variables depending on $H$.
To complete the lemma it will suffice to prove that with high probability $c_{2\ell} \leq \binom {L}{\ell}$ for all $\ell\in [(L+F)/2]$. Indeed, then $${s_H}(x) = \sum _{\ell\in [(L+F)/2]} c_{2\ell} x^{2\ell}
\leq
\sum _{\ell\in [(L+F)/2]} \binom {L}{\ell} x^{2\ell}
\le
\sum _{\ell\in [L]} \binom {L}{\ell} x^{2\ell}
=
(1 + x^2)^L,$$ which gives ${q_H}(x) =
(1-x^2)^L \times s_H(x) \leq
(1-x^2)^L \times (1+x^2)^L =
(1-x^4)^L < 1$ for $x \in [-1,1]\setminus \{0\}$, i.e. $H$ is [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{}. To obtain the required bound on $c_{2\ell}$, note that $$c_{2\ell}
=
\sum _{A \in \binom {[L+F]}{2\ell}}
{\mathbb E} _{\sigma \sim S_h}
\Big ( \prod _{i\in A}
J_{i,\sigma }(H) \Big ).$$ Notice that for any $A \in \binom {[L+F]}{2\ell}$ if there is $i\in A$ such that the triangle or edge corresponding to $i$ is vertex disjoint from all other objects indexed by $A$ then ${\mathbb E} _{\sigma \sim S_h} \Big ( \prod_{i\in A} J_{i,\sigma }(H) \Big )=0$. Indeed, in this case we can cancel the contribution of a permutation $\sigma $ to the expectation with the permutation $\widetilde \sigma $ obtained from $\sigma $ by reversing the orientation of $\Delta _i$ or $e_{i-L}$. Let $\mathcal{A}\subseteq \binom {[L+F]}{2\ell}$ denote the sets not of this form, i.e. if $A \in {\cal A}$ then every object indexed by $A$ shares a vertex with another object indexed by $A$. We have shown that $$\label{eqn: c_2l bound}
c_{2\ell}
=
\sum _{A \in \mathcal{A}}
{\mathbb E} _{\sigma \sim S_h}
\Big ( \prod _{i\in A}
J_{i,\sigma }(H) \Big ).$$ Note further that any $A \in \mathcal{A}$ must have a subset $A' \subset A$ with $|A'| = \ell$ such that object indexed by $A$ intersects an object intersects a vertex of an object indexed by $A'$. We can choose these $A'$ in $\binom{L+F}{\ell}$ many ways and they span at most $3\ell$ vertices. This leaves us with at most $3\ell h$ options for each of the remaining objects. In particular, we have shown that $$\label{eqn: bound on A}
|\mathcal{A}| \le \binom{L+F}{\ell}\cdot \binom{3\ell h}{\ell}.$$ Turning back to upper bounding $c_{2\ell}$ note that gives us $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn: sq of coefficient}
{\mathbb E}_{H \sim {\cal D}_\mathcal{P}} \big ( c_{2\ell} \big )^2
& =
{\mathbb E} _{\sigma , \sigma ' \sim S_h}
{\mathbb E}_{H \sim {\cal D}_\mathcal{P}} \Big (
{\sum} _{A,B\in \mathcal{A}}
\prod _{i\in A} J_{i,\sigma }(H)
\prod _{j\in B} J_{j,\sigma '}(H) \Big ).
\end{aligned}$$ The contribution given here by all pairs $(A,A)$ in the inner sum is at most $|\mathcal{A}|$. The contribution given by the other pairs vanishes since if there is an $i \in A \setminus B$ then $J_{i,\sigma}(H)$ is independent from all $J_{i',\sigma }(H)$ for $i' \in A \setminus\{i\}$ and all $J_{j,\sigma '}(H)$ for $j \in B$ so $${\mathbb E}_{\sigma ,\sigma ' \in S_h} \big (\prod _{i\in A} J_{i,\sigma }(H)
\prod _{j\in B} J_{j,\sigma '}(H)\big ) = {\mathbb E}_{\sigma \in S_h}(J_{i,\sigma}) \cdot {\mathbb E_{\sigma, \sigma '\in S_h}} \left (\prod _{i'\in A \setminus\{i\}} J_{i',\sigma }(H)
\prod _{j\in B} J_{j,\sigma '}(H)\right )=0,$$ since ${\mathbb E}_{\sigma \in S_h}(J_{i,\sigma})=0$. Thus ${\mathbb E}_{\sigma \in S_h}(c_{2\ell})^2 \le |\mathcal{A}|$ by . By Markov’s inequality the probability that $c_{2\ell} > \binom {L}{\ell}$ is at most $|\mathcal{A}|/\binom {L}{\ell}^2$. For $\ell \ge 2 \log L$ we get $$\label{eqn: estimate large l}
|\mathcal{A}|/\binom {L}{\ell}^2 <\binom {L+F}{2\ell}/\binom {L}{\ell}^2 <\prod_{i=0}^{\ell-1}\left(\frac{L+F-2i}{L-i}\right)^2\binom {2\ell}{\ell}^{-1}\le \left(\frac{L+F}{L}\right)^{2\ell}/\binom {2\ell}{\ell}\le 2^{-\ell}\le \frac{1}{L^2}$$ where we used $L \ge F$ and in the second to last equality we took $c$ small enough and $\ell \geq \ell _0$ since $h \geq h_0$.
When $\ell < 2 \log L$ using $$|\mathcal{A}|/\binom {L}{\ell}^2 \le \binom{L+F}{\ell}\cdot \binom{3\ell h}{\ell}/\binom {L}{\ell}^2 \le \left(\frac{3\ell h(L+F)}{(L-\ell)^2}\right)^\ell\le \frac{16\log L}{\sqrt{L}}.$$ Here we used $L \ge 10F$ and $h^2/8 \le L \le h^2/6$ and assumed $h$ is large enough for $\frac{16\log L}{\sqrt{L}} \le 1$. Summing over all $\ell$ we have shown that $c_{2\ell} \leq \binom {L}{\ell}$ for all $\ell \in [L]$ with probability at least $1-2\log L \cdot \frac{16\log L}{\sqrt{L}} +\frac{L-2\log L}{L^2}= 1 - o(1)$.
**Remark:** It is well-known (see [@Kirkman]) that for any $h \in {\mathbb N}$ with $h \equiv 1$ or $3 \mod 6$ the complete graph $K_h$ on vertex set $[h]$ admits a Steiner triple decomposition. That is, there is a partition $\mathcal{P}$ of $K_h$ as above for which $F=0$. Note that in this case $\mathcal{D}_\mathcal{P}$ is always a regular tournament. So there is an infinite family of [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} regular tournaments.
T bip-forcing tournaments {#sec: reg simple tourns are forcing}
=========================
In the previous section we have shown that there are many [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} tournaments. Our original goal however was to study locally forcing tournaments and Theorem \[thm: locally-forcing-is-simple\] only says that locally forcing tournaments are necessarily [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{}. While we believe this to be a sufficient condition, our argument requires a weak additional assumption, which we will call [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}. We show that being [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{} and [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} is equivalent to being locally forcing, which allows us to show that many [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} tournaments found in the previous section are in fact locally forcing. We now give the formal definition of [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}.
We define the $a$-th order degree counting polynomial of an $h$-vertex tournament by: $$p_{H,a}(x):=\binom{h}{a}^{-1}2^{-\binom{a}{2}-\binom{h-a}{2}}\sum_{A \in \binom{V(H)}{a}} x^{e(A,V \setminus A)}(1-x)^{e(V \setminus A,A)}.$$
An $h$-vertex tournament is *[$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}* if there is no $\alpha \in (1/2,1]$ such that $p_{H,a}(\alpha)=2^{-\binom{h}{2}}$ for all $1 \le a \le h-1$ simultaneously.
We have seen that if $H$ fails to be [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} then there is an $\alpha \neq 1/2$ such that $\mathcal{T}(n, \alpha )$ has the same local count of $H$ as the random tournament $\mathcal{T}(n,1/2)$. In the following lemma we will see that $H$ not being [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{} means that there is an $\alpha \neq 1/2$ such that $\mathcal{T}(n,n,\alpha)$ does have the same count of $H$ as $\mathcal{T}(n,n,1/2)=\mathcal{T}(2n,1/2)$. In fact $H$ not being [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{} is a seemingly much stronger restriction on $H$ in the sense that it means that there is an $\alpha>1/2$ such that for *all* $1\le a \le h-1,$ $\mathcal{T}(n,n,\alpha )$ has the correct count of $H$ with $a$ vertices embedded to the left and $h-a$ to the right side for all $a$ simultaneously.
\[lem: locally-forcing-is-extremely-simple\] Every locally forcing tournament is [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}.
Suppose towards a contradiction that there is an $\alpha \in ( 1/2,1] $ such that $p_{H,a}(\alpha)=2^{-\binom{h}{2}}$ for all $1 \le a \le h-1$. Now select $T \sim {\cal T}(n,n,\alpha )$ with bipartition $(L,R)$. For a set $U \subset L, W \subset R$ let $X_{U,W}$ denote the random variable $X_{U,W}(T) = N^*_{T}(H;U \cup W)$. Probability that a fixed subset of size $a$ of $U$ and a fixed subset of size $h-a$ of $W$ span an embedding of $H$ with $A \subset V(H)$ being embedded to the left is $2^{-\binom{a}{2}-\binom{h-a}{2}}\alpha^{e(A,V \setminus A)}(1-\alpha)^{e(A,v \setminus A)}$. Summing over all possibilities we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb E}_{T \sim {\cal T}(n,n,\alpha )}(X_{U,W}) & = \sum_{a=0}^h (|U|)_a (|W|)_{h-a} \times \sum_{A \in \binom{V(H)}{a}}2^{-\binom{a}{2}-\binom{h-a}{2}}\alpha^{e(A,V \setminus A)}(1-\alpha)^{e(A,v \setminus A)}\\
& = (|W|)_h\binom{h}{a}2^{-\binom {h}{2}}+ \sum_{a=1}^{h-1} (|U|)_a (|W|)_{h-a} \times \binom{h}{a}p_{H,a}(\alpha)+ (|U|)_{h}\binom{h}{a}2^{-\binom {h}{2}}\\
& = \sum_{a=0}^h \binom{h}{a}(|U|)_a (|W|)_{h-a}\times 2^{-\binom {h}{2}} \\
& = (|U|+|W|)_h \times 2^{-\binom {h}{2}},
\end{aligned}$$ Where in the last equality we used the identity $\sum_{a=0}^h \binom{b}{a}\binom{c}{h-a}=\binom{b+c}{h}$ holding for any $b,c$.
The rest of the proof proceeds in the same way as the proof of Theorem \[thm: locally-forcing-is-simple\] except that the number of forwards edges of $T(n,n,\alpha)$ is $(1/4+\alpha/2)\binom {2n}{2}\pm o(n^2)$ with probability $1 - o(1).$
This lemma together with Theorem \[thm: locally-forcing-is-simple\] shows the ‘only if’ part of Theorem \[thm:-simple and esimple iff locally forcing\]. We postpone the proof of the ‘if’ part to the next section, showing first that there are many tournaments which are [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}, in addition to being [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{}.
As already mentioned, we believe being [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{} is a very weak additional condition which might be already implied by being [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{}. It is even possible that all tournaments are [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}. We now give certain simple conditions that make a tournament [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}. We say that an $h$-vertex tournament $H$ is *nearly regular* if $|d^+_H(v)-d^-_H(v)|< \sqrt{h}/2$ for all $v \in V(H)$.
\[lem: nearly regular is esimple\] Any nearly regular tournament is [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}.
We are going to show that $p_{H,1}(x)+p_{H,h-1}(x)<2\cdot 2^{-\binom{h}{2}}$ for all $x \in ( 1/2, 1]$. It will be easier to work with the following polynomials $$q_{H,a}(x)=2^{\binom{h}{2}}\cdot p_{H,a}\left (\frac{1+x}{2}\right)=\binom{h}{a}^{-1} \sum_{A \in \binom{V(H)}{a}}(1+x)^{e(A,V \setminus A)}(1-x)^{e(V \setminus A,A)}.$$ So that $$\begin{aligned}
q_{H,1}(x)+q_{H,h-1}(x) & = \frac{1}{h}\sum_{v \in V(H)}(1+x)^{d^+(v)}(1-x)^{d^-(v)}+(1+x)^{d^-(v)}(1-x)^{d^+(v)}\\
& = \frac{1}{h}\sum_{v \in V(H)}(1-x^2)^{\min(d^+(v),d^-(v))}\left((1+x)^{|d^+(v)-d^-(v)|}+(1-x)^{|d^-(v)-d^+(v)|}\right) \\
& \le (1-x^2)^{h/6}\left((1+x)^{{
\left \lfloor \sqrt{h}/2 \right \rfloor
}}+(1-x)^{{
\left \lfloor \sqrt{h}/2 \right \rfloor
}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Where we used that $\min(d^+(v),d^-(v)) \ge (h-1)/2-\sqrt{h}/2\ge h/6$, when $h\ge 5$ and that if $h < 5$ near regularity implies regularity so $(h-1)/2\ge h/6$. Note that since $\binom{\sqrt{h}/2}{2\ell} \le \frac{(\sqrt{h}/2)^{2\ell}}{(2\ell)!}\le \left(\frac{h}{6\ell}\right)^\ell\le \binom{h/6}{\ell}$ $$(1+x)^{{
\left \lfloor \sqrt{h}/2 \right \rfloor
}}+(1-x)^{{
\left \lfloor \sqrt{h}/2 \right \rfloor
}}\le 2\sum_{\ell=0}^{\sqrt{h}/4} \binom{\sqrt{h}/2}{2\ell}x^{2\ell }\le 2\sum_{\ell=0}^{\sqrt{h}/4} \binom{h/6}{\ell}x^{2\ell }\le 2(1+x^2)^{h/6}.$$ Combining the above two inequalities we obtain $q_{H,1}(x)+q_{H,h-1}(x)\le 2(1-x^4)^{h/6} < 2$ as desired.
Note that we know by Lemma \[lem: restrict-simple-degree\] that any [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} tournament must be almost regular but the restriction of the above lemma is slightly stronger. On the other hand our argument only uses a much weaker property than the one given to us by the definition of being [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}.
**Remark:** It is not hard to adapt our proof of Lemma \[lem: exists-regular-simple-tournaments\] to show that the random tournament $\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{P}}$ is [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{} provided $\mathcal{P}$ consists of at most $ch^2$ edges (and the remaining objects are triangles) for sufficiently small $c$. So in some sense all our examples from the previous section are in fact locally forcing.
To conclude the section we deduce Theorem \[thm: exist-locally-forcing\], assuming the ‘if’ statement from Theorem \[thm:-simple and esimple iff locally forcing\] (which will be proven in the next section).
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a partition of $K_h$ consisting of triangles and edges with every vertex incident to less than $\sqrt{h}/2$ of the edges in $\mathcal{P}$. It is easy to see that such a partition exists for any large enough $h$ (for example by a result of Gustavsson [@gustavsson]).
By Lemma \[lem: exists-regular-simple-tournaments\] $H \sim \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{P}}$ is [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} w.h.p.. Furthermore, any $H \sim \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{P}}$ is nearly regular and so by Lemma \[lem: nearly regular is esimple\] it is [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}. Putting these together, Theorem \[thm:-simple and esimple iff locally forcing\] shows that the tournament $H \sim \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{P}}$ is w.h.p. locally forcing.
Proving local forcing {#sec: proof of simple and esimple implies local forcing}
=====================
Before proceeding to the proof of the ‘if’ statement of Theorem \[thm:-simple and esimple iff locally forcing\] in subsection \[subsec: simple reg\], we first recall some results on regularity lemmas for directed graphs in the next subsection.
Regularity and counting lemmas for directed graphs
--------------------------------------------------
A directed graph $D = (V,E)$ consists of a set $V$ of vertices and a set of edges $E \subset V \times V$. Clearly any tournament is also a directed graph. Given disjoint sets $A,B \subset V$ we write $E(A,B)$ to denote the collection of edges $(a,b)\in E \cap (A \times B)$ and $e(A,B) = |E(A,B)|$. We will write $d(A,B)$ to denote the *density* of the pair $(A,B)$, given by $$d(A,B) = \frac {|E(A,B)|}{|A||B|}.$$ Note that if $T$ is a tournament then $d(A,B) = 1 - d(B,A)$. Given disjoint sets $X,Y \subset V$ we say that $(X,Y)$ is an $\varepsilon $-regular pair if all $X' \subset X$ and $Y' \subset Y$ with $|X'| \geq \varepsilon |X|$ and $|Y'| \geq \varepsilon |Y|$ satisfy $$|d(X',Y') - d(X,Y)| \leq \varepsilon \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
|d(Y',X') - d(Y,X)| \leq \varepsilon.$$ A partition of $V = \{V_0,V_1,\ldots ,V_K\}$ is said to be an $\varepsilon $-regular partition of $D$ if:
(i) $|V_0| \leq \varepsilon |V|$,
(ii) $|V_1| = \cdots = |V_K|$,
(iii) all but at most $\varepsilon \binom {K}{2}$ of the pairs $(V_i,V_j)$ with $1\leq i < j \leq K$ are $\varepsilon $-regular.
The set $V_0$ is called the exceptional set and the sets $V_1,\ldots ,V_K$ are clusters. This partition is said to refine a partition $V = U_1\cup \cdots \cup U_L$ if for all $k\in [K]$ we have $V_k \subset U_l$ for some $l\in [L]$.
The directed regularity lemma of Alon and Shapira from [@ASh], which extends Szemerédi’s graph regularity lemma [@Sz], states the following:
\[thm: digraph regularity\] Given $m,L \in {\mathbb N}$ and $ \varepsilon > 0$, there is $M = M(m,L,\varepsilon )$ with the following property. Given a directed graph $D = (V,E)$ with $|V| \geq M$ and a partition $V = U_1\cup \cdots \cup U_L$ there is an $\varepsilon $-regular partition $\{V_0,V_1,\ldots, V_K\}$ with $m \leq K \leq M$, which refines $U_1\cup \cdots \cup U_L$.
**Remark:** While the theorem in [@ASh] does not mention refinements, it follows easily from the proof.
A convenient structure associated with a regular partition $\{V_0,V_1,\ldots ,V_K\}$ is the reduced graph ${\cal R}$, which has vertex set $\{V_1,\ldots ,V_K\}$ with the property that $V_{i}V_j$ is an edge of ${\cal R}$ if $(V_i,V_j)$ is an $\varepsilon $-regular pair. Note that by definition ${\cal R}$ has at least $(1-\varepsilon )\binom {K}{2}$ edges.
We will also require the following counting lemma.
\[lem: counting lemma\] Let $T = (V,E)$ be a tournament and $V_1,\ldots ,V_h$ be disjoint subsets of $V$. Suppose that for each $1\leq i < j \leq h$ the pair $(V_i,V_j)$ is $\varepsilon $-regular with density $d_{ij}$, with $d_{ji} = 1 - d_{ij}$. Then given an $h$-vertex tournament $H$ with $V(H) = \{u_1,\ldots ,u_h\}$, the number of copies of $H$ in $V$, with $u_i$ sent to $V_i$ for all $i\in [h]$ is $$\Big ( \prod _{{\overrightarrow {u_iu_j}} \in E(H)} d_{ij}
\pm C_h \varepsilon \mbox{ } \Big ) \prod _{l \in [h]} |V_{l}|.$$
By deleting directed edges of $T$ which are not of the form $\overrightarrow{v_iv_j}$ with $v_i \in V_i$, $v_j \in V_j$ and $\overrightarrow {u_iu_j} \in E(H)$ and ignoring the directions of the remaining edges, this follows immediately from the usual graph counting lemma; see [@schacht].
An embedding $\phi $ of a $h$-vertex tournament $H$ into a tournament $T$ is said to be partite with respect to the disjoint sets $U_1,\ldots ,U_h \subset V(T)$ if each set $U_i$ receives one vertex of the embedding. Let Emb$_T(H;U_1,\ldots ,U_h)$ denote the set of all such $\phi $ and let $N^*_T(H; U_1,\ldots ,U_h) = |\mbox{Emb}_T(H;U_1,\ldots ,U_h)|$.
The following proposition gives a ‘partite version’ of property ${\cal P}_2^*(H)$.
\[prop: partite\_counting\] Let $H$ be an $h$-vertex tournament. Suppose that $T$ is an $n$-vertex tournament with $N^*_T(H; U) = \rho |U|^h \pm C$ for all $U \subset V(T)$. Then $N^*_T(H;U_1,\ldots ,U_h) =
h!\rho\prod _{i\in [h]} |U_i| \pm 2^hC$ for all disjoint sets $U_1,\ldots ,U_h \subset V(T)$.
By the inclusion-exclusion principle we have $$\begin{aligned}
N^*_T(H;U_1,\ldots ,U_h)
& =
\sum _{r=1}^h
(-1)^{h-r} \Big ( \sum _{I \in \binom {[h]}{r}}
N^*_T(H; \bigcup _{i\in I} U_i ) \Big ).
\end{aligned}$$ Using $N^*_T(H; \bigcup _{i\in I} U_i) =
\rho\big ( \sum _{i\in I} |U_i| \big ) ^h \pm C$ for all $I \subset [h]$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
N^*_T(H;U_1,\ldots ,U_h)
& =
\rho \times \bigg ( \sum _{r=1}^h
(-1)^{h-r} \Big ( \sum _{I \in \binom {[h]}{r}}
\big ( \sum _{i\in I} |U_i| \big ) ^h \Big ) \bigg ) \pm
2^h C
=
\rho \times \big ( h! \prod _{i\in [h]} |U_i| \big ) \pm
2^h C .
\end{aligned}$$ The final equality holds as the summed term in the penultimate equation can be viewed as counting, using inclusion-exclusion, the maps $g: [h] \to \bigcup _{i\in [h]} U_i$ sending each $i\in [h]$ to distinct $U_j$. Indeed there are $h! \prod _{i\in [h]} |U_i|$ such $g$ which intersect each of the $h$ sets $U_i$ and for each $1 \le r \le h$ there are $\sum _{I \in \binom {[h]}{r}} \big ( \sum _{i\in I} |U_i| \big ) ^h$ such maps which intersect at most $r$ of the $U_i$’s.
T cliq-forcing and T bip-forcing imply local forcing {#subsec: simple reg}
----------------------------------------------------
Before proceeding to the main result of this section, we note a simple consequence of Ramsey’s theorem.
\[lem: Turan-Ramsey decomp into cliques\] Given $\alpha >0$ and $k, \ell \in {\mathbb N}$ there is $\gamma = \gamma (k,\ell, \alpha )> 0 $ and $n_0 =
n_0(k,\ell, \alpha )\in {\mathbb N}$ with the following property. Suppose that $G$ is an $n$-vertex graph with $n \geq n_0$ and at least $(1-\gamma )\binom {n}{2}$ edges. Then in any $k$-colouring of $E(G)$ there are vertex disjoint sets $U_1,\ldots , U_M
\subset V(G)$ so that:
(i) $G[U_m]$ is a monochromatic clique of order $\ell $ for all $m\in [M]$;
(ii) $|V(G) \setminus \big ( \cup _{m \in [M]} U_m \big ) |
\leq \alpha n$.
Set $R:= R_k({\ell })$, the $k$-colour Ramsey number of an ${\ell }$-vertex clique. Also set $\gamma = {\alpha }^2/2R$ and $n_0 = \lceil 2R / \alpha \rceil $. Suppose we are given a $k$-colouring of $E(G)$ as in the statement. To prove the lemma it suffices to show that every $W \subset V(G)$ with $|W| \geq \alpha n$ contains a set $U \subset W$ with $|U| = \ell$ so that $G[U]$ is a monochromatic clique. Indeed, using this property we can then greedily find sets $U_1,\ldots ,U_M$ as in the lemma.
To see that this holds, first note that since $|W| \geq \alpha n \geq 2R$ and $|W|^2 \geq \alpha ^2n^2 = 2\gamma Rn^2$, we have $$e(G[W])
\geq
\binom {|W|}{2} - \gamma \binom {n}{2}
>
\Big ( 1 - \frac {1}{R} \Big ) \frac {|W|^2}{2}
+ \Big ( \frac {|W|^2}{2R} - \frac {|W|}{2} - \frac {\gamma n^2}{2} \Big )
\geq
\Big ( 1 - \frac {1}{R} \Big ) \frac {|W|^2}{2}.$$ By Turán’s theorem there is $W' \subset W$ such that $|W'| = R$ and $G[W']$ is complete. As $G[W]$ is $k$-coloured, from Ramsey’s theorem and the definition of $R$, there is $U \subset W'$ with $|U| = \ell $ and $G[U]$ is monochromatic. This completes the proof.
We now turn to the proof of the if part of Theorem \[thm:-simple and esimple iff locally forcing\].
Any [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} and [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{} tournament is locally forcing.
Let $H$ be a [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} and [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{} tournament with $|H| = h$. We are required to show that given $\theta >0$ there is $\delta > 0$ and $n_0$ such that the following holds. Suppose that $T$ is an $n$-vertex tournament with $n \geq n_0$ which satisfies $$\label{equation: correct H count}
N^*_T(H;U) = 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}|U|^h \pm \delta n^h$$ for all $U \subset V(T)$. Then any ordering of $V(T)$ has at most $\frac {1}{2}\binom {n}{2} + \theta n^2$ forward edges.
Let us now give a sketch of the proof before delving into the details. Let $v_1,\ldots , v_n$ be an ordering of $V(T)$. We begin by splitting the vertices into consecutive sets $U_{\ell}$ of almost equal size. Then we apply the regularity lemma (Theorem \[thm: digraph regularity\]) to refine this partition. Taking the reduced graph we define $\mathcal{R}_\ell$ to be its subgraph consisting of clusters contained in $U_\ell$. We colour all edges of $\mathcal{R}_\ell$ which join clusters with density between them belonging to the same small interval in the colour indexed by this interval. If we split $[0,1]$ into finitely many such intervals we obtain a colouring of $\mathcal{R}_\ell$ to which we can apply Lemma \[lem: Turan-Ramsey decomp into cliques\] to group most of the clusters inside each $\mathcal{R}_\ell$ into monochromatic cliques. We now show that all edges inside these cliques must have density close to $1/2$. To see this assume the opposite, so that there is a clique $C$ with all edges having density bounded away from $1/2$. Now using Lemma \[lem: counting lemma\] and $H$ being [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} we conclude that there are too few copies of $H$ between the clusters of $C$, compared to what is guaranteed by Proposition \[prop: partite\_counting\], which holds by .
We then proceed to upper bound the number of forwards edges of $T$. The main contribution comes from edges between $\varepsilon$-regular pairs of clusters between different $U_\ell$’s. To bound this number for a pair of cliques belonging to different $U_\ell$’s and a fixed $d>1/2+\theta$ we build an auxiliary bipartite graph with clusters of the two cliques making the sides of the bipartition and making an edge for any pair of $\varepsilon$-regular clusters which have density roughly $d$ in the forwards direction. We show that this auxiliary graph can not contain $K_{a,h-a}$ for some $a$, as otherwise by using a similar argument as before we get $h$ clusters between which we have a wrong count of the copies of $H$ using the fact $H$ is [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}. By grouping densities and applying the above reasoning for each group we show that there are few forwards edges between the two cliques. Trivially bounding the remaining contributions we show that there are fewer forwards edges than required, completing the proof.
Before beginning we will fix a number of parameters to be used in the proof. Let $\xi=\xi(H,\theta)$ be the minimum of the continuous function $f(x)=\max_{a \in [h-1]}(|2^{\binom{h}{2}}p_{H,a}(x)-1|)$ on the interval $[1/2+\theta,1]$. Note that since $H$ is [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{} we have $f(x)>0$ for each $x$ in this range so since $f$ is continuous we get $\xi>0$. Set $\eta = \xi 2^{-\binom {h}{2} -2}h^{-2}$. Since $H$ is [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} and $p_H(x)$ is continuous there is $\zeta \in (0, \eta )$ with the property that if $x \in [0,1]$ and $p_H(x) \geq 2^{-\binom {h}{2}} - \zeta $ then $x = (1 \pm \eta)/2$. Take $\alpha = \theta /64$, $m =\max ( \lceil 4h^2/\zeta \rceil , \lceil 2/\eta \rceil ),$ $L = \lceil 16\theta ^{-1} \rceil$ and $N_1 = \lceil (2(\theta \eta )^{-1} h)^h\rceil $. Also set $m_{min} = 4Ln_0(m,N_1,\gamma )$ and $\gamma = \gamma (m,N_1,\alpha )$ as in Lemma \[lem: Turan-Ramsey decomp into cliques\]. With $C_h$ as in Lemma \[lem: counting lemma\], take $\varepsilon >0$ so that $$\varepsilon
=
\min \Big ( \frac{1}{4L} , \frac {\gamma }{8L^2},
\frac {\zeta }{4C_h}, \frac{\theta ^3}{32} \Big ).$$ Lastly, set $n_0 = M = \max(M(m_{min}, L, \varepsilon ),8L)$ as in Theorem \[thm: digraph regularity\] and $\delta = \zeta (4M)^{-h} /2$.
To begin the proof set $U_{\ell } = \{v_i \in V(T): i\in [(\ell -1)n/L, \ell n/L)\}$ for all $\ell \in [L]$. Note that $|U_\ell| \ge n/L-2$. Provided $n\geq n_0$, we may apply the Theorem \[thm: digraph regularity\] to $T$ to obtain an $\varepsilon $-regular partition $\{V_{k }\}_{{k} \in [K]} \cup \{V_0\}$ refining $\{U_{\ell }\}_{\ell \in [L]}$, with $m_{min} \leq K \leq M$. Let ${\cal R}$ denote the reduced graph of this partition and ${\cal R}_{\ell }$ denote the subgraph of ${\cal R}$ consisting of the clusters contained in $U_{\ell }$. Setting $W_{\ell }=|{\cal R}_{\ell }|$, we have $W_{\ell } \geq \frac{K}{2L}$ for all $\ell \in [L]$. Indeed, since $|V_{k}| = |V_{k'}|$ for all $k,k' \in [K]$ we have $$n
\geq
\sum _{k \in [K]} |V_{k}|
=
\frac {K}{W_{\ell}} \sum _{V_{k} \in V({\cal R}_{\ell })} |V_{k }|
\geq
\frac {K}{W_{\ell }} \Big ( |U_{\ell }| - |V_0| \Big )
\geq
\frac {K}{W_{\ell }} \times \frac {n}{2L},$$ using $|U_{\ell }| - |V_0| \geq (n/L - 2) -\varepsilon n \geq \frac{n}{2L}$. Rearranging, we find $W_{\ell } \geq \frac{K}{2L}$ for all $\ell \in [L]$.
**Claim:** Each ${\cal R}_{\ell}$ contains a collection of vertex disjoint cliques ${\cal C}_{\ell }$ with the following properties:
(i) Each clique $C \in {\cal C}_{\ell }$ has order $N_1$,
(ii) $|{\cal R}_{\ell } \setminus ( \cup _{C \in {\cal C}_{\ell }} C )| \leq \alpha W_{\ell }$,
(iii) $d(V_{k},V_{k '}) = (1/2 \pm \eta )|V_{k}|
|V_{k '}|$ for each edge $V_{k}V_{k '}$ in a clique $C \in {\cal C}_{\ell }$.
To prove the claim, colour the edges of ${\cal R}_{\ell }$ with $m$ colours, where each pair $V_kV_{k'}$ with $k < k'$ gets color $j\in [m-1]$ if $d(V_{k}, V_{k'}) \in j/m \pm 1/m$ (ties broken arbitrarily). The graph ${\cal R}_{\ell }$ contains at least $\binom {W_{\ell }}{2} - \varepsilon \binom {K}{2} > (1 - \gamma ) \binom {W_{\ell }}{2}$ edges, since $W_{\ell } \geq \frac{K}{2L}$, $\frac{\gamma}{8L^2} \geq \varepsilon$ and $K \ge m_{min} \ge 4L$. Therefore, from Lemma \[lem: Turan-Ramsey decomp into cliques\], since $|{\cal R}_{\ell }| \geq \frac{K}{2L} \geq \frac{m_{min}}{2L} \geq n_0(m, N_1,\alpha )$, the graph ${\cal R}_{\ell }$ contains a collection ${\cal C}_{\ell }$ of vertex disjoint monochromatic cliques which satisfy parts (i) and (ii) from the claim.
It remains to show that part (iii) holds. Let $C \in {\cal C}_{\ell }$ be monochromatic with colour $j$ and $V_{k_1},\ldots ,V_{k_h} \in C$ with $k_1< ...< k_h$. As each pair $(V_{k}, V_{k'})$ in $C$ is $\varepsilon $-regular with $d(V_{k_i},V_{k_{i'}}) = (j\pm 1)/m$, by Lemma \[lem: counting lemma\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
N^*_T(H; V_{{k}_1}, V_{{k}_2},\ldots ,V_{{k}_h})
&=
\sum _{\sigma \in S_h}
\bigg ( \Big (\frac {j \pm 1}{m}\Big ) ^{|F_{\sigma ,H}|}
\Big (\frac {m-j \pm 1}{m} \Big )^{|B_{\sigma ,H}|} \pm C_h\varepsilon
\bigg ) \prod _{i \in [h]} |V_{k_{i}}|\\
& =
h!\big ( p_H(j/m) \pm (C_h \varepsilon+ h^2m^{-1}) \big )
\prod _{i \in [h]} |V_{k_{i}}| \\
&=
h!\big ( p_H(j /m) \pm \zeta /2 \big )
\prod _{i \in [h]} |V_{k_{i}}|.
\end{aligned}$$ In the second equality here we used repeatedly the fact that for any $x,y,t \in [0,1]$ such that $x+t \le 1$ we have $(x+t)(y+t) \le (x+t)y+t \le xy+2t$. On the other hand, from and Proposition \[prop: partite\_counting\] we also have $$\label{equation: partite bound}
N^*_T(H; V_{k_1}, V_{k_2},\ldots ,V_{k_h})
=
h!2^{-\binom {h}{2}} \prod _{i \in [h]} |V_{{k}_{i}}| \pm 2^h\delta n^h
=
h! \big ( 2^{-\binom {h}{2}} \pm \zeta /2 \big )
\prod _{i \in [h]} |V_{k _{i}}|.$$ Here we have used that all clusters $V_{k}$ satisfy $|V_{k}| \geq (n-|V_0|)/K \geq n/2M$ and $\delta (4M)^h = \zeta /2$. Combined, these bounds give $p_H(j/m) = 2^{-\binom {h}{2}} \pm \zeta$. By our choice of $\zeta $ this forces $j/m = (1 \pm \eta )/2 $ and so $d(V_{k}, V_{{k}'}) = (1\pm \eta )/2 \pm m^{-1} = 1/2 \pm \eta $ for any pair $V_kV_{k'}$ contained in a clique $C \in {\cal C}_{\ell }$ giving (iii). This completes the proof of the claim.
We can now proceed to prove an upper bound on the number of forward edges of $T$. To do this, first fix $1 \leq \ell < \ell ' \leq L$ and $C \in {\cal C}_{\ell }$ and $C' \in \mathcal{C}_{\ell'}$. We will prove that $$\label{equation: clique control}
\sum _{\substack{V_k \in C,V_{k'}\in C':\\ (V_k,V_{k'}) \mbox{ } \varepsilon -\mbox{reg}}} |E(V_k, V_{k'})|
\leq \Big (\frac {1}{2} + \frac{3 \theta }{2} \Big )\Big | \bigcup _{V_k \in C} V_k \Big | \Big | \bigcup _{V_{k'} \in C'} V_k \Big |.$$ To see this fix some $d > 1/2 + \theta $ and consider the auxilliary bipartite graph $G$ with vertex set on one side being $C$ and on the other side $C'$. We put an edge between clusters $V_k \in C$ and $V_{k'} \in C'$ if the pair $(V_k,V_{k'})$ is $\varepsilon$-regular and has density $d(V_{k}, V_{k'}) = d \pm \eta$. Let $a$ be such that $|2^{\binom{h}{2}}p_{H,a}(d)-1|\ge \xi$, which exists since $d> 1/2+\theta$. Our goal is to show that $G$ is $K_{a,h-a}$-free, which by Kővári-Sós-Turán theorem is going to tell us that $G$ is sparse, allowing us to bound the number of forwards edges of $T$ between $C$ and $C'$.
To see this assume towards a contradiction that $G$ contains a $K_{a,h-a}$. Let $V_{k_1},\ldots, V_{k_a}$ make one side and $V_{k_{a+1}},\ldots, V_{k_h}$ the other of this $K_{a,h-a}$. By part (iii) of the claim, all pairs $(V_{k_i},V_{k_{i'}})$ are $\varepsilon $-regular with $d(V_{{k}_i},V_{k _{i'}}) = 1/2 \pm \eta $ for distinct $i,i'\in [a]$ or distinct $i,i' \in [a+1,h]$. Any $\phi \in \mbox{Emb}_T(H;V_{k_1},\ldots ,V_{k_h})$ embeds $\binom{a}{2}+\binom {h-a}{2}$ edges of $H$ into pairs with density $1/2 \pm \eta $. If $A:=\phi^{-1}(\{V_{k_1},\ldots, V_{k_a}\})$ then $e(A,V\setminus A)$ edges of $H$ get embedded into pairs with density $d \pm \eta $, and $e(V \setminus A,A)$ edges into pairs with density $1- d \pm \eta$. So Lemma \[lem: counting lemma\] gives [ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{N^*_T(H; V_{k_1},\ldots ,V_{k_{h}}) }{\prod _{i \in [h]} |V_{{k}_i}|}
& =
a!(h-a)!\sum_{A \in \binom{V(H)}{a}} \left ( \left (\frac12 \pm \eta \right)^{\binom {a}{2}+\binom {h-a}{2}}
( d \pm \eta )^{e(A,V\setminus A)}
( 1 - d \pm \eta )^{e(V\setminus A,A)}
\pm C_h \varepsilon \right)
\nonumber \\
& =
h! \binom{h}{a}^{-1}
\sum_{A \in \binom{V(H)}{a}}\left( 2^{-\binom{a}{2}-\binom{h-a}{2}}d ^{e(A,V\setminus A)}(1-d)^{e(V\setminus A,A)}
\pm (h^2\eta + C_h \varepsilon ) \right)\nonumber \\
&=
h! (p_{H,a}(d)
\pm (h^2\eta + C_h \varepsilon ) )
. \label{eqn: homom count}
\end{aligned}$$ ]{} As $(h^2 \eta + C_h \varepsilon )+ \zeta \leq
h^2 \eta + 2\zeta \leq 3h^2 \eta < \xi 2^{-\binom {h}{2}}$ this gives $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \frac {N^*_T(H; V_{k_1},\ldots ,V_{k_{h}}) }
{\prod _{i \in [h]} |V_{{k}_i}|h!}-2^{-\binom {h}{2}}\right|
& \geq \zeta,
\end{aligned}$$ which contradicts . Thus, there is no $K_{a,h-a}$ in $G$. The Kővári-Sós-Turán theorem (see [@kst]) now tells us that $G$ has at most $hN_1^{2-1/h}$ edges (recall that $|C|=|C'|=N_1$.) Since $d$ was arbitrary (provided it is bigger than $1/2+\theta$) by splitting the interval $[1/2+\theta,1]$ into at most $\eta^{-1}$ subintervals of width at least $2\eta$ and building a graph as above for each of these subintervals with $d$ being equal to the center of the interval we obtain that there are at most $\eta ^{-1}hN_1^{2-1/h}$ pairs $V_{k} \in C, V_{k'}\in C'$ such that $(V_k,V_{k'})$ is $\varepsilon $-regular and $d(V_{k }, V_{k'}) > 1/2 + \theta $. As $|C| = N_1 \ge (2(\eta \theta )^{-1}h)^h$ this gives $$\sum _{\substack{V_k \in C, V_{k'}\in C':\\ (V_k,V_{k'}) \mbox{ } \varepsilon -reg}} |E(V_k, V_{k'})|
\leq \Big (\frac{1}{2} + \theta +\eta^{-1}hN_1^{-1/h}\Big )\Big | \bigcup _{V_k \in C} V_k \Big | \Big | \bigcup _{V_{k'} \in C'} V_{k'}\Big |
\leq \Big (\frac {1}{2} + \frac{3 \theta }{2} \Big )\Big | \bigcup _{V_k \in C} V_k\Big | \Big | \bigcup _{V_{k'} \in C'} V_{k'}\Big |$$ i.e. holds.
We can now complete the proof, upper bounding the number of forward edges of $T$. The $\varepsilon $-regular pairs $(V_{k}, V_{k'})$ with $V_{k} \in C \in {\cal C}_{\ell }$ and $V_{k'} \in C' \in \mathcal{C}_{\ell'}$ for some $\ell < \ell '$ contribute at most $\big (1/2 + 3\theta /2\big ) \binom {n}{2}$ forward edges to $T$ by . The remaining forward edges either (a) lie entirely in some set $U_{\ell }$, (b) contain a vertex from cluster $V_{k} \notin \bigcup _{\ell } \bigcup _{C \in {\cal C}_{\ell }} C$, (c) contain a vertex in $V_0$, or (d) lie between pairs $(V_{k},V_{k'})$ which are not $\varepsilon $-regular. The number of such edges is at most $$\sum _{\ell \in [L]}\binom {|U_{\ell }|}{2} +
\sum _{\ell \in [L]} |{\cal R}_{\ell }\setminus (\cup _{C \in {\cal C}_{\ell }} C)| \bigg ( \frac{n^2}{K} \bigg )
+ |V_0|n
+ \varepsilon \binom {K}{2} \bigg ( \frac {n}{K} \bigg )^2
\leq
\left (\frac{1}{2L} + 2\alpha + 3\varepsilon
+ \varepsilon \right ) \binom {n}{2} \leq \frac {\theta }{2}
\binom {n}{2}.$$ Here we have used that $|{\cal R}_{\ell }\setminus (\cup _{C \in {\cal C}_{\ell }} C)| \leq \alpha W_{\ell } \leq 2\alpha K/L$ by part (ii) of the claim, that $L \geq 16/\theta $, $64\alpha = \theta $ and $16 \varepsilon \leq \theta $. Combined, these estimates show that $T$ has at most $\frac{1}{2}\binom {n}{2} + \theta n^2$ forward edges, as required.
Concluding remarks and open problems
====================================
We have shown that a large tournament $H$ is forcing if and only if $H$ is transitive. Our main focus was on the stronger property of being locally forcing. We proved that while many tournaments do not satisfy this property (Lemma \[lemma: properties of counting poly\]) it does hold for many tournaments which we draw from a certain random distribution on nearly regular tournaments. The most natural model of random regular tournaments is to take a uniform distribution over all regular tournaments. We believe that in fact this also gives w.h.p. a [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} and hence (by Lemma \[lem: nearly regular is esimple\] and Theorem \[thm:-simple and esimple iff locally forcing\]) a locally forcing tournament.
Another result in this paper shows that a tournament is locally forcing if and only if it is [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} and [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{}. This in some sense says that in order to check whether a tournament $H$ is locally forcing one only needs to check whether models $\mathcal{T}(n,\alpha )$ or $\mathcal{T}(n,n,\alpha )$ can have the same local counts of $H$ as $\mathcal{T}(n,1/2)$ for some $\alpha \neq 1/2$.
We actually believe that the [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{} assumption may be dropped entirely in Theorem \[thm:-simple and esimple iff locally forcing\] either because it is implied by [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} or because it is satisfied by every tournament. In other words it would be interesting to determine if every [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} tournament is locally forcing. We reduced this question to the following problem about degree counting polynomials. Does there exist an $h$-vertex tournament $H$ such that the rescaled and recentered $a$-th order degree counting polynomials defined as $$q_{H,a}(x):=\binom{h}{a}^{-1}\sum_{A \in \binom{V(H)}{a}} (1+x)^{e(A,V \setminus A)}(1-x)^{e(V \setminus A,A)}-1$$ have a common root in $(0,1]$, for all $1 \le a \le h-1$. We note that in a certain sense this is the correct tournament analogue of the Simonovits-Sós conjecture from the induced graph case, discussed in the introduction.
Our arguments rely on the regularity lemma. It is possible that one can find a nice class of tournaments for which one can show the locally forcing property directly, avoiding the use of the regularity lemma. For example, the tournament $Tr_3$ is not globally forcing but is locally forcing and this is not hard to see directly. Indeed, any tournament $T$ has at most $\frac12 \sum_{v \in T}\left( \binom{d^+(v)}{2}+\binom{d^-(v)}{2}\right)=\frac14 \sum_{v \in T} \frac{1}{2}\left((d^+(v)+d^-(v))^2+(d^+(v)-d^-(v))^2\right)-(n-1)=\frac18 n^3 (1+o(1))+\frac18 \sum_{v \in T} (d^+(v)-d^-(v))^2$ copies of $Tr_3$. So in order for the local counts to match that of the random tournament, by Cauchy-Schwarz, we must have $n^{-1}\big (\sum_{v \in U} |d^+_{T[U]}(v)-d^-_{T[U]}(v)|\big )^2 \leq \sum_{v \in U} (d^+_{T[U]}(v)-d^-_{T[U]}(v))^2=o(n^3)$ for any $U \subseteq V(T)$. This gives condition $\mathcal{P}_5$ from Chung and Graham [@CG] and implies $T$ must be quasirandom. Thus $Tr_3$ is locally forcing. Since any three vertices of a tournament either induce $Tr_3$ or $C_3$, if any subset of $V(T)$ has the correct count of $Tr_3$ then it has the correct count of $C_3$ as well. Thus $C_3$ is also locally forcing.
We note that deciding whether a fixed tournament is [$\mathcal{T}_{cliq}$-forcing]{} is a matter of counting how many zeros of the counting polynomial (minus a constant) one can find in the interval $[1/2,1]$. Since counting polynomial is of degree at most $\binom{h}{2}$ this can be done by Sturm’s algorithm in polynomial time. Deciding whether a fixed tournament is [$\mathcal{T}_{bip}$-forcing]{} can be done in a similar fashion, we first find the greatest common divisor of our degree counting polynomials and then find the number of roots of this greatest common divisor in $[1/2,1].$ While all of this can be done in polynomial time it is not clear how to compute the coefficients of our polynomials in polynomial time since they are defined in terms of vertex orderings of which there are $h!$ or subsets, in which case there are potentially as many as $\binom{h}{h/2}$. It could be interesting to determine if these terms could be calculated in polynomial time, as this would give a polynomial time algorithm for deciding whether a given tournament is locally forcing or not.
Finally, it was brought to our attention that Fox, Himwich and Mani [@FHM] independently studied related problems in general directed graphs including certain forcing problems in this setting.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Jan Volec for checking many small cases using a computer and Igor Balla for drawing our attention to [@AGK].
[99]{}
I. Adler, N. Alon and S. M. Ross, On the maximum number of Hamiltonian paths in tournaments, *Random Structures Algorithms* **18** (2001), 291–296. N. Alon, G. Gutin and M. Krivelevich, Algorithms with large domination ratio, *Journal of Algorithms*, **50**(1) (2004), 118–131. N. Alon and A. Shapira, Testing subgraphs of directed graphs, *J. Comput. System Sci.*, **69** (2004), 353-–382. N. Alon and J.H. Spencer, **The probabilistic method**, [Wiley]{}, 4th ed. (2016). S. Basu, R. Pollack and M.-F. Roy, **Algorithms in real algebraic geometry**, [Springer]{}, 2nd ed. (2006). F. Chung and R. L. Graham, Quasi-random tournaments, *J. Graph Theory* **15** (1991), 173–198. F. Chung and R. L. Graham, Quasi-random set systems, *J. Amer. Math. Soc.* **4** (1991), 151–196.
F. Chung, R. L. Graham and R. M. Wilson, Quasi-random graphs, *Combinatorica* **9** (1989), 345–362. D. Conlon, J. Fox and B. Sudakov, Hereditary quasirandomness without regularity. *Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.* 164 (2018), 385-399. D. Conlon, H. Hàn, Y. Person and M. Schacht, Weak quasi-randomness for uniform hypergraphs, *Random Structures Algorithms* **40** (2012), 1-–38. J. N. Cooper, Quasirandom permutations, *J. Combin. Theory Ser. A* **106** (2004), 123–143. L.N. Coregliano, R.F. Parente and C.M. Sato, On the maximum density of fixed strongly connected subtournaments, *Electron. J. Combin.* **26** (2019), no. 1, Paper 1.44. L. N. Coregliano and A. A. Razborov, On the density of transitive tournaments, *J. Graph Theory* **85** (1), (2017) 12–21. D. Dellamonica Jr. and V. Rödl, Hereditary quasirandom properties of hypergraphs, *Combinatorica* **31** (2), (2011) 165–182. P. Erdős, On extremal problems of graphs and generalized graphs, [*Israel J. Math. 2*]{} (1964), 183–190. W. Fernandez de la Vega, On the maximum cardinality of a consistent set of arcs in a random tournament. *J. Combin. Theory Ser. B*, **35** (3), (1983), 328–332. J. Fox, Z. Himwich and N. Mani, personal communication. W. T. Gowers, Hypergraph regularity and the multidimensional Szemerédi theorem, *Annal. Math.* **166** (2007), 897–946. W. T. Gowers, Quasirandom groups, *Combin., Probab. Comput.*, **17**, (2008), 363–387. S. Griffiths, Quasi-random oriented graphs, *J. Graph Theory*, **74** (2), (2013), 198–209. T. Gustavsson, Decompositions of large graphs and digraphs with high minimum degree, PhD thesis, Univ. of Stockholm, (1991). S. Kalyanasundaram and A. Shapira, A Note on Even Cycles and Quasi-Random Tournaments, *J. Graph Theory* **73** (2013), 260–266. T.P. Kirkman, On a problem in combinations, *The Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal (Macmillan, Barclay, and Macmillan) II* (1847), 191–204. D. Král’ and O. Pikhurko, Quasirandom permutations are characterized by 4-point densities, *GAFA*, **23** (2013), 570–579. M. Krivelevich and B. Sudakov, Pseudo-random graphs. In *More Sets, Graphs and Numbers, Bolyai Society Mathematical Studies 15*, 199-–262. Springer, 2006. L. Lovász, **Combinatorial problems and exercises**, North-Holland Publishing Co., 2nd ed. (1993). B. Nagle, V. Rödl and M. Schacht, The counting lemma for regular $k$-uniform hypergraphs, *Random Structures Algorithms* **28** (2006), 113–179. R. O’Donnell, **Analysis of Boolean functions**, Cambridge University Press (2014). V. Rödl and J. Skokan, Regularity lemma for $k$-uniform hypergraphs, *Random Structures Algorithms* **25** (2004), 1–42. M. Schacht, Regularity lemma and its applications, lecture notes, <https://www.math.uni-hamburg.de/home/schacht/lnotes/GT/SzRL.pdf> M. Simonovits and V.T. Sós, Hereditary extended properties, quasi-random graphs and induced subgraphs, *Combin. Probab. Comput.*, **12** (2003), 319–344. M. Simonovits and V.T. Sós, Hereditarily extended properties, quasi-random graphs and not necessarily induced subgraphs *Combinatorica*, **17** (1997), 577–596. J. Spencer, Optimal ranking of tournaments, *Networks*, **1** (1971), 135–138. E. Szemerédi, Regular partitions of graphs, *Problèmes combinatoires et théorie des graphes (Colloq. Internat. CNRS, Univ. Orsay, Orsay, 1976)*, Colloq. Internat. CNRS **260** (1978), 399–401. A. Thomason, Pseudo-random graphs, Proceedings of Random Graphs, Poznan 1985 (M. Karonski, ed.) *Annals of Discrete Math.* **33** (1987), 307–331. A. Thomason, Random graphs, strongly regular graphs and pseudo-random graphs, in Surveys in Combinatorics 1987 (C. Whitehead, ed.) LMS Lecture Notes Series 123, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 173–196.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, ETH, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: `[email protected]`
[^2]: School of Mathematics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. Email: `[email protected]`
[^3]: School of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. Email: `[email protected]`. Supported in part by ISF Grant 1028/16 and ERC Starting Grant 633509.
[^4]: Department of Mathematics, ETH, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: `[email protected]`. Research supported in part by SNSF grant 200021-175573.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a chemical composition analysis of 36 giant stars in the mildly metal-poor ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.21) globular cluster M5 (NGC 5904). The analysis makes use of high resolution data acquired for 25 stars at the Keck I telescope, as well as a re-analysis of the high resolution spectra for 13 stars acquired for an earlier study at Lick Observatory. We employed two analysis techniques: one, adopting standard spectroscopic constraints, including setting the surface gravity from the ionization equilibrium of iron, and two, subsequent to investigating alternative approaches, adopting an analysis consistent with the non-LTE precepts as recently described by Thévenin & Idiart. The abundance ratios we derive for magnesium, silicon, calcium, scandium, titanium, vanadium, nickel, barium and europium in M5 show no significant abundance variations and the ratios are comparable to those of halo field stars. However, large variations are seen in the abundances of oxygen, sodium and aluminum, the elements that are sensitive to proton-capture nucleosynthesis. These variations are well-correlated with the CN bandstrength index S(3839). Surprisingly, in M5 the dependence of the abundance variations on is in the opposite sense to that discovered in M13 by the Lick-Texas group where the relationship provided strong evidence in support of the evolutionary scenario. The present analysis of M5 giants does not necessarily rule out an evolutionary scenario, but it provides no support for it either. In comparing the abundances of M5 and M4 (NGC 6121), another mildly metal-poor ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.08) globular cluster, we find that silicon, aluminum, barium and lanthanum are overabundant in M4 with respect to what is seen in M5, confirming and expanding the results of previous studies. In comparing the abundances between these two clusters and others having comparable metallicities, we find that the anti-correlations observed in M5 are similar to those found in more metal-poor clusters, M3, M10 and M13 ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.5 to –1.6), whereas the behavior in M4 is more like that of the more metal-rich globular cluster M71 ($<$\[Fe/H\]$> \sim$ –0.8). We conclude that among stars in Galactic globular clusters, there is no definitive “single” value of \[el/Fe\] at a given \[Fe/H\] for at least some alpha-capture, odd-Z and slow neutron-capture process elements, in this case, silicon, aluminum, barium and lanthanum.'
author:
- 'Inese I. Ivans, Robert P. Kraft, Christopher Sneden, Graeme H. Smith, R. Michael Rich, Matthew Shetrone'
nocite:
- '[@Su93]'
- '[@Kr94]'
- '[@BBHS94]'
- '[@DaC97]'
- '[@Wetal97]'
- '[@Sn99; @Sn00]'
- '[@PSKL96]'
- '[@HSKF98]'
- '[@GSCB00]'
- '[@DDNW98]'
- '[@CN00]'
- '[@Betal95]'
- '[@Git01]'
- '[@BBHS94]'
- '[@Kr01]'
- '[@KSSSLP97]'
- '[@HSKF98]'
- '[@PSKL96]'
- '[@SPK00]'
- '[@Ivetal99]'
- '[@ZW84]'
- '[@SKPL92]'
- '[@CG97]'
- '[@SSBCB97]'
- '[@SKPL92]'
- '[@SN83]'
- '[@SN93]'
- '[@SSBCB97]'
- '[@BW92]'
- '[@GS91]'
- '[@GS94]'
- '[@Sh96]'
- '[@MPSS95]'
- '[@RNB96]'
- '[@CH93]'
- '[@Vo87]'
- '[@Voetal94]'
- '[@Dj93]'
- '[@SBSH96]'
- '[@Cu79]'
- '[@Re93]'
- '[@Re93]'
- '[@SN83]'
- '[@SN93]'
- '[@BS93]'
- '[@SSBCB97]'
- '[@SBSH96]'
- '[@BCF81]'
- '[@FS87]'
- '[@SKPL91]'
- '[@MR94]'
- '[@Mc98]'
- '[@Cu79]'
- '[@SC90]'
- '[@Dj93]'
- '[@BG78]'
- '[@Sn73]'
- '[@GBEN75]'
- '[@FK99]'
- '[@BKM93]'
- '[@DHJP75]'
- '[@Hea76]'
- '[@LL85]'
- '[@FPFRG97]'
- '[@AGLG99]'
- '[@F2000]'
- '[@ESA97]'
- '[@TI99]'
- '[@Wal62]'
- '[@AAM99]'
- '[@BPAHS90]'
- '[@SBSH96]'
- '[@AAM99]'
- '[@Re97]'
- '[@JCL88]'
- '[@LHHKH96]'
- '[@Git97]'
- '[@AAM99]'
- '[@AAM99]'
- '[@GSCB00]'
- '[@GSCB00]'
- '[@AAM99]'
- '[@AL00]'
- '[@AAM96]'
- '[@GSCB00]'
- '[@SF00]'
- '[@HBS00]'
- '[@FPC83]'
- '[@SBSH96]'
- '[@Meta99]'
- '[@SKH99]'
- '[@SKH99]'
- '[@AAM99]'
- '[@BPAHS90]'
- '[@TI99]'
- '[@HBS00]'
- '[@LMBG98]'
- '[@KA99]'
- '[@Mc97]'
- '[@F2000]'
- '[@F2001]'
- '[@Sh96]'
- '[@Jo99]'
- '[@SKSSLP97]'
- '[@KSLSB95]'
- '[@KSLP92]'
- '[@SKPL91]'
- '[@Sh96]'
- '[@KSSSLP97]'
- '[@BS93]'
- '[@SN93]'
- '[@F2000]'
- '[@F2001]'
- '[@GS94]'
- '[@Kr99]'
- '[@BW92]'
- '[@SKLPS94]'
- '[@Har96]'
- '[@SK00]'
- '[@BWZ97]'
- '[@Car99]'
- '[@F2001]'
- '[@SPK00]'
- '[@VWB94]'
- '[@SSCGBLS00]'
- '[@ZW84]'
- '[@SKPL92]'
- '[@Ivetal99]'
- '[@Har96]'
- '[@BW92]'
- '[@LBS01]'
title: 'New Analyses of Star-to-Star Abundance Variations Among Bright Giants in the Mildly Metal-Poor Globular Cluster M5[^1] '
---
0 0 0
Introduction
============
Large star-to-star abundance variations in the light elements C, N, O, Na, Mg, and Al are commonly found among the bright giant stars of metal-poor globular clusters. Some star-to-star abundance variations exist in all metal-poor globular clusters in which the variations have been sought. In clusters with sufficiently large sample sizes, N is typically anti-correlated with O and C, Na is anti-correlated with O, and Al is anti-correlated with Mg. The reader is referred to reviews by Suntzeff (1993), Kraft (1994), Briley (1994), Da Costa (1997), Wallerstein (1997), and Sneden (1999, 2000) for detailed discussions of these abundance trends. Except for anti-correlated behavior of N with respect to O and C, halo field giants do not exhibit the variations in Na, Mg, and Al that are seen among globular cluster giants (Pilachowski 1996a, Hanson 1998, Gratton 2000).
Most studies agree that the abundance anti-correlations found among cluster giants result from proton-capture nucleosynthesis that converts C and O into N, Ne into Na, and Mg into Al in and above the hydrogen-burning shells of evolved stars (see , Denissenkov 1990; Cavallo & Nagar 2000 and references therein). However it is less clear whether the synthesis takes place in the giants we presently observe (the “evolutionary” scenario) or in a prior generation of more massive evolved stars (the “primordial” scenario) which selectively “polluted” the gas from which the present generation of stars was formed. Evidence mounts that both scenarios are needed: a typical cluster contains main sequence stars already imprinted with variations in these elements, as studies of main sequence stars in 47 Tuc and NGC 6752 dramatically illustrate (Briley 1995, Gratton 2001). These abundances may, however, be further modified when the stellar envelope is cycled through the H-burning shell as stars approach the red giant tip (see reviews by Briley 1994, Kraft 2001 and references therein).
In any given luminosity interval on the giant branch of a typical globular cluster, there are stars with a range of Na, O, Mg, and Al abundances, usually exhibiting the anti-correlations noted above. One possible expectation of the evolutionary scenario is that the distribution of these O and Na (or Mg and Al) abundances should change with advancing evolutionary state. Thus as evolution proceeds, one might expect to find relatively more stars with low O and Mg and fewer with high O and Mg, and correspondingly more with high Na and Al and fewer with low Na and Al. This is indeed the case for M13 (Kraft 1997, Hanson 1998), in which there are different mean O, Na, Mg, and Al abundances for stars above and below 0 $\simeq$ –1.7 (or $\simeq$ 1.0), a point 0.8 mag below the red giant tip. For other clusters less is known because of flux limitations at faint magnitudes. But even in M13, giants with 0 $>$ –1.7 exhibit the same spread and distribution of Na and Al abundances (Pilachowski 1996b, Cavallo & Nagar 2000), independent of luminosity, to levels one magnitude below the horizontal branch (HB). In the more metal-poor clusters M92 and M15, there is no apparent change in the distribution of Na abundances with luminosity from the red giant tip to levels just above the HB (Sneden 2000). In the more metal-rich cluster M4, although the variations in C, N, O, Na, Mg, and Al are smaller than in M13, again the distributions show little dependence on evolutionary state (Ivans 1999, hereafter called I99-M4).
M5 is a mildly metal-poor cluster ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.4, Zinn & West 1984; $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.17, Sneden 1992; $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.11, Carretta & Gratton 1997) in which bright giants exhibit anti-correlated behavior of C and O with respect to N (Smith 1997), as well as an anti-correlation of O with Na (Sneden 1992, hereafter called S92-M5); Al and Mg abundance relationships have not been explored. The cluster exhibits bimodal distributions of CN-strength on both the first ascent giant branch (“RGB”; Smith & Norris 1983) and asymptotic giant branch (“AGB”; Smith & Norris 1993). At least one giant, IV-59, is known to have both high N and O, which again suggests the existence of primordial variations (Smith 1997). However, is there evidence for an increase in the number of O-poor and Na-rich stars as evolutionary state advances? Previous M5 sample sizes have been too small to explore whether in this cluster a shift with $M_V$ exists in the distribution of Na and O compatible with an evolutionary scenario. We report here an exploration of this question, based on high resolution spectra of a sample of 36 giants ranging in luminosity from the RGB tip to 0 $\sim$ –0.5, , about one magnitude above the HB.
M4, a cluster with metallicity comparable to that of M5, has unusually high abundances of the $\alpha$-element Si, the light odd-Z element Al, and the $s$-process elements Ba and La (Brown & Wallerstein 1992; I99-M4) in comparison to typical halo field giants of similar metallicity (see , Gratton & Sneden 1991, 1994, Shetrone 1996), which follow an extrapolation of the abundance trends seen among halo stars of lower metallicities (see , McWilliam 1995, Ryan 1996 and references therein). We therefore compare \[el/Fe\]-ratios in M5 with those in M4 and the halo field, noting that M5 pursues a galactic orbit with an apogalacticon in the outer reaches of the Galactic halo (Cudworth & Hanson 1993), where clusters having “abnormal” \[el/Fe\] ratios are sometimes found.
We introduce here for the first time an analysis of cluster \[Fe/H\] ratios based on an approach in which allowance is made for the over-ionization of Fe in the atmospheres of low-metallicity giants. We estimate as well the effect of these non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (non-LTE) precepts on the derivation of \[el/Fe\] ratios. Abundances based on more traditional methods of analysis are, however, retained so that the reader may judge the extent of the proposed modifications.
Observations, Reductions and EW Measurements
============================================
Our prior study of 13 bright M5 giants (S92-M5) was based on high resolution (R $\sim$ 30,000) spectra obtained with the Lick 3.0m telescope and Hamilton coudé echelle spectrograph (Vogt 1987). The faintest stars observed in the Lick sample had V $\sim$ 13.0, the practical limit for observations with signal-to-noise S/N $\gtrsim$ 50 in reasonable integration times ($\sim$120 minutes) using the 3.0m telescope. However, stars near 0 $\sim$ –0.5 have $V$ $\sim$ 14.0 in M5; obtaining spectra of high resolution and adequate S/N for such stars required use of the HIRES spectrograph of the Keck I telescope (Vogt 1994).
For the Keck observations, the entrance slit was set to a width of 0.86$\arcsec$, which corresponds to a spectral resolving power of R $\simeq$ 45,000 at the Tektronix 2048$\times$2048 pixel detector. In Table \[m5.tab1\], we present an observing log of the 25 M5 giants observed with HIRES, along with estimated S/N near , values of $V^o$, 0 and 0 for each star, assuming a reddening $E(B-V)$ = 0.03 and a true distance modulus = 14.40 (Djorgovski 1993). We adopted the observed colors and magnitudes of Sandquist (1996; 2000, private communication) for all but three stars which were unobserved in the Sandquist study. The photometry for star II-9 was taken from Cudworth (1979) and for star III-149, we used that of Rees (1993). G2 is discussed below.
Two of the stars observed at Lick (II-85 and IV-47) were re-observed using HIRES at Keck I, in order to study possible systematic offsets in equivalent width (EW) and/or differences in analysis procedure between the Lick and Keck data. Combining the two data sets, we are able to study abundances and abundance ratios in 36 M5 giants on both the RGB and AGB, ranging in luminosity from $M_{bol}$ $\simeq$ –1.0 to –3.4, corresponding to an effective temperature range of $\simeq$ 4750 K to 3900 K. Of these 36 stars, 34 are proper motion members of M5 according to the catalog of Rees (1993); the remainder have colors, magnitudes, abundances, and radial velocities compatible with membership (discussed further in the next paragraph). Eight of the stars are members of the AGB; a small fraction of stars brighter than $V$ = 12.8 ($\sim$20%, based on comparative lifetimes), in the region of the color-magnitude diagram where the RGB and AGB cannot be distinguished, may also be AGB members. Of 30 stars observed by us for which the CN strength index S(3839) has previously been measured by Smith & Norris (1983, 1993), Briley & Smith (1993), and Smith (1997), we observed 14 CN-strong stars and 16 CN-weak stars. Altogether, we observed 29% of the 118 giants brighter than $V$ = 14.1 that were cataloged by Rees, plus two additional members not in the catalog. Our sample is thus reasonably representative of the population of bright M5 giants. In Figure \[m5.fig1\] we exhibit the color-magnitude array of the brighter stars in M5, based on the CCD photometry of Sandquist (1996; 2000, private communication). This figure illustrates the evolutionary domain of our program stars. The labels in the figure identify the stars of this study plus those of S92-M5.
Two stars listed in Table \[m5.tab1\] require special comment. The one designated as G2, close to the central region of the cluster, is not to be found in published photometry but was revealed as a bright red star in a 2$\micron$ image of the cluster kindly obtained by Kirk Gilmore using the Lick 1.0m telescope. G2 can be seen in the map (Figure 12) of Buonanno (1981) and its estimated position is $\alpha$(1950) = 15$^h$16$^m$04$^s$, $\delta$(1950) = +02$\arcdeg$14$\arcmin$54$\arcsec$. It is a radial velocity member. A second star, listed here as “III-149” to prevent confusion, was accidentally observed in the mistaken belief that it was III-147. It is actually the star, not numbered in Buonanno , lying 10$\arcsec$ west and 4$\arcsec$ south of III-147, essentially at the right-hand edge of Figure 12 of Buonanno [*et al.*]{} It too is a radial velocity member of M5.
Processing of the raw spectra was carried out using the standard IRAF software package[^2]. The CCD frames were corrected for both bias and flat-field effects and the individual orders were extracted. Further analysis was performed using the SPECTRE code (Fitzpatrick & Sneden 1987); this involved continuum placement and normalization, cosmic ray removal, a wavelength calibration using stellar absorption lines within each order and removal of telluric absorption features using spectra of hot, rapidly-rotating, essentially featureless stars. The interested reader will find additional details of our standard procedures in earlier papers by this group (see , Sneden 1991, I99-M4).
Our nominal HIRES wavelength coverage is 5400 Å $\leq$ $\lambda$ $\leq$ 6700 Å, but the free spectral ranges of the echelle orders are larger than can be recorded by the 2048$\times$2048 pixel detector, so that features of some key elements are inevitably lost in the order interstices. In the 1994/5 observations, the grating was set to permit both and lines to be recorded in a study of M13 giants. Unfortunately, the radial velocities of M5 and M13 are sufficiently different that for the M13 grating setting, lines of in M5 were shifted into the region between orders, and were therefore not recorded.[^3] On the other hand, the grating setting employed for the 1998 observations of M5 permitted observations of the lines, but not the lines.
We measured EWs for all lines of interest by one of two techniques: direct integration of the flux across the observed line profile, or by adopting the EW of a Gaussian profile fitted to the line. The lines chosen for analysis in the to wavelength interval and their adopted $gf$-values are the same as those used in the previous paper of this series (I99-M4). We list the atomic parameters and corresponding reference for each line in Table \[m5.tab10\] in the Appendix, where further discussion of the linelist is to be found. EWs of all measured lines can be obtained electronically by request to the authors. They are also available at the Astronomical Data Center (ADC) at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (http://adc.gsfc.nasa.gov/adc/archive\_search.html). For the $\lambda\lambda$5682, 5688 Å doublet we based the abundance of Na on a synthetic spectrum fit, rather than EW measurements, since the lines in question are blended with other metallic species. We also checked by spectrum synthesis the O result obtained from the EW measurements of the \[\] $\lambda\lambda$6300, 6364 Å doublet, employing interpolated C and N abundances as a function of O from Smith (1997). Our vanadium abundances are derived from blended-line EW computations of $\lambda\lambda$6275, 6285 Å for which we employed well-determined hyperfine structure components from McWilliam (2001, private communication), which are slightly revised from those of McWilliam & Rich (1994), normalizing the $gf$-values to those adopted for these lines in previous studies by our group. Finally, following the same Ba abundance analysis that was performed in I99-M4, the blended-line EW analysis of the lines at $\lambda\lambda$5854, 6142, 6497 Å includes both hyperfine and isotopic subcomponents adopted from McWilliam (1998). Similarly, in this study, we assume the solar abundance ratios among the $^{134 - 138}$Ba isotopes in the calculations.
Abundance Analysis: Critique of the Input Parameter Selection Process
=====================================================================
Standard Analysis Procedure
---------------------------
The preliminary analysis of the observational data from the Keck I HIRES spectrograph followed the standard procedure of our earlier M5 paper (S92-M5). In that study, the values of $V$ and $(B-V)$ given by Cudworth (1979), and the relationship between 0 color and that had been adopted by Cudworth were used to provide a first estimate of for each program star. The adopted color excess $E(B-V)$ = 0.03 and true distance modulus = 14.03 were those recommended by Sandage & Cacciari (1990). In the present analysis, we used the values of $V$ and $(B-V)$ given by Sandquist (1996; 2000, private communication). We adopted the same color excess but the revised true distance modulus of = 14.40 (Djorgovski 1993) was employed in preliminary estimates of obtained using the relationship obtained by combining the gravitation law with Stefan’s law. In S92-M5, the bolometric corrections of Bell & Gustafsson (1978) were employed but here we interpolated G. Worthey’s bolometric corrections (1994, private communication), in order to be consistent with the previous paper of this series (see I99-M4 for details).
Armed with these preliminary estimates of and , we employed the current version of the MOOG line analysis code (Sneden 1973) to compute abundances from EWs on a line-by-line basis. For the various choices of and we calculated trial model atmospheres generated with the MARCS code (Gustafsson 1975). Anticipating from S92-M5 that $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ would be near –1.2, we took our input metallicity at \[Fe/H\] = –1.0, in order to simulate an overall $\alpha$-element enhancement relative to Fe of $\sim$0.2 to 0.3 dex, since the models were originally calculated for \[$\alpha$/Fe\] = 0.0. A discussion of the validity of this approximation is found in Fulbright & Kraft (1999).
Final model atmosphere parameters were determined, as before, by iteration, through satisfying the following requirements: (a) for , that the abundances of individual lines show no trend with excitation potential; (b) for microturbulent velocity $v_t$, that the abundances show no trend with EW; and (c) for , that the \[Fe/H\] abundance ratios derived from the and lines should not differ by more than 0.05 dex. The iterated model parameters are given in Table \[m5.tab2\]; the values listed for \[Fe/H\] in the traditional approach are a mean of determinations based on and . It is important to note in the iterative process that the “final” values of and may be fairly different from the estimated “input” values. Once is set, is constrained by the necessity to force close agreement in the \[Fe/H\] values determined from and . Alternatively, once a is found to satisfy the ionization equilibrium, the Teff is constrained to force agreement in the Fe I abundances for lines of different excitation potentials. Finally there is the additional constraint that \[Fe/H\] cannot be allowed to vary systematically over the range of and represented by the stars in the sample.
Inspection of the preliminary atmospheric parameters in Table \[m5.tab2\] gives rise to concerns. First, giants lying in the same range (3900 K to 4300 K) as those studied in S92-M5 have $<$$>$ that is $\sim$0.5 dex lower than the values given in that paper. The increase in from 14.03 to 14.40 should have instead lowered $<$$>$ by only 0.15 dex. Second, the mean \[Fe/H\] ratio is 0.15 dex lower among the six AGB stars than among the 13 RGB stars. Thus for the AGB we derive $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.45 $\pm$ 0.01 ($\sigma$ = 0.03), whereas for the RGB we derive –1.30 $\pm$ 0.01 ($\sigma$ = 0.04). Since a real physical reduction in Fe abundance from the RGB to the AGB is surely not expected in stars of such low mass, the result clearly points to some inadequacy in our analysis procedure. We list the \[el/Fe\] ratios derived in this traditional approach in the Appendix as Table \[m5.tab11\] where the values of \[el/Fe\] are those based on the mean of and abundances.
We also investigated our abundance results in the context of possible mass loss or chromospheric activity in the atmospheres of our giant stars. In all but two of the Keck spectra, H-$\alpha$ was just barely recorded on the blue edge of the chip. Stars I-20, G2, IV-81, IV-19, and III-149 all show some H-$\alpha$ emission in the blue wing. Of these stars, I-20 is apparently an AGB star; the rest are on the tip of the giant branch. Unfortunately, most of the Na D doublet is unrecorded for these stars (the spectra are cut off redward of the blue wing of Na D2). The two Keck spectra which are offset in wavelength from the rest do, however, have the Na D doublet recorded. Stars II-85 and IV-47, both on the tip of the giant branch, show core shifts in both Na D lines. With a very conservative error of $\pm$2 , we derive for the D2 lines a shift of –9.8 and for D1, –7.6 and –9.7 , for stars II-85 and IV-47, respectively. That the bluer D2 line may show a slightly higher blueshift is in accord with its formation higher in the atmosphere, and is thus more susceptible to any outward flows in the higher atmosphere regions (see , Bates 1993 and references therein).
A New Approach
--------------
“For many years, the techniques used in stellar abundance determinations have remained essentially unchanged, despite a rather passionate controversy in the late fifties and early sixties \[...\] that departures from LTE could lead to abundances substantially different from those given by the ‘classical’ LTE approach” (Dumont 1975). Detailed investigations since have confirmed not only the effect on derived abundances but also on the derived stellar parameters (see , Hearnshaw 1976, Luck & Lambert 1985, Fuhrmann 1997, Allende Prieto 1999, Fulbright 2000, the latter three studies based on [*Hipparcos*]{} \[ESA 1997\] results). The largest effect on stellar parameters is on the derived gravity: gravities derived by forcing ionization equilibrium (spectroscopic gravity) are lower than those derived by stellar parallaxes (trigonometric gravity) or by the evolutionary position in the HR-diagram (evolutionary gravity). We confirm this gravity anomaly in our LTE analysis of the M5 giant stars and discuss the anomaly further in this section.
Recently, Thévenin & Idiart (1999, hereafter TI99) have explored in detail the problem of Fe over-ionization in the atmospheres of metal-poor stars. For over-ionized atmospheres, application of standard LTE model atmospheres to abundance analysis of will always lead to an underestimate of \[Fe/H\]. TI99 point out that at any given optical depth, the populations of the atomic levels of are governed not by the local kinetic temperature but rather are modified by the outward leakage of UV photons into an atmosphere made progressively less opaque as metallicity is decreased. The metallicity dependence is not surprising: it has been known for some time that for a given optical depth, lower metallicity stars have a larger physical depth (see , Wallerstein 1962) and the optical depth thus reaches hotter layers of the atmosphere. Fortunately, the abundance of Fe derived from remains relatively unaffected, since in metal-poor stars, virtually all Fe is already in the form of . The TI99 calculations suggest that the reduction of \[Fe/H\] estimated from relative to amounts to about 0.1 dex at \[Fe/H\] = –1.0 but rises to about 0.3 dex at \[Fe/H\] = –2.5. For similar reasons, the leakage of UV photons should also become larger with lower atmospheric densities, , surface gravities, at a given , and with higher values at a given luminosity. Thus one might anticipate that should the TI99 effect be real, traditional analyses of AGB stars could well lead to lower overall estimates of \[Fe/H\] based on , as compared with RGB stars. A smaller, but still noticeable, “dragging down” of \[Fe/H\] would occur when \[Fe/H\] is estimated from the mean of and determinations. Could this effect account for the anomalous apparent drop in \[Fe/H\] among M5 AGB stars?
We decided to test this possibility in three ways: first, by modifying our Fe linelist to exclude all but the weakest lines; second, by modifying the linelist to exclude all but the highest excitation potential lines; and third, by modifying the procedure used to define the stellar parameters. By gradually culling the lines in descending order of equivalent width, we found a small but steady increase in the microturbulent velocity required to satisfy the EW equilibrium constraint but, no significant change in either the to ratio or in the overall iron abundance. Gradual deletions of lines in ascending order of excitation potential had no significant effect on the ratio or abundance and the changes in $v_t$ were up or down, depending on the subset of lines in use in a given trial. Finally, we modified our procedure for estimating the input values of and in the following way. First, we set aside any reference to the spectrum in estimating and replaced it with values of derived from 0, using the calibration of Alonso (1999; their Table 6, interpolating the computed table values).[^4] This scale, based on the Infra-Red Flux Method (“IRFM”; Blackwell 1990 and references therein), applies to low-mass, metal-poor giants. We then assigned to each star the value of it should have, as predicted from stellar models coupled to stellar evolution. To each star on the RGB, we assigned a mass of 0.80 , and to each star on the AGB a mass of 0.70 , thus allowing for the mass loss expected in very late evolutionary stages. We took $E(B-V)$ = 0.03, = 14.40, and calculated from the relationship $g$ $\sim$ $\mathcal{M}\times$$^4$/L, interpolating G.Worthey’s bolometric corrections (1994, private communication). The observed values of $V$ and $(B-V)$ used in S92-M5 were replaced by modern CCD-based values of Sandquist (1996; 2000, private communication).
In Table \[m5.tab2\] we show a comparison of and values derived from the “traditional” approach based on the and line spectrum and the revised approach based on the Alonso (1999) color versus -scale and stellar evolutionary arguments. For the 13 RGB stars and 6 AGB stars, we find $\delta$ = +26 $\pm$ 10 K and $\delta$ = +35 $\pm$ 18 K respectively, in the sense “new” $minus$ “traditional”. The difference between based on the excitation plot and based on the Alonso color--scale is very small and the effect on the abundances of Fe derived from and is essentially negligible. Thus an increase in of 30 K increases by 0.02 dex and decreases by 0.04 dex. But the change in has a more substantial effect; we find $\delta$ = +0.28 $\pm$ 0.04 for the RGB sample and virtually the same result, $\delta$ = +0.34 $\pm$ 0.06 for the AGB sample, again in the sense “new” $minus$ “traditional”. Such a gravity change tends to drive the derived Fe abundances from and apart: for $\delta$ = +0.30, we expect $\delta$ $\simeq$ –0.02 and $\delta$ $\simeq$ +0.15. These changes are qualitatively what one would expect if the TI99 conjecture were in fact true.
In Table \[m5.tab3\] we tabulate the changes in and corresponding to small changes in the input parameters: , , $v_t$, \[Fe/H\], distance modulus, and stellar mass for a typical M5 RGB star: = 4325 K, = 1.08, $v_t$ = 1.65. From the arguments in the preceding paragraph plus inspection of this table, one can easily see the scope of the dilemma. The excitation plot yields essentially the same values as the Alonso (1999) -scale, in turn based on the IRFM. It therefore seems unlikely this temperature scale is seriously in error. If the disagreement between the spectroscopic gravities, based on forced agreement between and abundances, and the evolutionary gravities is due to a defect in estimating the latter, then the evolutionary would need to be decreased by $\sim$0.3 dex. This would in turn imply that the distance modulus of M5 is too small, and needs to be increased by 0.75 dex, , to = 15.15. Such an increase in the distance modulus would be seriously at odds with recent estimates based on fitting of the M5 main sequence to the main sequence of mildly metal-poor subdwarfs having accurate [ *Hipparcos*]{}-based parallaxes. For example, Reid (1997) finds = 14.45 from this approach, very close to the value adopted here. M5 also contains many RR Lyrae variables for which $<V^o>$ = 15.02 if $E(B-V)$ = 0.03 (Jones 1988). Assuming that halo field and globular cluster RR Lyraes are analogs of each other, these are expected to have $<$0$>$ = +0.7 $\pm$ 0.1 (Layden 1996, based on their Figure 7) in which case $\sim$ 14.3, again close to our assumed value. A modulus of 15.15 would cause the RR Lyraes of M5 to be unacceptably bright.
Returning to Table \[m5.tab2\], we tabulate values of \[Fe/H\] determined independently from and , based on our revised procedure. We now $assume$ that \[Fe/H\] is correctly given by the value. In that case, for the 13 RGB stars, $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.20 $\pm$ 0.01, ($\sigma$ = 0.04) and for the 6 AGB stars, $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.26 $\pm$ 0.04 ($\sigma$ = 0.07). In comparison to the results from the “traditional” analysis, the difference in Fe abundance between the AGB and RGB has been reduced from 0.15 to 0.06 dex; the latter difference is close to a 1-$\sigma$ combined error and thus is acceptable. The over-ionization of Fe follows from a comparison of \[Fe/H\] determined from and . Thus for the 13 RGB stars, $<\delta$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –0.09 $\pm$ 0.01 ($\sigma$ = 0.05) and for the 6 AGB stars, $<\delta$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –0.18 $\pm$0.03 ($\sigma$ = 0.08), in the sense $minus$ .[^5] As anticipated, the depression of abundances relative to those of is more severe for AGB stars as compared to RGB stars. In Figures \[m5.fig2\], \[m5.fig3\] and \[m5.fig4\], we illustrate the difference, $\delta$ = – , as functions of (Alonso 1999) and (evolutionary), as well as as a function of for all of our program stars.[^6] One AGB star (I-20) remains somewhat anomalous in having an unusually low abundance; we return to this star later.
Alternative Approaches
----------------------
In the preceding, we adopted the -scale of Alonso , which follows an empirical approach based on the IRFM. However, examining the offsets in Fe abundance exhibited in Table \[m5.tab3\], we see that agreement between and could also be achieved if we increased by $\sim$60K and $\sim$120K for RGB and AGB stars (along with accompanying small increases in ), respectively. However, from Table \[m5.tab2\], we see that adoption of these increases would exascerbate the difference between the obtained from the excitation plot and the newly corrected , by +72K and +160K for RGB and AGB stars.
-scales other than that of Alonso (1999) can be found in the literature. A recent version is that of Gratton (2000). We can compare values of using metal-poor giants common to the two investigations; there are five such field giants shared between Gratton (2000) and Alonso (1999), from which we find $\delta$ = +71K $\pm$ 68K, with the Gratton scale the hotter of the two. However, conflicting evidence is found from a study of near-UV fluxes and flux distributions of metal-poor stars by Allende Prieto & Lambert (2000). Their investigation contains 15 stars in common with Alonso (1996) and having \[Fe/H\] $<$ –0.5 with 4000K $\le$ $_{Alonso}$ $\le$ 6000K (omitting the spectroscopically peculiar dwarfs HD134439 and HD25329). For these 15 stars we find a negligible offset of $\delta$ = +32K $\pm$ 56K, in the sense UV $minus$ IRFM. Unfortunately, the sample consists entirely of dwarfs. Allende Prieto & Lambert also compare their UV-flux derived values of with those of Gratton (2000). In this case, there are four giants in common (we omit the heavily reddened HD166161). For these four stars, we find a much larger offset of $\delta$ = +94K $\pm$ 63K, in the sense Gratton $minus$ Allende Prieto & Lambert.
We also investigated the effects of adopting the color- calibration of Sekiguchi & Fukugita (2000). For stars with temperatures that correspond to the warmer M5 stars in our sample, the Sekiguchi & Fukugita color- calibration produces temperatures $\sim$50K hotter than the other calibrations. This temperature shift improves the situation for our hottest AGB stars but also affects our warm RGB stars. On the other hand, for stars with temperatures that correspond to the coolest M5 stars in our sample, we find that their calibration produces a -scale that is $\sim$100K [*cooler*]{} than that of the Alonso (1996) calibration, a temperature difference that is in agreement with the overall findings of Sekiguchi & Fukugita. Thus, the overall effect of the Sekiguchi & Fukugita -scale is to change the slope of the vs relationship to one which is in the [*opposite*]{} sense of what is required to correct the cool AGB versus RGB + “tip” star iron abundances. In summary, these comparisons clearly offer no firm evidence that the Alonso -scale requires any upward revision.
In an alternative approach, we abandon the Alonso IRFM-based scale and instead derive and from the comparison of observed and synthetic colors of models for low-mass, metal-poor giants. New models have recently been calculated by Houdashelt (2000), in which values of $(B-V)$, $(V-K)$, (and other colors) are given as a function of and for metal abundances ranging from solar to \[Fe/H\] = –3. To determine whether adoption of these models would in some way modify our conclusions, we considered a sample of M5 giants drawn from our Table \[m5.tab1\], distributed so that RGB, AGB and “tip” stars are all represented. We then calculated and for each star, entering the Houdashelt tables with the observed values of 0, and assuming as before a true distance modulus of 14.40. The BC’s adopted in this case were those of Houdashelt . Unfortunately, this procedure proved difficult to apply in practice for two reasons. First, the expected metallicity of M5 is in the range \[Fe/H\] = –1.2 to –1.35, and the Houdashelt tables contain entries only for \[Fe/H\] = –1.0 and –2.0. Thus one must interpolate within the framework of a rather coarse grid. Second, at a fixed $(B-V)$, the relationship between Teff and \[Fe/H\] is non-linear, so that linear interpolation at the metallicity of M5 is not adequate. However, these difficulties can be overcome by employing 0 as the independent variable, since is practically independent of \[Fe/H\] at a fixed value of 0, and depends very little on . To obtain 0 for the stars in our Keck sample, we plotted 0 vs 0 for the 25 stars observed by Frogel (1983), and used this plot to transform 0 to 0, retaining the more recently acquired $V$ magnitudes and $(B-V)$ colors of Sandquist (1996; 2000, private communication). The color-color plot proved to be extremely tight: we estimate that the transformation could introduce an error of no more than 0.01 mag in 0. This procedure permitted us to estimate values of with little uncertainty due to errors in interpolation.
The difference between derived from the Houdashelt models and derived from the Alonso scale is shown as a function of 0 in Figure \[m5.fig5\]. The difference shows a steady increase with luminosity from $\sim$zero at 0 = –0.5 to $\sim$+60K at 0 = –2.5. Results and comparisons with entries in Table \[m5.tab2\] are shown in Table \[m5.tab4\]. The Houdashelt values of are higher than the Alonso IRFM-based values of by average offsets of 27K$\pm$ 21K for the three RGB stars, +60K $\pm$ 10K for the three “tip” stars, and +43K $\pm$ 20K for the three AGB stars (also see Figure \[m5.fig5\]). Within the errors, the offsets in are appear comparable (the overall average is +43K $\pm$ 20K). However, using the higher values of , the average offsets in the iron abundances, $\delta$\[Fe/H\] = $minus$ , become –0.06 $\pm$ 0.02, –0.07 $\pm$ 0.06, and –0.16 $\pm$ 0.07 for the same three groups of stars. Regardless of which of the preceding -scales we adopt, the abundance of Fe based on remains essentially constant with evolutionary state, whereas \[Fe/H\] based on remains significantly smaller on the AGB as compared with the RGB and “tip” stars. Simply adopting the hotter -scale of Houdashelt for the sample does not solve the overall problem of over-ionization.
As to additional sources of systematic differences between vs abundances, the referee noted that the $gf$-value zero-point for is possibly not as well known as one would like. Two recent studies of $gf$-values, those of the “critical compilation” of the NIST Atomic Spectra Database (Version 2.0; http://physics.nist.gov/asd; Martin 1999) and Schnabel (1999) provide lines in common with those shown in the Appendix (Table \[m5.tab10\]). The difference between our values and the NIST values is +0.10 dex $\pm$ 0.09 dex, in the sense of M5 $minus$ NIST. Adopting the NIST log $gf$-values would produce an even larger disagreement between our and abundances. With the Schnabel (1999) linelist, our two lines in common have a difference in the log $gf$-values of –0.14 dex $\pm$ 0.09 dex, in the sense of this study $minus$ Schnabel [*et al*]{}. However, the solar abundance of iron derived using the Schnabel linelist is 7.42, not the 7.52 we have adopted here and in our previous work. Normalizing the Schnabel lines to reproduce our adopted solar abundance would negate the offset that the lines would otherwise generate. While an increase in the log $gf$-values of by 0.1 dex from those which we have employed in our previous Lick-Texas work would indeed bring the “tip”and RGB giant \[Fe/H\] values for and into agreement using the Alonso -scale, any change “across the board” in $gf$-values would not simultaneously satisfy the vs offsets for the AGB stars.
We summarize the findings of this section by noting that one of three procedural choices can be adopted:
1. We adopt the traditional methods of high resolution spectroscopy, including setting the surface gravity from the ionization equilibrium of iron, in which case we find that the mean \[Fe/H\] value decreases by 0.15 dex as stellar evolution advances from the RGB to the AGB.
2. We abandon the traditional approach using spectroscopic constraints, basing the analysis instead on values of derived from the Alonso (1999) relation between $(B-V)$ and , which is in turn based on the Infra-Red Flux Method (Blackwell 1990 and references therein), and values of derived from application of stellar evolution plus knowledge of the cluster distance modulus. This approach stabilizes the abundance as a function of evolutionary state but requires acceptance of the idea that is over-ionized and out of equilibrium with , consistent with the non-LTE precepts described by Thévenin & Idiart (1999). The over-ionization of turns out to be more severe among AGB as compared with RGB stars. Interestingly, this -scale is in close agreement with the -scale derived from the excitation vs EW plot.
3. An alternative solution requires arbitrarily increasing the values of above the Alonso scale by $\sim$60K on the RGB and $\sim$120K on the AGB; these changes would bring and abundances nearly into agreement. The recent models of metal-poor stars by Houdashelt (2000), which predict $(B-V)$, $(V-K)$, and other colors from and for different choices of \[Fe/H\], do indeed predict higher values of than those of the Alonso scale. Why the models give a vs color scale that is hotter than the scale based on the IRFM is not clear. The Houdashelt models come close to satisfying ionization constraint requirement among the RGB stars, but are still too cool by $\sim$70K to rectify the situation for AGB stars. And, if we make the AGB stars 120K hotter than the Alonso (1999) scale, the abundance of will drop to a level about 0.1 dex lower than its value among RGB stars.
Here we adopt procedure (2) as one extreme, and report the results of procedure (1), the opposite extreme, in the Appendix. The reader should bear in mind that the “intermediate” solution under (3) remains an option, but requires a fairly large systematic correction to the IRFM-based -scale and a smaller, but still significant, correction to the -scale based on the Houdashelt models.
\[el/Fe\] Ratios: A Rationale
=============================
Based on the revised approach, the determination of \[el/Fe\] ratios becomes more complex than is the case in the traditional approach. If Fe is over-ionized, then one might expect a corresponding over-ionization of elements having first ionization potentials $\lesssim$ to that of iron. In the yellow-red spectral regions of globular cluster giants, almost all detectable transitions arise from “metallic elements” that exist predominantly in singly ionized states. But aside from Fe, which has both neutral and ionized species lines available, only a few elements (, Sc, Ba, La, Eu, and sometimes Ti) have observable transitions arising from their first ionized states in our stars. Fortunately, the \[el/Fe\] ratios of these elements are confidently estimated from their \[el/H\] ratios and \[Fe/H\] ratios from . For the majority of elements with only neutral-species lines present, estimates must be made of the degree to which the neutral populations are depleted by over-ionization. Oxygen is a special case: it remains overwhelmingly neutral and in the ground state, shielded from over-ionization both by its very high first ionization potential (13.6 eV) and the opacity corresponding to the Lyman jump. There is little doubt that the \[O/Fe\] ratio should be based on \[Fe/H\] derived from .[^7]
The degree of over-ionization of any particular species depends on the ionization potential, the term scheme and the location and strength of the absorption transitions of that atom in relation to the flux distribution of the excess $UV$ photons. The excess $UV$ photons envisaged by TI99 must have a complicated $UV$ energy distribution reflecting the highly jagged opacity distribution longward of the Lyman limit. Calculating the degree of excess ionization is further complicated by the fact that ionizations can take place from excited levels as well as the ground state. To determine accurately the degree of over-ionization of those species which appear in our spectra only in the neutral state would require the calculation of collisional and radiative rates for thousands of levels, as was done in the case of and by TI99. Such calculations for similar elements are beyond the scope of this paper, although it is obvious that detailed studies need to be carried out.
In the absence of such theoretical calculations, we looked for guidance in the empirical domain, in particular among stars with values of similar to those of M5 giants, but having higher metallicities so that EWs of ionized lines of such species as Si, Ti, and V are large enough to be measured. A sample of LMC and SMC cepheids (Luck 1998) provides \[el/H\] ratios for neutral and ionized states of these three elements both for based on stellar evolution and for derived from the versus ionization balance. Whenever Fe appears to be over-ionized as a result of adopting an “evolutionary” , these authors generally find that Si, Ti, and V are excessively ionized by essentially the same amount as is Fe.[^8] A similar over-ionization effect is found by Kovtykh & Andrievsky (1999) in $\delta$ Cep.
If this situation applies also in the M5 giants considered here, then the abundance ratios of \[Si/Fe\], \[Ti/Fe\], and \[V/Fe\] can be estimated from the assumption that the degree of over-ionization of these species is the same as that of Fe. In that case these elements must be referenced to the abundance of Fe based on . In the absence of detailed calculations we broaden this procedure to include all elements which present themselves in the neutral state except for oxygen, which for reasons already cited, we reference to Fe based on .
We summarize our estimates of the \[el/Fe\] ratios for the 19 RGB plus “tip” and 6 AGB stars in question in Table \[m5.tab5\]. Columns 3 and 4 contain the values of \[Fe/H\] estimated independently for and and column 5 contains \[O/Fe\], assuming that yields the correct abundance of Fe. For the remaining elements up through the Fe-peak group (except for Sc), we list \[el/Fe\] on the simple assumption that it is “correct” to ratio to . For the heavy elements (and Sc), we ratio to . Mean values of \[el/Fe\] are found at the bottom of Table \[m5.tab5\], individually calculated for RGB and AGB stars. These should be compared with mean values from Table \[m5.tab11\] in the Appendix, which are based on the “traditional” method of analysis.
Adopted \[el/Fe\] Ratios: the 25 Stars Observed with the Keck I HIRES
=====================================================================
Following the arguments of the last two sections we assume that \[el/Fe\] ratios are properly deduced by referring neutral species abundances to and ionized species to , the only exception being \[O/Fe\] derived from \[\], which is referred to . Following this precept, we add to the 19 RGB and AGB giants of Table \[m5.tab5\] the six stars near the red giant tip and display the resultant \[el/Fe\] ratios also in Table \[m5.tab5\].
Table \[m5.tab5\] lists the means of \[Fe/H\] derived from and , and the means for the \[el/Fe\] ratios based on the above discussion, where we have divided the material into four groups: 13 RGB, 6 AGB, 19 RGB plus “tip” stars and finally, all 25 stars observed with the Keck I HIRES. Except for the differences in \[Fe/H\] derived from versus , there are few surprises. O, Na, and Al abundances have a substantial spread of the kind exhibited by most globular clusters (see the reviews cited in §1), and the $\alpha$-elements Si, Ca, and Ti have their usual abundance enhancements of $\sim$+0.2 to +0.35 dex. Sc, V, and Ni have \[el/Fe\] ratios not far from 0.0, \[Mn/Fe\] $\simeq$ –0.25 as expected (see , McWilliam 1997), and the ratio \[Ba/Eu\] $\simeq$ –0.27 is similar to that found in field giants (Shetrone 1996, McWilliam 1997) and field subdwarfs (Fulbright 2000, 2001) having the metallicity of M5.
Somewhat disconcerting is the slight run of \[Ba/Eu\] toward larger values in the most advanced evolutionary state – the AGB. That this is probably not a manifestation of slow neutron-capture nucleosynthesis occuring within the stars themselves follows from the fact that \[La/Eu\] exhibits the opposite behavior. The slight runs seen here in Ba are likely due to the choice of microturbulent velocity: the iron line constraint is satisfied but the same microturbulent velocity may not be appropriate for the atmospheric layers where the Ba lines are formed in the lower density AGB stars.
Re-analysis of the Earlier Lick Observations
============================================
The abundances reported by S92-M5 refer to 13 M5 giants observed with the Lick Hamilton Echelle, two of which (II-85 and IV-47) overlap with the 25 stars observed at Keck. Most of these 13 Lick stars lie near the RGB tip and therefore provide a valuable supplement to the Keck sample. The earlier analysis employed the “traditional” approach; we consider here a re-analysis of the same data based on our revised approach. Allowances must be made, however, for the lower spectral resolution and more limited free spectral range of the earlier Lick observations.
We first re-measured the Lick EW’s to be sure that continuum levels and line fitting procedures were consistent with the norms established in dealing with the Keck I observations. A plot of original versus re-measured Lick EWs is shown in Figure \[m5.fig6\], from which it is clear that there is no significant difference between them. We then used the two stars that had been observed both at Keck I and Lick to compare the EW scales of their spectrographs. In Figure \[m5.fig7\] we plot the difference between the Keck I and (re-measured) Lick EWs as a function of the Keck I EWs. The straight line fit illustrated in this figure indicates that the Lick EWs must be reduced systematically by 5% to get on the system defined by the Keck I HIRES spectrograph, that is EW$_{\rm Keck}$ = 0.95$\times$EW$_{\rm Lick}$ $\pm$ 0.09 mÅ ($\sigma$ = 6.1 mÅ) for the 42 lines of II-85 and the 51 lines of IV-47 in common between the data sets.[^9]
In Table \[m5.tab6\] we give the “new” values of , , $v_t$, \[Fe/H\] based on the abundances of and , and the \[el/Fe\] ratios, all following the modified procedures outlined in §3.2, and employing the revised EWs discussed above, reduced by 5%. We omit star II-9 from further consideration: the S/N of the observed Lick spectrum we now consider unacceptably low. The combined Lick/Keck sample therefore contains 35 giants. The offsets between and for the entire sample, as functions of and , are illustrated in Figures \[m5.fig2\] and \[m5.fig3\], and the corresponding values are shown in Figure \[m5.fig4\].
We compare the entries in Table \[m5.tab6\] with the “all star” means of Table \[m5.tab5\], since the Lick sample contains a mixed group of tip, RGB, and AGB stars. There are no differences in \[Fe/H\] exceeding 0.03 dex, and no differences in \[el/Fe\] ratios exceeding a 1-$\sigma$ error except in the case of \[Sc/Fe\] (derived from lines), where the difference approaches the 2-$\sigma$ level. The Lick spectra also provided access to as well as lines. However, the \[Sc/Fe\] ratios from the two stages of ionization are in poor agreement. Literature values for the oscillator strengths for the lines vary by $\sim$0.4 dex (see S92-M5 for discussion) and thus the lines are dropped from this study as well. The only other element in which two stages of ionization are exhibited is Ti, but unfortunately in only two stars, II-85 and IV-47. In these stars, the two \[Ti/Fe\] stages are in rough agreement even though the result is based on only one line: \[/\] and \[/\] are 0.30 and 0.14 for IV-47, and 0.18 and 0.24 for II-85. Except for the case of Sc, the agreement between the Lick- and Keck I-based abundances appears therefore to be excellent.
Re-analysis of Other Lick Observations
--------------------------------------
In order to expand our analysis to include more M5 abundances of Mg, Al and Eu (observed by us in only 2, 23, and 25 of the 36 stars, respectively), we have sought out EWs in the literature. Fortunately, Shetrone’s (1996) study, based on post-1995 Lick Hamilton spectra, included five M5 stars in common with this study (excluding II-9 which we omitted earlier due to S/N considerations). All of the stars in common are also part of our Lick sample.
In Table \[m5.tab7\], we present the results of applying our new models (the right hand columns of Table \[m5.tab2\]) to the EWs of Shetrone (1996) for Mg, Al, and Eu for the 5 stars in common with our study. For Mg, we consider only the atomic lines, neglecting the results from the MgH features. The averages and standard deviations of the results using the Keck data taken of the two stars for which we are able to derive Mg and Al abundances are also shown. Since both sets of M5 results are within 1-$\sigma$, in subsequent figures we will treat the elemental abundances derived using data we acquired with equal weight to those derived from our re-analysis of the Shetrone (1996) EWs.
Finally in Table \[m5.tab8\] we present the mean values of the \[el/Fe\]-ratios for AGB, RGB, and RGB plus “tip” stars, averaged over the Keck and Lick observations, plus “grand” mean values averaged over all 35 stars (the means exclude II-9 as discussed in §6) taken together.
In Figure \[m5.fig8\] we present a “boxplot” to summarize the mean and scatter of each element we analysed in M5. The Keck and Lick results are both represented and the Mg, Al, and Eu abundances include the results obtained by putting the Shetrone (1996) EWs on to our system. This boxplot illustrates the median, data spread, skew, and distribution of the range of values we derived for each of the elements from our program stars, as well as possible outliers. As can be seen in the figure, the abundance range for elements sensitive to proton-capture nucleosynthesis is large whereas the star-to-star abundance variations for all of the heavier elements is quite small, and consistent with the normal scatter resulting from observational error.
Relationships among \[O/Fe\], \[Na/Fe\], \[Al/Fe\], and CN Band Strengths
=========================================================================
The Distributions of \[O/Fe\] and \[Na/Fe\] with Respect to Evolutionary State
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Figure \[m5.fig9\] we plot \[Na/Fe\] versus \[O/Fe\] and in Figure \[m5.fig10\], \[Al/Fe\] versus \[Na/Fe\]. The results are consistent with the expected anti-correlation of Na with O and the correlation of Al with Na (see reviews cited in §1). The shape of these relationships generally follows that seen earlier in M15 (Sneden 1997), M10 (Kraft 1995), M3 (Kraft 1992), M92 (Sneden 1991, Shetrone 1996) and M13 (Shetrone 1996, Kraft 1997, Cavallo & Nagar 2000). The ranges of O and Na in M5 are comparable with the large range seen in M13, although the range of Al is distinctly smaller, more in keeping with the other clusters cited. On the other hand the range in O and Al is larger than is found in M4, a cluster with metallicity similar to M5, although the range in Na is about the same (I99-M4).
One star that stands well off the relationships shown in these two figures is I-20, the coolest of the AGB stars in our sample. It has an unusually low abundance, a fairly low abundance and by far the largest microturbulent velocity. The low Fe abundances, however, cannot alone account for the high \[O/Fe\] and \[Na/Fe\] values, while simultaneously yielding an \[Al/Fe\] ratio that is too low for its \[O/Fe\]. Possibly the star is an unresolved binary, consisting of a pair of RGB stars, but this would require that the two components differ substantially in $V$, since the combined light is only 0.2 mag above the RGB. In that case, the line profiles might indeed be widened, thus accounting for the large $v_t$ value, but would also be unsymmetrical, contrary to their actual appearance. However, I-20 does exhibit the largest H-$\alpha$ emission among our sample for which H-$\alpha$ was recorded on the chip. We note that if I-20 is a pair of RGB stars disguised as an AGB, the for these stars ($\sim$1.65) would lead to a [*further reduction*]{} of 0.1 dex in the \[V/Fe\]-ratio (see Table \[m5.tab3\]). At the moment we conclude that I-20 has elevated O and Na abundances compared with other M5 stars, exhibiting in exaggerated form the excess O and Na abundances found previously in IV-59 (Kraft 1992, Briley & Smith 1993, Smith 1997). The additional anomalous stars noted in Figure \[m5.fig9\] are discussed further in §7.2.
When a large sample of M13 giants is divided at = 1.02, there is a clear shift of Mg, Na, and O abundances in support of the evolutionary scenario (Kraft 1997, Hanson 1998). If the present sample of M5 RGB and “tip” stars is divided by evolutionary state, do we find a similar shift that supports the evolutionary picture? In response to this inquiry, we explored the distributions of \[O/Fe\] and \[Na/Fe\] when the RGB plus “tip” giants are divided into two virtually equal evolutionary groups: 14 giants having $\leq$ 1.02 and 13 having $>$ 1.02. The results are shown in histogram form in Figure \[m5.fig11\]. We performed a Mann-Whitney U-Test (equivalent to a Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test) to test the hypothesis that the two samples have the same mean of oxygen abundance ratio distribution against the hypothesis that they differ. There is a less than 1% probability that the two samples have the same mean of distribution. Thus we confirm statistically what can be discerned by eye: the two samples have significantly different means of distribution. In contrast with M13, the distributions above and below evolutionary of 1.02 are differently skewed, but in a sense opposite to that expected in the evolutionary scenario. This result, although not incompatible with the primordial scenario, does not rule out the notion that the required evolutionary change could have taken place among giants fainter than those probed by our sample.
Relationship of CN Band Strengths to \[O/Fe\] and \[Na/Fe\]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Measurements of CN band strengths in a substantial number of M5 RGB and AGB stars have been carried out by Smith & Norris (1983, 1993) and by Briley & Smith (1993). Like many other globular clusters, M5 giants present a bimodal distribution of CN band strengths. Smith (1997) found that strong CN bands among M5 giants are generally driven by a high abundance of N, and that the index S(3839), which is a measure of the flux in the CN molecular band relative to that in a nearby comparison region, is anti-correlated with \[O/Fe\] and correlated with \[Na/Fe\]. For a scenario in which the star-to-star abundance variations seen here are a result of proton-capture nucleosynthesis, such a behavior of CN band strengths is expected, since C will likely have been processed to N when O is transmuted to N and Ne to Na (Langer 1993, Cavallo 1998).
The giants studied here add further weight to this picture. In Figure \[m5.fig12\], we plot \[Na/Fe\] and \[O/Fe\] as a function of the CN bandstrength index $\delta$S(3839) for 30 giants. The S(3839) values were taken from Smith & Norris (1993), supplemented by Smith & Norris (1983), Briley & Smith (1993) and Smith (1997). Where available, the Smith & Norris (1993) values were adopted. In the case of multiple measurements from the other sources, an average value was adopted, subsequent to employing the transformations described in Smith (1997). The “raw” S(3839) values are shown in Table \[m5.tab1\]. Because some of the CN bandstrength measured by S(3839) is sensitive to temperature (given the same C and N abundances, cooler stars have intrinsically larger S(3839) indices than their hotter counterparts), we “detrended” the raw S(3839) index. We fitted a “baseline” as a function of to the S(3839) results, and formed a differential CN strength index, $$\delta S(3839) = S(3839) - (0.991 - 1.95 \times 10^{-4} \times \teff).$$ We further binned the stars into “CN-strong” and “CN-weak” groups using Smith & Norris (1993) as a guide, with the exception that we designated the Smith & Norris “intermediate” strength stars, and other stars with similar $\delta$S(3839) measures, as CN-strong.
We find the $\delta$S(3839) index to be correlated with Na and anti-correlated with O, as shown in Figure \[m5.fig12\]. Returning to Figure \[m5.fig9\], where we note the stars as being CN-strong (s) or CN-weak (w), we see that the CN-strong stars lie in the low O, high Na part of the diagram, with CN-weak stars dominating the high O, low Na portion. As seen in previous studies of other globular clusters, the Na and O abundance patterns also correlate with the CN strength as inferred by the $\delta$S(3839) index. A few stars plotted in Figure \[m5.fig9\] remain anomalous; we have already noted I-20 and IV-59. The two stars I-68 and III-78 appear to be a bit oxygen-rich for their sodium abundances. II-85 has high \[O/Fe\] but only an intermediate value of $\delta$S(3839). I-55 has diminished oxygen and enhanced sodium, opposite to what would be expected from its CN bandstrength index. For this star, the abundances of the two pairs of Na lines have a standard deviation of 0.06 dex and the two oxygen line syntheses are in excellent agreement. However, there is some ambiguity about its CN bandstrength classification: Smith & Norris (1993) give a small S(3839) value, corresponding to that of a CN-weak star but list I-55 as a CN-strong star. We suggest that a closer examination of the CN measurements of this particular AGB star is required to resolve the ambiguity. The star III-96 appears to have an excessive Na abundance, but the values of \[Na/Fe\] derived from the $\lambda\lambda$5682, 5688 Å pair and the $\lambda\lambda$6154, 6161 Å pair are in poor agreement.
Similar correlations between CN-strength and location in the Al-Na correlation are found in Figure \[m5.fig10\], where we find, in general, that the CN-strong stars lie in the high Al, high Na part of the diagram. But again there are a few anomalous stars like I-20 and I-55. We conclude that, within the errors of our abundance determinations, most M5 giants follow the expected pattern of proton-capture nucleosynthesis with only a few exceptions, but these exceptions are compatible with the existence of primordial abundance variations among at least a few members of M5.
Figure \[m5.fig12\] also demonstrates that within both the CN-weak and CN-strong groups there is an intrinisc spread in $\delta$S(3839), \[O/Fe\], and \[Na/Fe\]. Even the CN-weak stars themselves show an intrinsic dispersion in $\delta$S(3839), \[O/Fe\], and \[Na/Fe\]. The same is true for the CN-strong stars. If these observations are not a result of scatter due to observational error, then they are consistent with a “primordial” scatter of Na and O, produced by proton-capture nucleosynthesis in an earlier generation of stars, which has subsequently been modified by deep mixing in the sample stars themselves.
A Comparison of \[el/Fe\] Ratios in M4 and M5
=============================================
Although many clusters have giants with variations in C, N, O, Na, Al, and Mg that are attributable to the proton-capture process, they also usually yield \[el/Fe\] ratios of the Fe-peak elements, $\alpha$-capture elements such as Si, Ca, and Ti and heavy neutron-capture elements such as Ba and Eu that are stable and “normal” with respect to typical halo field stars. In this respect, M5 is no exception. In Table \[m5.tab9\] we list \[el/Fe\] ratios for M5 together with the mean of a large sample of halo field subdwarfs at \[Fe/H\] $\simeq$ –1.2 (Fulbright 2000, 2001), for most of the elements, supplemented by field giants (Gratton & Sneden 1994) in the case of La. In the upper part of this table, we consider only those elements not subject to proton-capture nucleosynthesis. Among these elements, the agreement between M5 and the halo field subdwarfs is good, the difference never exceeding 1-$\sigma$ (for M5). In the lower part of this table we add rows for \[Na/Fe\] and \[Al/Fe\]. In contrast to cluster stars, field stars do not show evidence for enhanced Na and Al as a result of proton captures on Ne and Mg, respectively (Hanson 1998, Kraft 1999, Gratton 2000), so it is not surprising that M5 giants on the average show higher \[Na/Fe\] and \[Al/Fe\] values than are found in halo field subdwarfs.
We wish to compare \[el/Fe\]-ratios in M5 with M4, a cluster having nearly the same metallicity as M5. However, the M5 \[el/Fe\] ratios listed in Table \[m5.tab9\] come from the revised method of this paper. The abundances in M4 had been derived assuming that could be set from the ionization equilibrium of and . Unfortunately, for the M4 stars we cannot set from the Alonso (1999) relation between $(B-V)$ and plus application of stellar evolution. M4 is heavily and differentially reddened, and the ratio of total to selective absorption $R_V$ = $A_V/E(B-V)$ is not the normal value of 3.2, but is estimated to lie in the range 3.1 to 4.0 (Dixon & Longmore 1993; I99-M4). Thus $A_V$ is not accurately known.
To gain an idea of the effect on \[el/Fe\] ratios in M4 if we were to adopt the same approach consistent with the non-LTE precepts of TI99, we turn the problem around: we adopt the geometrical distance (1.7 kpc) given by Peterson (1995) and increase the traditionally derived values of by an amount that offsets \[Fe/H\] from and by the same amount as we have derived for M5, , 0.09 dex. From Table 2 of I99-M4, we find that the values of of giants in M4 need to be increased by 0.12 dex. Again from Table \[m5.tab3\] we see that the effect of this increase on \[el/Fe\]-ratios is actually quite small: for O, Na, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Sc, Ti, La, and Eu, the corrections do not exceed 0.02 dex. The reduction in \[Ba/Fe\] is a bit larger: 0.04 dex. These values, therefore slightly revised from those given in Table 5 of I99-M4, are listed in the last column of Table \[m5.tab9\]. We conclude that any comparison of \[el/Fe\] ratios between these two clusters is nearly independent of the analysis technique. But two consequences of the revised approach are noteworthy. First, for M4, $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.17 and –1.08 if derived from and , respectively. Second, for a geometrical distance of 1.7 kpc and the revised values of , we obtain a ratio of total to selective absorption $R_V$ = 3.9 (§3.4 of I99-M4) if $<E(B - V)>$ = 0.37 (Dixon & Longmore 1993).
To put the I99-M4 results on the M5 system of analysis used in this study, we have applied the $\delta$\[el/Fe\] corresponding to the 0.12 dex increase in . Most of the mean values of \[el/Fe\] listed in Table \[m5.tab9\] for M4 and M5 are derived from 24 and 35 stars respectively, and therefore the standard deviations are generally quite small. In addition, systematic errors are likely not to be a problem since the methods of analysis are basically the same. Among most Fe-peak and $\alpha$-element abundances, the agreement between M4 and M5 is good, generally within 1-$\sigma$. The main exception seems to be \[Si/Fe\]: the Si abundance in M4 exceeds that of M5 by about 3-$\sigma$. Similar 3-$\sigma$ overabundances in M4 compared with M5 (and the field) are found in Ba and La. Al is also higher in M4 than in M5 (and the field), but the significance of this result is less clear since Al is a product of proton-capture nucleosynthesis and known to be highly variable among cluster stars.
Based on our large stellar sample and the updated I99-M4 results, we extend the work of I99-M4 and confirm what Brown & Wallerstein (1992) found from a small sample of M4 stars: Si, Al, Ba and La abundances are unusually large in M4. We confirm also the earlier study of S92-M5 which showed that M5 has “normal” abundances. In the comparison of M5 with M4, we did not find the difference in Mg reported by I99-M4 but, in our observations, the lines were recorded in the spectra of only two M5 giants. The mean abundance for our two stars is 0.39 $\pm$ 0.03 ($\sigma$ = 0.07) which is comparable to the mean in I99-M4, 0.42 $\pm$ 0.02 ($\sigma$ = 0.08). In the I99-M4 study, the difference reported with respect to M5 was determined using the results of Shetrone (1996). Employing Shetrone’s published EWs and the revised models we have derived in this analysis, we obtain an average \[Mg/Fe\]-ratio of +0.32 $\pm$ 0.03 ($\sigma$ = 0.07) for the Shetrone data, which, combined with the two stars from our sample, gives an average \[Mg/Fe\]-ratio of 0.34 $\pm$ 0.03 ($\sigma$ = 0.07). We find that the difference in Mg between M4 and M5 is a bit more than 1-$\sigma$.
In the following boxplots, we show the range of abundances found in both M4 and M5: Figure \[m5.fig13\] illustrates the elements which may be sensitive to proton-capture nucleosynthesis, Figure \[m5.fig14\] shows the heavier $\alpha$- and Fe-peak elements, and Figure \[m5.fig15\] illustrates the $s$- and $r$-process element abundances. In these plots, it is apparent that the Al “floor” in M4 is elevated, while the range of Al abundances is roughly equal to that of M5; Si is elevated; and both Ba and La are elevated. The other elements show sufficient overlap to be consistent with showing no significant differences in the abundance ratios. Could the enhanced Ba and La abundances in M4 found by Brown & Wallerstein (1992) and I99-M4 be simply due to the weighting of the AGB stars in their samples? First, we point out that not a single star in M5 (AGB, RGB or “tip”) has been found to possess a La abundance that is as large as even the lowest value found in M4. Next, we note that in the I99-M4 study, the mean Ba and La abundances for the AGB stars (as determined using their Figure 12) are the same as those in the rest of the sample. Since the Ba and La enhancements in M4 are not a result of slow neutron-capture synthesis occuring in the stars themselves, they must be signatures of primordial enrichments of the material out of which the M4 stars formed.
Comparisons with Other Clusters
===============================
In Figure \[m5.fig16\], we plot \[Na/Fe\] versus \[O/Fe\] values for M4 and M5 and globular clusters that bracket M4 and M5 in metallicity. The plot illustrates a difference in abundance patterns that can be divided into two groups. The O versus Na anti-correlation found in M5 resembles that found in the slightly more metal-poor clusters M3, M10 and M13 ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ –1.5 to –1.6). The pattern is quite different from that found in M4. Instead, M4’s behavior seems to be much more like that of M71, a disk cluster of much higher metallicity ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ $\sim$ –0.8; Sneden 1994). We note that these clusters can also be binned by horizontal branch morphology. According to the catalog compiled by Harris (1996; June 22, 1999 revision), M3, M5, M10, and M13 all have $(B-R)(B+V+R) >$ 0 (where $B$, $V$, and $R$ represent the number of stars on the blue end of the HB, in the Hertzsprung gap, and on the red end, respectively) whereas M4 and M71 have $(B-R)(B+V+R) <$ 0. In addition, Shetrone & Keane (2000) note that the Na-O and Al-O anticorrelations between the slightly more metal-poor clusters NGC 288 ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.39) and NGC 362 ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.33) resemble those of M4 (I99-M4) and M5 (S92-M5), respectively.
The important conclusion established by this investigation is that there is no definitive “single” value of \[el/Fe\] at a given \[Fe/H\] for at least some $\alpha$-capture, odd-Z, and $s$-process elements, in this case, Si, Al, Ba and La. It is therefore not clear that one can claim some “exact” value of (say) \[Si/Fe\] that characterizes globular cluster or halo field stars at a given \[Fe/H\]. Rather, there is a spread that is certainly real and not a result simply of observational or analytical error. Our result is therefore consistent with an increasingly large body of evidence (, Sneden 2000) that in the halo \[el/Fe\] ratios are not universal at a given metallicity. For example, the outer halo clusters Rup 106 and Pal 12 have very low (close to solar) $\alpha$-capture element abundances (Brown 1997) as do a few subdwarfs having unusually large absolute angular momenta (Carney 1999, Fulbright 2001, and references therein). Very high Si abundances ($<$\[Si/Fe\]$>$ $\sim$0.6) are observed in the very metal-poor ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ $\sim$–2.4) globular cluster M15 (Sneden 1997). The overabundance of Ba in M15 compared with M92, two clusters of very similar metallicity, is well established (Sneden 2000). It has also been known for some time that Ba and other $s$-process species are greatly enhanced in metal-rich giants of $\omega$ Cen compared with field halo and globular cluster stars of comparable metallicity (Vanture 1994; Norris & Da Costa 1995). In fact, there exists in $\omega$ Cen a stellar sample which possesses nearly identical elemental overabundances of \[Si/Fe\], \[Al/Fe\], and \[Ba/Fe\] as seen in M4. However, in $\omega$ Cen, the sample consists of stars possessing a range of metallicities (–0.5 $<$ \[Fe/H\] $<$ –2.0). Even more striking is the Eu deficiency found among $\omega$ Cen giants of intermediate metallicity (Smith 2000).
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
We have analysed the chemical abundances of 36 M5 giant stars by two different techniques. We employed “traditional” spectroscopic analysis procedures, setting by satisfying the constraint of iron excitation potential equilibrium, setting $v_t$ by satisfying the constraint of iron equivalent width equilibrium, setting by satisfying the constraint of iron ionization equilibrium, and satisfying the additional constraint that the derived \[Fe/H\] does not vary systematically over the range of and represented by the cluster program stars. Satisfying these constraints led to models whose spectroscopic values were $\sim$0.5 dex lower than expected, which in turn led to $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ ratios 0.15 dex lower among our AGB sample than among our RGB sample. These outcomes are consistent with known problems that result from applying LTE assumptions to non-LTE atmospheres.
We investigated a number of alternative approaches to the analysis, seeking to resolve the outcomes without resorting to invoking non-LTE effects. However, regardless of which -scale or -scale we adopted, the \[Fe/H\] based on remained significantly smaller on the AGB as compared with the RGB and “tip” stars. Accordingly, we adopted an analysis consistent with the non-LTE precepts as discussed by Thévenin & Idiart (1999), employing “new” models with evolutionary values of on the same system as those of previous M5 work. These results yielded $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.21 ($\sigma$ = 0.06), that were neither dependent on nor and are in good agreement with previously derived values for the metallicity of M5 in the literature (, $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.4, Zinn & West 1984; $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.17, Sneden 1992). Applying the same procedures to the M4 results of Ivans (1999), we re-determine the metallicity of M4 to be $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.08 ($\sigma$ = 0.02). The remaining abundances in M4 are offset by an amount equivalent to an increase in of 0.12 dex (see Table 2 of Ivans 1999). Applying this increase in to the M4 stars, we derive the ratio of total to selective absorption $R_V$ = 3.9 (see §3.4 of Ivans 1999).
With the revised method of analysis, we find good agreement between M5 and M4 (and the field) in most of the Fe-peak and $\alpha$-element abundances. The exception is silicon. The \[Si/Fe\] abundance in M4 exceeds that of M5 by $\sim$3-$\sigma$. Ba and La are similarly overabundant in M4 with respect to M5 (and the field), as is aluminum. However, since Al is sensitive to proton-capture nucleosynthesis, the range of aluminum abundances in both clusters mask the overall difference in the “floor” abundances. Based on these large stellar samples, we confirm and extend the previous findings for both of these clusters: Si, Al, Ba, and La are enhanced in M4, whereas M5 has “normal” abundances.
In M5, we find the classic anti-correlation of O and Na abundances, and correlated Al and Na abundances. And, the behavior of these abundances is further correlated with the CN strength index, $\delta$S(3839): stars with larger CN indices also have larger Al abundances, larger Na abundances and lower O abundances than stars with lower CN indices. This behavior is consistent with that seen in previous studies of other globular clusters and follows the expected pattern of proton-capture nucleosynthesis (, low oxygen abundances are usually accompanied by low carbon and enhanced nitrogen abundances. Thus, stronger CN bands, reflecting higher N abundances, belong to stars that are more highly CNO-processed).
We binned the M5 RGB and “tip” giants into two evolutionary groups by , and find that the O and Na abundances are different for the two groups: the stars with lower have higher O and lower Na abundances on average than the stars with higher values of . Thus, in M5, the dependence of the abundance variations on is in the [*opposite*]{} sense to that found in M13 by Kraft (1997), where the relationship provided strong evidence in support of the evolutionary scenario. The present analysis of M5 giants does not necessarily rule out the evolutionary scenario, but it neither provides support for it nor is it incompatible with the primordial scenario. In fact, both may be at work. Our observations of the spread in \[O/Fe\], \[Na/Fe\], and \[Al/Fe\] ratios in both the CN-strong and CN-weak groups are consistent with the idea that an earlier generation of stars may have enriched some of the material out of which the current sample formed then, once on the RGB, the stars were subject to deep mixing, further altering the abundances. Thus, deep mixing on the RGB would explain the spreads within the CN-strong and CN-weak groups, and primordial enrichment the difference between the two groups.
In comparison with clusters that bracket M4 and M5 in metallicity, we find that the abundance patterns can be divided into two groups: the O vs Na anti-correlation found in M5 resembles the pattern seen in slightly more metal-poor globular clusters M3, M10, and M13 ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.5 to –1.6) whereas the anti-correlation found in M4 resembles that of the more metal-rich disk cluster M71 ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ $\sim$ –0.7). These similarities extend to the HB morphology of the clusters: according to the catalog compiled by Harris (1996), M3, M5, M10, and M13 all have $(B-R)(B+V+R) >$ 0 (where $B$, $V$, and $R$ represent the number of stars on the blue end of the HB, in the Hertzsprung gap, and on the red end, respectively) whereas M4 and M71 have $(B-R)(B+V+R) <$ 0.
We conclude that there is no “single” value of \[el/Fe\] at a given \[Fe/H\] for at least some $\alpha$-capture, odd-Z, and $s$-process elements, in this case, Si, Al, Ba, and La. The spread is real and not a result due to observational or analytical error. Our result is therefore consistent with an increasingly large body of evidence (, Sneden 2000) that in the halo \[el/Fe\] ratios are not universal at a given metallicity. The dichotomy between M4 and M5 established here adds more evidence favoring the existence of considerable abundance diversity in the Galactic halo.
We are happy to acknowledge that this research was partially funded by NSF grants AST-9618351 to R.P.K. and G.H.S. and AST-9618364, AST-9987162 to C.S. and has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services. We are indebted to Eric Sandquist for supplying the exquisite photometry of M5 as well as for responding to queries regarding individual stars. Andy McWilliam has our gratitude for sending along his most recent calculations of V hfs and for sharing his code and expertise. We thank Kirk Gilmore for sharing with us his 2$\mu$m image of the cluster. We appreciate Earl Luck’s help in tracking down some of the laboratory log $gf$-values and Jennifer Johnson’s & Jon Fulbright’s assistance in transporting SPECTRE onto a different platform. John Norris, Gary Da Costa, and George Wallerstein have our appreciation for both taking the time to read a draft of the paper and subsequently offering thoughtful comments and useful suggestions that improved it. Ruth Peterson also has our thanks for helpful discussions regarding Kurucz atmospheres. The anonymous referee’s detailed comments and thoughtful suggestions helped improve the paper and are much appreciated. I.I.I. gratefully acknowledges the financial support of a Continuing Fellowship from the University of Texas at Austin and the Audrey Jorss Commemorative Fellowship from the Australian Federation of University Women Queensland Branch during the time that this work was performed and thanks sincerely the members of the Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics of the Australian National University at Mount Stromlo Observatory for their hospitality during the preparation of this paper.
Allende Prieto, C., García López, R., Lambert, D. L. & Gustafsson, B. 1999, , 527, 879
Allende Prieto, C. & Lambert, D. L. L. 2000, , 119, 2445
Alonso, A., Arribas, S., Martínez-Roger, C. 1999, , 117, 227
Alonso, A., Arribas, S., Martínez-Roger, C. 1999, , 140, 261
Bates, B., Kemp, S. N. & Montgomery, A. S. 1993, , 97, 937
Bell, R. A. & Gustafsson, B. 1978, , 34, 229
Blackwell, D. E., Petford, A. D., Arribas, S., Haddock, D. J. & Selby, M. J. 1990, , 232, 396
Briley, M. M. & Smith, G.S. 1993, , 105, 1260
Briley, M. M., Bell, R. A., Hesser, J. E. & Smith, G. H. 1994, Can. J. Phys., 72, 772
Briley, M., Smith, V. V., Suntzeff, N. B., Lambert, D. L., Bell, R. A. & Hesser, J. E. 1995, Nature, 383, 604
Brown, J. A. & Wallerstein 1992, , 104, 1818
Brown, J. A., Wallerstein, G. & Zucker, D. 1997, , 114, 180
Buonanno, R., Corsi, C. E., Fusi Pecci, F. 1981, , 196, 435
Carney, B. W. 1999, in The Third Stromlo Symposium: The Galactic Halo, ed. B. K. Gibson, T. S. Axelrod, & M. E. Putnam, ASP Conf. Ser. 165, 230
Carretta, E. & Gratton, R. G. 1997, , 121, 95
Cavallo, R.M. & Nagar, N. M. 2000, , 120, 1364
Cudworth, K. M. 1979, , 84, 1866
Cudworth, K. M. & Hanson, R. B. 1993, , 105, 168
Da Costa, G. S. 1997, in Fundamental Stellar Properties: The Interactions Between Observations and Theory, ed. T. R. Bedding, A. J. Booth & J. Davis, IAU Symp. 189, 193
Denissenkov, P. A., Da Costa, G. S., Norris, J. E. & Weiss, A. 1998, , 333, 926
Djorgovski, S. 1993, in Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters, ed. S. G. Djorgovski & G. Meylan, ASP Conf. Ser. 50, 373
Dumont, S., Heidman, N., Jeffries, J. T. & Pecker, J.-C. 1975, , 40, 127
ESA, 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues (ESA SP-1200; Noordjwik: ESA)
Fitzpatrick, M. J. & Sneden, C. 1987, , 19, 1129
Frogel, J. A., Persson, S. E., & Cohen, J. G. 1983, , 53, 713
Fuhr, J. R., Martin, G. A. & Weise, W. L. 1988, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 17, Suppl. No. 4, 1
Fuhrmann, K., Pfeiffer, M., Frank, C., Reetz, J. & Gehren, T. 1997, , 323, 909
Fulbright, J. 2000, , 120, 1841
Fulbright, J. 2001, , Submitted
Fulbright, J. P. & Kraft, R. P. 1999, , 118, 527
Gratton, R. G. & Sneden, C. 1991, , 241, 501
Gratton, R. G. & Sneden, C. 1994, , 287, 927
Gratton, R. G., Fusi Pecci, F., Carretta, E., Clementini, G., Corsi, C. E., & Lattanzi, M. 1997, , 491, 749.
Gratton, R. G., Sneden, C., Carretta, E. & Bragaglia, A. 2000, , 354, 169
Gratton, R. G., Bonifacio, P., Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., Castellani, V., Centurion, M., Chieffi, A., Claudi, R., Clementini, G., D’Antona, F., Desidera, S., Francois, P., Grundahl, F., Lucatello, S., Molaro, P., Pasquini, L., Sneden, C., Spite, F., & Straniero, O. 2001, , 369, 87
Gustafsson, B., Bell, R. A., Ericksson, K. & Nordlund, A. 1975, , 42, 407
Hanson, R. B., Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P. & Fulbright, J. 1998, , 116, 1286
Harris, W. E. 1996, , 112, 1487
Hearnshaw, J. B. 1976, , 51, 71
Houdashelt, M. L., Bell, R. A. & Sweigart, A. V. 2000, , 119, 1448
Ivans, I. I., Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Suntzeff, N. B., Smith, V. V., Langer, G. E. & Fulbright, J. P. 1999, , 118, 1273 (I99-M4)
Johnson, J. 1999, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. California, Santa Cruz
Jones, R. V., Carney, B. W. & Latham, D. W. 1988, , 332, 206
Kovtykh, V. V. & Andrievsky, S. M. 1999, , 351, 597
Kraft, R P. 1994, , 106, 553
Kraft, R. P. 1999, , 265, 153
Kraft, R. P. 2001, in Highlights of Astronomy, ed. H. Rickman (A.S.P., Provo, Utah), Vol. 12, in press
Kraft, R. P., Sneden, C., Langer, G. E. & Prosser, C. F. 1992, , 104, 645
Kraft, R. P., Sneden, C., Langer, G. E., Shetrone, M. D., & Bolte, M. 1995, , 109, 2586
Kraft, R. P., Sneden, C., Smith, G. H., Shetrone, M. D., Langer, G. E., & Pilachowski, C. A. 1997, , 113, 279
Lambert, D. L., Heath, J. E., Lemke, M. & Drake, J. 1996, , 103, 183
Lawler, J. E., Bonvallet, G. & Sneden, C. 2001, , Submitted
Layden, A. C., Hanson, R. B., Hawley, S. L., Klemola, A. R. & Hanley, C. J. 1996, , 112, 2110
Luck, R. E. & Lambert D. L. 1985, , 298, 782
Luck, R. E., Moffett, T. J., Barnes, T. G., III & Gieren, W. P. 1998, , 115, 605
Martin, W. C., Fuhr, J. R., Kelleher, D. E., Musgrove, A., Sugar, J., Wiese, W. L., Mohr, P. J. & Olsen, K. (1999) NIST Atomic Spectra Database (version 2.0). Available: http://physics.nist.gov/asd \[1999 March 22\]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
McWilliam, A., 1997, , 35, 503
McWilliam, A., 1998, , 115, 1640
McWilliam, A. & Rich, R. M. 1994, , 91, 749
McWilliam, A., Preston, G. W., Sneden, C. & Searle, L. 1995, , 109, 2757
Norris, J. E. & Da Costa, G. S. 1995, , 441, 81
Pilachowski, C. A., Sneden, C. & Kraft, R. P., 1996, , 111, 1689 (1996a)
Pilachowski, C. A., Sneden, C. Kraft, R. P., Langer, G. E. 1996, , 112, 545 (1996b)
Rees, R. F., Jr. 1993, , 106, 1524
Reid, I. N. 1997, , 114, 161
Ryan, S. G., Norris, J. E. & Beers, T. C. 1996, , 471, 254
Sandage, A. & Cacciari, C. 1990, , 350, 645
Sandquist, E. L., Bolte, M., Stetson, P. B., Hesser, J. E. 1996, , 470, 910
Schnabel, R., Kock, M. & Holweger, H. 1999, , 342, 610
Sekiguchi, M. & Fukugita, M. 2000, , 120, 1072
Shetrone, M. D. 1996, , 112, 2639
Shetrone, M. D. & Keane, M. J. 2000, , 119, 840
Smith, G. H. & Norris, J. E. 1983, , 264, 215
Smith, G. H. & Norris, J. E. 1993, , 105, 173
Smith, G. H., Shetrone, M. D., Briley, M. M., Churchill, C. W. & Bell, R. A. 1997, , 109, 236
Smith, V. V., Suntzeff, N. B., Cunha, K., Gallino, R., Busso, M., Lambert, D. L. & Straniero, O. 2000, , 119, 1239
Sneden, C. 1973, , 184, 839
Sneden, C. 1999, , 265, 145
Sneden, C. 2000, in 35th Liege Int. Ap. Coll., The Galactic Halo, from Globular Clusters to Field Stars, ed. A. Noels, P. Magain, D. Caro, E. Jehin, G. Parmentier, & A. Thoul (Liège Belgium: Institut d’Astrophysique et de Géophysique), p. 159
Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Prosser, C. F. & Langer, G. E. 1991, , 102, 2001
Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Prosser, C. F. & Langer, G. E. 1992, , 104, 2121 (S92-M5)
Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Langer, G. E., Prosser, C. F. & Shetrone, M. D. 1994, , 107, 1773
Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Shetrone, M. D., Smith, G. H., Langer, G. E., & Prosser, C. F. 1997, , 114, 1964
Sneden, C., Pilachowski, C. A. & Kraft, R. P. 2000, , 120, 1351
Suntzeff, N. B. 1993, in The Globular Cluster-Galaxy Connection, ed. G. H. Smith & J. B. Brodie, ASP Conf. Ser. 48, 167
Thévenin, F. 1990, , 82, 179
Thévenin, F. & Idiart, T. P. 1999, , 521, 753 (TI99)
Vanture, A. D., Wallerstein, G. & Brown, J. A. 1994, , 106, 835
Vogt, S. S. 1987, , 99, 1214
Vogt, S. S., Allen, S. L., Bigelow, B. C., Bresee, L., Brown, B., Cantrall, T., Conrad, A., Couture, M., Delaney, C., Epps, H. W., Hilyard, D., Hilyard, D. F., Horn, E., Jern, N., Kanto, D., Keane, M. J., Kibrick, R. I., Lewis, J. W., Osborne, J., Pardeilhan, G. H., Pfister, T., Ricketts, T., Robinson, L. B., Stover, R. J., Tucker, D., Ward, J. & Wei, M. Z. 1994, SPIE, 2198, 362
Wallerstein, G. 1962, , 6, 407
Wallerstein, G, Iben, I. Jr., Parker, P., Boesgaard, A. M., Hale, G. M., Champagne, A. E., Barnes, C. A., K[ä]{}ppeler, F., Smith, V. V., Hoffman, R. D., Timmes, F. X., Sneden, C., Boyd, R. N., Meyer, B. S., & Lambert, D. L. 1997, Rev. Mod. Phys., 69, 995
Zinn, R. & West, M. J. 1984, , 55, 45
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Table \[m5.tab10\] shows the atomic parameters of the lines used in this study, adopting the linelist employed in Ivans (1999; “I99-M4”). Most of the lines used in the I99-M4 study are the same as those used in earlier papers of the Lick-Texas group. In I99-M4, however, the metallicity of M4 metallicity forced a culling of many blended lines which left a list of only fairly strong lines (see I99-M4 for details). Ivans then added to the list clean Fe lines of low to medium strength as well as additional other elemental lines for which laboratory values of the atomic parameters were available from other M4 studies. Also added to the I99-M4 linelist were three La lines for which astrophysical $gf$-values had been derived by the inverse solar method by Brown & Wallerstein (1992). However, one of these La lines ($\lambda$6390 Å) now has an up-to-date laboratory $gf$-value determination (Lawler 2001) which we employed here as well as in the updated I99-M4 results. By maintaining the same linelists in both studies, we are able to compare the results of M4 and M5 directly.
Table \[m5.tab11\] illustrates the abundances derived from a traditional spectroscopic analysis as outlined in §3.1. These should be compared with mean values from Table \[m5.tab5\]. For specific species, we examine the “split” between RGB and AGB $<$\[el/Fe\]$>$ ratios, based on the “new” vs “traditional” analysis.
1. Oxygen: $<$\[O/Fe\]$>$ shows the same split of 0.06 dex between the RGB and AGB in both the “new” and “traditional” analyses but the scatter is large because of the Na versus O anti-correlation (see §5 and S92-M5).
2. Sodium and aluminum: there is a large scatter but, as with O, shows no significant difference in mean values between RGB and AGB. The scatter probably reflects true star-to-star abundance differences.
3. Silicon: $<$\[Si/Fe\]$>$ is increased by 0.01 dex over the “traditional” value. However, the split between the RGB and AGB stays the same.
4. Calcium: the split in $<$\[Ca/Fe\]$>$ between the RGB and AGB remains the same; there is only a slight change in $<$\[Ca/Fe\]$>$ overall.
5. Titanium: the difference in $<$\[Ti/Fe\]$>$ between the AGB and RGB is somewhat reduced in the “new” analysis.
6. Vanadium: in the “traditional” analysis $<$\[V/Fe\]$>$ = –0.12, taken over all stars, but $<$\[V/Fe\]$>$ is more negative by 0.17 dex on the AGB compared with its value on the RGB. The “new” analysis produces a smaller difference of 0.09 dex, and a slightly more positive overall mean of –0.10.
7. Manganese: The “new” analysis reduces the split between the branches by 0.03 dex while the overall mean was reduced by 0.02 dex.
8. Nickel: The “new” and “traditional” values of $<$\[Ni/Fe\]$>$ are both –0.05, and the two branches are in very close agreement in both cases.
9. Heavy elements: The difference in $<$\[el/Fe\]$>$ between the two branches in the “new” analysis is reduced for Ba (by 0.05 dex), La (by 0.04 dex) and Eu (by 0.04 dex), as compared to the “traditional” analysis.
\[m5.tab1\]
\[m5.tab2\]
\[m5.tab3\]
\[m5.tab4\]
\[m5.tab5\]
\[m5.tab6\]
\[m5.tab7\]
\[m5.tab8\]
\[m5.tab9\]
\[m5.tab10\]
\[m5.tab11\]
[^1]: Based in part on observations obtained with the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated by the California Association for Research in Astronomy, Inc., on behalf of the University of California, the California Institute of Technology and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
[^2]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^3]: During the observing runs discussed here, the Mauna Kea skies were partially clouded, and observations therefore limited. It was deemed unwise in these conditions to shift back and forth between grating settings, depending on temporal variations in transparency.
[^4]: We have since verified that the [*corrected*]{} version of the formula in the caption of Table 2 of Alonso yields similar results.
[^5]: Adoption of the larger distance modulus of 14.62, based on Hipparcos subdwarfs, favored by Gratton (1997), reduces slightly the differences between \[Fe/H\] based on and \[Fe/H\] based on . For the 13 RGB and 6 AGB stars, the differences become –0.06 and -0.15 dex, respectively. The difference of the differences remains, of course, the same.
[^6]: These figures include the entire sample of stars discussed in this paper. See also §6.
[^7]: This statement does not take into account the possibility of a small effect induced by ionizations from the low-lying singlet S and D states of .
[^8]: Note that we are concerned here with $changes$ in the ionization as a result of abandoning the ionization equilibrium of Fe as a means of setting . Thus for example in the case of the SMC cepheid HV 837, Luck find that \[/\] increases from –0.01 to +0.54 as changes from –0.28 (spectroscopic) to +0.82 (evolutionary). The corresponding increases in \[/\] are 0.00 to +0.55 and for \[/\] are +0.31 to +0.84. The changes are essentially the same as for Fe. However, we note that when Fe is in equilibrium, Si is not.
[^9]: This 5 percent correction applies only to Lick Hamilton spectrograph observations made prior to 1995, at which time the optics were upgraded and the 800$\times$800 TI chip was replaced with a 2048$\times$2048 chip. EWs from the upgraded Hamilton are known to be on the system of the Keck I HIRES spectrograph (Shetrone 1996, Johnson 1999.)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that all Fano threefolds with log-terminal singularities of given index belong to finitely many families. This result was previously obtained by the author in the case of unipolar Fano varieties.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA'
author:
- Alexandr Borisov
title: 'Boundedness of Fano threefolds with log-terminal singularities of given index'
---
[email protected]
Introduction
============
This paper is concerned with Fano varieties with log-terminal singularities. Fano varieties and log-terminal singularities play very important role in modern birational algebraic geometry (cf. [@CKM], [@IskovskikhProkhorov], [@KMM]).
The main goal of this paper is to prove the following theorem.
For any $n\in {\mathbb N}$ the family of Fano threefolds with log-terminal singularities of index $n$ is bounded.
This theorem is the three-dimensional case of the following conjecture originally proposed by V. Batyrev. It was previously obtained by the author in [@Fano] under the additional assumptions that $X$ is unipolar, i.e. it is ${\mathbb Q}-$factorial and the Picard number $\rho (X)$ is equal to $1.$
(Batyrev) For any two fixed natural numbers $k,$ $n$ there are just finitely many families of Fano varieties of dimension $k$ with log-terminal singularities of index $n$.
Theorem 1.1. has several noteworthy corollaries.
The family of Fano threefolds with rational Gorenstein singularities is bounded.
Suppose $X$ is a Fano threefold with log-terminal singularities. Then the algebraic fundamental group of its smooth locus is finite.
Also, combined with the recent work of Kollár, Miyaoka, Mori and Takagi it implies boundedness of Fano threefolds with canonical singularities (cf. [@KMMT]).
Through the above application and by itself, Theorem 1.1 is a step towards proving the following stronger conjecture, proposed independently by the author (cf. [@Fano]) and V. Alexeev (cf. [@Alexeev2]).
(Borisov-Alexeev) For any fixed $n\in {\mathbb N},$ ${\varepsilon}>0$ there are just finitely many families of $n-$dimensional Fano varieties with ${\varepsilon}-$logterminal singularities.
This conjecture is important for the so-called log Sarkisov Program (cf. [@BrunoMatsuki]). Some partial results towards it are due to Alexeev and Nikulin (in dimension 2), the author and L. Borisov (in the toric case), and Y. Kawamata (cf. [@Kawamata]). The boundedness of smooth Fano varieties in any given dimension was proven by Kollár, Miyaoka, and Mori (cf. [@KoMiMo1]). Their method (the “rational curve surgery") was the basis of the method of [@Fano]. Recently, Kollár, Miyaoka, Mori and Takagi proved boundedness of three-dimensional Fano varieties with canonical singularities (using the result of this paper). Also recently, an entirely new approach to the boundedness of Fano varieties was proposed by Ziv Ran (cf. [@Ran], [@RanClemens]). It is based on studying sheaves of high order differential operators on the plurianticanonical bundles, and has some potential to compete with the rational curve surgery.
Also, H. Tsuji recently announced the proof of Batyrev conjecture in any dimension, under extra assumptions that $X$ is unipolar (cf. [@Tsuji]). His methods are analytic, and are yet to be independently verified.
In this paper we employ the techniques of [@Fano] together with some new ideas. These new ideas include the following.
1. Using Alexeev Minimal Model program with suitable boundary to find horizontal extremal contractions.
2. Kollár’s effective Base Point Freeness theorem.
3. Using Kawamata’s result on the length of extremal curves with suitable boundary to avoid gluing curves in some cases.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we consider the problem in dimension 2. Of course, Batyrev conjecture in dimension 2 was first proven by Nikulin in [@Nikulin1]. But the rational curve surgery provides a very easy proof. Also in section 2 we discuss some reformulations of the problem that follow from Kollár’s Effective Base Point Freeness theorem.
In section 3 we prove that, except for a bounded family, all Fano threefolds with log-terminal singularities of given index $n$ contain a covering family of rational curves $\{l\}$ such that $l\cdot (-K_X)$ is bounded in terms of $n,$ and the rationally connected fibration associated to $\{l\}$ has fibers of dimension $2$.
In section 4 we complete the proof of Batyrev conjecture in dimension three.
[**Notations.**]{} We utilize the notations of [@Fano]. That is, we will usually identify curves on different birationally equivalent varieties if they coincide in their general points. The identified curves will be usually denoted by the same symbol. The same convention will be used for the two-dimensional subvarieties. If it is necessary to point out that, say, a prime divisor $S$ is considered on a variety $X$ it will be denoted by $S_X$. Another convention is that $\{l\}$ will denote the family of curves with a general element $l$ and $\{H\}$ will denote the LINEAR system of Weil divisors with a general element $H$. Whenever we have a family of curves, a general element is reduced and irreducible unless the opposite is explicitly specified. It will be clear in every particular case why these conventions agree with each other.
Additionally, by a constant $c$ or $c(n)$ we will mean some positive constant that only depends on $n$. The value of $c$ can be different in different parts of the proof.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} The author is indebted to V. Iskovskikh who introduced him to algebraic geometry and Fano varieties in particular. The author would like to thank V. Alexeev, V. Batyrev, Y. Kawamata, K. Matsuki, S. Mori, M. Reid, and V. Shokurov for their interest in author’s birational geometry research over the years. The author is thankful to J. Kollár, J. McKernan and the referee for helpful advice. This research was conducted while the author was working at Washington University, St. Louis. The author would like to thank the algebraic geometers there (N. M. Kumar, V. Masek, D. Wright) for their support and hospitality.
Two-dimensional case and some easy equivalences
===============================================
We begin with the following theorem, which is the two-dimensional case of the conjecture of Batyrev, mentioned above.
For any $n\in {\mathbb N}$ the family of log del Pezzo surfaces of index $n$ is bounded.
[**Proof.**]{} Suppose $X$ is a log del Pezzo surface of index $n$. By the result of Miyaoka and Mori (cf. [@MiyaokaMori]), there exists a covering family $\{l\}$ of rational curves on $X$ such that $l\cdot (-K_X) \le 4.$ If a general $l$ passes through some singularity of $X$ then by Lemma 2.2 of [@Fano], $(-K_X)^2$ is bounded. This is because in dimension $2$ for any log-terminal singularity $x_0\in X$ $mult(x_0) \le 2 \cdot index (x_0).$
If a general $l$ is contained in $X\setminus Sing(X),$ consider the minimal resolution (or terminal modification) $\pi :Y\rightarrow X.$ There are two cases.
1\) Two general points of $Y$ can be connected by a chain of at most two curves from $\{l\}$.
2\) Two general curves from $\{l\}$ do not intersect each other. In this case $l^2=0,$ $-K_X\cdot l=-K_Y\cdot l=2.$
In the first case $(-K_X)^2\le 2!(2\cdot 4)^2 =128.$ (cf., e.g., [@KoMiMo2]).
In the second case, because all log del Pezzo surfaces are rational, there exists a rational curve $L$ on $Y$ such that $L\cdot l >0.$ Applying Mori’s bend-and-break procedure to it, we can find a new rational curve $L^{'},$ such that $L^{'} \cdot l >0$ and $L^{'}$ does not admit a non-trivial deformation with two fixed points. This means, in particular, that $L^{'}\cdot (-K_Y) \le 3.$ Also, $L^{'}\cdot K_Y \le L^{'}\cdot K_X.$ So $L^{'}\cdot K_Y \le -1.$ By one of the gluing lemmas of Kollár-Miyaoka-Mori (cf. [@KoMiMo1]) we can glue together $L^{'}$ and at most 2 copies of $l$ to obtain a new family of rational curves $l^{'},$ which connects two general points of $Y$. Therefore $(-K_X)^2 \le (3+2\cdot 2)^2=49.$
So in all cases $(-K_X)^2$ is bounded. The family of such log del Pezzo surfaces is bounded by the results of Kollár (cf. [@Kollar1]).
[**Remark.**]{} Instead of applying the gluing lemma above, one can use a simple Riemann-Roch argument. We chose the above proof only for its similarity with our proof of the three-dimensional case.
The following theorem is a corollary of the results of Kollár.
Suppose $X$ is a Fano variety of dimension $k$ with log-terminal singularities of index $n.$ Then we have the following.
1. For some natural number $N$ that only depends on $k$, the Cartier divisor $-N\cdot n \cdot K_X$ is very ample. For $k=3$ one can choose $N=4320.$
2. For every $k$ the following two statements are equivalent.
a\) The family of such varieties is bounded.
b\) The “degree" $(-K_X)^k$ is bounded.
[**Proof.**]{} The first assertion is a direct corollary of the Effective Base Point Freeness theorem of Kollár (cf. [@Kollar1], 1.1, 1.2). For the second assertion we only need to prove that (b) implies (a). If (b) is satisfied then by the result of Kollár and Matsusaka (cf. [@KollarMatsusaka]) all coefficients of the Hilbert polynomial of $(-nK_X)$ are bounded. Together with the first assertion this implies the result.
The following theorem shows that instead of bounding $(-K_X)^k$ one can also bound the dimension of the space of global sections of big enough multiple of $(-nK_X).$
Suppose $X$, $n,$ $k$ are as above. Then there is a constant $A$ that only depends on $k$ with the following property.
For all $l\ge 2k,$ $(-nK_X)^k\le A\cdot h^0(l\cdot(-nK_X))$
[**Proof.**]{} By the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem (cf. [@KMM]), for all $i\ge 0$ $h^0(-inK_X) =\chi (-inK_X)$.
So $f(i)=h^0(-inK_X)$ is a polynomial of degree $k$ for $i\ge 0.$ It obviously has the following five properties.
1. $f(0)=1$
2. $f(l)=h^0(l\cdot(-nK_X))$
3. $f(i) \ge 0$ for all $i \ge 0$
4. If for some $i\le l$, $f(l-i) >0,$ then $f(i) \le f(l)$
5. The highest degree term of $f$ is $\frac{(-nK_X)^k}{k!}x^k$
Because $f$ is not identically zero, it has at most $k$ integer roots. So for any fixed $l\ge 2k$ one can find a sequence of $k$ integers $1\le i_1<i_2<...<i_k\le 2k$ such that for all $j$, $f(l-i_j) >0.$ By the property (4) this implies that $f(i_j)\le f(l)$. Also $f(0)=1\le f(l),$ because otherwise $f$ would vanish at points $i_j$ and $l$. The only way it could happen without getting $(k+1)$ zeroes is if $i_k=2k=l$. But in this case $f(k)=0$ and $f$ vanishes for at least half of the $(2k-2)$ numbers $1,2,...,(k-1),(k+1),...,(2k-2), (2k-1).$ So we get $(k+1)$ zeroes anyway.
There are just finitely many possibilities for the sequence $\{i_j\}.$ For each of them, $f(x)$ is determined by its values at $0$ and $i_j,$ $j=1,2, ...k.$ And we can use the above inequalities and Lagrange interpolation formula at the above points to estimate the highest coefficient of $f(x)$ above by some multiple of $f(l)$. Combining these estimates with the property (5) proves the theorem.
[**Remark.**]{} The constant $2k$ in the above theorem can probably be improved. See, in particular, [@Fano], Lemma 2.1. It would be more important, however, to drop the dependence on $n.$ The problem is, of course, that this would require some Riemann-Roch theorem for Weil divisors, and $h^0(-iK_X)$ is in general not a polynomial for $i\ge 0.$
By the above theorems, to prove the Batyrev conjecture in dimension 3 it is enough to obtain a bound on the self-intersection or the dimension of the space of global sections of the very ample divisor $H=-4320nK_X.$ This is going to be our goal. Many of our constructions will be carried out under the assumption that $h^0(H)$ or $H^3$ is sufficiently large.
Enlarging the Miyaoka-Mori family
=================================
In the remainder of the paper we will use the notion of rationally connected fibration associated to a covering family of rational curves. We refer to [@Campana1] for the construction (cf. also [@KoMiMo1]).
Suppose $X$ is a 3-dimensional Fano variety with log-terminal singularities of fixed index $n.$ Then for some constant $c$ either $(-K_X)^3 \le c$ or there exists a covering family of rational curves $\{l\}$ on $X$ with the following properties.
1\) The degree $l\cdot H \le c$
2\) The rationally connected fibration associated to $\{l\}$ has fibers of dimension $2$.
[**Proof.**]{} Suppose $X$ is as above. By Miyaoka-Mori theorem (cf. [@MiyaokaMori]) there is a covering family $\{l\}$ of rational curves on $X$ such that $l\cdot (-K_X) \le 6.$
Consider the associated rationally connected fibration. If its image is a point, $(-K_X)^3$ is bounded (cf., e.g. [@Fano]). If its image is a curve then we are done. So we just need to consider the case when the associated rationally connected fibration has image of dimension 2. In this case the family $\{l\}$ is the family of fibers. If a general $l$ passes through the singularities of $X,$ one can use the methods of [@Fano], sections 5,6, to construct a new family whose rationally connected fibration has fibers of dimension at least 2, and degree is bounded in terms of $n.$ So we can assume that $\{l\}$ doesn’t pass through $Sing(X).$
In this case $\{l\}$ is a free family on $X\setminus Sing(X)$ in the terminology of Nadel ([@Nadel]). Consider the associated rationally connected fibration on the terminal modification $\pi :Y\rightarrow X.$ That is, we have a Zariski open subset $U$ of $Y$ and a proper morphism ${\varphi}: U \rightarrow Z.$ Take a “general" curve $C$ on $Z$. Consider the divisor $D$ which is a Zariski closure of ${\varphi}^{-1}(C).$ By the definition of $Y$, $D$ is ${\mathbb Q}-$Cartier, $k\cdot D$ is Cartier for some $k\in {\mathbb N}.$ Consider an ample ${\mathbb Q}-$Cartier divisor $M$ on $Y$ which is obtained by subtracting some exceptional divisors of $\pi$ from $\pi^*(-K_X).$
By construction $D\cdot l= 0$ and $(K_X+M)\cdot l =0.$ For big enough and divisible enough $m,$ $mM-kD$ is very ample. Let’s denote it by $F$. Then one can apply the Alexeev Minimal Model Program (cf. [@Alexeev1]) to $(Y,K_Y+\frac1{m}|F|)$.
Let us denote the end result of this program by $Y_1$. From the construction there exists a one-dimensional Zariski closed subset $S$ of $Y_1$ such that the restriction of $(\pi ^{Y}_{Y_1})^{-1}$ to $U=Y_1 \setminus S$ is an isomorphism.
We have several possibilities for $Y_1$. Suppose first that $Y_1$ is a minimal model. Then $K_{Y_1}+\frac1{m}|F|_{Y_1}$ is numerically effective on $Y_1$. By intersecting two general hyperplane sections we can choose a covering family of (not necessarily rational) curves $\{C\}$ such that $C\subset U$ and $C_Y \cdot D >0.$ Then we get a contradiction as follows. $$0\leq (K_{Y_1}+\frac1{m}|F|_{Y_1})\cdot C = (K_Y+\frac1{m}|F|)\cdot C_Y \leq -\frac1m(kD)\cdot C_Y <0$$ So the $Y_1$ is not a minimal model, and thus we have a Mori fibration $Y_1\rightarrow Z.$
If $\dim Z=0$ then we can immediately bound $(-K_X)^3.$ Indeed, for any positive divisible enough $p$ we have the following inequalities. $$h^0(-pK_X)\leq h^0(-pK_Y) \leq h^0(-pK_{Y_1})$$ By the Kawamata-Vieweg vanishing and Riemann-Roch, $h^0(-pK_{Y_1})$ grows like $\frac{1}{3!}(-K_{Y_1})^3\cdot p^3$ and $h^0(-pK_X)$ grows like $\frac{1}{3!}(-K_X)^3\cdot p^3.$ By the result of Kawamata [@Kawamata] (cf. also [@KMMT]) $(-K_{Y_1})^3$ is bounded. Thus $(-K_X)^3$ is bounded.
If $\dim Z =1$ then the fibers are smooth del Pezzo surfaces. Because they are rational and form a bounded family, we can choose a covering family of curves $\{L\}$ on $Y_1$ such that a general $L$ belongs to a general fiber, connects two general points of the fiber, and has bounded intersection with the anti-canonical class. We can then pull it back to $Y$ and down to $X.$ This family would obviously satisfy our requirements. Note also that this would be a coextremal ray on $Y$ in the terminology of Batyrev [@Batyrev2].
If $\dim Z=2$ then we claim that the family of fibers of the fibration is not $\{l\}.$ Suppose it is $\{l\}.$ If at any step of the program we contract a prime divisor intersecting $\{l\}$ then $\{l\}$ would cease to be free and would never become free again. Thus no such contraction ever occured. But this means that $$(K_{Y_1}+\frac1m F_{Y_1})\cdot l = (K_Y+\frac1m F_Y)\cdot l$$ The left hand side of the above equality is negative, while the right hand side is zero by the definition of $F$ and because $l$ doesn’t pass through the singularities of $X.$
So the family of fibers $\{L\}$ is not $\{l\}$. It is a free family on $Y_1$ and $-K_{Y_1}\cdot L=2.$ By pulling it back to $Y$ we get a free family on $Y$ with the same intersection with $-K_Y.$ We can then glue it with $\{l\}$ (see [@KoMiMo2]) to get the desired covering family of rational curves.
Completion of the proof
=======================
First of all, let’s define some number $M =M(n)$ which will play a crucial role in the proof of the main theorem.
For every $n$ there exists some constant $M\ge 4320n$ such that for any del Pezzo surface with log-terminal singularities of index dividing $n$, and any divisor $D\in |-4320nK_S|$, the pair $(S, \frac{1}{M} D)$ is a log-terminal pair.
[**Proof.**]{} It follows essentially from the boundedness of del Pezzo surfaces of given index. First of all, the multiplicity of any of the irreducible components of $D$ can not be too big because $H\cdot D$ is bounded for some very ample $H$ on $X$ (which can be actually chosen to be some fixed multiple of $(-nK_S)$). So for big enough $M,$ $(S, \frac{1}{M} D)$ is a log pair, i.e. $\frac{1}{M} D$ is a boundary. Moreover, on the minimal resolution $\pi: Y \rightarrow S$ the exceptional divisors have simple normal crossings. For every such exceptional divisor $E$ there is a covering family of curves $\{L\}$ on $Y$ that intersect $E$, such that $L\cdot (-K_S)$ is bounded. This implies that for every divisor $D$ as above, the coefficient of $E$ in $\pi ^*D$ is bounded. So for each $Y$ we have only finitely many possibilities for the linear system that the strict preimage $D'$ of $D$ belongs to. Altogether we have a bounded family of pairs $(Y,\pi ^*D)$. For each pair there exists the minimal number $M(Y,\pi ^*D)$ such that the pair $(S, \frac{1}{M} D)$ is log-terminal. This $M$ can be found by successive blow-ups of $Y$. Clearly, it is Zariski semi-continuous as a function of the pair $(Y,\pi ^*D)$, so it is uniformly bounded.
[**Remark.**]{} The bound in the above lemma is not explicit. It would be very interesting to find an explicit bound for $M$ in terms of $n$.
In the remainder of this section we consider the Fano threefolds $X$ with log-terminal singularities of index $n$, which are equipped with the family of rational curves $\{l\}$ from the statement of Theorem 3.1. Let us denote the family of fibers of its rationally connected fibration by $\{S\}$. This is a LINEAR system of divisors (cf. [@Fano]).
We have the following easy proposition.
In the above situation and notations, there exist constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ depending only on the degree $H\cdot l$ such that for a general $S$
$(H_{|_S})^2 \le c_1,$ and $h^0(H_{|_S})\le c_2.$
[**Proof.**]{} Possibly gluing $\{l\}$ with itself once, we may assume that two general points of $S$ are connected by some curve $l$. Suppose $l\cdot H= m.$ By Lemma 2.2 of [@Fano], $(H_{|_S})^2 \le m^2.$ To bound $h^0(H_{|_S}),$ consider $(m+1)$ curves $l$ and $(m+1)$ points on each of them. If a section of $H^0(H_{|_S})$ vanishes at all these points, it has to vanish at all these curves. This implies that it is identically zero on $S$, by intersecting with a general $l,$ because $l\cdot l \ge 1.$ So $h^0(H_{|_S})\le (m+1)^2$.
In the above situation and notations, suppose that the base locus of $|S_X|$ contains a curve. Then $H^3$ is bounded.
[**Proof.**]{} The divisor $H$ is very ample on $X.$ Consider the family of (probably not rational) curves $\{C\}= H_{|_S}.$ By the above proposition, $C\cdot H$ is bounded. Because $X$ has log-terminal singularities of index $n$, and the base locus of $|S_X|$ contains a curve, we can find a point $x_0$ in this base locus, with multiplicity of the local ring bounded by $2n$. Then the curves $C$ passing through this point are not contained in any closed subvariety of $X.$ So $H^3$ is bounded (cf., e.g. [@Fano], Lemma 2.2.)
[**Remark.**]{} If $X$ is ${\mathbb Q}-$factorial, and $\rho(X)=1,$ the conditions of the above theorem are always satisfied. So in this case one can use the above theorem instead of the argument of [@Fano], section 4, to get a bound for $(-K_X)^3$, which is polynomial in $n.$
For the remainder of this section we will assume that the base locus of $S_X$ contains no curves. If $X$ is ${\mathbb Q}-$factorial, this implies that it is empty, because it is equal to the intersection of two general elements of the one-dimensional linear system $S_X$. In general, it could consist of finitely many points.
By the Log Minimal Model Program (cf., e.g. [@FlipsAbundance], 6.16; also [@Shokurov1]) there exists a small partial resolution of singularities $\pi: Y\rightarrow X$ such that $Y$ is ${\mathbb Q}-$factorial, and $S$ is $\pi -$nef. (If $X$ is ${\mathbb Q}-$factorial then $Y=X$). Because $S_Y$ is $\pi -$nef, the base locus of $S_Y$ contains no exceptional curves of $\pi ,$ so it is empty. Therefore, $|S_Y|$ is a free linear system, two general $S_Y$ do not intersect. The variety $Y$ has log-terminal singularities of index $n$. The anti-canonical class $-K_Y= \pi^*(-K_X).$ So by trivial adjunction a general $S_Y$ is a del Pezzo surface with log-terminal singularities of index dividing $n.$
By the Cone Theorem on $Y$, we have at least one of the following.
1. One of the extremal curves of $\pi,$ say $L$, intersects $S_Y$.
2. There is an extremal contraction on $Y$ whose fibers intersect $S_Y.$
In the second case we could have a fibration, a divisorial contraction, or a small contraction. In the fibration case, we can get a covering family of curves on the fibers with bounded intersection with $-K_Y,$ whose rationally connected fibration is different from $|S|$. So we can glue together this family and $\{l\}$ to get a new family, which connects two general points of $X$ and has bounded intersection with $H$. This implies boundedness of $H^3,$ so we are left with the following three possibilities.
1. There is a divisorial contraction on $Y$ whose fibers intersect $S$.
2. There is an exceptional curve $L$ on $Y$, such that $L\cdot K_Y<0,$ and $L$ intersects $S$.
3. One of the extremal curves of $\pi,$ say $L$, intersects $S_Y$. In this case $L\cdot K_Y =0$.
The first case is the simplest. It is treated in the following proposition.
Suppose $X$ and $Y$ are as above, and we have a divisorial contraction on $Y$. Then $h^0(H)$ is bounded.
[**Proof.**]{} Suppose $E$ is the exceptional divisor of the contraction. As in [@Fano], section 6, we can find a covering family $\{L\}$ on $Y$ such that $-3\le K_{Y_1}\cdot L \le 0$ and $-E\cdot L \le 3.$ (The variety $Y$ in our case has log-terminal singularities rather than terminal, but the Subadjunction still works).
This implies that $L\cdot H$ is bounded. Suppose $L\cdot H=d.$ By Proposition 4.1, $h^0(H_{|_S})$ is bounded. Suppose it is equal to $e.$ Also fix a constant $M$ from Lemma 4.1. Then $h^0(H) - h^0(H_Y-(3M+d+1)S_Y) \le (3M+d+1)e$. If $h^0(H)$ is big enough, then there exists some $D\in |H_Y-(3M+d+1)S_Y)|.$ Let us write $D= a\cdot E + F,$ where $E\notin SuppF.$ By Lemma 4.1 $(S, \frac{1}{M}D_{|_S})$ is a log pair. This means that $\frac{1}{M}D_{|_S}$ is a boundary. Therefore $a \le M.$ The following chain of inequalities provides a contradiction. $$d= L\cdot H= (3M+d+1)L\cdot S + L\cdot D \ge (3M+d+1)L\cdot S + aL\cdot E \ge$$ $$\ge (3M+d+1)L\cdot S -3M \ge (d+1)$$
Note that in this case we did not use the full strength of Lemma 4.1. In particular in this case we could actually choose $M$ to be polynomial in $n$. We will however need the full strength of the lemma for the remaining two cases. We will treat them together in the following proposition.
Suppose $X$ and $Y$ are as above, and we have a small contraction on $Y$ with some fiber $L$ intersecting $S$. Then $h^0(H)$ is bounded.
[**Proof.**]{} Suppose $L$ is as above. Recall again a number $M$ from Lemma 4.1. By Proposition 4.1, if $h^0(H_X) = h^0(H_Y)$ is big enough then $h^0(H_Y-(3M)S_Y) >0. $ Take some $F \in |H_Y-(3M)S_Y|$ and consider the divisor $D$ which consists of all the components of $F$ containing $L.$
By the definition of $M$ the log pair $(Y, \frac{1}{M}D )$ is log-terminal in the neighborhood of the general point of $L.$ Consider the log-terminal modification $(Y_1, B_1)$ of $(Y, B)$, where $B=\frac{1}{M}D $ (cf. [@FlipsAbundance], 6.16, d=1). The log adjunction formula for the morphism $\pi^{Y_1}_{Y}$ is the following. $$K_{Y_1} +B_1 = (\pi^{Y_1}_{Y})^* (K_Y+B) +\sum \alpha_i A_i,$$ where $A_i$ are exceptional divisors of $\pi^{Y_1}_{Y}$ and all $\alpha_i\le 0$ because $K_{Y_1} +B_1$ is relatively nef.
Because $(Y, \frac{1}{M}D )$ is log-terminal in the neighborhood of the general point of $L,$ none of the divisors $A_i$ lies above $L.$ So we can consider the curve $L_1$ on $Y_1$ which is the closure of the pullback of the general point of $L.$ Obviously, $L_1$ is an extremal curve on $Y_1,$ and $L_1\cdot ( K_{Y_1} +B_1) \le L\cdot (K_Y+B).$ By Kawamata’s theorem on the length of an extremal curve (cf. [@Ka2]), $-2\le L_1\cdot ( K_{Y_1} +B_1).$
So we have the following chain of inequalities.
$$-2\le L_1\cdot ( K_{Y_1} +B_1) \le L\cdot (K_Y+B) \le L\cdot
(K_Y +\frac{1}{M}F) =$$ $$=L\cdot (K_Y +\frac{1}{M}(H_Y -3M\cdot S)) = L\cdot K_Y \cdot (1-\frac{4320n}{M} ) -3L\cdot S \le -3$$ The above contradiction completes the proof.
[99]{}
V. Alexeev. General elephants of Q-Fano $3$-folds, [*Compositio Math.*]{} [**91**]{} (1994), 91–116.
V. Alexeev. Boundedness and $K^2$ for log surfaces, [*Internat. J. Math.*]{} [**5**]{} (1994), no. 6, 779–810.
V. V. Batyrev. The cone of effective divisors of threefolds, [*Contemporary Math.*]{} [**131**]{} (1989), Part 3, 337-352.
A. Borisov. Boundedness theorem for Fano log-threefolds, [*J. Algebraic Geom.*]{} [**5**]{} (1996), no 1, 119–133.
A. Borisov, L. Borisov. Singular toric Fano varieties, [*Acad. Sci. USSR Sb. Math.*]{} [**75**]{} (1993), no. 1, 277–283.
A. Bruno, K. Matsuki, Log Sarkisov Program. [*Internat. J. Math.*]{} [**8**]{} (1997), no. 4, 451–494.
F. Campana. Une version géometriques généralisée du théorème du produit de Nadel. [*Bull. Soc. Math. France*]{} [**119**]{} (1991), no. 4, 479–493.
H. Clemens, J. Kollár, S. Mori. Higher dimensional complex geometry, [*Astérisque*]{} [**166**]{} (1988).
V.A. Iskovskikh, Yu. G. Prokhorov. Fano varieties. [*Algebraic Geometry, V, 1–247, Encyclopaedia Math. Sci., 47,*]{} Springer, Berlin, 1999.
Y. Kawamata. Boundedness of Q-Fano threefolds, [*Contemporary Math.*]{} [**131**]{} (1989), Part 3, 439-445.
Y. Kawamata. On the length of an extremal rational curve, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**105**]{} (1991), no. 3, 609-611.
Y. Kawamata, K. Matsuda, K. Matsuki. Introduction to the Minimal Model Program, in [*“Algebraic geometry, Sendai”, Adv. Stud. Pure Math.*]{} [**10**]{} (1987), 283-360.
János Kollár. Effective base point freeness. [*Math. Ann.*]{} [**296**]{} (1993), no.4, 595–605.
János Kollár, et al. Flips and abundance for algebraic threefolds. [*Astérisque*]{} [**211**]{} (1992).
J. Kollár, T. Matsusaka. Riemann-Roch type inequalities. [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**105**]{} (1983), no. 1, 229–252.
J. Kollár, Y. Miyaoka, S. Mori. Rational connectedness and boundedness of Fano manifolds. [*J. Differential geom.*]{} [**36**]{} (1992), no 3, 765-779.
J. Kollár, Y. Miyaoka, S. Mori. Rationally connected varieties. [*J. Algebraic Geom.*]{} [**1**]{} (1992), 429-448.
J. Kollár, Y. Miyaoka, S. Mori, H. Takagi. Boundedness of Canonical Q-Fano 3-Folds, preprint(2000). RIMS preprint series, \# 1273. Web address: http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ kenkyubu/paper/
Y. Miyaoka, S. Mori. A numerical criterion for uniruledness, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**124**]{} (1986), 65-69
A. M. Nadel. The boundedness of degree of Fano manifold with Picard number one, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**4**]{} (1991), no. 4, 681-692.
V. V. Nikulin. Del Pezzo surfaces with log terminal singularities. [*Mat. Sb.*]{} [**180**]{} (1989), no. 2, 226–243.
Ziv Ran. On semipositivity of sheaves of differential operators and the degree of a unipolar ${\mathbb Q}-$Fano variety, preprint. Web address: http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.AG/9811022.
Ziv Ran, Herb Clemens. A new method in Fano geometry, preprint. Web address: http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.AG/0001120.
V. V. Shokurov. $3$-fold log flips, [*Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser Mat.*]{} 56 (1992), 105-203 = Russian Acad. Sci. Izv. Math. 40 (1993), 95-202.
Hajime Tsuji. Boundedness of Q-Fano varieties of Picard number one, preprint. Web address: http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.AG/9903043.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Andrea Geraldi
- Luís Diego Bonavena
- Carlo Liorni
- Paolo Mataloni
- Álvaro Cuevas
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
title: 'A Novel Bulk-Optics Scheme for Quantum Walk with High Phase Stability'
---
Introduction
============
The control of quantum systems allows not only exploring the interaction mechanisms of the microscopic world, but also exploiting the parallel coherent evolutions of such particularly sensitive systems, developing a new generation of information processing and communication [@computing; @internet], which will be capable of fast analysis [@supremacy] and dense data transport [@dense_coding] with intrinsically-secure protocols [@cryptography]. For example, several quantum technology applications are currently under development, such as the implementation of search algorithms [@search_algorithm], the simulation of cellular automata [@cellular_automata] and the investigation of quantum diffusion processes, manifesting peculiar effects by the generation of topologically-protected quantum states [@topology1; @topology2].
These diffusion processes occur when the behavior of a quantum system is controlled by a surrounding environment, and it depends on its structure, on the interaction strength, and on the interference between all possible evolutions [@qw_brownian]. A well-known particular case is the so-called quantum walk (QW), representing the spatial random movement of a quantum particle in an n-dimensional lattice, where all degrees of freedom are commonly decoupled [@qw_dimensions]. Depending on the lattice structure, a QW makes possible the simulation of important physical phenomena, such as Anderson localization [@qw_localization; @qw_integrated_anderson] or a variety of other effects concerning different research fields [@qw_review].
In this work, we focus on the case of discrete QWs, where the quantum system only evolves at certain discrete times known as steps [@qw_continuous_discrete]. Here, we present a novel bulk optics scheme for simulations of QWs, exploiting unique features and presenting significant advantages with respect to current bulk [@qw_bulk] and integrated platforms [@qw_integrated].
Theoretical Model
=================
The main elements of a QW are given by the walker, the coin, and the evolution operators of both the walker and coin [@qw_introduction; @qw_review]. In particular, for our one-dimensional case the walker corresponds to the coherent superposition of all possible lattice sites occupied by the quantum particle during the evolution, and it is normally represented in the basis $\{\ket{i}_{p}\}$, spanning its associated Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{p}$. The coin corresponds to any degree of freedom enabling changes of position and is normally described by a two-level system with basis $\{\ket{0}_{c},\ket{1}_{c}\}$ in the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{c}$.
The QW evolution is controlled by the action of two operators: the first one acts on the coin state as a generalization of the Hadamard gate [@information_nielsen], [ $$\hat{C}=\alpha\ket{0}_{c}\bra{0}_{c}+\beta\ket{0}_{c}\bra{1}_{c}+\gamma\ket{1}_{c}\bra{0}_{c}+\delta\ket{1}_{c}\bra{1}_{c},$$ ]{} with $|\alpha|^{2}+|\gamma|^{2}=|\beta|^{2}+|\delta|^{2}=1$ and $\alpha\beta^{*}+\gamma\delta^{*}=0$; the second one corresponds to a shift in the walker position, conditioned to the state of the coin: $$\hat{S}=\ket{1}_{c}\bra{0}_{c}\otimes\sum_{i}\ket{i-1}_{p}\bra{i}_{p}+\ket{0}_{c}\bra{1}_{c}\otimes\sum_{i}\ket{i+1}_{p}\bra{i}_{p}.$$
The operator $\hat{C}$, which can be considered as a physical device with two input and two output ports, can be optically achieved by encoding the coin basis in the path degree of freedom of a beam splitter (BS). Here, one can write $\alpha=\sqrt{R}e^{i\theta_{\alpha}}$, $\beta=\sqrt{1-R}e^{i\theta_{\beta}}$, $\gamma=\sqrt{1-R}e^{i\theta_{\gamma}}$, and $\delta=\sqrt{R}e^{i\theta_{\delta}}$, where $R$ is the BS reflectivity [@quantum_light; @bs]. Then, by using $\theta_{\alpha}=\theta_{0}+\pi/2$, $\theta_{\beta}=\theta_{0}$, [$\theta_{\gamma}=\theta_{1}$]{}, and $\theta_{\delta}=\theta_{1}+\pi/2$ as solutions of the constraint $\theta_{\alpha}-\theta_{\beta}+\theta_{\delta}-\theta_{\gamma}=\pm\pi$, one can assume that all phase factors are effectively controlled only by $\theta_{0}$ and $\theta_{1}$, which could be prepared experimentally by external devices in the BS outputs $\ket{0}_{c}$ and $\ket{1}_{c}$, respectively. Since the absolute values of $\theta_{0}$ and $\theta_{1}$ are not accessible, only their difference $\theta=\theta_{0}-\theta_{1}$ is relevant. Thus, a generic state $\ket{\psi}=\sum_{i,j}p_{i,j}\ket{i}_{c}\otimes\ket{j}_{p}$ with $\sum_{i,j}|p_{i,j}|^{2}=1$ evolves at each step (discrete time) according to: $$\ket{\psi}'=\hat{U}_{c,p}\ket{\psi},$$ where $\hat{U}_{c,p}=\hat{S}\cdot(\hat{C}\otimes\hat{\mathbb{I}}_{p})$ represents the unitary evolution operator of an “ordered QW” [@qw_introduction; @qw_review].
![One-dimensional quantum walk (QW) in a beam splitter (BS) network: Arbitrary values of $\theta$ can be achieved by means of phase shifters, represented here by yellow circles. Notice that for each BS, the outputs $\ket{0}_{c}$ and $\ket{1}_{c}$ are automatically inverted in the following BS inputs as described by the operator $\hat{S}$.[]{data-label="fig:QW"}](QW.png){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
In a more general scenario, each lattice coin can be different from the others and time dependent, as in the case of the completely-“disordered QW”, where all lattice coins are random and independent at any step of the evolution [@qw_disorder]. Here, the state $\ket{\psi}$ evolves according to: $$\ket{\psi(t_{k+1})}=\hat{U}_{c,p}(t_{k+1},t_{k})\ket{\psi(t_{k})},$$
with $\hat{U}_{c,p}(t_{k+1},t_{k})=\hat{S}\cdot\sum_{p}\hat{C}(t_{k+1},t_{k})_{i}\otimes\ket{i}_{p}\bra{i}_{p}$, where $\hat{C}(t_{k+1},t_{k})_{i}$ is the coin operator at site $i$ for the step associated with the time interval $]t_{k},t_{k+1}]$.
![Double multi-pass Sagnac interferometer (SI): [Both SIs are initially prepared in a condition of collinear alignment, then by a single translation of the mirror M in $SI_1$, one effectively obtains a scheme equivalent to a chain of Mach–Zehnder interferometers (MZI) exploiting the horizontal plane dimensions of the BS, as done in [@setup_markovianity]. Odd step trajectories circulate in the first SI ($SI_{1}$), while the even ones circulate in the second SI ($SI_{2}$). The green rectangles represent the beam displacers (BDS), while the yellow one corresponds to the rotating glass plate RP that allows addressing the phases. The blue rectangle represents a fixed glass plate, mandatory to compensate time delay due to the thickness of the rotating plates (optical elements are not to scale). The red dashed and the blue dotted-dashed lines indicate the trajectories reproducing the first MZI of Figure \[fig:QW\].]{}[]{data-label="fig:Setup1"}](Setup1.png){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
Experimental Implementation
===========================
The standard optical realization of a one-dimensional QW consists of a network of BSs, where each of them represents a particular position site of the lattice, with their ports encoding the coin basis and achieving the effective phase shift difference $\theta$ (see Figure \[fig:QW\]). It is usually achieved by using photonics-integrated circuits, where a suitably-prepared array of microfabricated waveguides reproduces a fixed number of steps in a small volume [@flamini_review], or by time-synchronization of photon pulses in bulk-fiber circuits [@nitsche_timeQW], or in noisy large schemes of bulk optics only [@do2005experimental].
The actual setup implemented in this work consists of two displaced-multi-pass Sagnac interferometers (SIs) connected to each other through a common BS, as shown in Figure \[fig:Setup1\]. Here, all beam trajectories are initially prepared in a collinear regime, and after a single mirror translation in the first SI ($SI_{1}$), one obtains the displaced loops lying in a single transmission plane, as used recently by us in another experiment [@setup_markovianity]. This configuration is equivalent to a chain of Mach–Zehnder interferometers (MZIs), with intrinsically-stable phases that can be addressed independently in each mesh of the chain. The number of consecutive passages of light through the BS of Figure \[fig:Setup1\] determines unambiguously the length of the chain.
\(a) ![Complete scheme of the QW: ([**a**]{}) Photons enter the optical setup in the initial zero-plane. Later, only the clockwise (counter-clockwise) trajectories inside $SI_{1}$ ($SI_{2}$) go to an upper transmission plane by passing through an inclined dove prism of N-BK7 glass acting as $BD$, while the others pass through the rotating glass plates RPs with 1 mm of thickness. The modes of each step are extracted from the last column of beams circulating in each SI by a horizontal translation of the right angle mirrors (RM), while one can choose the position sites through their vertical translations. Site probabilities $P_{i}$ are extracted from the laser power after a single-mode fiber coupler. Here, light blue, green, violet, and red trajectories correspond to beams in the ground, first, second, and third transmission plane, respectively. ([**b**]{}) Relevant dimensions of the setup from the point of view of $SI_1$; $D_1=126.3$ mm, $D_2=30$ mm, $D_3=50$ cm, $D_4=5$ cm, $D_5=5.5$ mm, $\phi=25$ deg, $\omega=45$ deg. []{data-label="fig:Setup2"}](Setup2.png "fig:"){width="0.58\columnwidth"}\
(b) ![Complete scheme of the QW: ([**a**]{}) Photons enter the optical setup in the initial zero-plane. Later, only the clockwise (counter-clockwise) trajectories inside $SI_{1}$ ($SI_{2}$) go to an upper transmission plane by passing through an inclined dove prism of N-BK7 glass acting as $BD$, while the others pass through the rotating glass plates RPs with 1 mm of thickness. The modes of each step are extracted from the last column of beams circulating in each SI by a horizontal translation of the right angle mirrors (RM), while one can choose the position sites through their vertical translations. Site probabilities $P_{i}$ are extracted from the laser power after a single-mode fiber coupler. Here, light blue, green, violet, and red trajectories correspond to beams in the ground, first, second, and third transmission plane, respectively. ([**b**]{}) Relevant dimensions of the setup from the point of view of $SI_1$; $D_1=126.3$ mm, $D_2=30$ mm, $D_3=50$ cm, $D_4=5$ cm, $D_5=5.5$ mm, $\phi=25$ deg, $\omega=45$ deg. []{data-label="fig:Setup2"}](Setup3.png "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
The one-dimensional QW of Figure \[fig:QW\] can be realized by the scheme of Figure \[fig:Setup1\], including as a further spatial dimension, the vertical direction, perpendicular to the horizontal plane of Figure \[fig:Setup1\]. This is achieved by using suitably-designed beam displacers (BDs) intercepting some of the light trajectories in both SIs, namely clockwise trajectories in $SI_1$ and counter-clockwise ones in $SI_2$. For each passage of light through the BD, the number of QW sites grows by one unit, and the number of possible paths that the walker can go through is equal to $2^N$, where $N$ is the total number of steps. Thus, our scheme exploits the three dimensions of the same BS to increase the number of sites and steps of the QW. Individual phases can be easily addressed by using independently-rotating thin glass plates (RPs) in each QW mesh point (see Figure \[fig:Setup1\]).
Figure \[fig:Setup2\] shows the actual QW realized in the laboratory. In the system, BDs are realized by properly-oriented glass prisms. Additionally, the output radiation of each step can be extracted for measurement by a set of moving mirrors. In Figure \[fig:Setup2\]a,b, different colors denote different transmission planes (light blue, green, violet, and red correspond to the beam in the ground, first, second, and third transmission plane, respectively). Two or more paths can exist in the same horizontal plane, but always along different directions. [The transverse spatial distribution of the QW internal paths arising in the setup is shown in Figure \[fig:Beams\]a,b, and it is obtained by cutting the paths in the $X_1$ ($X_2$) plane of $SI_1$ ($SI_2$) (see Figure \[fig:Setup1\]) and looking at the BS. Here, the green boxes correspond to the sections of BDs intercepting only the clockwise (counter-clockwise) paths of the $SI_1$ ($SI_2$).]{}
In the experiment, we have focused our attention on the case of single-photon evolution in ordered and disordered QWs. For this purpose, a proof of principle was performed using a CW laser at 810 nm as the input signal from a single-mode fiber coupler, as shown in Figure \[fig:Setup2\]. An optical interference with visibility larger than $90\%$ could be guaranteed up to the seventh step due to the good parallelism between the prism faces ($<1\mu$ rad of deviation) and the very small time delay between the two arms of each MZI, which is orders of magnitude below the coherence length of the laser.
(a)![Transverse spatial distribution of light beam trajectories in the apparatus: ([**a**]{}) Looking at the BS from the plane $X_{1}$ of $SI_{1}$. ([**b**]{}) Looking at the BS from the plane $X_{2}$ of $SI_{2}$ (see $X_1$ and $X_2$ in Figure \[fig:Setup1\]). For each figure, the number of steps increases along the horizontal axis of the figure, going from inside to outside with respect to the central dashed line. Indeed, paths exiting from the BS at step $S_k$ are external with respect to the paths of the step $S_{k-2}$ (note that odd steps belong to $SI_1$, while even steps belong to $SI_2$). Columns with the same index $S_k$ show the modes of the $k^{\text{th}}$ step. Each step is represented twice because of the two possible states of the coin ($\ket{0}_c$, $\ket{1}_c$). Different planes of a column represent different sites, and the number associated with the site increases going from the bottom to the top. In this way, the same plane represents different sites for different steps. For example, in (a), the zero-plane for $S_1$ represents the site $-1$, but for $S_3$, the same plane represents the site $-3$. Point-marked trajectories ($\ket{0}_{c}$) go towards the viewer, while cross-marked ones ($\ket{1}_{c}$) go in the opposite direction. The green regions correspond to the effective transverse BD areas.[]{data-label="fig:Beams"}](Beams1.png "fig:"){width="0.3\columnwidth"} (b) ![Transverse spatial distribution of light beam trajectories in the apparatus: ([**a**]{}) Looking at the BS from the plane $X_{1}$ of $SI_{1}$. ([**b**]{}) Looking at the BS from the plane $X_{2}$ of $SI_{2}$ (see $X_1$ and $X_2$ in Figure \[fig:Setup1\]). For each figure, the number of steps increases along the horizontal axis of the figure, going from inside to outside with respect to the central dashed line. Indeed, paths exiting from the BS at step $S_k$ are external with respect to the paths of the step $S_{k-2}$ (note that odd steps belong to $SI_1$, while even steps belong to $SI_2$). Columns with the same index $S_k$ show the modes of the $k^{\text{th}}$ step. Each step is represented twice because of the two possible states of the coin ($\ket{0}_c$, $\ket{1}_c$). Different planes of a column represent different sites, and the number associated with the site increases going from the bottom to the top. In this way, the same plane represents different sites for different steps. For example, in (a), the zero-plane for $S_1$ represents the site $-1$, but for $S_3$, the same plane represents the site $-3$. Point-marked trajectories ($\ket{0}_{c}$) go towards the viewer, while cross-marked ones ($\ket{1}_{c}$) go in the opposite direction. The green regions correspond to the effective transverse BD areas.[]{data-label="fig:Beams"}](Beams2.png "fig:"){width="0.286\columnwidth"}
Results and Discussion
======================
[In Figure \[fig:Distributions\], we show the evolution of the walker state for the two cases of an ordered and a disordered QW, for an initial state $\ket{\psi(t_{0})}=\ket{1}_{c}\otimes\ket{0}_{p}$. Here, the experimental data were obtained from the laser power measured on each site, where each of them has a contribution deriving from modes $\ket{0}_{c}$ and $\ket{1}_{c}$. The data corresponding to each time step $t_k$ have been obtained from the state $\rho_{p}(t_{k})=Tr_{c}\left[\ket{\psi(t_{k})}\bra{\psi(t_{k})}\right]=\sum_{i}P_{i}(t_{k})\ket{i}_{p}\bra{i}_{p}$ where the probabilities $P_{i}(t_{k})$ for the occupation of site $i$ are normalized considering optical losses at each time $t_{k}$.]{}
The results of Figure \[fig:Distributions\] show the typical distributions obtained for a ballistic and dispersive quantum transport corresponding to an ordered and disordered QW, respectively. They are in very good agreement with the theoretical predictions obtained by taking into account the actual parameters of the optical setup. We compared the experimental distributions with the theoretical ones for both ordered and disordered QWs through the similarity $S$, defined as $S=\left(\sum_{ij}\sqrt{G_{i}(s_j)G'_{i}(s_j)}\right)^2/\left((\sum_{ij}G_{i}(s_j))(\sum_{ij}G'_{i}(s_j))\right)$, where index $i$ runs over positions and $s_j$ denotes different steps of the evolution. For the ordered case, where all phase factors were set to $\theta=0$, we obtained a similarity value of $S=0.990 \pm 0.002$. For the disordered case, where the phase factors alternate randomly their values between zero and $\pi$, the similarity was $S=0.994 \pm 0.006$. The large values of $S$ demonstrates the very good agreement between experiment and theory.
In Figure \[fig:Variances\], we report the variance of photon position during the evolution inside the lattice, expressed as $Var(t_{k})=\sum_{i=-k}^{k}i^{2}\cdot P_{i}(t_{k})-\left(\sum_{i=-k}^{k}i\cdot P_{i}(t_{k})\right)^{2}$. The graph allows us to compare the experimental data as a function of the number of steps with the theoretical predictions corresponding to a totally-symmetric QW and those obtained taking into account the real parameters of the setup. Data behave as expected from the theoretical simulation obtained with real parameters. A small deviation is observed only for a large number of steps, probably given by the slight, but increasing spatial misalignment among all possible trajectories inside the setup.
![[Walker distributions in the one-dimensional lattice:]{} The QW starts as $\ket{\psi(t_{0})}=\ket{1}_{c}\otimes\ket{0}_{p}$. The cross symbols denote the sites that cannot be reached by the walker at a certain step (even (odd) sites can be reached only at even (odd) steps). For better viewing, the values of probability at each step $t_k$ are normalized to the maximum value of probability obtained for the $t_k^{\text{th}}$ step. Both ordered and disordered QWs were extracted from a particular phase setting and by considering real parameters of the optical setup, in particular the BS reflectivity $R=0.44$.[]{data-label="fig:Distributions"}](Distributions.png){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
![[Position Variances:]{} OT (DT): theoretical simulation for ordered (disordered) QW; OTR (DTR): theoretical simulation obtained by taking into account the parameters of the real optical setup for ordered (disordered) QW (here R stands for real); OE (DE): experimental data for ordered (disordered) QW. All the experimental points were obtained by averaging for each step the data obtained for each of three phase settings.[]{data-label="fig:Variances"}](Variances.png){width="0.57\columnwidth"}
The relatively large size of the apparatus (see Figure \[fig:Setup2\]b) was responsible of an observed small amount of phase instability. This effect was taken into account in the evaluation of the error bars of each experimental point.
In the case of ordered QW, experimental data were in good agreement also with theoretical predictions based on ideal optical elements, while a larger discrepancy was observed in the case of disordered QW. This was due to the non-symmetric BS used in the experiment, with measured reflectivity $R=0.44$. The larger probability of photons to be transmitted at each passage through the BS introduced preferential directions followed by the walker. These trajectories were those characterized by a lower number of reflections, while the path with the largest probability was the one transmitted at each passage through the BS. The disordered QW was more sensitive to this effect if compared to the ordered one. Indeed, in the first case, the disorder tended to localize the walker around a single position, while the non-ideal BS brought the walker into a wide range of positions due to the preferential directions, thus increasing the variance. This resulted in a discrepancy between experimental data and predictions obtained with ideal parameters, which was strongly reduced once the non-ideal BS was introduced into the simulation. On the contrary, in the ordered case, preferential directions concurred with the ballistic behavior of the walker, resulting in a smaller discrepancy between experimental data and ideal theoretical predictions.
![[Expected variance behaviors corresponding to different values of R:]{} the values of R are equal to $0.46, 0.5$ (ideal case) and $0.54$. The theoretical simulations for disordered QW are computed by a mean of 100 different phase settings.[]{data-label="fig:Variances_vs_R"}](Variances_vs_R.png){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
A different effect was expected in the case of a BS reflectivity larger than $0.5$. Indeed, an augmented reflectivity generated different preferential directions with respect to the $R<0.5$ case where the path with the largest probability was the one reflected at each BS interface. In this way, the walker was confined around a small range of positions, resulting in a smaller variance with respect to the ideal case for both ordered and disordered QW. This is shown in Figure \[fig:Variances\_vs\_R\] where it is possible to compare the different variance behaviors expected for $R={0.46,0.5,0.54}$. As said, when $R<0.5$, the variance was larger than the one calculated for the ideal case ($R=0.5$), and the disordered QW was more affected by this effect if compared with the ordered one; when $R>0.5$, the variance was smaller with respect to the ideal case for both ordered and disordered QW; however, in this case, the disordered QW was less affected by this effect when compared with the ordered one.
Conclusions
===========
In this work we have shown the feasibility of the bulk-optics implementation of a one-dimensional QW based on a novel double Sagnac interferometric configuration. We demonstrated its high level of customization, phase-stability and measurement accessibility, allowing at the same time to extract each coin mode at each position site and time step. This apparatus can manage more complex discrete QW scenarios, such as simulating two-dimensional lattices or studying two-particle interference by injecting the second photon in the other port of the BS. [We estimated that by replacing the glass phase control with suitably-designed spatial phase modulators, the total dimension of the system can be drastically reduced, arriving at up to 20 steps, which represents a valid alternative with respect to other platforms currently achieving more than 10 steps [@qw_non_interacting; @qw_correlated_photons].]{}
Henceforth, we expect to use this system to study exotic kinds of noise, to reproduce unusual kinds of quantum behaviors, like topologically-protected states [@kitagawa2012observation], and to explore sub-diffusive and super-diffusive dynamics [@qw_diffusion; @qw_superdiffusion; @qw_anomalous_diffusion; @nonlinear_qw].
Author Contributions {#author-contributions .unnumbered}
====================
A.G. coordinated the experimental implementation and achieved the data analysis. Á.C., P.M. and C.L. contributed principally to the concept and experimental design. L.D.B. and A.G. achieved the experimental measures. All authors contributed equally to the writing of the manuscript.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We acknowledge support from the European Commission Grant FP7-ICT-2011-9-600838 (QWAD-Quantum Waveguides Application and Development).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The stars that populate the solar neighbourhood were formed in stellar clusters. Through $N$-body simulations of these clusters, we measure the rate of close encounters between stars. By monitoring the interaction histories of each star, we investigate the singleton fraction in the solar neighbourhood. A [*singleton*]{} is a star which formed as a single star, has never experienced any close encounters with other stars or binaries, or undergone an exchange encounter with a binary. We find that, of the stars which formed as single stars, a significant fraction are not singletons once the clusters have dispersed. If some of these stars had planetary systems, with properties similar to those of the solar system, the planets’ orbits may have been perturbed by the effects of close encounters with other stars or the effects of a companion star within a binary. Such perturbations can lead to strong planet-planet interactions which eject several planets, leaving the remaining planets on eccentric orbits. Some of the single stars exchange into binaries. Most of these binaries are broken up via subsequent interactions within the cluster, but some remain intact beyond the lifetime of the cluster. The properties of these binaries are similar to those of the observed binary systems containing extra-solar planets. Thus, dynamical processes in young stellar clusters will alter significantly any population of solar-system-like planetary systems. In addition, beginning with a population of planetary systems exactly resembling the solar system around single stars, dynamical encounters in young stellar clusters may produce at least some of the extra-solar planetary systems observed in the solar neighbourhood.'
author:
- |
Daniel Malmberg$^{1},$[^1] Francesca De Angeli$^{2}$, Melvyn B. Davies$^{1}$, Ross P. Church$^{1}$, Dougal Mackey$^{3}$, Mark I. Wilkinson$^{4}$\
$^{1}$Lund Observatory, Box 43, SE–221 00, Lund, Sweden\
$^{2}$Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 OHA, UK\
$^{3}$Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK\
$^{4}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
date: Accepted for publication in MNRAS
title: 'Close encounters in young stellar clusters: implications for planetary systems in the solar neighbourhood'
---
\[firstpage\]
Celestial mechanics, stellar dynamics; Binaries: general; Clusters: stellar; Planetary systems
Introduction
============
Stars form in clusters or groups. Thus in their early lives they are in a potentially very crowded environment. In such environments close encounters with other stars and binaries will be frequent. These close encounters can strongly affect the stability of planetary systems around the stars . It has been suggested, for example, that the hot Jupiter orbiting the triple star HD 188753 is the result of stellar interactions in a young stellar cluster [@pfa05; @por05]. In order to understand how important dynamical effects in young stellar clusters are for the population of extra-solar planets, we must first know how frequent the interactions between stars in such clusters are. Furthermore, we need to understand which kind of interactions are most important, close encounters or exchange encounters with binaries. If many stars undergo encounters which change the dynamics of planetary systems, our solar system might in fact be fairly rare. To understand how rare, it is necessary to know the fraction of stars that have never undergone close encounters with other stars.
In this paper we consider the fraction of single stars in the field today that are singletons. A *singleton* is a star which formed single, has not undergone any close encounters with other stars or binaries and has never been exchanged into a binary. We define a close encounter as when two objects pass within $1000 \, {\rm AU}$ of each other; see Section \[sec:encrates\].
We perform $N$-body simulations of open clusters, varying the initial number of stars and the initial half-mass radius. During the simulations we follow the interaction history of each individual star and therefore we are able to determine the interaction histories of all the stars in the clusters. This allows us not only to determine the singleton fraction in the solar neighbourhood, but also to better understand which kind of interactions are most important in young stellar clusters.
We make the hypothesis that planetary systems only form around single stars, with similar masses and orbits as the planets in our solar system. If so, we would expect the fraction of solar-system-like planetary systems around other stars in the solar neighbourhood to be proportional to the singleton fraction. All other planetary systems will have been to some degree altered by dynamical effects in the cluster in which their host star formed.
Interactions between stars can be divided up into close encounters and exchange encounters involving binaries. In an exchange encounter an incoming single star replaces one of the stars in a binary. We plot an overview of some of the different possible interaction histories in Fig. \[fig:history\]. Close encounters can, depending on the minimum distance between the stars, either substantially change the orbits of the planets or just slightly perturb the orbit of the outermost planet in the system [@1996MNRAS.282.1064H; @2006ApJ...641..504A; @2006astro.ph.12757S]. Such a perturbation might later cause large changes in the planetary system via planet-planet interactions.
If a planet-hosting star, initially single, is exchanged into a binary, the orbits of the planets can be strongly perturbed. The Kozai Mechanism [@1962AJ.....67..591K] drives cyclical changes in the eccentricities of planets in a system where the binary orbit is inclined with respect to that of the planets. This can via planet-planet interactions lead to the expulsion of several planets, leaving the remaining planets on eccentric orbits [@2006astro.ph.12041M].
From the properties of the extra-solar planets detected so far [see for example @2006astro.ph..9464L] we expect many systems to consist of one or two planets on eccentric orbits close to the host star. Dynamical interactions between stars could thus potentially produce the observed properties of some of the extra-solar planets.
In Section 2 we show that the encounter timescales in clusters of typical sizes are interesting. We then, in Section 3, describe the $N$-body code used and the simulations performed. In Section 4 we analyse the results of the runs and in Section 5 we discuss their implications. Finally in Section 6 we summarise our results.
Estimates of encounter rates {#sec:encrates}
============================
In this section we derive an expression for the encounter timescale in a stellar cluster and show that this is typically much shorter than the cluster lifetime. Hence most of the stars in clusters will undergo close encounters with other stars.
The timescale for a given star to undergo an encounter with another star within a distance $r_{\rm min}$, may be approximated by [@bin87]: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{\rm enc} & \simeq & 3.3 \times 10^{7} {\rm yr} \left( {100 \ {\rm pc}^{-3} \over
n } \right) \left( { v_\infty \over 1 \ {\rm km/s} } \right)
\ \nonumber \\ && \times
\left( { 10^3 \, {\rm AU} \over r_{\rm min} } \right) \left( { {\rm
M}_\odot \over m _{\rm t}} \right) ~.
\label{eq:tau_enc}\end{aligned}$$ Here $n$ is the stellar number density in the cluster, $v_{\infty}$ is the mean relative speed at infinity of the objects in the cluster, $r_{\rm min}$ is the encounter distance and $m_{\rm t}$ is the total mass of the objects involved in the encounter. The cross-section for an interaction is increased greatly by what is known as gravitational focusing, where stars are deflected towards each other because of their mutual gravitational attraction. This effect is included in the above equation.
In addition to encounters involving two single stars, encounters involving at least one binary will occur. When a binary in a cluster encounters another star, it can be broken up if the kinetic energy of the single star is greater than the binding energy of the binary. A binary which is broken up in an encounter with a third star, whose kinetic energy is equal to the average kinetic energy of the stars in the cluster, is termed soft. Binaries that are more tightly bound will not be broken up, but will instead on average be hardened by encounters with a third star; these are known as hard binaries. If the incoming third star is more massive than one of the components of the original binary, an exchange encounter may occur where the incoming star replaces the least massive star in the binary; the probability of this occurring depends on the masses of the stars involved. Encounters involving a massive single star have a higher probability of leading to an exchange encounter.
The hard-soft boundary lies where the binding energy of the binary is equal to the average kinetic energy of the stars in the cluster. For a cluster in virial equilibrium, the square of the velocity dispersion is equal to $Gm_{\rm cl}/2 r_{\rm h}$ [@2003gnbs.book.....A], where $m_{\rm cl}$ is the total mass of the cluster and $r_{\rm h}$ is the half-mass radius. We can combine this with the energy for a bound two-body orbit, $E = -G m_1 m_2/2a$, where $a$ is the semi-major axis and $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the masses of the bodies to find an expression for the semi-major axis of a binary at the hard-soft boundary:
$$a \approx r_{\rm h} / N,
\label{eq:hardbound}$$
where we have taken $m_1 = m_2 = m_{\rm cl}/ N $. As an example we take $r_{\rm h} = 2.5$ pc and $N = 700$, which gives $a \approx 1000$ AU. Exchange encounters may thus occur if the minimum encounter distance, $r_{\rm min}$ is similar to or less than 1000 AU [@1994ApJ...424..870D].
We can now rewrite Equation \[eq:tau\_enc\] in more appropriate units for our clusters. We assume that $n_h = {3 N / 8 \pi r_{\rm h}^3}$ and $v_\infty= (G m_{\rm cl} / r_{\rm h })^{1/2}$ [@bin87] , where $m_{\rm cl}$ is the total mass of the cluster and $r_{h\rm }$ is the half-mass radius. Equation \[eq:tau\_enc\] then becomes:
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{\rm enc} & \simeq & 5 \times 10^{7} {\rm yr} \ \left( \frac {\bar{m}_{*}} {1 {M_{\odot }}} \right) \left(
\frac{r_{\rm h}}{1 {\rm pc}} \right)^{5/2}
\left( \frac{100 \ {M_{\odot }}}{m_{\rm cl}} \right)^{1/2} \nonumber \\
&& \times \left( \frac{10^3 \ {\rm AU}}{r_{\rm min}}\right)
\left( \frac{{M_{\odot }}} {m_{\rm t}} \right) ,
\label{eq:enctime}\end{aligned}$$
where $\bar{m}_{*}$ is the mean mass of the stars. We can now estimate the encounter rates in a stellar cluster. As a first example we assume a mass of 500 ${M_{\odot }}$ and a half-mass radius of 0.5 pc . The typical total mass of the objects involved in encounters is for simplicity taken to be 1 ${M_{\odot }}$ and the average stellar mass is taken to be $\bar{m}_{*} = 0.6 {M_{\odot }}$ . Furthermore we set $r_{\rm min}$ equal to 1000 AU, as discussed above. Equation \[eq:enctime\] then gives $\tau_{\rm enc} \approx 2.4$ Myr. Hence, on average, the encounter rate should be about 0.4 encounters per star per Myr. The lifetime of a cluster depends on the number of stars, the cluster’s radius and its location within the Galaxy. About 10 per cent of stars are formed in large clusters where $N \ge 100$ [@2001ApJ...553..744A], which live for several $10^8$ years . A substantial fraction of the stars formed in these clusters will undergo close encounters with other stars. The clusters in which the remaining 90 per cent of stars form have much shorter lifetimes, on the order of a few Myr, due to that they are much smaller and disperse when the left over gas from star formation is removed [@2001ApJ...553..744A; @2007prpl.conf..361A]. Many of these clusters have a rather small total mass, which means that the encounter time scale therein is longer. The encounter timescale per star per Myr is still shorter than the cluster lifetime, however, and hence a significant fraction of stars in such clusters will have undergone at least one close encounter by the time the cluster has dispersed.
In reality the encounter rate for a given object depends on several things, for example, its individual mass. Furthermore the cluster’s half-mass radius is not constant, but changes with time. The number density is not uniform; the central density is generally higher than the mean density. For these reasons, Equation 3 only gives a crude estimate of the interaction rates and $N$-body simulations are needed to give us a better understanding of the dynamical processes involved.
N-Body simulations performed {#sec:nbody}
============================
To perform the simulations described in this paper we used the 6 code, which is a full force-summation direct $N$-body code. A summary of the [NBODY]{}$x$ family of codes can be found in [@1999PASP..111.1333A] and a complete description of the algorithms used and their implementation in @2003gnbs.book.....A. The integration scheme employed in 6 is the Hermite predictor-corrector scheme of [@1991ApJ...369..200M] with the @AhmadCohen neighbour scheme. Regularisation of motion dominated by the close interaction of a pair of particles – for example a perturbed binary or hyperbolic encounter – is handled by the @KS regularisation scheme. This removes the singularity in the equations of motion and makes the integration more numerically stable and more efficient. For our purposes the usual criteria for regularisation described in Section 9.3 of @2003gnbs.book.....A are modified somewhat. All binaries and hyperbolic encounters where stars come within a little more than $1000\,{\rm AU}$ of one another are regularised (see the discussion in Section \[sec:encrates\]). This gives rise to the formation of several transient binaries, i.e. pairs of stars which are weakly bound and break up very quickly. The effects on planetary systems in these systems are more similar to those caused by multiple fly-by episodes than the effect of a binary companion. Therefore we defined a bound system as a binary only if it survived for at least five orbital periods, while short-lived systems are classified as multiple fly-bys.
A total of 25 cluster models were computed. They are all listed in Table 1. Models were run with 150, 300, 500, 700 and 1000 stars and at initial half mass radii of 0.38, 0.77, 1.69, 3.83 and $7.66\,{\rm pc}$. For each of the 25 possible parameter combinations ten realisations were made; that is, ten cluster models identical except that the initial positions, velocities, stellar masses and binary properties were drawn from different samples of the same distributions. We found that 10 realisations was enough to give us good statistics for the singleton fraction and close encounter rates in the clusters. @2006ApJ...641..504A found that they needed about 10 times as many realisations to achieve good statistics from their $N$-body runs. The difference is most likely that our clusters live for about ten times longer than theirs; we therefore register many more close encounters per run, giving us a large enough sample to get good statistics.
Initial positions of the stars were chosen from the spherically symmetric @1911MNRAS..71..460P distribution, $$\rho(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{3 m_{\rm cl}}{4\pi r^3_0} \frac{1}{[1+(r/r_0)^2]^{5/2}},$$ for total cluster mass $m_{\rm cl}$. The scaling factor $r_0$ is related to the half-mass radius $r_{\rm h}$ via integration by $r_{\rm h}\simeq 1.3\,r_0$. This is a standard distribution widely used in stellar cluster models [@2003gmbp.book.....H]. The assumption of spherical symmetry is in reasonable accord with observations of open clusters, as is the property of central condensation . The stellar masses were drawn from the IMF of @1993MNRAS.262..545K with the masses of binary components being drawn independently from the IMF. The lower mass limit was set to $0.2\, {M_{\odot }}$ and the upper mass limit to $5\, {M_{\odot }}$. Every third star was part of a binary so one in five objects (four stars plus a binary) were binaries. Hence the binary fraction, defined as $$f_{\rm b} = \frac{N_{\rm b}}{N_{\rm s}+N_{\rm b}}$$ for a population with $N_{\rm s}$ single stars and $N_{\rm b}$ binaries, was 0.2. The distribution of initial semi-major axes was flat in $\log{a}$ between 1 and $10^3\,{\rm AU}$. In reality however, both binaries with smaller separations than 1 AU and binaries with larger separations than 1000 AU exist in clusters. Including these in our simulations would thus give a higher binary fraction, with a value close to the observed one, which is equal to 0.3 [@duq91], and a lower singleton fraction. Tight binaries will however not affect the dynamical evolution of the cluster significantly, since they will act much like pointlike objects and will thus not change the general results of our simulations. We choose not to include them for technical reasons and because as discussed above they would not contribute to the overall results of this paper. The exclusion of wider binaries is is justified because their component stars will behave like singletons, in the sense that their binarity will most likely not affect planet formation around them. Such binaries will also be broken up very rapidly in our simulations. The eccentricities were, in accordance with observations, drawn independently from a thermal distribution with $ {\rm d} P(e) = 2e $ [@duq91], and $0 \le e < 1$, where $e$ is the eccentricity. The stars were taken to be solar metallicity and evolved with the stellar evolution prescription of [@2000MNRAS.315..543H].
6 does not contain any treatment of gas hydrodynamics, hence the clusters were considered not to contain any gas. This will greatly increase the lifetimes of the clusters, since more than 50 per cent of the mass in a real cluster may consist of gas and hence the cluster can unbind when it is removed due to stellar winds and supernovae [see for example @2001ApJ...553..744A; @2006MNRAS.369L...9B; @2006MNRAS.373..752G]. We will explain this more in Section \[sec:discussion\]. The cluster properties that we have chosen are reasonable given the state of knowledge regarding young galactic open clusters; see for example .
The code was run with the standard tidal field prescription [@2003gmbp.book.....H; @2003gnbs.book.....A] that places the cluster on a circular Galactic orbit in the solar neighbourhood. This leads to an extra acceleration in the Galactic radial direction of $4A(A-B)x$, where $A$ and $B$ are Oort’s constants of Galactic rotation, $A = 14.4$ and $B=-12.0\,{\rm
km\,s}^{-1} \,{\rm kpc}^{-1}$[@bin87]. The tidal radius, where the tidal force is equal to the attractive gravitational force of the cluster, is then $$r_{\rm t} = \left[\frac{G m_{\rm cl}}{4A(A-B)}\right]^{1/3}.$$ The presence of the tidal field greatly increases the rate at which stars are lost from the cluster as it reduces the degree to which stars in the outer part of the cluster are bound, although the cluster is not simply truncated at the tidal radius.
Results
=======
$N$ [$r_{\rm h,initial}/{\rm pc}$]{}
------ ---------------------------------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------- ------- -------
150 0.38 2.73 $\pm$ 0.13 0.56 $\pm$ 0.11 0.37 $\pm$ 0.11
150 0.77 2.76 $\pm$ 0.04 0.66 $\pm$ 0.03 0.27 $\pm$ 0.04
150 1.69 2.52 $\pm$ 0.08 0.82 $\pm$ 0.07 0.13 $\pm$ 0.07
150 3.83 4.88 $\pm$ 0.28 0.97 $\pm$ 0.02 0.02 $\pm$ 0.02
150 7.66 9.94 $\pm$ 0.61 0.97 $\pm$ 0.02 0.01 $\pm$ 0.02
300 0.38 2.95 $\pm$ 0.06 0.38 $\pm$ 0.03 0.56 $\pm$ 0.03
300 0.77 3.28 $\pm$ 0.23 0.61 $\pm$ 0.05 0.33 $\pm$ 0.05
300 1.69 2.84 $\pm$ 0.14 0.76 $\pm$ 0.03 0.19 $\pm$ 0.03
300 3.83 3.63 $\pm$ 0.04 0.93 $\pm$ 0.03 0.05 $\pm$ 0.03
300 7.66 5.48 $\pm$ 0.04 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 0.002 $\pm$ 0.002
500 0.38 2.90 $\pm$ 0.04 0.41 $\pm$ 0.04 0.52 $\pm$ 0.04
500 0.77 3.13 $\pm$ 0.02 0.55 $\pm$ 0.02 0.38 $\pm$ 0.02
500 1.69 3.18 $\pm$ 0.07 0.71 $\pm$ 0.05 0.24 $\pm$ 0.05
500 3.83 3.95 $\pm$ 0.09 0.90 $\pm$ 0.02 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02
500 7.66 6.12 $\pm$ 0.05 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 0.005 $\pm$ 0.002
700 0.38 3.12 $\pm$ 0.04 0.17 $\pm$ 0.03 0.78 $\pm$ 0.03
700 0.77 2.88 $\pm$ 0.03 0.42 $\pm$ 0.03 0.52 $\pm$ 0.03
700 1.69 3.31 $\pm$ 0.18 0.66 $\pm$ 0.03 0.29 $\pm$ 0.03
700 3.83 3.89 $\pm$ 0.17 0.87 $\pm$ 0.02 0.10 $\pm$ 0.03
700 7.66 10.87 $\pm$ 0.26 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 0.01 $\pm$ 0.01
1000 0.38 2.47 $\pm$ 0.17 0.14 $\pm$ 0.07 0.83 $\pm$ 0.07
1000 0.77 3.08 $\pm$ 0.15 0.30 $\pm$ 0.04 0.64 $\pm$ 0.04
1000 1.69 3.48 $\pm$ 0.07 0.59 $\pm$ 0.04 0.36 $\pm$ 0.04
1000 3.83 4.03 $\pm$ 0.21 0.83 $\pm$ 0.01 0.13 $\pm$ 0.02
1000 7.66 7.42 $\pm$ 0.46 0.99 $\pm$ 0.01 0.01 $\pm$ 0.01
: Number of stars (column 1), initial and mean half-mass radii (column 2, 3), number of singletons divided by the number of stars which were single at the end (column 4) and the number of non-singletons divided by the number of stars which were initially single (column 5). The numbers and fractions are the average values from the 10 realisations ran for each cluster. The errors are the standard deviations calculated from the 10 realisations. The number of singletons divided by the number of initially single stars can be found by taking $1- f_ {\rm fb} $[]{data-label="tab:sing"}
We simulated clusters over a grid of initial conditions, with 10 realisations each. The lifetimes of the clusters varied, depending both on the number of stars and on the initial half-mass radius (here we define the lifetime of the cluster as the time from the start of the run to when there are only four stars remaining). For example, the clusters with 150 stars and $r_{\rm h,initial} = 7,66 \, \rm{pc}$ lived for about 200 Myr, while clusters with 1000 stars and the same half-mass radius lived for about 400 Myr. Hence, the lifetimes slowly increases with the number of stars. The clusters with smaller radii all lived longer, but the lifetimes varied more strongly with the number of stars. For example, the clusters with initially 150 stars and an initial half-mass radius of 0.8 pc lived for about 300 Myr, while the clusters with 1000 stars and the same half-mass radius lived for about 1 Gyr. Note that we have not included the effects of giant molecular clouds (GMCs) or gas remaining from the clusters’ formation on the lifetime of the clusters. If included, these would decrease their lifetimes significantly .
In the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:rnmt\], we plot the evolution of the half-mass radius as a function of time, for a single example of a cluster with $N=700$ stars and $r_{\rm h,initial}=0.38$ pc. We will use this specific run as an example several times later in this paper, since it is a typical cluster, and will refer to it as our reference cluster. As can be seen the cluster expands rapidly during the first 200 Myr of the simulation, due to binary heating and mass loss, whereafter it stabilises at a half-mass radius close to 3 pc. This initial expansion is seen in all the clusters with an initial half-mass radius less than 2 pc, while the larger clusters’ radii vary much more slowly with time. Thus, in the dense clusters, the encounter rates are significantly higher during the first 200 Myr than during the rest of the simulation, and hence most of the non-singletons will be produced early on. Thus, decreasing the lifetime of our clusters by allowing for the effects of GMCs would not significantly change the singleton fraction in them. For all of the runs we calculate the time-averaged half-mass radius, $r_{\rm h, mean}$.
In the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:rnmt\] we plot the number of stars and the total mass as a function of time in our reference cluster ($N=700$ and $r_{\rm h,initial}=0.38$ pc). As can be seen in the figure the decrease in the number of stars, and hence also the mass, is roughly constant with time. The main reason for the mass loss is the tidal field of the Galaxy. Another thing to note from Fig. \[fig:rnmt\] is that the mean stellar mass increases with time. This is to be expected, since in the centre of the cluster, where energy equipartition has been achieved, low-mass stars will have a higher velocity dispersion than the high-mass stars and hence will evaporate preferentially.
In Fig. \[fig:venn\] we present a Venn diagram, showing the encounter histories of all the stars which were initially single in our reference cluster. The circle labelled B contains all stars which have been within a bound system (i.e. binary or triple) at some point during the simulation, the circle labelled F contains all the stars which have experienced close encounters with other stars ($r_{\rm min} \lesssim 1000$ AU), and the circle labelled S contains all the stars which were single at the end of the simulation. The number in each category corresponds to the number of stars it contains. One can see, for example, that 21 initially single stars exchanged into binaries. Eight other initially single stars exchanged into binaries and were still in these when lost from the cluster, hence if observed in the field today they would be found in binaries. The number of stars which did not undergo any encounters at all, the singletons, was 95 in total. This is significantly smaller than the initial number of single-stars (468), and is also a small fraction of the number of stars which are single at the end of the run (544).
In Fig. \[fig:eloga\] we plot the semi-major axes and eccentricities of the primordial binaries (the binaries which were present at the start of the simulation) in our reference run at the start (crosses) and at the end (circles) of the run. It is important to note that a binary is only removed from this plot if it is broken up; if it escapes from the cluster as a bound system it is still considered to be a binary. Hence, the circles in Fig. \[fig:eloga\] would be binaries seen in the field. The hard-soft boundary in this cluster changes with time due to the expansion of the cluster. From Equation \[eq:hardbound\] we obtain its initial position as $a_{\rm hard,t = 0} \approx 200\,{\rm AU}$ and at 200Myr $a_{\rm hard,t = 200 {\rm Myr}} \approx 1000\,{\rm AU}$. One can see that most of the soft binaries are broken up during the cluster’s lifetime. Furthermore we have analysed the energies of the hard binaries in the cluster during the cluster’s lifetime and these become harder with time. This is to be expected, and is the result of three-body interactions between stars [@1975MNRAS.173..729H]. The net effect is that energy is transferred from the orbits of the hard binaries to the cluster stars, heating the cluster, which leads to the rapid initial expansion seen in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:rnmt\].
In Table \[tab:sing\] we list the singleton fraction and the fly-bin fraction for all the different initial conditions. A [*fly-bin*]{} is an initially single star which has undergone a fly-by or an exchange encounter with a binary, but is single at the end of the simulation. The fly-bin fraction is the number of fly-bins divided by the number of stars which were initially single. Hence, while the singleton fraction tells us how many single stars in the field today could have unperturbed planetary systems, the fly-bin fraction tells us how many perturbed planetary systems there would be in total, if planetary systems only form around single stars. Each value is the mean of the values for the 10 realisations which we studied; the errors are their standard deviations.
The singleton fraction varies strongly with initial half-mass radius; its dependence on the number of stars is somewhat weaker, but still significant. In all the dense clusters, i.e. those with initial half-mass radius smaller than about $2\, {\rm pc}$, the singleton fraction is significantly less than unity. In the very dense clusters (i.e. the clusters with large $N$ and small $r_{\rm h,initial}$), the singleton fraction is around 15 per cent, hence almost all of the stars have experienced close encounters and/or been exchanged into binaries. Note, however, that the singleton fraction is never equal to zero; there are always some stars which have not had close encounters with other stars or binaries.
We have also studied the escape rate of singletons compared to non-singletons from the cluster. One might expect that the singletons would mostly be ejected early on, but this is not the case. Instead the ratio of singletons to non-singletons in the cluster is roughly constant throughout its lifetime except for in the beginning of the simulation, when almost all stars are singletons. However, it is clear from the simulations that most of the singleton stars reside in the cluster’s halo, where the number density of stars is lower than in the core and so interaction rates are significantly smaller.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Time dependence of interaction rates
------------------------------------
We see a rapid initial expansion of the dense clusters, which is predominantly caused by binary heating from three-body interactions within the cluster. As the cluster expands, it loses stars. As the encounter time scale is proportional to the half-mass radius as $r_{\rm h}^{5/2}$ and to the cluster’s total mass as$m_{\rm cl}^{-1/2} $ (see Equation \[eq:enctime\]), this leads to a strong decrease of the interaction rates, which in turn means that most of the fly-bins are created in the beginning of the simulation. In this discussion we mainly use the time-averaged half-mass radius to characterise the clusters, but it is important to note that the singleton fraction is mostly sensitive to the initial half-mass radius. Hence, observed clusters with virtually the same mean half-mass radii and ages can produce significantly different singleton fractions, depending on their initial radii. We note again that our simulations do not include the presence of gas in the clusters, which would change the initial expansion rate. Furthermore the removal of the gas would unbind clusters with inefficient star formation, because most of the mass in such clusters is in the form of gas.
The lack of gas in our simulations means that we overestimate the number of encounters that stars formed in small clusters experience, since such clusters would disperse much faster than the clusters in our simulations, due to the significant loss of cluster mass when the gas is removed after about 5 to 10 Myr [@2001ApJ...553..744A]. To better understand the rates in these clusters we have therefore also examined the singleton fraction in them 5 Myr into the simulations. At this point the singleton fraction is a factor of two larger than its final value and the number of fly-bys that a typical star experiences is significantly decreased. One should however also take into account the mass dependence of the interaction rates. A more massive star will experience more encounters, since its encounters will be more gravitationally focused, and also because of mass segregation. Since in this paper we want to examine the effects of close encounters on planetary systems, for which we only have good observational statistics around solar mass stars, we should thus primarily look at the interactions of stars with a mass close to $1 \, {M_{\odot }}$. For these stars the interaction rates are higher than for the average star, which decreases the singleton fraction. Furthermore, if we calculate the singleton fraction from only the stars with a mass close to $1 \,
{M_{\odot }}$, the larger clusters in Table \[tab:sing\], expected to have lifetimes on the order of several $10^8$ years even with the inclusion of gas, will have a very low singleton fraction.
Since the interaction rates are much higher at the beginnings of the simulations, most of the close encounters between stars occur early on. Thus, in order to fully understand the effects that fly-by encounters between stars could have on planetary systems, one needs to investigate the effects of close encounters on planetesimal disks. The rates of encounters with binaries, where exchanges occur, are however quite constant during the lifetime of the cluster. This is to be expected, since mass segregation will cause the massive stars to sink into the centre, leading to many three-body interactions with the potential of exchanging the stars in the binaries. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that when an exchange encounter with a binary occurs, the process of planet formation around the single star will have ceased.
Binary properties
-----------------
In our reference cluster ($N=700$ and $r_{\rm h,initial}=0.38$ pc), 21 stars which were initially single were exchanged into binary systems. This number depends on the initial conditions but is significant for all our initially dense clusters. In @2006astro.ph.12041M it was shown that multi-planetary systems, originally around single stars which were exchanged into binaries, can be strongly affected by companion stars through the Kozai Mechanism [@1962AJ.....67..591K]. For this to occur, however, the inclination between the companion star and the planetary system must be greater than $39.23{\ensuremath{^\circ}}$, and the semi-major axis of the binary must be sufficiently small. If so the eccentricity of the outer planet oscillates, leading to planet-planet interactions which can eventually cause the expulsion of one or more planets.
In Fig. \[fig:eloga\_si\] we plot the eccentricities and semi-major axes of all the binaries formed in our reference cluster that contain stars which were initially single. Most of these binaries are fairly wide and eccentric. To test the stability of planetary systems orbiting stars in these binaries, we repeated the simulations made in @2006astro.ph.12041M, but with different initial conditions for the companion star. The simulations were made using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mercury</span> integrator [@1999MNRAS.304..793C; @2002AJ....123.2884C]. The simulated binaries are marked as filled squares in Fig. \[fig:eloga\_si\]. In all three simulations we started the runs with a solar-mass star orbited by four giant planets, in a binary with a companion star of mass equal to $0.5{M_{\odot }}$ at an inclination of $70{\ensuremath{^\circ}}$. The giant planets had the same orbits and masses as the giant planets in the solar system. The results were very similar to those seen in fig. 2 of @2006astro.ph.12041M, with the expulsion of one or more planets. The analysis is somewhat complex however, since the timescale of the Kozai Mechanism depends on the binary period. If the semi-major axis of the binary is too large, the Kozai Mechanism will be washed out by planet-planet interactions [@1997AJ....113.1915I]. Thus, the wider the binary is, the longer it needs to survive in order for the planetary system to be strongly affected. The lifetimes of the binaries in our clusters vary, from a few $10^5$ years to several $10^8$ years, so some of them are most likely too wide and short-lived to cause any significant damage to the planetary system. Furthermore, the inclination between the planets and the companion star must, as mentioned above, be large enough. The orientation of the orbital plane of the binary with respect to the orbital plane of the planets is expected to be uniformly distributed if the system is formed in a three-body encounter. Thus one can show [@2006astro.ph.12041M] that 77 per cent of the binaries containing initially single stars will have a high enough inclination between the orbital planes of the planetary system and the companion star to cause damage to the planetary system. Most of the stars which were initially single and have been in binaries, were in *several* systems. This is to be expected, since it is the massive stars in the clusters which are preferentially exchanged in and out of binaries. This effect increases the probability that the planetary system around a single star, which has been in a binary during the simulation, has been sufficiently inclined with respect to the companion star. Since the binaries generally get harder during the clusters lifetime, this also increases the probability that such a planetary system will be vulnerable to the Kozai Mechanism since a shorter semi-major axis decreases the Kozai time-scale.
Around one per cent of solar-like stars are known to host so-called hot Jupiters [@2005PThPS.158...24M]. These could be created via tidal interactions with the host star in systems with extremely eccentric orbits [@2005Icar..175..248F]. Such eccentric orbits can be created through the Kozai Mechanism, if the inclination between the orbital planes of the planets and the companion star is close to $90{\ensuremath{^\circ}}$. The probability that such systems will exist in stellar clusters is proportional to the number of binaries containing initially single stars formed in exchange encounters. Thus the observation that the stars which were initially single and later exchanged into binaries are generally in several binaries increases the chance of creating hot Jupiters in this way. We investigate this in more detail in a forthcoming paper.
From Fig. \[fig:eloga\_si\] we can also see that, in several of the binaries containing stars which were initially single, the periastron distance of the companion star was shorter than the semi-major axis of, for example, Neptune (30 AU). In these systems the companion star will cause direct damage to any planetary system, through close encounters between it and the planets. This will have severe effects on the stability of the system and could lead to one or more planets being ejected [@1999AJ....117..621H].
The properties of the binaries known to contain planetary systems in the field today are largely unknown, but for a few systems the semi-major axes and eccentricity have been determined. For a compilation of known systems and their properties see @des06. These binaries all have similar properties to the binaries created in Fig. \[fig:eloga\_si\] and thus the planetary host stars in these systems could potentially have been single stars when the planets formed. The binaries marked with a circle in Fig. \[fig:eloga\_si\] are the binaries containing initially single stars which survived to the end of the simulation. There are a total of five such binaries, three of which are made up of two initially single stars each, and two containing one star which was initially single and one star which was in a primordial binary.
Another important feature of the clusters is the binary fraction which they produce. In our clusters the binary fraction is initially 0.2. However, since many binaries break up during the simulation, the resulting binary fraction seen in the field would be lower than this. In our reference cluster, for example, the final binary fraction is 0.13. Current estimates set the binary fraction in the field as high as 0.3 [@duq91], which indicates that an even higher initial binary fraction should be assumed in our clusters. This is however only partly true. In the field today, binaries with separations both smaller than 1 AU and larger than 1000 AU exist and these are included in the estimated binary fraction. If these were included in our simulated clusters, the final binary fraction would go up. If we, for example, assume that the distribution of semi-major axes is flat in $ \log{a}$ all the way down to 0.1 AU, and thus that another 10 per cent of stars in our clusters are in binaries with separation between 0.1 and 1 AU, the final binary fraction would be 0.2, assuming that none of of those binaries break up during the cluster’s lifetime. Including these in our cluster simulations is however not necessary, since they can be treated as single stars from a dynamical viewpoint and thus they will only have a very small effect on the overall evolution of the cluster. Furthermore, including binaries with separations larger than 1000 AU in our clusters makes no sense, since these would be broken up almost immediately. In conclusion this means that the binary fraction used in our clusters does in fact produce a final binary fraction very close to the observed one.
Fly-bys
-------
In Fig. \[fig:encrates\] we plot the rate of close encounters in our reference cluster ($N=700$ and $r_{\rm h,initial}
= 0.38\, {\rm pc}$) at five and 100 Myr. These rates can be compared with what we expect from Equation \[eq:enctime\]. As we showed in Section 2, the interaction rate for a cluster of mass around $500 \,
{M_{\odot }}$ and a half mass radius of $0.5\, {\rm pc}$ should be around 0.3 encounters per star per Myr. This is in good agreement with the result seen in Fig. \[fig:encrates\] (solid line). Between 5 and 100 Myr, the mass of the cluster decreases from $500\,{M_{\odot }}$ to $400\,{M_{\odot }}$ and the half-mass radius increases from about 0.5 to $2\,{\rm pc}$. Thus, the rates should go down by a factor of about 40, and from Fig. \[fig:encrates\] we see that the decrease is by about a factor of 50, in reasonable agreement with estimates. The rates which we see in our cluster are also in rough agreement with the rates found by @2006ApJ...641..504A for a similarly sized cluster initially in virial equilibrium.
The effects of fly-bys on planetary systems around the stars are somewhat more complicated to quantify than the effects of binary companions. If one of the stars has a solar-system-like planetary system around it, the fly-by might, if it is close enough, change the eccentricity and semi-major axis of the outer planet enough to cause chaotic evolution of the system and the expulsion of one or more planets. @2006ApJ...641..504A calculate the cross-section for the disruption of planetary systems for five different stellar masses, ranging from $0.125 \, {M_{\odot }}$ to $2 \, {M_{\odot }}$. These cross-sections can be used as a starting point to understand the effects on solar-system-like planetary systems from fly-by encounters with other stars/binaries. In order to fully understand these effects it is however also necessary to calculate the cross-sections for the disruption of planetary systems due to secular planet-planet interactions, induced by small perturbations in the orbital elements of the planets, due to encounters with other stars. Analytical formulae for the induced change in eccentricity in a three-body encounter were derived by @1996MNRAS.282.1064H and these can be used to analyse this effect. Another method is to include planetary systems in $N$-body simulations of stellar clusters [@2002ApJ...565.1251H; @2006astro.ph.12757S]. Such studies have shown that systems like the solar system, where the planets are on circular orbits, are generally not significantly perturbed by distant encounters, while the effect on already eccentric planets is significantly bigger. Thus the likelihood that a single close encounter between two stars, where one hosts a planetary system like the solar system, will significantly alter the planetary orbits is rather small. One should however note that most stars which undergo close encounters with other stars in the large clusters in our simulations do so more than once (see Fig. \[fig:encnumbers\]). In our reference cluster, for example, a little more than 20 per cent of the stars had experienced 10 or more fly-bys. Thus, even if only one in ten of the fly-bys causes damage to a planetary system, a significant fraction of the planetary systems in these clusters could be altered from their original state due to the effect of fly-bys. The importance of this effect varies between different clusters due to the differences in lifetimes. Stars within cluster which disperses after 5-10 Myr will not suffer many fly-bys, while those in longer lived clusters will.
Singleton fraction of solar mass stars
--------------------------------------
As was seen earlier in Fig. \[fig:rnmt\] the half-mass radius of a cluster expands rapidly during the early stages of its evolution due to binary heating and mass loss. Thereafter the half-mass radius stays roughly constant during the remainder of the cluster’s lifetime. Thus the initial expansion is important when we map the simulated clusters on to the observed cluster population. A cluster which is seen to have a half-mass radius of about 3 pc can have had a significantly smaller radius initially. Furthermore, most of the embedded clusters seen in will not evolve into open clusters, but instead disperse when their gas is ejected after a few Myr and thus have very short lifetimes.
In Fig. \[fig:nr\] we plot the singleton fraction for each of the clusters in our simulations as a function of the initial number of stars, $N$, and the initial half-mass radius, $r_{\rm h, initial}$. As can be seen form the figure and from Table \[tab:sing\] the singleton fraction varies slowly with $N$ and strongly with $r_{\rm h, initial}$. Across the range of masses that we simulate, the radii given by lie towards the centre of the plot in Fig. \[fig:nr\]. In the more massive clusters the singleton fraction is around 0.5. For stars in the mass range $0.8 {M_{\odot }}\le m \le 1.2 {M_{\odot }}$ the singleton fraction is however even lower. For example, in our reference cluster the singleton fraction for stars in this mass range is 0.11, compared to the singleton fraction averaged over all the stars, which is 0.18. Averaging the singleton fraction over $N$ and $r_{\rm h}$, we find that as a lower bound we can say that of the solar-mass stars which form in clusters which evolve to become open clusters, more than 50 per cent of the single stars are not singletons. Since about 10 per cent of stars form in such clusters, at least 5 per cent of solar-mass stars in the solar neighbourhood are not singletons. Thus, at least 5 per cent of solar mass stars may have had their planetary systems significantly altered through dynamical interactions with other stars and thereby forming at least some of the observed extra-solar planets. Furthermore, stars in the smaller clusters, with $N \le 100$ stars, also undergo close encounters with other objects before the cluster disperses due to the removal of gas. Even though the singleton fractions in these clusters are not as low as our simulations indicate, because real clusters have much shorter lifetimes than in our simulations, it is still not equal to one. We can understand this from analysing the singleton fraction 5 Myr into the simulations of low mass clusters, (see section 5.1).
In Fig. \[fig:nr2\] we plot the singleton fraction as a function of initial number of stars, $N$ and the time-averaged half-mass radius, $r_{\rm h, mean}$. As can be seen, all our clusters with initial half-mass radii less than 2 pc expand; their time-averaged half-mass radii are equal to around 3 pc. The properties of these evolved clusters are broadly comparable to those in the open cluster catalogue of .
To understand the effect on the total stellar population in the solar neighbourhood one also needs to take into account the fact that the lifetime of the clusters depends on the star formation efficiency in them. A low star formation efficiency leaves a large portion of the clusters’ mass as gas, which means that the cluster will disperse upon gas removal or at least lose a significant fraction of its mass [@2006MNRAS.373..752G]. This means that many stars in such clusters will not undergo encounters with other stars. Furthermore, preliminary observations suggests that when including isolated star formation the mean cluster size decrease from the previous estimate of 300 [@2006ApJ...641..504A; @2007prpl.conf..361A]. Given these uncertainties it is not possible to give an exact estimate of the singleton fraction of stars in the solar neighbourhood. From the results of our simulations it is however clear that the singleton fraction of solar type stars in the solar neighbourhood is no less than 5 per cent.
This can be compared with the estimated fraction of solar mass stars which are expected to harbour planetary systems of the type so far detected, which is about 10 per cent [@2005PThPS.158...24M]. As discussed above, more than 5 per cent of stars with a mass in the interval between $0.8 \, {M_{\odot }}$ and $1.2 \, {M_{\odot }}$ are not singletons. Thus, the number of stars which could have had their planetary systems perturbed by dynamical interactions in the clusters in which they were formed is comparable to (or slightly smaller than) the number of stars around which, based on observational constraints, we expect to find perturbed planetary systems.
Summary
=======
In this paper we have performed $N$-body simulations of stellar clusters, with properties similar to, but due to the exclusion of gas not identical to, those in which a significant fraction of stars in the solar neighbourhood formed. During the simulations we monitored the interactions of each star with other stars and binaries in the cluster. This allowed us to estimate a lower bound on the singleton fraction in the solar neighbourhood, i.e. the fraction of stars which formed single and have never undergone any close encounters or been exchanged into a binary. We find that of the stars with a mass close to $1 \, {M_{\odot }}$, which were formed as single stars in large clusters, a significant fraction have undergone some type of strong interaction with another star or binary, either a fly-by or an exchange encounter with a binary system. For the total population of solar-like stars in the solar neighbourhood this means that at least five per cent of them have undergone such encounters. If one or more of the stars in such an encounter had a planetary system with properties similar to those of the solar system, it may have been perturbed by the encounter. Such a perturbation may cause the expulsion of several planets via planet-planet interactions, leaving the remaining planets on eccentric orbits. Furthermore, some of the stars which were initially single exchanged into binaries which remain after the demise of the cluster. These binaries have similar properties to those of observed binary systems containing extra-solar planets. Thus, dynamical processes in young stellar clusters might be responsible for the properties of some of the observed extra-solar planets.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Dr. Sverre Aarseth for his invaluable help during this project and for his useful comments on the manuscript. Melvyn B. Davies is a Royal Swedish Academy Research Fellow supported by a grant from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. Ross P. Church is funded by a grant from the Swedish Institute. Dougal Mackey is supported by a Marie Curie Excellence Grant under contract MCEXT-CT-2005-025869. Mark Wilkinson acknowledges support from a Royal Society University Research Fellowship. The simulations performed in this paper were done on computer hardware which was purchased with grants from the the Royal Physiographic Society in Lund. We also thank Fred Adams for his useful comments on the manuscript.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a theory to predict the structure and thermodynamics of mixtures of colloids of different diameters, building on our earlier work \[J. Chem. Phys. 145, 074904 (2016)\] that considered mixtures with all particles constrained to have the same size. The patchy, solvent particles have short-range directional interactions, while the solute particles have short-range isotropic interactions. The hard-sphere mixture without any association site forms the reference fluid. An important ingredient within the multi-body association theory is the description of clustering of the reference solvent around the reference solute. Here we account for the physical, multi-body clusters of the reference solvent around the reference solute in terms of occupancy statistics in a defined observation volume. These occupancy probabilities are obtained from enhanced sampling simulations, but we also present statistical mechanical models to estimate these probabilities with limited simulation data. Relative to an approach that describes only up to three-body correlations in the reference, incorporating the complete reference information better predicts the bonding state and thermodynamics of the physical solute for a wide range of system conditions. Importantly, analysis of the residual chemical potential of the infinitely dilute solute from molecular simulation and theory shows that whereas the chemical potential is somewhat insensitive to the description of the structure of the reference fluid the energetic and entropic contributions are not, with the results from the complete reference approach being in better agreement with particle simulations.'
author:
- Artee Bansal
- Arjun Valiya Parambathu
- 'D. Asthagiri'
- 'Kenneth R. Cox'
- 'Walter G. Chapman'
title: 'Thermodynamics of mixtures of patchy and spherical colloids of different sizes: a multi-body association theory with complete reference fluid information'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In thermodynamic perturbation theory of association involving short range interactions between molecules, the properties of the reference fluid plays a central role. In the typical situation when the reference is a hard-sphere fluid, perturbation theories usually use information about two body, and at times three body, correlations in the reference fluid to describe the physical (associating) system. For example, Wertheim’s theory [@wertheim_fluids_1984; @wertheim_fluids_1984-1] and its extensions based on the statistical associating fluid theory (SAFT) [@chapman_new_1990] use pair correlation information at contact to estimate extent of association between pairs of molecules. In SAFT, for the hard-sphere reference either the Carnahan-Starling [@carnahan_equation_1969] equation for a single component fluid or the Boublik-Mansoori-Carnahan-Starling-Leland [@boublik_hardsphere_1970; @mansoori_equilibrium_1971] equation for a mixture are used to describe the pair-correlation information at contact. The structure of Wertheim’s theory or SAFT is such that one can obtain accurate extent of association and thermodynamics even for systems with strong inter-particle interactions provided the representation of the reference is adequate. However, as the complexity of the interaction increases in the physical system, such as may result from multiple bonding and size asymmetries, information about two or three body correlations in the reference no longer suffices.
In our previous work [@bansal_structure_2016], we studied the multi-body correlation functions of a symmetric hard sphere reference fluid in terms of the probabilities of observing $n$ molecules in the bonding region. These occupancy probabilities were obtained from enhanced sampling Monte Carlo simulations for the hard sphere fluid. We developed a procedure to use this information within the Marshall-Chapman formalism [@marshall_molecular_2013; @marshall_thermodynamic_2013] to describe multiple association of solvent molecules to a solute molecule. This *complete reference* approach proved successful in predicting the bonding state and thermodynamics of a colloidal solute in a patchy solvent for a wide range of system conditions [@bansal_structure_2016].
Here we study mixtures where the solute diameter is as small as half to as large as twice the diameter of the solvent. The solvent particles are spheres with directional interaction sites and the solute particles are spheres with isotropic interactions, and the solute is capable of bonding with multiple solvent particles. The structure and thermodynamics of mixture of hard spheres with different diameters has been studied in detail before [@torquato_microstructure_1986; @reiss_statistical_1959; @mayer_integral_1947; @torquato_microstructure_1982; @torquato_microstructure_1983; @torquato_microstructure_1985], but a compact form for the correlations beyond the contact value is still unavailable. Further, for systems with large size asymmetries even the pair-correlation information obtained using the Boublik-Mansoori-Carnahan-Starling-Leland equation is inadequate [@feng_contact_2011]. Our approach of including multi-body correlations rests on using the occupancy statistics [@reiss_upper_1981; @pratt_quasichemical_2001; @pratt_selfconsistent_2003; @bansal_structure_2016] of the hard-sphere solvent around the hard-sphere solute. We find that representing multi-body correlation functions in terms of occupancy statistics in physically reasonable observation volumes accurately captures the multi-bonding effects in asymmetric mixtures. These occupancy statistics are obtained from particle simulations. Importantly, we also present a physically transparent, statistical mechanical model to describe the occupancy probabilities in symmetric and asymmetric hard sphere fluids for different packing fractions. This model corrects multi-body effects obtained for isolated clusters by incorporating the role of the cluster-bulk interface and the bulk medium effects. We also investigate the energy-entropy decomposition of the chemical potential of the solute in a model system with only solute-solvent interactions to better appreciate the role of the reference fluid. Throughout, theoretical results are validated versus molecular simulations
The rest of the paper is organized in the following way. In Section \[sc:bentheory\] we discuss the association potential of the system and describe how packing effects are important for the given potential. The Marshall-Chapman [@marshall_thermodynamic_2013] theory is briefly introduced to show the multi-density representation of the free energy, and based on our previous work [@bansal_structure_2016], an improved representation of multi-body correlations(*complete reference*) is presented. In Section \[sc:HStheory\], we examine hard sphere packing around a reference particle and develop models based on statistical mechanics [@reiss_upper_1981] and hard sphere simulation data for different densities. We apply our complete reference approach for different asymmetric mixtures of solute and solvent and present results in Section \[sc:res\_asso\]. In Section \[sc:res\_hs\] we present results for the hard sphere reference system (symmetric and asymmetric mixtures) based on the correlation developed in section \[sc:HStheory\]. We also provide simulation results for isolated cluster probabilities in asymmetric hard sphere mixtures in the appendix (Section \[sc:appen\]).
Theory
======
Asymmetric mixtures with different association geometries {#sc:bentheory}
----------------------------------------------------------
The focus of our study is asymmetric mixtures containing molecules with short range attractive interactions. The short range association potential is the same as that in previous work [@bansal_structure_2016]: the solute molecule can associate with multiple solvent molecules isotropically and the patchy solvent has directional interactions. The total potential is a sum of hard sphere and association contributions $$u{(r)}=u_{HS}{(r)}+u_{AS}{(r)}
\label{eq:potT}$$
The association potential for patchy-patchy $(p,p)$ and spherical-patchy $(s,p)$ particles is: $$u_{AB}^{(p,p)}{(r)}=
\begin{cases}
-\epsilon_{AB}^{(p,p)}, r<r_c \,\text{and}\, \theta_A\leq \theta_c^{(A)}\,\text{and}\,\theta_B \leq \theta_c^{(B)}
\\
0 \text{ \ \ \ \ \ otherwise}
\\
\end{cases}
\label{eq:potential1}$$
$$u_A^{(s,p)}{(r)}=
\begin{cases}
-\epsilon_A^{(s,p)}, r<r_c\, \text{and}\, \theta_A\leq \theta_c^{(A)}
\\
0 \text{ \ \ \ \ \ otherwise}
\\
\end{cases}
\label{eq:potential2}$$
where the subscripts $A$ and $B$ represent the type of site and $\epsilon$ is the association energy; $r$ is the distance between the particles; and $\theta_A$ is the angle between the vector connecting the centers of two molecules and the vector connecting association site $A$ to the center of that molecule (Fig. \[fig:1\]). The critical distance beyond which particles do not interact is $r_c$ and $\theta_c$ is the solid angle beyond which sites cannot bond. Fig. \[fig:1\] shows examples of solute-solvent and solvent-solvent short range interaction geometries for different sizes of solute particles.
![Association between solute and solvent (a) and solvent molecules (b). Different Cases with solute larger (middle) and smaller (left) than solvent molecules are studied. $r$ is the center-to-center distance and $\theta_A$ and $\theta_B$ are the orientation of the attractive patches $A$ and $B$ relative to line connecting the centers. The solute (colored red) can only interact with patch $A$ (colored red).[]{data-label="fig:1"}](figure1)
Since the solute can associate with multiple solvent molecules (Eq. \[eq:potential2\]), it is important to study the multi-body correlations that determine the packing of solvent particles around the solute in the reference fluid [@bansal_structure_2016]. The difficulty in determining these interactions arises due to the limited knowledge in describing multi-body correlation functions for $n\ge 3$. But the volume integral of the multi-body correlation has a clear physical meaning in terms of average number of $n$-solvent clusters ($F^{(n)}$, Fig. \[fig:Fn\]). In particular, for the distinguished solute, $$\begin{aligned}
{F^{(n)}} & = &\frac{{{\rho_p^n}}}{{n!}}\int\limits_{v} {d{{\vec r}_1} \cdots \int\limits_{v} d{{\vec r}_n}{g_{HS}}\left( {{{\vec r}_1} \cdots {{\vec r}_n}|0} \right)} \nonumber \\
& = & {\sum\limits_{m = n}^{{n^{\max }}} {C^m_n p_m}} \, ,
\label{eq:Fn}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_p$ is the density of solvent particles, $p_n$ is the probability of observing exactly $n$ solvent particles in the observation volume of the solute ($v$) defined by the spherical region of radius $r_c$, $C^m_n$ ($=m! / (m-n)!\cdot n!$), and $g_{HS}({\vec r}_1 \cdots {\vec r}_n|0)$ is the distribution function of the $n$-solvent particles around the solute at the center of the observation volume, indicated by $(\ldots | 0)$. $n^{max}$ is the maximum number of solvent molecules that can occupy the observation volume around the reference solute.
In Wertheim’s multi-density formalism [@wertheim_fluids_1986; @wertheim_fluids_1986-1], the free energy due to association ($A^{AS}$) is expressed as $$\frac{{A^{AS}}}{{V{k_{\rm B}}T}} = \sum {\left( {{\rho_k}\ln \frac{{\rho ^{(0)}_{k }}}{{{\rho_{ k }}}} + {Q^{\left( k \right)}} + {\rho _{ k }}} \right)} - \frac{ \Delta c^{(0)}}{V}
% - {{\Delta {c^{(0)}}} \mathord{\left/
% {\vphantom {{\Delta {c^{(0)}}} V}} \right.
% \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} V}
\label{eq:3}$$
where $k_{\rm B}$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T$ is the temperature, the summation is over the species ($k={s,p}$), $\rho$ is the number density, $\rho^{(0)}$ is the monomer density, $Q^{(k)}$ is obtained from the Marshall-Chapman development [@marshall_thermodynamic_2013] and $\Delta{c^{0}}$ is the contribution to the graph sum due to association between the solvent-solvent $(p,p)$ and solute-solvent $(s,p)$ molecules, i.e. $$\Delta c_{}^{\left( 0 \right)} = \Delta c_{pp}^{\left( 0 \right)} + \Delta c_{sp}^{\left( 0 \right)}
\label{eq:4}$$
Marshall and Chapman [@marshall_molecular_2013; @marshall_thermodynamic_2013] extended Wertheim’s theory beyond the single bonding condition to incorporate multi-body effects in a solution consisting of an isotropic solute and solvent with directional interactions. The contribution to free energy due to association between solute and solvent molecules was obtained as $$\frac {\Delta c_{sp}^{(0)}}{V} = \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{{n^{\max }}} {\frac{\Delta c_n^{( 0)}}{V} }
\label{eq:5}$$ where the sum is over different coordination states of the solute and $\Delta c_n^{(0)}$ is given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta c_n^{(0)} & = & \frac{\rho ^{(0)}_s {( {\rho_p X_A^{(p)}})}^n} {\Omega^{n + 1} n!} \int d(1)\cdots d(n + 1) \,
g_{HS}( 1 \cdots n + 1) \cdot \prod\limits_{k = 2}^{n + 1} {( f_{A}^{(s,p)} ( 1,k))} \, .
\label{eq:14}
\end{aligned}$$
In Eq. \[eq:14\], $\rho_p=\rho\cdot x^{(p)}$ is the density of solvent molecules obtained from the mole fraction of solvent($x^{(p)}$) and the total density($\rho$), $X_A^{(p)}$ is the fraction of solvent molecules not bonded at site A, $\Omega =4\pi$ is the total number of orientations, $f_{A}^{( {s,p})}(1,k) = (\exp (\varepsilon_A^{(s,p)}/k_BT) - 1)$ is the Mayer function for association between $p$ and $s$ molecules corresponding to potential in Eq. \[eq:potential2\] and the integral is over all the orientations and positions of the $n+1$ particles. By taking the average association strength and acceptable orientations out of the integral and fixing the solute at the origin, the above integral can be rewritten as
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ \Delta c_n^{(0)}}{V} & = & \frac{\rho _s^{(0)} {( {{\rho}_{p}X_A^{(p)}}f_A^{(s,p)}\sqrt {\kappa _{AA}})}^n} {n!} \int_{v} d\vec r_1 \cdots \int_{v} d\vec r_n \,
g_{HS}(\vec r_1 \cdots \vec r_n |0) \, .
\label{eq:3}
\end{aligned}$$
Marshall and Chapman[@marshall_molecular_2013; @marshall_thermodynamic_2013] approximated the integral in Eq. \[eq:3\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{v} d\vec r_1 \cdots \int_{v} d\vec r_n\, g_{HS}(\vec r_1 \cdots \vec r_n |0) \approx y_{HS}^n( \sigma) \delta ^{(n)} \Xi ^{(n)} \, ,
\label{eq:MCA}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Xi^{(n)}$ is the partition function for an isolated cluster of $n$ solvent hard-spheres around a solute hard-sphere, $y_{HS}( \sigma)$ is (pair) cavity correlation function at contact, and $\delta^{\left(n\right)}$ corrects the superposition of cavity correlation functions for three body interactions. We will hereafter refer to Eq. \[eq:MCA\] as the Marshall-Chapman approximation (MCA).
As shown earlier [@bansal_structure_2016], MCA fails for high densities and high association energies, conditions where multi-body interactions are important. But recognizing that the integral in Eq. \[eq:3\] is related to $F^{(n)}$ (Eq. \[eq:Fn\]) we have [@bansal_structure_2016] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ \Delta c_n^{(0)}}{V} = {\rho_s^{(0)} {( {x ^{(p)}X_A^{(p)}}f_A^{(s,p)}\sqrt {\kappa _{AA}})}^n} F^{(n)} \, .
\label{eq:Cn_new}\end{aligned}$$ It can be observed that all the multi-body correlation information is subsumed in $F^{(n)}$ which is obtained from the occupancy distribution $\{p_n\}$. We follow our earlier work [@bansal_structure_2016] to estimate this distribution. Importantly, since $\{p_n\}$ forms the basis of our *complete reference* approach, we also develop an analytical model to describe these distribution functions.
Finally, with the above information, and based on the Marshall-Chapman theory [@marshall_thermodynamic_2013], the fraction of solute associated with $n$ solvent molecules is $$X_n^{\left( s \right)} = \frac{ {( {x ^{(p)}X_A^{(p)}}f_A^{(s,p)}\sqrt {\kappa _{AA}})}^n F^{(n)} }{{1 + \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{{n^{\max }}} {( {x ^{(p)}X_A^{(p)}}f_A^{(s,p)}\sqrt {\kappa _{AA}})}^n} F^{(n)} } \, ,
\label{eq:301}$$ and the fraction of solute not bonded to any solvent molecule is $$X_0^{\left( s \right)} = \frac{1}{{1 + \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{{n^{\max }}} {( {x ^{(p)}X_A^{(p)}}f_A^{(s,p)}\sqrt {\kappa _{AA}})}^n} F^{(n)} } \, .
\label{eq:300}$$ Using these distributions for associating mixture, the average number of solvent associated with the solute is given by: $$n_{avg} = \sum\limits_n {n\cdot {X^{(s)}_n}} \, ,
\label{eq:81}$$ The fraction of solvent not bonded at site $A$ and site $B$ can be obtained by simultaneous solution of the following equations: $$X_A^{\left( p \right)} = \frac{1}{{1 + \xi {\kappa _{AB}}f_{AB}^{\left( {p,p} \right)}{\rho_p}X_B^{(p)} + \frac{{{\rho_s}}}{{{\rho_p}}}\frac{{ n_{avg} }}{{X_A^{(p)}}}}} \, ,$$ $$X_B^{\left( p \right)} = \frac{1}{{1 + \xi {\kappa _{AB}}f_{AB}^{\left( {p,p} \right)}{\rho_p}X_A^{(p)}}} \, .
\label{eq:82}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\xi & = & 4\pi {\sigma^2}\left( {{r_c} - \sigma} \right){y_{HS}}(\sigma) \\
\kappa_{AB} & = &\left[1-cos(\theta_c)\right]^2/{4} \\
f_{AB}^{({p,p})} & = & \exp ( \varepsilon _{AB}^{({p,p})}/k_{\rm B}T)-1 \, .\end{aligned}$$
Occupancy distribution $\{p_n\}$ for the hard-sphere fluid {#sc:HStheory}
----------------------------------------------------------
Consider a hard sphere fluid with one solute and $N$ solvent particles in a volume $V$ and temperature $T$. We are interested in the occupancy statistics $\{p_n\}$ of the solvent in the coordination volume around the solute. To this end consider the reaction $$S{P_{n = 0}} + {P_n} \rightleftharpoons S{P_n} \, ,
\label{eq:20}$$ with the equilibrium constant $${K_n} = \frac{{{\rho _{S{P_n}}}}}{{{\rho _{S{P_{n = 0}}}}\rho _p^n}} \, ,
\label{eq:21}$$ where $\rho_{SP_n}$ is the density of species $SP_n$ and $\rho_p$ is the density of the solvent. Clearly, we have [@pratt_quasichemical_2001; @lrp:book; @lrp:cpms] $$\frac{p_n}{p_0} = K_n \rho_p^n \, ,
\label{eq:pnp0}$$ where $p_0$ is the probability that the coordination volume is empty of solvent particles. Following earlier work in studying clusters with quasichemical theory [@pratt_quasichemical_2001; @pratt_selfconsistent_2003; @merchant_thermodynamically_2009; @merchant:jcp11b], we can show that $$K_n = \frac{(e^{ \beta\mu^{\rm ex}_{p} })^n}{n!}\int\limits_v d{\vec r}_1\ldots\int\limits_v d{\vec r}_n e^{-\beta U_{SP_n}(R^n)} e^{-\beta \phi(R^n;\beta)} \, ,
\label{eq:kn1}$$ where $U_{SP_n}(R^n)$ is the potential energy of the $n$-solvent cluster (with the solute $S$ fixed at the center of the cluster), $\beta = (k_{\rm B}T)^{-1}$, $\phi(R^n;\beta)$ is the free energy of interaction of the cluster with the rest of the bulk medium for a given configuration $R^n$ of the cluster, and $\beta\mu^{\rm ex}_{p} $ is the excess chemical potential of the solvent particle. (For completeness, in appendix A we derive the above expression for $K_n$.) $\phi(R^n;\beta)$ can also be thought of as a field imposed by the bulk solvent medium [@pratt_selfconsistent_2003; @merchant:jcp11b] on the solute-solvent cluster in the observation volume. Earlier Pratt and Ashbaugh [@pratt_selfconsistent_2003] modeled this field using a self-consistent approach. Here we take a different approach.
First note that without the field term, the cluster integral presents a simpler $n$-body problem (where $n$ is small, typically less than 20 for systems of interest here). The field is thus an interfacial term that couples the local cluster with the bulk medium. To make this explicit, we can rewrite Eq. \[eq:kn1\] as $$K_n = \frac{(e^{ \beta\mu^{\rm ex}_{p} })^n}{n!} \langle e^{-\beta \phi(R^n;\beta)}\rangle_0 \int\limits_vd{\vec r}_1\ldots\int\limits_v d{\vec r}_n e^{-\beta U_{SP_n}(R^n)} \, .$$ Here $\langle \ldots\rangle_0$ indicates averaging with over the normalized probability density for cluster conformations $R^n$ in the absence of interactions with the rest of the medium, i.e. over the density $e^{-\beta U_{SP_n}(R^n)} / (n! K_n^{(0)})$, where $$n! K_n^{(0)} = \int\limits_vd{\vec r}_1\ldots\int\limits_v d{\vec r}_n e^{-\beta U_{SP_n}(R^n)} \, ,
\label{eq:kn0}$$ and the interfacial contribution is $\beta\Omega_n = -\ln \langle e^{-\beta \phi(R^n;\beta)}\rangle_0$.
From analysis of simulation data for different densities, we find that $\Omega_n$ can be described by a two parameter equation as $$\beta \Omega_n =-\zeta_1 \cdot n^2+\zeta_2\cdot n \, .$$ This model of the interfacial term was anticipated in our previous work [@bansal_structure_2016]. Thus we finally obtain $${p_n} = \frac{\exp(\beta \cdot n \cdot \mu^{ex}_{p})\rho_p^n [{\exp{(\zeta_1 \cdot n^2-\zeta_2\cdot n)}}]{K_n}^{(0)}}{{1 + \sum\limits_{j \ge 1} {\exp(\beta \cdot j \cdot \mu^{ex}_{p})\rho_p^j [{\exp{(\zeta_1 \cdot j^2-\zeta_2 \cdot j)}}]{K_j}^{(0)}} }} \
\label{eq:pn_2par}$$ The above equation can also be derived using a two moment maximum entropy approach, with the mean and variance of the occupancy as constraints and $K_n^{(0)}$ as the default (see appendix A).
Drawing upon the work of Reiss and Merry [@reiss_upper_1981], we can model the interfacial term in terms of surface sites (of the cluster) that are available to interact with the bulk fluid. On the basis of such a mean field approach and guided by Monte Carlo (MC) simulation data for different densities of hard sphere systems, we find that $$\beta \Omega_n =(-0.0109 \cdot n^2+1.0109 \cdot n)\cdot \zeta
\label{eq:surf_int}$$ $${p_n} = \frac{\exp(\beta \cdot n \cdot \mu^{ex}_{p})\rho_p^n [{\exp{(-(-0.0109 \cdot n^2+1.0109 \cdot n)\cdot \zeta)}}]{K_n}^{(0)}}{{1 + \sum\limits_{j \ge 1} {\exp(\beta \cdot j \cdot \mu^{ex}_{p})\rho_p^j [{\exp{(-(-0.0109 \cdot j^2+1.0109 \cdot j)\cdot \zeta)}}]{K_j}^{(0)}} }} \
\label{eq:pn_1par}$$
Eq. \[eq:pn\_2par\] and Eq. \[eq:pn\_1par\] are the 2-parameter and 1-parameter models, respectively, for $p_n$ on the basis of which we obtain $F^{(n)}$ (Eq. \[eq:Fn\]) to describe multi-body correlations in the reference fluid. The parameter values for different densities are given in Table \[table: param1\]. These parameters were obtained based on hard spheres mixtures with all particles of the same size. Since the information about size-asymmetry is already contained in the isolated cluster partition function, we will use these parameters to study asymmetric mixtures and will discuss limitations for cases with extreme size ratio.
METHODS
=======
To compare the theory results, we perform Monte-Carlo (MC) simulations for a range of systems. This section presents the details of the MC simulations for different associating and hard sphere systems.The Marshall-Chapman approximation (MCA) and the models developed for hard sphere distribution functions require isolated cluster probabilities; these were also computed for different size ratios.
Monte Carlo Simulations
-----------------------
MC simulations were carried out for reference hard sphere systems and associating systems to compare the results of Marshall-Chapman theory using MCA and the complete reference approach. The associating mixture contains the patchy solvent particles and the isotropically interacting solute defined by the potentials given by Eq. \[eq:potential1\] and Eq. \[eq:potential2\], respectively. The solute diameter is $\sigma_s$ and solvent diameter is $\sigma_p$.
The observation volume is defined by a critical radius $r_c = 1.1\bar{\sigma}$, where $\bar{\sigma} = (\sigma_s + \sigma_p)/2$ is the closest distance of approach. For cases where $\sigma_s/\sigma_p \geq 1.5$, a cutoff of 1.1$\bar{\sigma}$ can include some of the second-shell solvent. To avoid this and focus attention to the first observation shell, we set $r_c = \bar{\sigma} + 0.1\sigma_p$ for these cases. In the associating system (Fig. \[fig:1\] and Eqs. \[eq:potential1\] and \[eq:potential2\]), the critical angles for interaction are $\theta_c^{(A)} = \theta_c^{(B)} = 27\degree$.
For hard sphere mixtures 255 solvent particles and 1 solute particle were studied in a given simulation cell. Ensemble reweighting technique was used to reveal low probability states [@merchant_water_2011]. The system was equilibrated for 1 million steps with translational factors chosen to yield an acceptance rate of 0.3, and data was collected every 100 sweeps. Analysis was carried out for different densities and size ratios $\sigma_s/\sigma_p$.
For associating mixtures bonding distributions and average bonding numbers were studied for mixtures with different sizes and different association strengths for solute-solvent and solvent-solvent interactions. The excess chemical potential of the coupling of the colloid with solvent was also calculated using thermodynamic integration of average binding energy of solute with solvent as a function of solute-solvent interactions, using the three-point Gauss Legendre quadrature technique [@Hummer:jcp96]. For a symmetric mixture with no solvent-solvent interactions, energetic and entropic contributions for solute chemical potential were also studied at constant volume and temperature.
Concentration effects were also computed considering a total of 864 particles, with varied number of solute particles. Due to the difference in size of the solute and solvent, the computations were performed keeping the packing fraction constant. Hence, the density of the system changed with respect to the concentration. Also the maximum angle for which the patch can form single bond is computed using the law of cosines, and hence the critical angle needs to be altered when the solute size is smaller than the solvent. For a size ratio of $\sigma_s/\sigma_p=0.8$, critical angle $\theta_c^{(A)} = \theta_c^{(B)} = 20\degree$ was used to ensure single bonding condition for the $A$ patch on solvent molecules which can associate with solute molecules.
Isolated cluster probabilities
------------------------------
For asymmetric mixtures, we also study isolated cluster probabilities for different size ratios of solute and solvent molecules. The observation volume around the isolated solute is the same as defined in the previous section. For different size ratios we use the spherical code (appendix B) to estimate the maximum number of solvent molecules which can be inserted in the observation volume of the isolated solute. Successive insertion probabilities are calculated as in previous works [@marshall_molecular_2013; @bansal_structure_2016], where $10^8$ to $10^9$ insertions were carried out in the observation volume around the solute and the cases with no overlap with remaining $n-1$ particles studied. The data for isolated cluster probabilities for different sizes is given in the appendix B.
Results and discussions
=======================
Hard sphere $\{p_n\}$ distribution {#sc:res_hs}
----------------------------------
Recall that Eq. \[eq:pn\_1par\] and Eq. \[eq:pn\_2par\] are the 1-parameter and 2-parameter models for the occupancy distribution $\{p_n\}$. To obtain the parameters for hard spheres all of the same size, for both the models we use the average occupancy ($n^{HS}_{avg}= \sum\limits_n n\cdot {p_n}$) as a fitting constraint. For the 2-parameter model we additionally use the exclusion probability ($p_0$) — the probability when no hard sphere solvent particle is present in the observation volume — as a constraint. For the 1-parameter model we study the surface interactions based on the mean field approach developed by Reiss and Merry [@reiss_upper_1981]. By analyzing the distribution functions $\{p_n\}$ for different densities, we obtain geometric effects (density independent) that describe the mutual interference of different surface sites (Eq. \[eq:surf\_int\]). The density (or packing fraction) dependent parameters for these two models are given in Table \[table: param1\].
$\rho \sigma^3$ $\eta$ $\zeta_1$ $\zeta_2$ $\zeta$
----------------- -------- ----------- ----------- ---------
0.2 0.105 0.0175 0.773 0.75
0.3 0.157 0.015 1.267 1.251
0.4 0.209 0.0256 1.979 1.947
0.5 0.262 0.023 2.88 2.876
0.6 0.314 0.0361 4.179 4.172
0.7 0.367 0.0457 5.947 5.985
0.8 0.419 0.0609 8.432 8.562
0.9 0.471 0.0829 12.088 12.414
: Parameters for Eq. \[eq:pn\_2par\] ($\zeta_1$,$\zeta_2$) and Eq. \[eq:pn\_1par\] ($\zeta$) for different densities $\rho \sigma^3$ and packing fractions ($\eta$)
\[table: param1\]
Fig. \[fig:HS\_sym\] presents the results corresponding to the average occupancy ($n^{HS}_{avg}$) and exclusion probability ($\ln p_0$) based on the models. We compare these results with the MC simulation values and also include results from literature [@chang_real_1994; @torquato_microstructure_1985].
Fig. \[fig:HS\_sym\] makes it clear that 2-parameter model can simultaneously capture both $n_{avg}$ and $\ln p_0$ in excellent agreement with simulation. Importantly, even the 1-parameter model is able to capture most of the details, affirming the physical ideas underlying the models (Eqs. \[eq:pn\_1par\] and \[eq:pn\_2par\]).
Next, using the parameters obtained above for a fluid where both solute and solvent hard-spheres are the same size (a symmetric mixture), we describe the occupancy in a fluid where the solute and solvent are of different sizes (an asymmetric mixture). Our *ansatz* is that the information about size asymmetry is adequately captured by the isolated cluster partition function $K_n^{(0)}$ (Eq. \[eq:kn0\]). For an infinitely dilute system comprising one solute in a solvent bath, Fig. \[fig:pn1\_asym\] shows the predictions of $n_{avg}^{HS}$ and $\ln p_0$ based on the 1-parameter model (Eq. \[eq:pn\_1par\]) for different size ratios and different reduced densities. The level of agreement is encouraging, but perhaps not surprising since the size ratios are not much different from a symmetric case. Thus the geometric effects describing the mutual interference of different surface sites in the packing around the solute will be similar to what is observed in the symmetric mixture. For extreme size ratios this should break down, as we will discuss in the context of average bonding numbers in associating mixtures.
For asymmetric mixtures, the packing fraction is a better measure of packing in the fluid. Fig. \[fig:pn1\_asym\_eta\]
presents the variation of average occupancy for different packing fractions for three different size ratios for an infinitely dilute solution. The results show that the 1-parameter model is able to predict the average occupancy quite well. We note that as the concentration of solute is changed in asymmetric mixtures, the packing fraction changes (for a given density) and parameters corresponding to the resulting packing fraction should be used from Table \[table: param1\].
Associating mixture {#sc:res_asso}
-------------------
We next consider associating fluids and investigate both size and concentration effects.
### Infinite Dilution
We first study an infinitely dilute solution and vary the size of solute with respect to a fixed size of solvent particles. In our complete reference theory, the reference fluid $\{p_n\}$ distribution is either computed directly from simulations (‘$p_n$-Simulation’ in Fig. \[fig:n\_avg\]) or from the 1-parameter model discussed in Sec. A above (‘$p_n$-Model1’ in Fig. \[fig:n\_avg\]). Using $\{p_n\}$ we compute $F^{(n)}$ (Eq. \[eq:Fn\]), and on that basis, the average number of bonds in the associating mixture using Eq. \[eq:Cn\_new\], Eq. \[eq:301\] and Eq. \[eq:81\]. Fig. \[fig:n\_avg\] shows the variation of average bonding numbers with size ratio of solute and solvent molecules for a density of 0.8 and association strength of 7 $k_{\rm B}T$.
As the size of the solute increases with respect to the size of the solvent, more solvent molecules can associate with the solute. With accurate information about the reference fluid $\{p_n\}$ (and hence $F^{(n)}$) from direct simulations, the complete reference theory is able to capture this increase in bonding numbers quite accurately. Interestingly, even $\{p_n\}$ obtained using the 1-parameter model (Eq. \[eq:pn\_1par\]) suffices. But note that the Marshall-Chapman approximation with only up to 3-body effects incorporated in the theory underestimates the average bonding numbers. These results emphasize the importance of multi-body interactions in describing the association correctly.
As noted in Sec. \[sc:HStheory\], the amount of surface exposure (or surface sites) is an important factor in determining the packing effects in the models. For the size ratios considered in Fig. \[fig:n\_avg\], the maximum number of surface sites and hence the geometric effects in surface interactions are expected to be similar to the symmetric case, and not surprisingly, the agreement of bonding numbers between simulation and with the 1-parameter model for $p_n$ is very good. For extreme size ratios (Table. \[table:extreme\]), a high error with the 1-parameter model is expected. This results because of the disparity in surface sites for these ratios relative to the symmetric mixture within which the density independent geometric effects were obtained (Eq. \[eq:surf\_int\]). However, even for these extreme size ratios, with information for reference hard sphere distribution functions from simulation, the complete reference theory is able to capture the average bonding numbers for these extreme size ratios quite well.
$\sigma_s / \sigma_p $ MC $p_n$-Simulation $p_n$-Model1
------------------------ ------- ------------------ --------------
0.5 3.61 3.55 4.50
2 15.84 15.04 17.66
: Comparison of average bonding numbers ($n_{avg}$) of solute for extreme size ratios.
\[table:extreme\]
### Varying association strengths
To understand the effect of varying association strengths between solute-solvent and solvent solvent particles, we studied a case with a fixed size ratio of $\sigma_s / \sigma_p = 0.8 $ and for varying association strengths (fig. \[fig:Asso\_asym\]).
As the strength of solute-solvent association is increased as compared to solvent-solvent interactions, multi-body effects become important. It was observed that higher deviations are observed with TPT2-based Marshall-Chapman approximation, especially for increasing strength of solute-solvent association. Importantly, excellent agreement with the complete reference theory is observed for all cases noted in the figure.
### Chemical potential and energy entropy contributions
Fig. \[fig:Asso\_mu\] shows the chemical potential of the solute for two limiting cases: one where the solvent-solvent association is present and one where it is absent, for two size ratios.
The results indicate that despite the large deviations in $n_{avg}$ (Fig. \[fig:n\_avg\]) noted above, the deviations using the Marshall-Chapman approximation are not as high relative to the complete reference approach.
To better understand this result, we consider a symmetric system where there is no association between solvent particles. For this case, the partial molar energy is the energy of the system with solute-solvent association and there is no contribution for change in solvent-solvent association due to inclusion of an ideal solute at infinite dilution. We decompose the residual chemical potential of the solute ($\mu^{Asso}_{s}$) into its energetic and entropic contributions [@yu_thermodynamic_1988; @yu_solvation_1990]:
$$\beta \mu_s^{Asso} = \beta E_s^{Asso}-T\cdot \beta S_{s,V}^{Asso}$$
where $ E_s^{Asso} = ( \frac{\partial \mu^{Asso}_s/T}{\partial 1/T})_{{\rho _s},{\rho _p}}$ is the partial molar energy and $ S_{s,V}^{Asso}= {( {\frac{{\partial \mu _s^{Asso}}}{{\partial T}}})_{{\rho _s},{\rho _p}}}$ is the partial molar entropy contribution. The entropy and energy values can be obtained with MCA and complete reference approach based on the corresponding temperature derivatives of the chemical potential of solute.
Fig. \[fig:en\_entr\] clearly shows that energy and entropy contributions are not captured accurately by MCA. But the apparent reasonable prediction of the chemical potential (using MCA) results because of cancellation of the errors between the entropy and energy contributions. The above result shows that in comparing perturbation theories, it could be useful and prudent to study chemical potential and also its energy and entropy contributions.
### Concentrated systems
We also study the variation of average bonding number of the solute for different concentration of the solute in the asymmetric mixtures. As the concentration of the solute increases, the system becomes limited in the number of solvent molecules that can bond to the solute molecules and hence TPT2 approximation used in MCA becomes more accurate. For low concentrations, multi-body correlations are important and hence deviations are observed with MCA. Fig. \[fig:n\_avg\_conc\] shows the results for two different size ratios. The theory with the complete reference is able to capture the average bonding numbers for the whole concentration range.
Concluding discussions
======================
We have studied asymmetric mixtures having strong short-range association between differently sized solute and solvent molecules. The solute molecules have isotropic interactions and the solvent molecules have directional interactions. Such systems are archetypes of colloidal mixtures that are being actively studied in designing materials from the nanoscale level. These systems can also describe the short range ion-solvation and ion-pairing effects in electrolyte systems which is another focus of our research.
The isotropic interactions of the solute can allow multiple solvent molecules to associate and hence multi-body effects become important for these systems. Previously [@bansal_structure_2016], we discussed the development of an accurate perturbation theory for these systems is hindered by the difficulty in obtaining the multi-body correlations in the reference system (typically hard sphere). We discussed the limitation of an approach based on obtaining multi-body correlations for the hard sphere system in the gas phase and approximating bulk solvent effect with a linear superposition of pair correlation (together with term to account for three body correction). It was observed that this second order perturbation method fails at high association strengths and high densities. We introduced an approach to represent the multi-body clusters in terms of occupancy distribution to accurately describe the packing in the hard sphere system. Excellent agreement with MC simulation for a range of conditions of association and concentrations were obtained with this *complete reference* approach for symmetric mixtures.
Here, we have built upon the earlier work and study systems with size asymmetry. Our study shows that the multi-body correlations for asymmetric hard sphere mixtures can be accurately studied in terms of occupancy distributions. With these accurate packing effects, our approach gives excellent agreement with MC simulation for the asymmetric associating mixtures. These occupancy distributions were obtained by particle simulations. Based on ideas borrowed from quasichemical theory, we have also developed parametric models to describe occupancy distributions in the hard sphere systems of different densities and different asymmetries. These distributions were obtained by describing the effects of clustering, medium and surface interactions simultaneously in the hard sphere packing around a solute and can be incorporated in perturbation theories (for eg. statistical associating fluid theory) without having to perform particle simulations for the reference fluid. We validate this complete reference theory (using parameterized models of the reference distribution) against several simulations. A critical test was in analyzing the energy and entropy contributions to the chemical potential of the solute. For a system where solvent-solvent association is not present, such a decomposition of chemical potential in energy and entropy contributions with [complete reference]{} theory showed excellent agreement with MC simulations. The apparently reasonable agreement of the second order perturbation approach is shown to arise from the balancing of errors in the energy and entropy contributions. This important finding suggests the need to study different properties while validating perturbative theories for fluids. This present framework can prove useful in modeling real solutions where concentration of solute is low and its size is different from the solvent molecules.
Acknowledgment
==============
We acknowledge RPSEA / DOE 10121-4204-01 and the Robert A. Welch Foundation (C-1241) for financial support.
Appendix {#sc:appen}
========
Hard sphere distribution
------------------------
### Expression for $K_n$ {#sc:Kn}
From Eq. \[eq:pnp0\], we find that obtaining an expression for $K_n$ reduces to evaluating the ratio of $p_n / p_0$. The total potential energy of the system when $n$ solvent particles are coordinated with the solute and the remaining $N-n$ solvent particles are outside the observation volume can be formally written as $U = U_{SP_n} + U_{N-n|SP_n} + U_{N-n}$. $U_{SP_n}$ is the potential energy of the solute-$n$-solvent cluster. $U_{N-n|SP_n}$ is the interaction energy of the cluster with the rest of the solvent; specifically $U_{N|SP_0}$ is the interaction energy of the solute with the fluid outside the observation volume. In the particular case of hard-spheres, $U_{N|SP_0} = 0$. Finally, $U_{N-n}$ is the potential energy of the solvent constituting the bulk.
Since $p_n \propto Q(n,N-n,V,T)$, where $Q(n,N-n,V,T)$ is the canonical partition function of the system with $n$ solvent in the observation volume around the solute and $N-n$ in the bulk, we immediately have $$\frac{p_n}{p_0} = \frac{N!}{(N-n)!n!} \frac {\int\limits_v d{\vec r}_1\ldots \int\limits_v d{\vec r}_n e^{-\beta U_{SP_n}} \cdot \int\limits_{V-v} d{\vec r}_{n+1} \ldots \int\limits_{V-v} d{\vec r}_{N-n} e^{-\beta U_{N-n|SP_n}} e^{-\beta U_{N-n}}}{\int\limits_{V-v} d{\vec r}_1 \ldots \int\limits_{V-v} d{\vec r}_N e^{-\beta U_{N}}} \,
\label{eq:pnporatio}$$ where we have implicitly moved the center of the coordinates to the center of the solute and thus canceled a common factor of $V$ from both the numerator and denominator. Further, since $U_{SP_0} = 0$ and $U_{N|SP_0} = 0$, the denominator simply depends on the potential energy of the solvent in the bulk. (Of course for a general solute, this restriction is easily removed [@merchant_thermodynamically_2009; @merchant:jcp11b].)
Next consider the ratio $$\frac{Q(0,N,V-v)}{Q(0,N-n,V-v)} = \frac{Q(0,N-n+1,V-v)}{Q(0,N-n,V-v)}\cdot \frac{Q(0,N-n+2,V-v)}{Q(0,N-n+1,V-v)}\ldots \frac{Q(0,N,V-v)}{Q(0,N-1,V-v)}
\label{eq:pdt}$$ where we suppress $T$ for conciseness and the 0 indicates that there is no solute in the system (or as is the case here, $U_{SP_0} = U_{N|SP_0} = 0$). In the thermodynamic limit of large $V >> v$ and $N >> n$, from the standard potential distribution relation [@lrp:book; @lrp:cpms; @widom:jpc82], each of the above factor on the right is simply $e^{-\beta \mu_p^{\rm ex}} / \Lambda_p^3 \rho_p$, where $\Lambda_p$ is the thermal de Broglie wavelength of the solvent sphere and $\mu^{\rm ex}_p$ is its excess chemical potential, and $\rho_p$ the density of solvent.
Since, $$Q(0,N-n,V-v,T) = \frac{1}{\Lambda_p^{3(N-n)} (N-n)!} \int\limits_{V-v}d{\vec r}_1\ldots \int\limits_{V-v} d{\vec r}_{N-n} e^{-\beta U_{N-n}} \,$$ we multiply and divide Eq. \[eq:pnporatio\] by the factor $\int\limits_{V-v}d{\vec r}_1\ldots \int\limits_{V-v} d{\vec r}_{N-n} e^{-\beta U_{N-n}}$. Rearranging the resulting equation using Eq. \[eq:pdt\] in the large $V$ and large $N$ limit, and noting that the momentum partition functions (for both solute and solvent) cancel exactly, we obtain Eq. 20 (main text), where $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-\beta \phi(R^n; \beta)} & = & \frac{ \int\limits_{V-v} d{\vec r}_{n+1} \ldots \int\limits_{V-v} d{\vec r}_{N-n} e^{-\beta U_{N-n|SP_n}} e^{-\beta U_{N-n}}}{\int\limits_{V-v}d{\vec r}_1\ldots \int\limits_{V-v} d{\vec r}_{N-n} e^{-\beta U_{N-n}}} \nonumber \\
& = & \langle e^{-\beta U_{N-n|SP_n}} \rangle_{N-n} \,\end{aligned}$$ where $ \langle \ldots \rangle_{N-n}$ denotes averaging over the configurations of the $N-n$ solvent particles in the volume outside the observation shell.
### MaxEnt model for $\{p_n\}$ {#sc:MaxEnt}
Here we present an alternative derivation of the two parameter model (Eq. \[eq:pn\_2par\]) on the basis of information theoretic modeling of $\{p_n\}$ [@sivia; @lrp:jpcb98; @asthagiri:pre03]. On the basis of the isolated cluster partition function, we have the distribution of occupancy probabilities $\{p_n^{(0)}\}$ as $$p_n^{(0)} = \frac{K_n^{(0)} \rho_p^{n}}{1+\sum\limits_{m\ge 1} K_m^{(0)} \rho_p^{m}}$$
With $\{p_n^{(0)}\}$ as the default model and accepting the availability of the mean (first moment) and variance (second moment) of the distribution $\{p_n\}$ from simulation data, by standard maximum entropy arguments, we have $$\label{it04}
\frac{p_n}{p^0_n} = e^{-C} e^{-\lambda_1 \cdot n} e^{-\lambda_2 \cdot n^2} \,$$ where the Lagrange multipliers $C$, $\lambda_1$, and $\lambda_2$ are, respectively, obtained from enforcing the following constraints $$\label{it05}
\sum_n p_n = 1$$ $$\label{it06}
\sum_n p_n \cdot n = n_{avg}$$ $$\label{it07}
\sum_n p_n \cdot n^2= -\overline{\sigma^2}$$
We thus obtain $$\label{it11}
p_n = \frac{\big [ e^{-\lambda_1} e^{-\lambda_2 \cdot n} \big ]^{n} K_n^{(0)} \rho_p^{n}}{1+ \sum \limits_{m\ge 1} \big [ e^{-\lambda_1} e^{-\lambda_2 \cdot m} \big ]^{m} K_m^{(0)} \rho_p^{m}}$$ Eq. \[it11\] is the same form as obtained in section \[sc:HStheory\] for a two parameter correlation. By using $\lambda' = e^{-\lambda_1}$, we can also represent Eq. \[it11\] by
$$\label{it13}
p_n = \frac{\big [ \lambda' e^{-\lambda_2 \cdot n} \big ]^{n} K_n^{(0)} \rho_p^{n}}{1+ \sum\limits_{m\ge 1} \big [\lambda' e^{-\lambda_2 \cdot m} \big ]^{m} K_m^{(0)} \rho_p^{m}}$$
which is the same form introduced in our previous work [@bansal_structure_2016]. Based on this derivation, we can see that $ \lambda_2 $ is the term corresponding to surface interactions discussed in section \[sc:HStheory\] and constraints the variance of the $\{p_n\}$ distribution.
Isolated cluster probabilities
------------------------------
For asymmetric mixtures we study the isolated cluster probabilities and to find the maximum number of solvent molecules that can occupy the observation volume, we use spherical code [@sphcode; @sph_code2].
### Spherical Code
The spherical code provides information to place $n$ points optimally across a sphere. It gives the optimal angle between the points, considering the center of the sphere as the origin. This is extended to place solvent particles across the solute surface, point of contact between the sphere serving as the optimizing points. The angle between the two contact points, $\theta$, is determined as given in the fig. \[fig-sph\_pack\]. The number of solvent molecule that can be tightly packed is obtained from the data [@sphcode]. The sphere onto which the points are optimally placed is an imaginary sphere which includes the critical radius as shown in the dashed lines. It is to be noted that this is still a theoretical estimate for contact packing on the imaginary larger sphere, and due to higher freedom of packing in our case, coordination states can be marginally higher for very large size ratios, $\sigma_s/\sigma_p \geq 5$. Table in fig. \[fig-sph\_pack\] also gives the ma ximum an gle for which single bonding condition holds for a given size ratio ($\theta_{c,max}$) and specified critical distance ($r_c$).
{width="55.00000%"}
\[fig-sph\_pack\]
Once the $n^{max}$ is defined, we find $P^{( n )}$ as the probability that there is no hard sphere overlap for randomly generated solvent molecules in the observation volume (or inner-shell) of solute molecules. As was discussed previously[@marshall_molecular_2013] that a hit-or-miss Monte Carlo [@hammersley; @pratt_quasichemical_2001] approach to calculate $P^{(n)}$ proves inaccurate for large values of $n$ ($n>8$). But since $${P^{( n)}} = P_{insert}^{( n )}{P^{( {n - 1} )}} \, ,
\label{eq:12}$$ where $P_{insert}^{(n)}$ is the probability of inserting a [*[single]{}*]{} particle given $n-1$ particles are already in the bonding volume, an iterative procedure was be used to build the higher-order partition function from lower order one [@marshall_molecular_2013]. The one-particle insertion probability $P_{insert}^{(n)}$ is easily evaluated using hit-or-miss Monte Carlo. Following is the table for isolated cluster probabilities for different size ratios.
\[table:IC\]
[37]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1746468) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/78/6/10.1063/1.445245) [****, ()](http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/82/2/10.1063/1.448475) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, , ) in @noop [**]{}, , Vol. , (, , ) Chap. , pp. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [“,” ]{} () @noop [“,” ]{} () @noop [**]{} (, , )
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Quantitative genetic studies that model complex, multivariate phenotypes are important for both evolutionary prediction and artificial selection. For example, changes in gene expression can provide insight into developmental and physiological mechanisms that link genotype and phenotype. However, classical analytical techniques are poorly suited to quantitative genetic studies of gene expression where the number of traits assayed per individual can reach many thousand. Here, we derive a Bayesian genetic sparse factor model for estimating the genetic covariance matrix (G-matrix) of high-dimensional traits, such as gene expression, in a mixed effects model. The key idea of our model is that we need only consider G-matrices that are biologically plausible. An organism’s entire phenotype is the result of processes that are modular and have limited complexity. This implies that the G-matrix will be highly structured. In particular, we assume that a limited number of intermediate traits (or factors, e.g., variations in development or physiology) control the variation in the high-dimensional phenotype, and that each of these intermediate traits is sparse – affecting only a few observed traits. The advantages of this approach are two-fold. First, sparse factors are interpretable and provide biological insight into mechanisms underlying the genetic architecture. Second, enforcing sparsity helps prevent sampling errors from swamping out the true signal in high-dimensional data. We demonstrate the advantages of our model on simulated data and in an analysis of a published *Drosophila melanogaster* gene expression data set.
**Keywords** G-matrix, factor model, sparsity, Bayesian inference, animal model
author:
- 'Daniel E. Runcie[^1], Sayan Mukherjee[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'paper\_library3.bib'
title: 'Bayesian Sparse Factor Analysis of Genetic Covariance Matrices\'
---
Introduction
============
Quantitative studies of evolution or artificial selection often focus on a single or a handful of traits at a time, such as size, survival or crop yield. Recently, there has been an effort to collect more comprehensive phenotypic information on traits such as morphology, behavior, physiology, or gene expression [@Houle:2010jw]. For example, the expression of thousands of genes can be measured simultaneously [@Ayroles:2009gd; @Mcgraw:2011dm; @Gibson:2005tw], together capturing complex patterns of gene regulation that reflect molecular networks, cellular stresses, and disease states [@xiong11; @delacruz10], and may in some cases be important for fitness. Studying the quantitative genetics of multiple correlated traits requires a joint modeling approach [@Walsh:2009gg]. However, applying the tools of quantitative genetics to high-dimensional, highly correlated datasets presents considerable analytical and computational challenges [@Meyer:2010jj]. In this paper we formulate a modeling framework to address these challenges for a basic component of quantitative genetic analysis: estimation of the matrix of additive genetic variances and covariances, or G-matrix [@Lynch:1998vx]. The G-matrix encodes information about responses to selection [@Lande:1979th], evolutionary constraints [@Kirkpatrick:2009er], and modularity [@Cheverud:1996dc], and is important for predicting evolutionary change [@Schluter:1996up]. Thus, G-matrix estimation is a key step for many quantitative genetic analyses.
The challenge in scaling classic methods to hundreds or thousands of traits is that the number of modeling parameters grows exponentially. An unconstrained G-matrix for $p$ traits requires $p(p+1)/2$ parameters, and modeling environmental variation and measurement error [@Kirkpatrick:2004bv] requires at least as many additional parameters. Coupled with modest sample sizes, huge numbers of parameters can lead to instability in parameter estimates – analyses that are highly sensitive to outliers and have high variance. Previous methods for overcoming this instability include (1) “bending" or smoothing unconstrained estimates of G-matrices, such as from pairwise estimates of genetic covariation [@Ayroles:2009gd; @Stone:2009jx] or moments estimators [@Hayes:1981uc], and (2) estimating a constrained G-matrix to be low rank and thus specified with fewer parameters (e.g., [Kirkpatrick:2004bv]{}). Constraining the G-matrix has computational and analytical advantages: fewer parameters result in more robust estimates and lower computational requirements [@Kirkpatrick:2004bv]. Constrained estimators of G-matrices include methods based on moments estimators [@Hine:2006ki; @Mcgraw:2011dm] and methods based on mixed effects models (e.g., the “animal model" and other related models [@Henderson:1984vh; @Kruuk:2004be; @Kirkpatrick:2004bv; @deLosCampos:2007ib]. Mixed effects and related models have been particularly powerful for studies in large breeding programs and wild populations. These methods perform well on moderate-dimensional data. However, they are too computationally costly and not sufficiently robust to analyze high-dimensional traits.
Our objective in this paper is to develop a model for estimating G-matrices that is scalable to large numbers of traits and is applicable to a variety of experimental designs, including both experimental crosses and pedigreed populations. We build on the Bayesian mixed effects model of [deLosCampos:2007ib]{} and model the G-matrix with a factor model, but add additional constraints by using a highly informative, biologically-motivated, prior distribution. The key idea that allows us to scale to large numbers of traits is that the vast majority of the space of covariance matrices does not contain matrices that are biologically plausible as a G-matrix: we expect the G-matrix to be *sparse*, by which we mean that we favor G-matrices that are *modular* and *low-rank*. Sparsity in statistics refers to models in which many parameters are expected to be zero [@lucas2006sparse]. By modular, we mean that small groups of traits will covary together. By low-rank, we mean that there will be few (important) modules. We call a G-matrix with these properties *sparse* because there exists a low-rank factorization (most of the possible dimensions are zero) of the matrix with many of its values equal to (or close to) zero. This constrains the class of covariance matrices that we search over, a necessary procedure for inference of covariance matrices from high-dimensional data [@bickel1; @bickel2; @elkaroui; @Meyer:2010jj; @Carvalhoetal2008; @Hahnetal2013]. Under these assumptions, we can also interpret the modules underlying our factorization without imposing additional constraints such as orthogonality [@englehardt], something not possible with earlier mixed effect factor models [@Meyer:2009jm].
The biological argument behind this prior assumption starts with the observation that the observed traits of an organism arise from common developmental processes of limited complexity, and developmental processes are often modular [@Cheverud:1996dc; @Wagner:1996tq; @Davidson:2008ui]. For gene expression, regulatory networks control gene expression, and variation in gene expression can be often linked to variation in pathways [@xiong11; @delacruz10]. For a given dataset, we make two assumptions about the modules (pathways): (1) a limited number of modules contribute to trait variation and (2) each module affects a limited number of traits. There is support and evidence for these modeling assumptions in the quantitative genetics literature as G-matrices tend to be highly structured [@Walsh:2009gg] and the majority of genetic variation is contained in a few dimensions regardless of the number of traits studied [@Ayroles:2009gd; @Mcgraw:2011dm]. Note that while we focus on developmental mechanisms underlying trait covariation, ecological or physiological processes can also lead to modularity in observed traits and our prior may be applied to these situations as well.
Based on these assumptions, we present a Bayesian sparse factor model for inferring G-matrices from pedigree information for hundreds or thousands of traits. We demonstrate the advantages of the model on simulated data and re-analyze gene expression data from a published study on *Drosophila melanogaster* [@Ayroles:2009gd]. Although high-dimensional sparse models have been widely used in genetic association studies [@cantoretal; @englehardt; @Stegle:2010cg; @Parts:2011df; @Zhouetal2012] to our knowledge, sparsity has not yet been applied to estimating a G-matrix.
Methods
=======
In this section, we derive the Bayesian genetic sparse factor model as an extension to the classic multivariate animal model to the high-dimensional setting, where hundreds or thousands of traits are simultaneously examined. A factor model posits that a set of unobserved (latent) traits called *factors* underly the variation in the observed (measured) traits. For example, measured gene expression traits might be the downstream output of a gene regulatory network. Here, the activity of this gene network is a latent trait which might vary among individuals. We use the animal model framework to partition variation in both the measured traits and the latent factor traits into additive genetic variation and residuals. We encode our two main biological assumptions on the G-matrix as priors on the factors: sparsity in the number of factors that are important, and sparsity in the number of measured traits related to each factor. These priors constrain our estimation to realistic matrices and thus prevent sampling errors swamping out the true signal in high-dimensional data.
Model:
------
For a single trait the following linear mixed effects model is commonly used to explain phenotypic variation [@Henderson:1984vh]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{single_trait_mixedModel}
\mathbf{y}_i = \mathbf{X}\mathbf{b}_i + \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{u}_i + \mathbf{e}_i,\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{y}_i$ is the vector of phenotype measurements for trait $i$ on $n$ individuals; $\mathbf{b}_i$ is a vector of coefficients for the fixed effects and environmental covariates such as sex or age with design matrix $\mathbf{X}$; $\mathbf{u}_i \sim
\mbox{N}(\mathbf{0},\sigma^2_{G_i}\mathbf{A})$ is the random vector of additive genetic effects with incidence matrix $\mathbf{Z}$, and $\mathbf{e}_i \sim \mbox{N}(\mathbf{0},\sigma^2_{R_i}\mathbf{I}_n)$ is the residual error caused by non-additive genetic variation, random environmental effects, and measurement error. The residuals are assumed to be independent of the additive genetic effects. Here, $\mathbf{A}$ is the known $r \times r$ additive relationship matrix among the individuals; $r$ generally equals $n$, but will not if there are unmeasured parents, or if several individuals are clones and share the same genetic background (e.g., see the Drosophila gene expression data below).
In going from one trait to $p$ traits we can align the vectors $\mathbf{y}_i$ for each trait in to form an $n \times p$ matrix $\mathbf{Y}$ specified by the following multivariate model:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{multi_trait_mixedModel}
\mathbf{Y} = \mathbf{XB} + \mathbf{ZU} + \mathbf{E},\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{B} = [\mathbf{b}_1 \dots \mathbf{b}_p]$. $\mathbf{U} = [\mathbf{u}_1 \dots \mathbf{u}_p]$ and $\mathbf{E} = [\mathbf{e}_1 \dots \mathbf{e}_p]$ are random variables drawn from matrix normal distributions [@Dawid:1981gb]: $$\label{random_effect_distributions}
\mathbf{U} \sim \mbox{MN}_{r,p}(\mathbf{0};\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}), \quad
\mathbf{E} \sim \mbox{MN}_{n,p}(\mathbf{0};\mathbf{I}_n,\mathbf{R}),$$ where the subscripts $r,p$ and $n,p$ specify the dimensions of the matrices, $\mathbf{0}$ is a matrix of zeros of appropriate size, $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{I}_n$ specify the row (among individual) covariances for each trait, and $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{R}$ are the $p \times p$ matrices modeling genetic and residual covariances among traits within each individual.
We wish to estimate the covariance matrices $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{R}$. To do so, we assume that any covariance among the observed traits is caused by a number of latent factors. Specifically, we model $k$ latent traits that each linearly relate to one or more of the observed traits. We specify $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{E}$ via the following hierarchical factor model:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{random_effect_factor_models}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{U} = \mathbf{F}_a \mathbf{\Lambda}^T + \mathbf{\Delta}, &\quad
\mathbf{E} = \mathbf{F}_e \mathbf{\Lambda}^T+ \mathbf{\Xi}\\
\mathbf{F}_a \sim \mbox{MN}_{r,k}(\mathbf{0};\mathbf{A},\mathbf{\Sigma}_a), &\quad
\mathbf{F}_e \sim \mbox{MN}_{n,k}(\mathbf{0};\mathbf{I}_n,\mathbf{\Sigma}_e) \\
\mathbf{\Delta} \sim \mbox{MN}_{r,p}(\mathbf{0};\mathbf{A},\mathbf{\Psi}_a), & \quad
\mathbf{\Xi} \sim
\mbox{MN}_{n,p}(\mathbf{0};\mathbf{I}_n,\mathbf{\Psi}_e)\\
\mathbf{\Lambda} &\sim \pi(\theta), \\
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ is a $p \times k$ matrix with each column characterizing the relationship between one latent trait and all observed traits. Just as $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{E}$ partition the among-individual variation in the *observed* traits into additive genetic effects and residuals in , the matrices $\mathbf{F}_a$ and $\mathbf{F}_e$ partition the among-individual variation in the *latent* traits into additive genetic effects and residuals. $\mathbf{\Sigma}_a$ and $\mathbf{\Sigma}_e$ model the within-individual covariances of $\mathbf{F}_a$ and $\mathbf{F}_e$, which we assume to be diagonal ($\mathbf{\Sigma}_a = \mbox{Diag}(\sigma^2_{a_j}),\mathbf{\Sigma}_e = \mbox{Diag}(\sigma^2_{e_j}))$. $\mathbf{\Psi}_a$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}_e$ are the idiosyncratic (trait-specific) variances of the factor model and are assumed to be diagonal.
In model , as in any factor model (e.g., [West03bayesianfactor]{}), $\pmb \Lambda$ is not identifiable without adding extra constraints. In general, the factors in $\pmb \Lambda$ can be rotated arbitrarily. This is not an issue for estimating $\mathbf{G}$ itself, but prevents biological interpretations of $\pmb \Lambda$ and makes assessing MCMC convergence difficult. To solve this problem, we introduce constraints on the orientation of $\pmb \Lambda$ though our prior distribution $\pi(\theta)$ specified below, where $\theta$ is a set of hyperparameters. However, even after fixing a rotation, the relative scaling of corresponding columns of $\mathbf{F}_a$, $\mathbf{F}_e$ and $\pmb \Lambda$ are still not well defined. For example, if the $j$th column of $\mathbf{F}_a$ and $\mathbf{F}_e$ are both multiplied by a constant $c$, the same model is recovered if the $j$th column of $\pmb \Lambda$ is multiplied by $1/c$. To fix $c$, we require the column variances $\sigma^2_{a_j}$ and $\sigma^2_{e_j}$ to sum to one, i.e. $\mathbf{\Sigma}_a+ \mathbf{\Sigma}_e = \mathbf{I}_{k}$. Therefore, the single matrix $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{h^2} = \mathbf{\Sigma}_a = \mathbf{I}_{k} - \mathbf{\Sigma}_e$ is sufficient to specify both variances. The diagonal elements of this matrix specify the narrow-sense heritability $(h^2_j = \frac{\sigma^2_{a_j}}{\sigma^2_{a_j} + \sigma^2_{e_j}} = \sigma^2_{a_j})$ of latent trait $j$.
Given the properties of the matrix normal distribution [@Dawid:1981gb] and models and we can recover $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{R}$ as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{factors_G_R}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{G} &= \mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{\Sigma}_{h^2} \mathbf{\Lambda}^T + \mathbf{\Psi}_a, \\
\mathbf{R} &= \mathbf{\Lambda}(\mathbf{I}_{k}-\mathbf{\Sigma}_{h^2}) \mathbf{\Lambda}^T + \mathbf{\Psi}_e.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, the total phenotypic covariance $\mathbf{P} = \mathbf{G} + \mathbf{R}$ is modeled as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{factors_P}
\mathbf{P} = \mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{\Lambda}^T + \mathbf{\Psi}_a+ \mathbf{\Psi}_e.\end{aligned}$$
Our specification of the Bayesian genetic sparse factor model in differs from earlier methods such as the Bayesian genetic factor model of [deLosCampos:2007ib]{} in two key respects:
First, in classic factor models, the total number of latent traits is assumed to be small ($k \ll p$). Therefore, equation would model $\mathbf{G}$ with only $pk + k + p$ parameters instead of $p(p+1)/2$. However, choosing $k$ is a very difficult, unsolved problem, and inappropriate choices can result in highly biased estimates of $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{R}$ (e.g, [Meyer:2008di]{}). In our model we allow many latent traits but assume that the majority of them are relatively unimportant. This subtle difference is important because it removes the need to accurately choose $k$, instead emphasizing the estimation of the *magnitude* of each latent trait. This model is based on the work by [Bhattacharya:2011gh]{}, which they term an “infinite" factor model. In our prior distribution on the factor loadings matrix $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ (see section Priors), we order the latent traits (columns of $\mathbf{\Lambda}$) in terms of decreasing influence on the total phenotypic variation, and assume that the variation explained by these latent traits decreases rapidly. Therefore, rather than attempt to identify the correct $k$ we instead model the decline in the influence of successive latent traits. As in other factor models, to save computational effort we can truncate $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ to include only its first $k^*<k$ columns because we require the variance explained by each later column to approach zero. The truncation point $k^*$ can be estimated jointly while fitting the model and is flexible (we suggest truncating any columns of $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ defining a module that does not explain $>1\%$ of the phenotypic variation in at least 2 observed traits). Note that $k^*$ conveys little biological information and does not have the same interpretation as $k$ in classic factor models. Since additional factors are expected to explain negligible phenotypic variation, including a few extra columns of $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ to check for more factors is permissible (e.g., [Meyer:2008di]{}).
Second, we assume that the residual covariance $\mathbf{R}$ has a factor structure and that the same latent traits underly both $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{R}$. Assuming a constrained space for $\mathbf{R}$ is uncommon in multivariate genetic estimation. For example, [deLosCampos:2007ib]{} fit an unconstrained $\mathbf{R}$, although they used an informative inverse Wishart prior [@Gelman:2006uw] and only consider five traits. The risk of assuming a constrained $\mathbf{R}$ is that poorly modeled phenotypic covariance ($\mathbf{P}=\mathbf{G}+\mathbf{R}$) can lead to biased estimates of genetic covariance under some circumstances [@Jaffrezic:2002tj; @Meyer:2008di].
However, constraining $\mathbf{R}$ is necessary in high-dimensional settings to prevent the number of modeling parameters from increasing exponentially, and we argue that modeling $\mathbf{R}$ as we have done is biologically justified. Factor models fitting low numbers of latent factors are used in many fields because they accurately model phenotypic covariances. Reasonable constraints on $\mathbf{R}$ have been applied successfully in previous genetic models. One example is in the Direct Estimation of Genetic Principle Components model of [Kirkpatrick:2004bv]{}. These authors model only the first $m_E$ eigenvectors of the residual covariance matrix. Our model for $\mathbf{R}$ is closely related to models used in random regression analysis of function-valued traits (e.g., [Kirkpatrick:1989wx,Pletcher:1999uy,Jaffrezic:2002tj,Meyer:2005dl]{}). In those models, $\mathbf{R}$ is modeled as a permanent environmental effect function plus independent error. The permanent environmental effect function is given a functional form similar to (or more complex than) the genetic function. In equation , $\mathbf{F}_e$ is analogous to this permanent environmental effect (but across different traits rather than the same trait measured through time), with its functional form described by $\mathbf{\Lambda}$, and $\mathbf{\Xi}$ is independent error. Since both $\mathbf{F}_a$ and $\mathbf{F}_e$ relate to the observed phenotypes through $\mathbf{\Lambda}$, the functional form of the residuals ($\mathbf{e}_i$) in our model is at least as complex as the genetic functional form (and more complex whenever $h^2_j = 0$ for some factors).
The biological justification of our approach is that the factors represent latent traits, and just like any other trait their value can partially be determined by genetic variation. For example, the activity of developmental pathways can have a genetic basis and can also be determined by the environment. The latent traits determine the phenotypic covariance of the measured traits, and their heritability determines the genetic covariance. In genetic experiments, some of these latent traits (e.g., measurement biases) might be variable, but not have a genetic component. We expect that some factors will contribute to $\mathbf{R}$ but not $\mathbf{G}$, so $\mathbf{R}$ will have a more complex form [@Meyer:2008di].
We examine the impact of our prior on $\mathbf{R}$ through simulations below. When our assumptions regarding $\mathbf{R}$ do not hold, the prior will likely lead to biased estimates. For example, measurement biases might be low-dimensional but not sparse. However, we expect that for many general high-dimensional biological datasets this model will be useful and can provide novel insights. In particular, by directly modeling the heritability of the latent traits, we can predict their evolution.
Priors: {#prior}
-------
Modeling high-dimensional data requires some prior specification or penalty/regularization for accurate and stable parameter estimation [@elements; @West03bayesianfactor; @Poggio03themathematics]. For our model this means that constraints on $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{R}$ are required. We impose constraints through highly informative priors on $\pmb \Lambda$. Our priors are motivated by the biological assumptions that variation in underlying developmental processes such as gene networks or metabolic pathways give rise to to genetic and residual covariances.
This implies:\
(1) The biological system has limited complexity: a small number of latent traits (e.g., developmental pathways) or measurement biases are relevant for trait variation. For the model this means that the number of factors retained in $\pmb \Lambda_{k^*}$ is low ($k^* \ll p$).\
(2) Each underlying latent trait affects a limited number of the observed traits. For the model this means the factor loadings (columns of $\pmb \Lambda$) are sparse (mostly near zero).
We formalize the above assumptions by priors on $ \pmb{\Lambda}$ that impose sparsity (formally, shrinkage towards zero) and few highly influential latent traits [@Bhattacharya:2011gh]. This prior is specified as a hierarchical distribution on each element $\lambda_{ij}$ of $\pmb \Lambda$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{prior_Lambda}
\begin{split}
\lambda_{ij} &\mid \phi_{ij}, \tau_j \sim \mbox{N} \left( 0,\phi_{ij}^{-1}\tau_j^{-1} \right),\; i=1\dots p,\;j = 1\dots k\\
\phi_{ij} &\sim \mbox{Ga}(\nu/2,\nu/2), \\
\tau_j &= \prod \limits_{l=1}^m \delta_l, \quad
\delta_1 \sim \mbox{Ga}(a_1,b_1), \quad
\delta_l \sim \mbox{Ga}(a_2,b_2) \mbox{ for } l = 2\dots k.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
The hierarchical prior is composed of three levels: (a) We model each $\lambda_{ij}$ (which specifies how trait $i$ is related to latent trait $j$) with a normal distribution. Based on assumption (2), we expect most $\lambda_{ij} \approx 0$. A normal distribution with a fixed variance parameter is not sufficient to impose this constraint. (b) We model the the precision (inverse of the variance) of each loading element $\lambda_{ij}$ with the parameter $\phi_{ij}$ drawn from a gamma distribution. This normal-gamma mixture distribution (conditional on $\tau_j$) is commonly used to impose sparsity [@Tipping2001; @Neal1996] as the marginal distribution on $\lambda_{ij}$ takes the form of a Student’s-*t* distribution with $\nu$ degrees of freedom and is heavy-tailed. The loadings are concentrated near zero, but occasional large magnitude values are permitted. This prior specification is conceptually similar to the widely-used Bayesian Lasso (Park and Casella 2008). (c) The parameter $\tau_j$ controls the overall variance explained by factor $j$ (given by: $\pmb \lambda_j^T \pmb \lambda_j$ where $\pmb \lambda_j$ is the $j$th column of $\mathbf{\Lambda}$) by shrinking the variance towards zero as $m \rightarrow \infty$. The decay in the variance is enforced by increasing the precision on the normal distribution of each $\lambda_{ij}$ as $j$ increases so $|\lambda_{ij}| \rightarrow 0$. The sequence $\{\tau_j\}$ is formed from the cumulative product of $\{\delta_1\dots \delta_k\}$ each modeled with a gamma distribution, and will be stochastically increasing as long as $a_2 > b_2$. This means that the variance of $\lambda_{ij}$ will stochastically decrease and higher-indexed columns of $\pmb \Lambda$ will be less likely to have any large magnitude elements. This decay ensures that it will be safe to truncate $\pmb \Lambda$ at some sufficiently large $k^*$ because columns $k > k^*$ will (necessarily) explain less variance.
The prior distribution on $\{\tau_j\}$ (and therefore $\{\delta_1\dots \delta_k\}$) is a key modeling decision as this parameter controls how much of the total phenotypic variance we expect each successive factor to explain. Based on assumption (1), we expect that few factors will be sufficient to explain total phenotypic variation, and thus $\{\tau_j\}$ will increase rapidly. However, relatively flat priors on $\{\delta_2\dots \delta_k\}$ (e.g., $a_2 = 3, b_2=1$), which allow some consecutive factors to be of nearly equal magnitude, appear to work well in simulations.
A discrete set of values in the unit interval were specified as the prior for the heritability of each of the common factor traits. This specification was selected for computational efficiency and to give $h^2_j=0$ positive weight in the prior. We find the following discrete distribution works well:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{prior_h2}
\pi(h^2_j = 0) = 0.5,\quad
\pi(h^2_j = l / n_h) = 1/(2(n_h-1)), \mbox{ where } l = 1 \dots (n_h-1)\end{aligned}$$
where $n_h$ is the number of points to evaluate $h^2_j$. In analyses reported here, we set $n_h = 100$. This prior gives equal weight to $h^2_j = 0$ and $h^2_j > 0$ because we expect several factors (in particular, those reflecting measurement error) to have no genetic variance. In principle, we could place a continuous prior on the interval $[0,1]$, but no such prior would be conjugate, and developing a MCMC sampler would be more difficult.
We place inverse gamma priors on each element of the diagonals of the genetic and residual idiosyncratic variances: $\mathbf{\Psi}_a$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}_e$. Priors on each element of $\pmb \beta$ are normal distributions with very large ($>10^6$ ) variances.
Implementation:
---------------
Inference in the above model uses an adaptive Gibbs sampler for which we provide detailed steps in the appendix. The code has been implemented in Matlab$\textsuperscript{\textregistered}$ and can be found at the website (http://stat.duke.edu/$\sim$sayan/quantmod.html).
Simulations:
------------
We present a simulation study of high-dimensional traits measured on the offspring of a balanced paternal half-sib breeding design. We examined ten scenarios (Table \[table:simulation\_setup\]), each corresponding to different models for the matrices $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{R}$ to evaluate the impact of the modeling assumptions specified by our prior. For each scenario we simulated parameters and trait values of individuals from model with $\mathbf{Z} = \mathbf{I}_n$, $\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{0}_p$, and $\mathbf{X}$ a single column of ones representing the trait means.
Scenarios *a*-*c* were designed to test the ability of the model to accurately estimate $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{P}$ given 10, 25 or 50 important factors, respectively, for 100 traits. Latent factor traits $1\dots 5$, $1\dots 15$, or $1 \dots 30$, respectively, were assigned a heritability ($h^2_j$) of 0.5 and contributed to both $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{R}$. The remaining factors ($6 \dots 10$, $16 \dots 25$, or $31 \dots 50$, respectively) were assigned a heritability of 0.0 and only contributed to $\mathbf{R}$. To make the covariance matrices biologically reasonable, we chose each factor to be sparse: only 3-25 of the 100 traits were allowed to “load" on each factor. These loadings were drawn from standard normal distributions. The idiosyncratic variances $\pmb \Psi_a$ and $\pmb \Psi_e$ were set to $0.2\times\mathbf{I}_p$. Therefore, trait-specific heritabilties ranged from 0.0-0.5, with the majority towards the upper limit. Each simulation included 10 offspring from 100 unrelated sires.
Scenarios *d*-*e* were designed to test the effects of deviations of $\mathbf{R}$ from the modeling assumptions, since it is known that inappropriately modeled residual variances can lead to biased estimates of $\mathbf{G}$ (e.g., [Jaffrezic:2002tj,Meyer:2007uz]{}). Scenarios were identical to *a* except the $\mathbf{R}$ matrix did not have a sparse factor form. In scenario *d*, $\mathbf{R}$ was assumed to follow a factor structure with 10 factors, but five of these factors (numbers $6 \dots 10$, i.e., those with $h^2_j = 0.0$) were not sparse (i.e., all factor loadings were non-zero). This might occur, for example, if the non-genetic factors in the residual were caused by measurement error. In scenario *e*, $\mathbf{R}$ did not follow a factor structure at all, but was drawn from a central Wishart distribution with $p+1$ degrees of freedom.
Scenarios *f*-*g* were designed to evaluate the performance of the model for different numbers of traits. These scenarios were identical to scenario *a* except 20 or 1,000 (scenarios *f* and *g*, respectively) traits were simulated. As in scenario *a*, all factors were sparse: In scenario *f*, each simulated factor had non-zero loadings for 3-5 traits. In scenario *g*, each simulated factor had non-zero loadings for 30-250 traits.
Scenarios *h*-*j* were designed to evaluate the performance of the model for experiments of different size, and also to test different latent factor heritabilities. Simulations were generated as in scenario *a*, except that the five genetic factors were assigned heritabilites of 0.9, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3 and 0.1, the number of sires was set to 50, 100 or 500, and the number of offspring per sire was set to 5 (for simulation *h* only).
To fit the simulated data, we set the prior hyperparameters in the model to: $\nu=3, a_1=2, b_1 = 1/20, a_2 = 3, b_2 = 1$. We ran the Gibbs sampler for 12,000 iterations, discarded the first 10,000 samples as burn-in, and collected 1,000 posterior samples with a thinning rate of two.
### Evaluation
We calculated a number of statistics from each simulation to quantify the error in the model fits produced by our Bayesian genetic sparse factor model. For each statistic, we compared the posterior mean of a model parameter to the true value specified in the simulation.
First, as a sanity check, we compared the accuracy of our method to a methods of moments estimate of $\mathbf{G}$ calculated as $\mathbf{G}_m = 4(\mathbf{B}-\mathbf{W})/n$ where $\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{W}$ are the between and within sire matrices of mean squares and cross products and $n$ is the number of offspring per sire. We compared the accuracy of the moments estimator $\mathbf{G}_m$ to the posterior mean $\hat{\mathbf{G}}$ from our model by calculating the Frobenius norm of the differences $\mathbf{G}_m - \mathbf{G}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{G}}-\mathbf{G}$.
The Frobenius norm measure above simply quantifies the total (sum of square) error in each pairwise covariance estimate. However, the geometry of $\mathbf{G}$ is more important for predicting evolution [@Walsh:2009gg]. We evaluated the accuracy of the estimated $\textbf{G}$ matrix by comparing the $k$-dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{R}^p$ with the majority of the variation in $\mathbf{G}$ to the corresponding subspace for the posterior mean estimate $\hat{\mathbf{G}}$. For this, we calculated the Krzanowski subspace comparison statistic [@Krzanowski:1979cx; @Blows:2004ui], which is the sum of the eigenvalues of the matrix $\mathbf{S} = \hat{\mathbf{G_k}}^T\mathbf{G_k}\mathbf{G_k}^T\hat{\mathbf{G_k}}$, where $\hat{\mathbf{G_k}}$ is the subspace spanned by the eigenvectors with the $k$ largest eigenvalues of the posterior mean of $\mathbf{G}$, and $\mathbf{G_k}$ is the corresponding subspace of the true (simulated) matrix. This statistic will be zero for orthogonal (non-overlapping) subspaces, and will equal $k$ for identical subspaces. The accuracy of the estimated $\mathbf{P}$ was calculated similarly. For each comparison, $k$ was chosen as the number of factors used in the construction of the simulated matrix (Table \[table:simulation\_setup\]), except in scenario E with the Wishart-distributed $\mathbf{R}$ matrix. Here, we set the $k$ for $\mathbf{P}$ at 19 which was sufficient to capture $>99\%$ of the variation in most simulated $\mathbf{P}$ matrices.
We evaluated the accuracy of latent factors estimates in two ways. First, we calculated the magnitude of each factor as $|\pmb{\lambda}_j|^2$ where $|\cdot|$ is the L$_2$-norm. This quantifies the phenotypic variance across all traits explained by each factor. We then counted the number of factors that explained $>0.1\%$ of total phenotypic variance. Such factors were termed “large factors". Second, we matched each of the simulated factors ($\pmb \lambda_j$) to the most similar estimated factor ($\pmb \lambda_{j^*}$) and calculated the estimation error in each simulated factor as the angle between the two vectors. Smaller angles correspond to more accurately identified factors.
Gene expression analysis:
-------------------------
We downloaded gene expression profiles and measures of competitive fitness of 40 wild-derived lines of *Drosophila melanogaster* from ArrayExpress (accession: E-MEXP-1594) and the Drosophila Genetic Reference Panel (DGRP) website (http://dgrp.gnets.ncsu.edu/) [Ayroles:2009gd]{}). A line’s competitive fitness [@GRKnight:1957ww; @Hartl:1979ub] measures the percentage of offspring bearing the line’s genotype recovered from vials seeded with a known proportion of adults from that line and adults of a reference line. We used our Bayesian genetic sparse factor model to infer a set of latent factor traits underlying the among-line gene expression covariance matrix for a subset of the genes and the among line covariance between each gene and competitive fitness. These latent factors are useful because they provide insight into what genes and developmental or molecular pathways underlie variation in competitive fitness.
We first normalized the processed gene expression data to correspond to the the analyses of the earlier paper and then selected the 414 genes that [Ayroles:2009gd]{} identified as having a plausible among-line covariance in competitive fitness. In this dataset, two biological replicates of male and female fly collections from each line were analyzed for whole-animal RNA expression. The competitive fitness measurements were the means of 20 competitive trials done with sets of flies from these same lines, but not the same flies used in the gene expression analysis. Gene expression values for the samples measured for competitive fitness and competitive fitness values for the samples measured for gene expression were treated as missing data (see Appendix). We used our model to estimate the G-matrix of the genes (the covariance of line effects). Following the analyses of [Ayroles:2009gd]{}, we included a fixed effect of sex, and independent random effects of the sex:line interaction for each gene. No sex or sex:line effects were fit for competitive fitness itself as this value is measured at the level of the line, not individual flies.
We set the prior hyperparameters as above, and ran our Gibbs sampler for 40,000 iterations, discarded the first 20,000 samples as a burn-in period, and collected 1,000 posterior samples of all parameters with a thinning rate of 20.
Results
=======
Simulation example:
-------------------
The Bayesian genetic sparse factor model’s estimates of genetic covariances across the 100 genes were considerably more accurate than estimates based on unbiased methods of moments estimators. In scenario *a*, for example, the mean Frobenius norm was 13.9 for the moments estimator and 6.3 for the Bayesian genetic sparse factor model’s posterior mean, a $54\%$ improvement.
Our model also produced accurate estimates of the subspaces containing the majority of variation in both $\mathbf{G}$ and $ \mathbf{P}$. Figure \[fig:Krzanowski\_G\] shows the distribution of Krzanowski’s subspace similarity statistics ($\sum \lambda_{s_i}$) for $\mathbf{G}$ in each scenario (Subspace statistics for $\mathbf{P}$ are shown in Figure \[fig:Krzanowski\_P\]). Krzanowski’s statistic roughly corresponds to the number of eigenvectors of the true subspace missing from the estimated subspace. We plot $k-\sum \lambda_{s_i}$ so that the values are comparable across simulations with different $k$. The Krzanowski statistics were all close to $k$, rarely diverging even one unit except in scenarios *h*-*j* where one of the genetic factors was particularly difficult to estimate. This indicates that the subspaces of both matrices were largely recovered across all scenarios. However, Krzanowski’s difference (relative to $k$) for $\mathbf{G}$ increased slightly for larger numbers of factors (Figure \[fig:Krzanowski\_G\]A), if $\mathbf{R}$ did not follow a factor structure (Figure \[fig:Krzanowski\_G\]B), if few traits were measured (Figure \[fig:Krzanowski\_G\]C), or if the sample size was small (Figure \[fig:Krzanowski\_G\]D). Some simulations when the latent factors of $\mathbf{R}$ were not sparse also caused slight subspace errors (scenario *d*, Figure \[fig:Krzanowski\_G\]B). In scenarios *h*-*j*, the 10th factor was assigned a heritability of only $10\%$ and so the subspace spanned by the first five eigenvectors of estimated $\mathbf{G}$ matrices often did not include this vector. This effect was exacerbated at low sample sizes. Krzanowski’s statistics for $\mathbf{P}$ followed a similar pattern (Figure \[fig:Krzanowski\_P\]), except that the effect of a lack of a factor structure for $\mathbf{R}$ were more pronounced (Figure \[fig:Krzanowski\_P\]B), as was the reduced performance for different numbers of traits (Figure \[fig:Krzanowski\_P\]C).
![ **The Bayesian genetic sparse factor model accurately estimates the dominant subspace of high-dimensional G matrices.** Each subplot shows the distribution of Krzanowski’s statistics ($\sum \lambda_{s_i}$, [Krzanowski:1979cx,Blows:2004ui]{}) calculated for posterior mean estimates of $\mathbf{G}$ across a related set of scenarios. Plotted values are $k - \sum \lambda_{s_i}$ so that statistics are comparable across scenarios with different subspace dimensions. On this scale, identical subspaces have a value of zero and values increase as the subspaces diverge. The value of $k$ used in each scenario is listed inside each boxplot. The difference from zero roughly corresponds to the number of eigenvectors of the true subspace missing from the estimated subspace. Different parameters were varied in each set of simulations as listed below each box. **A**. Increasing numbers of simulated factors. **B**. Different properties of the $\mathbf{R}$ matrix. “SF": a sparse-factor form for $\mathbf{R}$, “F": a (non-sparse) factor form for $\mathbf{R}$, “Wishart": $\mathbf{R}$ was sampled from a Wishart distribution. **C**. Different numbers of traits. **D**. Different numbers of sampled individuals. Note that in these scenarios, factor $h^2$s ranged from 0.0 to 0.9. Complete parameter sets describing each simulation are described in Table \[table:simulation\_setup\].[]{data-label="fig:Krzanowski_G"}](K_stats_G.pdf)
![ **$\mathbf{P}$-matrix subspaces were accurately recovered.** This figure is identical to Figure 1 but for $\mathbf{P}$. Each subplot shows the distribution of Krzanowski’s statistics ($\sum \lambda_{s_i}$) calculated for posterior mean estimates of $\mathbf{P}$ across a related set of scenarios. The value of $k$ used in each scenario is listed inside each boxplot. The parameter varied in each set of simulations is described at the bottom. (A) Increasing numbers of simulated factors. (B) Different properties of the $\mathbf{R}$ matrix. “SF": a sparse-factor form for $\mathbf{R}$, “F": a (non-sparse) factor form for $\mathbf{R}$, “Wishart": $\mathbf{R}$ was sampled from a Wishart distribution. In scenario *e*, the residual matrix did not have a factor form. Therefore, we chose $k=19$ for the phenotypic covariance matrix because the corresponding eigenvectors each explained $>1\%$ of total phenotypic variation. (C) Different numbers of traits. (D) Different numbers of sampled individuals. Complete parameter sets describing each simulation are described in Table 1.[]{data-label="fig:Krzanowski_P"}](K_stats_P.pdf)
Even though the number of latent factors is not an explicit model parameter, the number of “large factors" fit in each scenario was always close to the the true number of simulated factors (except for scenario *e* where $\mathbf{R}$ did not have a factor form). Median numbers of estimated “large factors" are given in Table \[table:large\_factor\_counts\]. The identities of the factors identified by our model were also accurate. Figure \[fig:factor\_angles\] shows the distribution of error angles between the true factors and their estimates for each scenario. Median angles were greater for larger numbers of latent factors (Figure \[fig:factor\_angles\]A), if $\mathbf{R}$ did not follow a factor structure (scenario *e*, Figure \[fig:factor\_angles\]B), or for smaller sample sizes (small numbers of individuals or small numbers of traits, scenarios *f*,*h*, Figure \[fig:factor\_angles\]C-D). For scenarios *d* and *e*, angles are shown only for the factors that contributed to $\mathbf{G}$ (factors 1-5). The residual factors for these scenarios were not well defined (In scenario *d*, factors 6-10 were not sparse and thus were only identifiable up to an arbitrary rotation by any matrix $\mathbf{H}$ such that $\mathbf{H}\mathbf{H}^T = \mathbf{I}$ [@Meyer:2009jm]. In scenario *e*, the residual matrix did not have a factor form).
![ **Latent factors were accurately recovered in most simulations.** The true factors in each simulation were matched to the most similar estimated factor by calculating the vector angles between each true factor and each estimated factor. The median error angle for each true factor in each simulation is plotted. Boxplots show the distribution of median error angles by scenario. Two identical vectors have an angle of zero. Completely orthogonal vectors have an angle of 90. **A**. Increasing numbers of simulated factors. **B**. Different properties of the $\mathbf{R}$ matrix. **C**. Different numbers of traits. **D**. Different numbers of sampled individuals.[]{data-label="fig:factor_angles"}](factor_angles_v2.pdf)
Finally, the genetic architectures of the unmeasured latent traits (factors) and the measured traits were accurately estimated. For scenarios *a*-*d* and *f*-*g*, each latent factor was assigned a heritability of either 0.5 or 0.0. Heritability estimates for factors with simulated heritability of 0.5 were centered around 0.5, and with $>50\%$ between 0.4 and 0.6 (Figure \[fig:factor\_h2s\_ABC\]). There was little difference in performance for these factors across scenarios with different numbers of factors, different residual properties, or different numbers of traits (Figure \[fig:factor\_h2s\_ABC\]C). Heritability estimates for factors with simulated heritability of 0.0 were clustered near zero. However, if larger numbers of factors (scenarios *b*-*c*), or fewer traits (scenario *f*) were simulated, more of these non-genetic factors were estimated to be have $h^2 > 0.05$ (Figure \[fig:factor\_h2s\_ABC\]). In scenario *e*, the five simulated factors were all assigned a heritability of 1.0, but the residual covariance matrix $\mathbf{R}$ did not have a factor structure. Our model estimates these factors as having high heritability ($\sim0.9$, Figure \[fig:factor\_h2s\_ABC\]B). In scenarios *h*-*j*, simulated heritabilities of the five genetic factors were varied between 0.9 and 0.1 (Figure \[fig:factor\_h2s\_D\]). With moderate-large sample sizes (scenarios *i*-*j*), all factor heritability estimates were accurate, though some downward-bias was evident for the lower-heritability factors. With low sample sizes, factor heritability estimates were noisier, both for the genetic and non-genetic factors, and the downward bias was more apparent. Figure \[fig:trait\_h2s\] shows the accuracy of the estimated trait heritabilities across the 20-1,000 traits in each scenario. Each datapoint represents the square root of the mean squared error of trait heritabilities fit for one of the 10 simulations of each scenario. Interestingly, the most accurate trait heritability estimates were recovered when $\mathbf{R}$ had a factor structure, but was not sparse (scenario *d*, Figure \[fig:trait\_h2s\]B). Heritability estimates were more accurate with increasing complexity of $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{R}$ (Figure \[fig:trait\_h2s\]A), or increasing sample size (Figure \[fig:trait\_h2s\]D). The average accuracy was not strongly affected by the number of traits studied (Figure \[fig:trait\_h2s\]C), or the form of the residual covariance matrix (Figure \[fig:trait\_h2s\]B).
![ **Latent factor heritabilities were accurately recovered.** Distributions of factor $h^2$ estimates by simulation scenario. Each simulated factor was matched to the estimated factor with most similar trait-loadings as in Figure \[fig:factor\_h2s\_D\]. Thin horizontal lines in each column show the simulated $h^2_j$ values. Each simulated factor was assigned $h^2 = 0.0$ (black) or $0.5$ (red), except in scenario *e* where all five factors were assigned $h^2 = 1$ (red). $h^2$ estimates are are grouped across all 10 simulations of each scenario. (A) Increasing numbers of simulated factors. (B) Different properties of the $\mathbf{R}$ matrix. (C) Different numbers of traits.[]{data-label="fig:factor_h2s_ABC"}](factor_h2s_ABC.pdf)
![ **Latent factor heritabilities were accurately recovered.** Distributions of factor $h^2$ estimates for scenarios *h*-*j*. These scenarios differed in the number of individuals sampled. 10 factors were generated in each simulation and assigned $h^2$s between 0.0 and 0.9. After fitting our factor model to each simulated dataset, the simulated factors were matched to estimated factors based on the trait-loading vector angles. Each boxplot shows the distribution of $h^2$ estimates for each simulated factor across 10 simulations. Note that the trait-loadings for each factor differed in each simulation; only the $h^2$ values remained the same. Thin horizontal lines in each column show the simulated $h^2_j$ values. Colors correspond to the scenario, and filled boxes/circles are used for factors with $h^2_j > 0$.[]{data-label="fig:factor_h2s_D"}](factor_h2s_D.pdf)
![ **Heritability estimates for each individual trait were accurate.** The heritability of each individual trait was estimated as $h^2_i = \mathbf{G}_{ii}/\mathbf{P}_{ii}$. RMSE $= \sqrt{\frac{1}{p}\sum\limits_{i=1}^p(\hat{h}^2_i - h^2_i)^2}$ was calculated for each simulation. Boxplots show the distribution of RMSE values for each scenario. **A**. Increasing numbers of simulated factors. **B**. Different properties of the $\mathbf{R}$ matrix. **C**. Different numbers of traits. **D**. Different numbers of sampled individuals. []{data-label="fig:trait_h2s"}](trait_h2s.pdf)
Gene expression example:
------------------------
Our estimate of the G-matrix from the Drosophila gene expression data was qualitatively similar to the original estimate (Figure \[fig:Fitness\_G\]B, and compare to Figure 7a in [Ayroles:2009gd]{}). Estimates of the broad-sense heritability of each gene were also similar ($r = 0.74$). While a direct comparison of the dominant G-matrix subspace recovered by our model and the estimate by [Ayroles:2009gd]{} was not possible because individual covariances were not reported, we could compare the two estimates of the underlying structure. Using the Modulated Modularity Clustering (MMC) algorithm [@Stone:2009jx], [Ayroles:2009gd]{} identified 20 modules of genetically correlated transcripts *post-hoc*. Our model identified 27 latent factors (Figure \[fig:Fitness\_G\]D-F), of which 13 were large factors (explaining $> 1\%$ variation in $2^+$ genes). The large factors were consistent ($r > 0.95$) across three 3 parallel chains of the Gibbs sampler. Many factors were similar to the modules identified by MMC (Figure \[fig:Fitness\_G\]E). Some of the factors were nearly one-to-one matches to modules (e.g., factor 10 with module 8, and factor 14 with module 12). However, others merged together two or more modules (e.g., factor 1 with modules 7 and 9, and factor 2 with modules 4, 13, 16-20). And some entire modules were part of two or more factors (e.g., module 17 was included in factors 2 and 4, and module 18 was included in factors 2 and 16).
![ **Among-line covariance of gene expression and competitive fitness in Drosophila is modular.** **A-C** Genetic (among-line) architecture of 414 gene expression traits [@Ayroles:2009gd]. **A**. Posterior mean broad-sense heritabilities ($H^2$) for the 414 genes. **B**. Posterior mean genetic correlations among these genes. **C**. Posterior means and $95\%$ highest posterior density (HPD) intervals around estimates of genetic correlations between each gene and competitive fitness. For comparison, see Figure 7a of [Ayroles:2009gd]{}. **D-F**. Latent trait structure of gene expression covariances. **D** Posterior mean $H^2$ for each estimated latent trait. **E**. Posterior mean gene loadings on each latent trait. **F**. Posterior means and $95\%$ (HPD) intervals around estimates of genetic correlations between each latent trait and competitive fitness. The right-axis of panel **E**. groups genes into modules inferred using Modulated Modularity Clustering [@Stone:2009jx; @Ayroles:2009gd].[]{data-label="fig:Fitness_G"}](Fitness_correlations_V3.pdf){width="6in"}
Each factor (column of $\mathbf{\Lambda}$) represents a sparse set of genes that are highly correlated in their expression, possibly due to common regulation by some latent developmental trait. Using the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery (DAVID) v6.7 [@Huang:2009be; @Huang:2009gk], we identified several factors that were individually enriched (within this set of 414 genes) for defense and immunity, nervous system function, odorant binding, and transcription and cuticle formation. Similar molecular functions were identified among the modules identified by [Ayroles:2009gd]{}. By inferring factors at the level of phenotypic variation, rather than the among-line covariances, we could directly estimate the broad-sense heritability ($H^2$) of these latent traits themselves. Figure \[fig:Fitness\_G\]D shows these $H^2$ estimates for each latent trait. Several of the factors have very low ($<0.2$) or very high ($>0.75$) $H^2$ values. Selection on the later latent traits would likely be considerably more efficient than the former.
Finally, by adding a competitive fitness as a 415th trait in the analysis, we could estimate the among-line correlation between the expression of each gene and this fitness-related trait (Figure \[fig:Fitness\_G\]C). Many (60/414 $\sim 15\%$ of all genes analyzed) of the $95\%$ highest posterior density (HPD) intervals on the among-line correlations did not included zero, although most of these correlations were low (for $85\%$ of genes, $|r| < 0.25$) with a few as large as $|r| \sim 0.45$. More significantly, we could also estimate the genetic correlation between competitive fitness and each of the latent traits defined by the 27 factors (Figure \[fig:Fitness\_G\]F). Most factors had near-zero genetic correlations with competitive fitness. However, the genetic correlations between competitive fitness and factors 2 and 16 were large and highly significant, suggesting potentially interesting genetic relationships between these two latent traits and fitness.
Discussion
==========
The Bayesian genetic sparse factor model performs well on both simulated and real data, and thus opens the possibility of incorporating high dimensional traits into evolutionary genetic studies and breeding programs. Technologies for high-dimensional phenotyping are becoming widely available in evolutionary biology and ecology so methods for modeling such traits are needed. Gene expression traits in particular provide a way to measure under-appreciated molecular and developmental traits that may be important for evolution, and technologies exist to measure these traits on very large scales. Our model can also be applied to other molecular traits (e.g., metabolites or protein concentrations), high dimensional morphological traits (e.g., outlines of surfaces from geometric morphometrics), or gene-environment interactions (e.g., the same trait measured in multiple environments).
Scalability of the method:
--------------------------
The key advantage of the Bayesian genetic sparse factor model over existing methods is its ability to provide robust estimates of covariance parameters for datasets with large numbers of traits. In this study, we demonstrated high performance of the model for $100-1,000$ simulated traits, and robust results on real data with 415. Similar factor models (without the genetic component) have been applied to gene expression datasets with thousands of traits [@Bhattacharya:2011gh], and we expect the genetic model to perform similarly. The main limitation will be computational time, which scales roughly linearly with the number of traits analyzed (assuming the number of important factors grows more slowly). As an example, analyses of simulations from scenario *g* with 1,000 traits and 1,000 individual took about 4 hours to generate 12,000 posterior samples on a laptop computer with a 4-core 2.4 GHz Intel Core i7, while analyses of scenario *a* with 100 traits took about 45 minutes. Parallel computing techniques may speed up analyses in cases of very large (e.g., 10,000+) numbers of traits.
The main reason that our model scales well in this way is that under our prior, each factor is sparse. Experience with factor models in fields such as gene expression analysis, economics, finance, and social sciences [@Fan:2011fi], as well as with genetic association studies (e.g., [englehardt,Stegle:2010cg,Parts:2011df]{}) demonstrates that sparsity (or shrinkage) is necessary to perform robust inference on high-dimensional data [@bickel1; @bickel2; @elkaroui; @Meyer:2010jj]. Otherwise, sampling variability can overwhelm any true signals, leading to unstable estimates. Here, we used the *t*-distribution as a shrinkage prior, following [@Bhattacharya:2011gh], but many other choices are possible [@Armagan:2011tw].
Applications to evolutionary quantitive genetics:
-------------------------------------------------
The G-matrix features prominently in the theory of evolutionary quantitative genetics, and its estimation has been a central goal of many experimental and observational studies [@Walsh:2009gg]. Since our model is built on the standard “animal model" mixed effect model framework, it is flexible and can be applied to many experimental designs or studies. And since our model is Bayesian and naturally produces estimates within the parameter space, posterior samples from the Gibbs sampler provide convenient credible intervals for the G-matrix itself and many evolutionarily important parameters, such as trait-specific heritabilities or individual breeding values [@Sorensen:2010wf].
An important use of G-matrices is to predict the response of a set of traits to selection [@Lande:1979th]. Applying Robertson’s 2nd theorem of natural selection, the response in $\mathbf{\bar{y}}$ will equal the additive genetic covariance between the vector of traits and fitness ($\Delta \mathbf{\bar y} = \sigma_A(\mathbf{y},\bar{w})$) [@RAUSHER:1992vj; @Walsh:2009gg]. This quantity can be estimated directly from our model if fitness is included as the $p^*= (p+1)$th trait: $$\Delta \mathbf{\bar y} = \mathbf{\Lambda}_{u_{/p^*}} \mathbf{\Lambda}^T_{u_{p^*}},$$ where $\mathbf{\Lambda}_{u_{/p^*}}$ contains all rows of $\mathbf{\Lambda}_u$ except the row for fitness, and $\mathbf{\Lambda}_{u_{p^*}}$ contains only the row of $\mathbf{\Lambda}_u$ corresponding to fitness. Similarly, the quantity $1-\Psi_{u_{p^*}} / \mathbf{G}_{p^*,p^*}$ equals the percentage of genetic variation in fitness accounted for by variation in the observed traits [@Walsh:2009gg], which is useful for identifying other traits that might be relevant for fitness. On the other hand, our model is not well suited to estimating the dimensionality of the G-matrix. A low-rank G-matrix means that there are absolute genetic constraints on evolution [@Lande:1979th]. Several methods provide statistical tests for the rank of the G-matrix (e.g., [Hine:2006ki,Kirkpatrick:2004bv,Mezey:2005wp]{}). We use a prior that shrinks the magnitudes of higher index factors to provide robust estimates of the largest factors. This will likely have a side-effect of underestimating the total number of factors, although this effect was not observed in our simulations. However, absolute constraints appear rare [@Houle:2010jw], and the dimensions of the G-matrix with the most variation are likely those with the greatest effect on evolution in natural populations [@Schluter:1996up; @Kirkpatrick:2009er]. Our model should estimate these dimensions well. From a practical standpoint, pre-selecting the number of factors has plagued other reduced-rank estimators of the G-matrix (e.g., [Kirkpatrick:2004bv,Hine:2006ki,Meyer:2009jm]{}). Our prior is based on an infinite factor model [@Bhattacharya:2011gh], and so no *a priori* decision is needed. Instead, the parameters of the prior distribution become important modeling decisions. In our experience, a relatively diffuse prior on $\delta_l$ with $a_2=3, b_2=1$ tends to work well.
Biological interpretation of factors:
-------------------------------------
Genetic modules are sets of traits likely to evolve together. By assuming that the developmental process is modular, we can model each latent trait as affecting a limited number of observed traits. A unique feature of our model is the fact that we estimate genetic and environmental factors jointly, instead of separately as in classic multilevel factor models (e.g., [goldstein118]{}). If each factor represents a true latent trait (e.g., variation in a developmental process), it is reasonable to decompose variation in this trait into genetic and environmental components. We directly estimate the heritability of the traits underlying each factor, and therefore can use our model to predict the evolution of these latent traits.
Other techniques for identifying genetic modules have several limitations. The MMC algorithm [@Stone:2009jx; @Ayroles:2009gd] does not infer modules in an explicit quantitative genetic framework, and constraints each trait to belong to only one module. In some analyses (e.g., [Mcgraw:2011dm]{}), each major eigenvector of the $\mathbf{G}$ or $\mathbf{P}$ matrices is treated as underlying module. These eigenvectors can be modeled directly (e.g., [Kirkpatrick:2004bv]{}), but the biological interpretation of the eigenvectors is unclear because of the mathematical constraint that the they be orthogonal [@Hansen:2008by]. In classic factor models (such as proposed by [Meyer:2009jm]{}, or [deLosCampos:2007ib]{}), factors are not identifiable [@Meyer:2009jm], and so the identity of the underlying modules is unclear. Under our sparsity prior, factors are identifiable (up to a sign-flip: the loadings on each factor can be multiplied by $-1$ without affecting its probability under the model, but this does not change which traits are associated with each factor). In simulations and with the Drosophila gene expression data, independent MCMC chains consistently identify the same dominant factors. Therefore the observed traits associated with each factor can reliably be used to characterize the developmental process represented by the latent trait.
Extensions:
-----------
Our model is built on the classic mixed effect model common in quantitative genetics [@Henderson:1984vh]. It is therefore straightforward to extend to models with additional fixed or random effects (e.g., dominance or epistatic effects) for each trait. However, the update equation for $h^2_j$ in the Gibbs sampler described in the Appendix does not allow additional random effects in the model for the latent factors themselves, although other formulations are possible. A second extension relates to the case when the relationship matrix among individuals ($\mathbf{A}$) is unknown. Here, relationship estimates from genotype data can be easily incorporated. As such, our model is related to a recently proposed sparse factor model for genetic associations with intermediate phenotypes [@Parts:2011df]. These authors introduced prior information on genetic modules from gene function and pathway databases which could be incorporated in our model in a similar way.
Conclusions
===========
The Bayesian genetic sparse factor model for genetic analysis that we propose provides a novel approach to genetic estimation with high-dimensional traits. We anticipate that incorporating many diverse phenotypes into genetic studies will provide powerful insights into evolutionary processes. The use of highly-informative but biologically grounded priors is necessary for making inferences on high-dimensional data, and can help identify developmental mechanisms underlying phenotypic variation in populations.
Appendix
========
Posterior sampling: {#postsamp}
-------------------
We estimate the posterior distribution of the Bayesian genetic sparse factor model with an adaptive Gibbs sampler based on the procedure proposed by [Bhattacharya:2011gh]{}. The value $k^*$ at which columns in $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ are truncated is set using an adaptive procedure [@Bhattacharya:2011gh]. Given a truncation point, the sampler iterates through the following steps:
1. If missing observations are present, values are drawn independently from univariate normal distributions parameterized by the current values of all other parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(y_{im}\mid - ) \sim \mbox{N}\left(\mathbf{x}^{(j)}\mathbf{b}_i + \mathbf{f}^{(m)}{\mathbf}{\lambda}_i + \mathbf{z}^{(m)}{\mathbf}{\delta}_i,(\sigma^{-2}_i)^{-1}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $y_{im}$ is the imputed phenotype value for the $i$-th trait in individual $m$. The three components of the mean are: $\mathbf{x}^{(m)}$ the row vector of fixed effect covariates for individual $m$ times $\mathbf{b}_i$, the $i$th column of the fixed effect coefficient matrix; $\mathbf{f}^{(m)}$, the row vector of factor scores on the $k^*$ factors for individual $m$ times ${\mathbf}\lambda_i$, the row of the factor loading matrix for trait $i$; and $\mathbf{z}^{(m)}$, the row vector of the random (genetic) effect incidence matrix for individual $m$ times ${\mathbf}{\delta}_i$, the vector of residual genetic effects for trait $i$ not accounted for by the $k^*$ factors. Finally, $\sigma^{-2}_i$ is the residual precision of trait $i$. All missing data can be drawn in a single block update.
2. The fixed effect coefficient matrix $\mathbf{B}$, the truncated factor loading matrix $\mathbf{\Lambda}_{k^*}$ and the residual genetic effects matrix $\mathbf{\Delta}$ can be stacked into a single matrix, and then its columns factor into independent multivariate normal conditional posteriors:
$$\begin{aligned}
\pi\left(\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{b}_i \\
{\mathbf}\delta_i \\
{\mathbf}\lambda_i \\
\end{array}\right] \big| - \right) &\sim \mbox{N}\left(\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{W}^T\sigma_i^2\mathbf{y}_i,\mathbf{C}^{-1}\right),\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{C}$ are defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{W} &= [\mathbf{X}\; \mathbf{Z} \; \mathbf{F}] \\
\mathbf{C} &=
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} & \psi_{a_{ii}}^{-2} \mathbf{A}^{-1} & \mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0} & \mbox{Diag}(\phi_{ij}\tau_j)
\end{array}\right] + \sigma_i^{-2}\mathbf{W}\mathbf{W}^T.\end{aligned}$$
3. The conditional posterior of the factor scores $\mathbf{F}$ is a matrix variate normal distribution: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi\left(\mathbf{F} \mid - \right) &\sim \mbox{MN}_{n,k^*}\left(\mathbf{C}^{-1}\left(\tilde{\mathbf{Y}}\mathbf{\Psi}_e^{-1}\mathbf{\Lambda_{k^*}} + \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{F}_u\mbox{Diag}(1-h^2_i)^{-1}\right),\mathbf{C}^{-1}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{C}$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{C} &= \mathbf{\Lambda}_{k^*}^T \mathbf{\Psi}_e^{-1} \mathbf{\Lambda}_{k^*} +\mbox{Diag}(1-h^2_i)^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{Y}}$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{ \mathbf{Y}} = \mathbf{Y}-\mathbf{X}\mathbf{B} - \mathbf{Z}{\mathbf}\Delta.\end{aligned}$$
4. The conditional posterior of the genetic effects on the factors, $\mathbf{F}_u$ factors into independent multivariate normals for each factor $\mathbf{f}_{u_j}, j = 1 \dots k^* \mbox{ st } h^2_j \neq 0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi\left(\mathbf{f}_{u_j} \mid - \right) &\sim \mbox{MN}\left(\mathbf{C}^{-1}(1-h^2_j)^{-1}\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{F}_m,\mathbf{C}^{-1}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{C}$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{C} &= (1-h^2_j)^{-1}\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T + (h^2_j)^{-1}\mathbf{A}^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
5. The conditional posterior for each of the latent factor heritabilities $h^2_j, j = 1 \dots k^* $ is calculated by integrating out $\mathbf{F}_u$ and summing over all possibilities of $h^2_j$, since the prior on this parameter is discrete: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi\left(h^2_j = h^2 \mid - \right) &= \frac{\mbox{N}\left(\mathbf{F}_j \mid \mathbf{0}, h^2\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{Z}^T + (1-h^2) \mathbf{I}_n\right) \pi(h^2_j=h^2)}{\sum\limits_{l=1}^{n_h}\mbox{N}\left(\mathbf{F}_j \mid \mathbf{0}, h^2_l\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{Z}^T + (1-h^2_l) \mathbf{I}_n\right) \pi(h^2_j=h^2_l)}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mbox{N}(\mathbf{x}\mid {\mathbf}\mu,\Sigma)$ is the multivariate normal density with mean ${\mathbf}\mu$ and variance $\Sigma$, evaluated at $\mathbf{x}$, $h^2_l = l/n_h$, and $\pi(h^2_j=h^2)$ Is the prior probability that $h^2_j = h^2$. Given this conditional posterior, $h^2_j$ is sampled from a multinomial distribution.
6. The conditional posterior of the trait-factor loading variance $\phi_{ih}$ for trait $i$ on factor $h$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(\phi_{ih}\mid -) \sim \mbox{Ga}\left(\frac{\nu+1}{2},\frac{\nu + \lambda_{ih}^2}{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$
7. The conditional posterior of $\delta_m, m=1\dots k^*$ is as follows. For $\delta_1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(\delta_1\mid -) \sim \mbox{Ga}\left(a_1+\frac{pk^*}{2},b_1+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{l=1}^{k^*}\tau_l^{(1)}\sum\limits_{j=1}^p \phi_{jl}\lambda^2_{jl}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and for $\delta_h, h\geq 2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(\delta_h\mid -) \sim \mbox{Ga}\left(a_2+\frac{p}{2}(k^*-h+1),b_2+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{l=h}^{k^*}\tau_l^{(h)}\sum\limits_{j=1}^p \phi_{jl}\lambda^2_{jl}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_l^{(h)} = \prod\limits_{t=1,t\neq h}^l\delta_t$ for $h=1\dots k^*$.
8. The conditional posteriors for the precision of the residual genetic effects of trait $i$, $\psi_{u_{ii}}$, is: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(\psi_{u_{ii}}\mid -) \sim \mbox{Ga}\left(a_g + \frac{r}{2},b_g + \frac{1}{2}{\mathbf}\delta_i^T {\mathbf}\delta_i\right).\end{aligned}$$
9. The conditional posteriors for the model residuals of trait $i$, $\sigma_i^{-2}$, is: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(\sigma_i^{-2}\mid -) \sim \mbox{Ga}\left(a_r + \frac{n}{2},b_r + \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{j=1}^n \left(y_{ij}-\mathbf{x}^{(j)}\mathbf{b}_i - \mathbf{f}^{(j)}{\mathbf}{\lambda}_i - \mathbf{z}^{(j)}{\mathbf}{\delta}_i\right)^2\right).\end{aligned}$$
Other random effects, such as the line $\times$ sex effects modeled in the gene expression example of this paper can be incorporated into this sampling scheme in much the same way as the residual genetic effects, $\mathbf{\Delta}$, are included here.
Acknowledgments
===============
We would like to thank Barbara Engelhardt, Iulian Pruteanu-Malinici, Jenny Tung, and two anonymous reviewers for comments and advice on this method.
[^1]: Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
[^2]: Departments of Statistical Science, Computer Science, and Mathematics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is well known that the integral identity conjecture is of prime importance in Kontsevich-Soibelman’s theory of motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants for non-commutative Calabi-Yau threfolds. In this article we consider its numerical version and make it a complete demonstration in the case where the potential is a polynomial and the ground field is algebraically closed. The foundamental tool is the Berkovich spaces whose crucial point is how to use the comparison theorem for nearby cycles as well as the Künneth isomorphism for cohomology with compact support.'
address:
- 'Institut de Mathématique de Jussieu, UMR 7586 CNRS, 4 place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France [(current)]{}'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Vietnam National University, 334 Nguyen Trai Street, Hanoi, Vietnam'
author:
- Lê Quy Thuong
title: '**A proof of the $\ell$-adic version of the integral identity conjecture for polynomials** '
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
Let us start by outlining due to [@KS2] on the concept of motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants that concern the integral identity conjecture. These invariants is introduced in [@KS] in the framework for Calabi-Yau threfolds and the motivic Hall algebra. The latter generates the derived Hall algebra of Toën [@To].
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be an ind-constructible triangulated $A_{\infty}$-category over a field $\kappa$. By giving a constructible stability condition on $\mathcal{C}$ one considers a collection of full subcatgories $\mathcal{C}_V\subset\mathcal{C}$, with $V$ strict sectors in $\mathbb R^2$. The stability condition depends on homomorphisms $cl: K_0(\mathcal{C})\to\Gamma$ and $Z:\Gamma\to\mathcal{C}$, where $\Gamma$ is a free abelian group endowed with a skew-symmetric integer-valued bilinear form $\langle ,\rangle$. A choice of $V$ gives rise to a cone $C(V,Z)$ contained in $\Gamma\otimes\mathbb{R}$ to which one associates a complete motivic Hall algebra $\hat{H}(\mathcal{C}_V)$. Define $A_V^{\text{Hall}}$ invertible in $\hat{H}(\mathcal{C}_V)$ as characteristic functions of the stacks of objects of $\mathcal C_V$. The [*generic*]{} elements satisfy the Factorization Property $$A_V^{\text{Hall}}=A_{V_1}^{\text{Hall}}\cdot A_{V_2}^{\text{Hall}}$$ with $V=V_1\sqcup V_2$ and the decomposition taken clockwisely.
If the field $\kappa$ has characteristic zero, motivic quantum torus $\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}}$ is defined to be an associative algebra generated by symbols $\hat{e}_{\gamma}$, for $\gamma$ in $\Gamma$, with the usual relations $$\hat{e}_{\gamma_1}\hat{e}_{\gamma_2}=[\mathbb{A}_\kappa^1]^{\frac 1 2 \langle\gamma_1,\gamma_2\rangle}\hat{e}_{\gamma_1+\gamma_2},\ \hat{e}_0=1,$$ where $[\mathbb{A}_\kappa^1]^{\frac 1 2}$ is the square root of $[\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}^1]$. The coefficient ring $C_0$ for the quantum torus $\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}}$ can be any commutative ring, where the two most important candidates should be a certain localization of the Grothendieck ring of algebraic $\kappa$-varieties and its $\ell$-adic version.
By choosing in addition the so-called orientation data (its existence depends on another conjecture) and using Denef-Loeser’s theory of motivic Milnor fiber (e.g. the motivic Thom-Sebastiani theorem) of the potential of an object of the category $\mathcal{C}$, by [@KS Sec. 6], there is a map $\Phi_V:\hat{H}(\mathcal{C}_V)\to \mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}_V}$ for each $V$, which is nice enough in the sense that if it was a homomorphism the Factorization Property would be preserved. This is in fact obstructed because of the lack of an assertion of the integral identity. In the case where the above $C_0$ is a certain localization of the ring $\mathscr M_{\kappa}^{\hat{\mu}}$, one faces to the full version of the integral identity conjecture. If well passed, $A_V^{\text{mot}}:=\Phi_V(A_V^{\text{Hall}})$ would be invariants in the category of non-commutative Calabi-Yau threfolds, namely [*motivic*]{} Donaldson-Thomas invariants. Also, if $C_0$ is a variant of the Grothendieck ring $K_0(D^b_{\text{constr},\text{aut}}(\text{Spec}(\kappa),\mathbb Q_{\ell}))$, one meets the $\ell$-adic version of the conjecture, and in this case, the corresponding invariants are [*numerical*]{} Donaldson-Thomas invariants.
In the context of non-archimedean complete discretely valued fields $K$ of equal characteristic zero, with valuation ring $R$ and residue field $\kappa$, Kontsevich-Soibelman define in [@KS] the motivic Milnor fiber $\mathcal S_{\mathfrak f, \mathbf x}$ of a formal function $\mathfrak f: \mathfrak X\to \text{Spf}(R)$ at a closed point $\mathbf x$ of the reduction $\mathfrak X_0$. To do this, they use Denef-Loeser’s formula on the motivic nearby cycle of a regular function (cf. [@DL1; @DL2]) as well as the fact that resolution of singularities of $(\mathfrak X, \mathfrak X_0)$ exists (see Temkin [@Tem1]). Let $\int_{\mathscr U}$ be the forgetful morphism for $\mathscr U$ a subvariety of $\mathfrak X_0$.
\[conj1\] Let $f$ be in $\kappa[[x,y,z]]$ invariant by the $\kappa^{\times}$-action of weight $(1,-1, 0)$ with $f(0,0,0)=0$. Denote by $\mathfrak X$ the formal neighborhood of $\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}$ in $\mathbb A_{\kappa}^d$ whose structural morphism $\hat{f}$ is induced by $f(x,y,z)$. Denote by $\mathfrak Z$ the formal neighborhood of $0$ in $\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_3}$ whose structural morphism $\hat{f}_{\mathfrak Z}$ is induced by $f(0,0,z)$. Then, the identity $\int_{\mathbf x\in\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}}\mathcal{S}_{\hat{f},\mathbf x}=[\mathbb A_{\kappa}^1]^{d_1}\mathcal{S}_{\hat{f}_{\mathfrak Z},0}$ holds in $\mathscr M_{\kappa}^{\hat{\mu}}$.
Notice that we proved in [@Thuong] the [*regular*]{} version for a composition with a polynomial in two variables and for a function of Steenbrink type. The purpose of the present article is to show that the $\ell$-adic version of the integral identity conjecture holds if the series $f$ is a polynomial and the ground field $\kappa$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. Let $R\psi$ denote the nearby cycles functor. This functor was defined earlier in [@Ber2; @Ber] and it will be recalled here in Subsection \[ncf\].
\[maintheorem\] Let $\kappa$ be an algebraically closed field. If $f$ is in $\kappa[x,y,z]$ invariant by the $\kappa^{\times}$-action of weight $(1,-1, 0)$ with $f(0,0,0)=0$, there is a canonical quasi-isomorphism of complexes: $R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},R\psi_{\hat{f}}\mathbb Q_{\ell}|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}})\stackrel{qis}{\to} R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},\mathbb Q_{\ell}){\otimes} (R\psi_{\hat{f}_{\mathfrak Z}}\mathbb Q_{\ell})_0$.
As an approach, we follow Kontsevich-Soibelman’s idea in [@KS Prop. 9] using Berkovich spaces. The fundamental tools are the comparison theorem for nearby cycles and the Künneth isomorphism for étale cohomology with compact support. The result in this article is part of the author’s thesis. He thanks his advisor François Loeser for such an interesting subject as well as many valuable suggestions and much patience. He thanks Vladimir Berkovich and Antoine Ducros for their answers to questions on Berkovich spaces. Especially, Ducros read carefully the earlier drafts of the manuscript and pointed out a serious mistake, so that the author can introduce this complete version.
Preliminaries on the Berkovich spaces {#sec2}
=====================================
Notation
--------
Let $K$ be a non-archimedean complete discretely valued field $K$ of equal characteristics zero, with valuation ring $R$, maximal ideal $\mathfrak m$ and residue field $\kappa=R/\mathfrak m$. Let $\mathbb A_{K,\text{Ber}}^n$ be the $n$-dimensional $K$-analytic affine space, which is by definition the set $\mathcal M(K[T_1,\dots,T_n])$ of all multiplicative seminorms on the ring of polynomials $K[T_1,\dots,T_n]$ whose restriction to $K$ is bounded (see [@Ber0]). We define a norm on $K$ by $|\xi|:=c^{\text{val}(\xi)}$ with $c\in (0,1)$ fixed, and a norm on $\mathbb A_{K,\text{Ber}}^n$ by $|x|:=\max_{1\leq i\leq n}|x_i|$ for $x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$. The subspace of $\mathbb A_{K,\text{Ber}}^n$ defined by $|x|\leq 1$ is called the $n$-dimensional unit closed disc and denoted by $E^n(0;1)$, while the corresponding open one is written as $D^n(0;1)$
From special formal schemes to analytic spaces {#sec2.1}
----------------------------------------------
Let us remark that the main result of this article will only concern formal $R$-schemes topologically of finite type. It is however better to recall some preliminaries on the Berkovich spaces in a larger category that consists of special formal $R$-schemes.
A topological $R$-algebra $\mathcal A$ is said to be [*special*]{} if $\mathcal A$ is a Noetherian adic ring such that, if $\mathcal J$ is an ideal of definition of $\mathcal A$, the quotient rings $\mathcal A/\mathcal J^n$, $n\geq 1$, are finitely generated over $R$. By [@Ber], a topological $R$-algebra $\mathcal A$ is special if and only if it is topologically $R$-isomorphic to a quotient of the special $R$-algebra $R\{T_1,\dots, T_n\}[[S_1,\dots,S_m]]$. An adic $R$-algebra $\mathcal A$ is [*topologically finitely generated over*]{} $R$ if it is topologically $R$-isomorphic to a quotient algebra of the algebra of restricted power series $R\{T_1,\dots,T_n\}$. Evidently, any topologically finitely generated $R$-algebra is a special $R$-algebra. A formal $R$-scheme $\mathfrak X$ is said to be [*special*]{} if $\mathfrak X$ is a separated Noetherian adic formal scheme and if it is a finite union of affine formal schemes of the form $\text{Spf}(\mathcal A)$ with $\mathcal A$ a special $R$-algebras. A formal $R$-scheme $\mathfrak X$ is [*topologically of finite type*]{} if it is a finite union of affine formal schemes of the form $\text{Spf}(\mathcal A)$ with $\mathcal A$ topologically finitely generated $R$-algebras. It is a fact that the category of separated topologically of finite type formal $R$-schemes is a full subcategory of the category of $R$-special formal schemes, and both admit fiber products. A morphism $\varphi: \mathfrak{Y}\to\mathfrak{X}$ of special formal schemes is of [*locally finite type*]{} if locally it is isomorphic to a morphism of the form $\text{Spf} (\mathcal B)\to \text{Spf} (\mathcal A)$ with $\mathcal B$ topologically finitely generated over $\mathcal A$. The morphism $\varphi$ is of [*finite type*]{} if it is a quasicompact morphism of locally finite type.
Due to [@Ber], there is a canonical functor $\mathfrak X \mapsto \mathfrak X_{\eta}$ from the category of special formal $R$-schemes to that of (Berkovich) $K$-analytic spaces. In the affine case, the interpretation of this functor is explicit. Namely, if $$\mathfrak{X}=\text{Spf} \Big(R\{T_1,\dots,T_n\}[[S_1,\dots,S_m]]\Big),$$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak X_{\eta}=E^n(0;1)\times D^m(0;1).\end{aligned}$$ Also, if $\mathfrak{X}=\text{Spf} (\mathcal A)$, where $\mathcal A$ is a quotient of $R\{T_1,\dots,T_n\}[[S_1,\dots,S_m]]$ by an ideal $\mathcal I$, then $\mathfrak{X}_{\eta}$ is the closed $K$-analytic subspace of $X=E^n(0;1)\times D^m(0;1)$ defined by the subsheaf of ideals $\mathcal I\mathscr{O}_{X}$.
Generally, $\mathfrak X_{\eta}$ is defined by glueing in an appropriate manner of analytic spaces corresponding to affine formal schemes which covers $\mathfrak X$ (see [@Ber]).
\[rk1\] (i) The functor $\mathfrak{X}\mapsto\mathfrak{X}_{\eta}$ takes a formal scheme topologically of finite type to a paracompact analytic space, and this functor commutes with fiber products.
\(ii) The functor $\mathfrak{X}\mapsto\mathfrak{X}_{\eta}$ takes a morphism of finite type $\varphi:\mathfrak{Y}\to\mathfrak{X}$ to a compact morphism of $K$-analytic spaces $\varphi_{\eta}:\mathfrak{Y}_{\eta}\to\mathfrak{X}_{\eta}$. If $\varphi$ is finite (resp. flat finite), so is $\varphi_{\eta}$.
The reduction map
-----------------
For a special formal $R$-scheme $\mathfrak X$, we denote by $\mathfrak X_0$ the closed subscheme of $\mathfrak X$ defined by the largest ideal of definition of $\mathfrak X$. Note that $\mathfrak X_0$ is a reduced Noetherian scheme, that the correspondence $\mathfrak X\mapsto\mathfrak X_0$ is functorial, and that the natural closed immersion $\mathfrak X_0\to \mathfrak X$ is a homeomorphism. Moreover, the [*reduction*]{} $\mathfrak X_0$ is also a separated $\kappa$-scheme of finite type.
We now recall the construction of the reduction map in the affine case, that is for $\mathfrak{X}=\text{Spf}(\mathcal A)$ with $\mathcal A$ being an adic special $R$-algebra. Notice that Berkovich did this work in [@Ber2; @Ber] for any special formal $R$-scheme. The construction of the reduction map $\pi: \mathfrak{X}_{\eta}\to\mathfrak{X}_0$ for $\mathfrak{X}=\text{Spf}(\mathcal A)$ runs as follows. Remark that each point $x$ of $\mathfrak{X}_{\eta}$ defines a continuous character $\chi_x: \mathcal A\to \mathscr{H}(x)$. In its turn, $\chi_x$ defines a character $\widetilde{\chi}_x:\mathcal A_0=\mathcal A/\mathcal J \to\widetilde{\mathscr{H}(x)}$, where $\mathcal J$ is the largest ideal of definition of $\mathcal A$. Then we assign $\pi(x)$ to the kernel of $\widetilde{\chi}_x$, which is a prime ideal of $\mathcal A_0$. This definition guarantees the compatibility of the reduction map with open immersion in the following meaning. If $\mathfrak Y$ is an open formal scheme of $\mathfrak X$, then the reduction maps for $\mathfrak X$ and $\mathfrak Y$ are compatible and $\mathfrak Y_{\eta}\cong \pi^{-1}(\mathfrak Y_0)$.
Étale cohomology of analytic spaces
-----------------------------------
The theory of étale cohomology for Berkovich spaces (also called non-archimedean analytic spaces) is sharply developed in the long article [@Ber1]. Note that the groups $H^*(Y,\mathbb Z_{\ell})$ and $H^*(Y,\mathbb Q_{\ell})$ in the sense of derived functors are irrelevant, i.e. roughly speaking, they do not satisfy some “nice" properties which a cohomology theory should have. Grothendieck however pointed out that the following groups are relevant $$\projlim H^*(Y,\mathbb Z/\ell^n\mathbb Z)\quad \text{and}\quad (\projlim H^*(Y,\mathbb Z/\ell^n\mathbb Z))\otimes_{\mathbb Z_{\ell}} \mathbb Q_{\ell}.$$ Thus from now on, we shall only consider these groups and denote them by $H^*(Y,\mathbb Z_{\ell})$ and $H^*(Y,\mathbb Q_{\ell})$, respectively (cf. [@Ducros], [@NS]). The same also holds for cohomology with compact support (cf. [@Ducros], [@HL]). Namely, $$\begin{aligned}
H_c^*(Y,\mathbb Z_{\ell})&:= (\projlim H_c^*(Y,\mathbb Z/\ell^n\mathbb Z)),\\
H_c^*(Y,\mathbb Q_{\ell})&:= (\projlim H_c^*(Y,\mathbb Z/\ell^n\mathbb Z))\otimes_{\mathbb Z_{\ell}} \mathbb Q_{\ell}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\widehat{K^s}$ be the completion of a separable closure of $K$. For a $K$-analytic space $X$, there is a canonical morphism $b: \overline{X}:=X\widehat{\otimes}_K\widehat{K^s}\to X$. Now fix such an $X$ and consider all the subspaces of its. If $Y$ is an analytic subspace of the $X$, denote by $\overline{Y}$ or by $Y\widehat{\otimes}_K\widehat{K^s}$ the preimage of $Y$ in $\overline{X}$ under $b$. The following are two of properties of the functor $Y\mapsto H_c^*(\overline{Y},\mathbb Q_{\ell})$ according to [@Ber1 Prop. 5.2.6, Cor. 7.7.3].
\[prop2.2\] Let $Y$, $Y'$ be locally closed analytic subspaces of a given $K$-analytic space $X$.
- If $U$ is an open subspace of $Y$, $V:=Y\setminus U$, there is an exact sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\cdots\to H_c^m(\overline{V},\mathbb Q_{\ell})\to H_c^{m+1}(\overline{U},\mathbb Q_{\ell})\to H_c^{m+1}(\overline{Y},\mathbb Q_{\ell})\to H_c^{m+1}(\overline{V},\mathbb Q_{\ell})\to \cdots.\end{aligned}$$
- There is a canonical Künneth isomorphism of complexes $$R\Gamma_c(\overline{Y},\mathbb Q_{\ell})\otimes R\Gamma_c(\overline{Y'},\mathbb Q_{\ell})\cong R\Gamma_c(\overline{Y\times Y'},\mathbb Q_{\ell}).$$
The nearby cycles functor {#ncf}
-------------------------
A morphism $\varphi: \mathfrak{Y}\to\mathfrak{X}$ of special formal $R$-schemes is called [*étale*]{} if for any ideal of definition $\mathcal{J}$ of $\mathfrak{X}$ the morphism of schemes $(\mathfrak{Y},\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{Y}}/\mathcal{J}\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{Y}})\to (\mathfrak{X},\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}/\mathcal{J})$ is étale. The reduction $\mathfrak X_0$ being the closed subscheme of $\mathfrak X$ defined by the largest ideal of definition of $\mathfrak X$, thus if the morphism $\varphi: \mathfrak{Y}\to\mathfrak{X}$ is étale, the induced morphism $\varphi_0: \mathfrak{Y}_0\to\mathfrak{X}_0$ is étale.
By [@Ber1], a morphism of $K$-analytic spaces $\varphi : Y \to X$ is [*étale*]{} if for each point $y\in Y$ there exist open neighborhoods $V$ of $y$ and $U$ of $\varphi(y)$ such that $\varphi$ induces a finite étale morphism $\varphi: V \to U$. By a finite étale morphism $\varphi: V \to U$ one means that for each affinoid domain $W = \mathcal M(\mathcal A)$ in $U$, the preimage $\varphi^{-1}(W) =\mathcal M(\mathcal B)$ is an affinoid domain and $\mathcal B$ is a finite étale $\mathcal A$-algebra. A morphism of $K$-analytic spaces $\varphi: Y\to X$ is called [*quasi-étale*]{} if for any point $y\in Y$ there exist affinoid domains $V_1,\dots,V_n\subset Y$ such that $V_1\cup\dots\cup V_n$ is a neighborhood of $y$ and each $V_i$ may be identified with an affinoid domain in a $K$-affinoid space étale over $X$. By definition, étale morphisms are also quasi-étale.
\[lem2.2\] Assume that $\varphi: \mathfrak{Y}\to \mathfrak{X}$ is an étale morphism of special formal $R$-schemes. Then the following hold:
- $\varphi_{\eta}(\mathfrak{Y}_{\eta})=\pi^{-1}(\varphi_0(\mathfrak{Y}_0))$, consequently $\varphi_{\eta}(\mathfrak{Y}_{\eta})$ is a closed analytic domain in $\mathfrak{X}_{\eta}$.
- The induced morphism $\frak{Y}_{\eta}\to\frak{X}_{\eta}$ of $K$-analytic spaces is quasi-étale.
For a $K$-analytic space $X$, let $X_{\text{q\'et}}$ denote the quasi-étale site of $X$ as in [@Ber2]. The quasi-étale topology on $X$ is the Grothendieck topology on the category of quasi-étale morphisms $U\to X$ generated by the pretopology for which the set of coverings of $(U\to X)$ is formed by the families $\{f_i: U_i\to U\}_{i\in I}$ such that each point of $U$ has a neighborhood of the form $f_{i_1}(V_1)\cup\dots\cup f_{i_n}(V_n)$ for some affinoid domains $V_1\subset U_{i_1},\dots,V_n\subset U_{i_n}$. There is a morphism of sites $\mu: X_{\text{q\'et}}\to X_{\text{\'et}}$. Denote by $X_{\text{q\'et}}^{\sim}$ the category of sheaves of sets on $X_{\text{q\'et}}$. The functor $\mu^*:X_{\text{\'et}}^{\sim}\to X_{\text{q\'et}}^{\sim}$ is a fully faithful functor (cf. [@Ber2]).
Let $\mathfrak{X}$ be a special formal $R$-scheme. By [@Ber2], the correspondence $\mathfrak{Y}\mapsto \mathfrak{Y}_0$ induces an equivalence between the category of formal schemes étale over $\mathfrak{X}$ and the category of schemes étale over $\mathfrak{X}_0$. We fix the functor $\mathfrak{Y}_0\mapsto\mathfrak{Y}$ which is inverse to the previous correspondence $\mathfrak{Y}\mapsto\mathfrak{Y}_0$. The composition of the functor $\mathfrak{Y}_0\mapsto\mathfrak{Y}$ with the functor $\mathfrak{Y}\mapsto \mathfrak{Y}_{\eta}$ induces a morphism of sites $\nu: \mathfrak{X}_{\eta\text{q\'et}}\to\mathfrak{X}_{0\text{\'et}}$. By [@Ber], this construction also holds over a separable closure $K^s$ of $K$, therefore we shall also denote by $\nu$ the corresponding morphism of sites $\mathfrak{X}_{\overline{\eta}\text{q\'et}}\to\mathfrak{X}_{\overline{0}\text{\'et}}$, where $\mathfrak{X}_{\overline{\eta}}:=\mathfrak{X}_{\eta}\widehat{\otimes}_K\widehat{K^s}$ and $\mathfrak{X}_{\overline{0}}:=\mathfrak{X}_0\otimes_{\kappa} \kappa^s$.
Now consider the composition of the functors $\mu^*: \mathfrak{X}_{\overline{\eta}\text{\'et}}^{\sim}\to \mathfrak{X}_{\overline{\eta}\text{q\'et}}^{\sim}$ and $\nu_*: \mathfrak{X}_{\overline{\eta}\text{q\'et}}^{\sim}\to \mathfrak{X}_{\overline{0}\text{\'et}}^{\sim}$, namely $\nu_*\mu^*: \mathfrak{X}_{\overline{\eta}\text{\'et}}^{\sim}\to \mathfrak{X}_{\overline{0}\text{\'et}}^{\sim}$. This resulting functor composing with the pullback (or inverse image) functor of the canonical morphism $\mathfrak X_{\overline{\eta}}\to \mathfrak X_{\eta}$ yields a functor $\psi: \mathfrak{X}_{\eta\text{\'et}}^{\sim}\to \mathfrak{X}_{\overline{0}\text{\'et}}^{\sim}$, which is called the [*nearby cycles functor*]{} (see [@Ber2; @Ber]). It is a left exact functor, thus we can involve right derived functors $R^i\psi: \mathbf{S}(\mathfrak{X}_{\eta})\to \mathbf{S}(\mathfrak{X}_{\overline{0}})$ and $R\psi: D^+(\mathfrak{X}_{\eta})\to D^+(\mathfrak{X}_{\overline{0}})$, the latter is exact while the others are right exact functors. If necessary, we can write $R^i\psi_{\mathfrak f}$ and $R\psi_{\mathfrak f}$ labeling $\mathfrak f$ the structural morphism of $\mathfrak{X}$.
\[lem2.3\] Let $\varphi: \mathfrak{Y}\to \mathfrak{X}$ be an étale morphism of special formal $R$-schemes and $F$ in $\mathbf{S}(\mathfrak{X}_{\eta})$. Then for any $m\geq 0$ we have $(R^m\psi F)|_{\mathfrak{Y}_{\overline{0}}}\cong R^m\psi(F|_{\mathfrak{Y}_{\eta}})$.
The comparison theorem for nearby cycles {#BCTsection}
----------------------------------------
By [@Ber Thm 3.1], the comparison theorem for nearby cycles functor working on a henselian ring $R$. Let $\mathscr E$ be a scheme locally of finite type over $R$ with the structural morphism $f$; and let $\mathscr E_0$ be the zero locus of $f$, which is a $\kappa$-scheme. Then $\mathscr E_0=\widehat{\mathscr E}_0$, where the scheme on the right is the reduction of the completion $\widehat{\mathscr E}$ of the scheme $\mathscr E$. For a subscheme $\mathscr{Y}\subset \mathscr E_0$, let $\widehat{\mathscr E }_{/\mathscr{Y}}$ denote the formal $\mathfrak m$-adic completion of $\widehat{\mathscr E }$ along $\mathscr{Y}$. A result of [@Ber] shows that there is a canonical isomorphism of $K$-analytic spaces $(\widehat{\mathscr E }_{/\mathscr{Y}})_{\eta}\cong \pi^{-1}(\mathscr{Y})$, where $\pi$ is the reduction map $\widehat{\mathscr E }_{\eta}\to\mathscr E_0$. For a sheaf $\mathcal{F}\in\mathscr E _{\eta\text{\'et}}^{\sim}$, with $\mathscr E _{\eta}:=\mathscr E \otimes_RK$, let $\widehat{\mathcal{F}}_{/\mathscr{Y}}$ denote the pullback of $\mathcal{F}$ on $(\widehat{\mathscr E }_{/\mathscr{Y}})_{\eta}$. The nearby cycles functor for $\mathscr E$, for $\widehat{\mathscr E}$ and for $(\widehat{\mathscr E}_{/\mathscr Y})_{\eta}$ will be denoted by the same symbol $\psi$. If $\mathscr Y$ is an (ordinary) $\kappa$-scheme, we define $\overline{\mathscr{Y}}:=\mathscr{Y}\otimes_{\kappa} \kappa^s$.
\[mainber\] Let $\mathcal{F}$ be an étale abelian constructible sheaf on $\mathscr E _{\eta}$. For $i\geq 0$, there is a canonical isomorphism $(R^i\psi\mathcal{F})|_{\overline{\mathscr{Y}}}\cong R^i\psi(\widehat{\mathcal{F}}_{/\mathscr{Y}})$.
The previous theorem is widely known as the Berkovich’s comparison theorem for nearby cycles, while the full version is in fact stated for both nearby cycles functor and vanishing cycles functor and it is motivated by a conjecture of Deligne. Part of the conjecture claims that the restrictions of the vanishing cycles sheaves of a scheme $\mathscr E$ of finite type over a henselian discrete valuation ring to the subscheme $\mathscr{Y}\subset\widehat{\mathscr E}_0$ depend only on the formal $\mathfrak m$-adic completion $\widehat{\mathscr E }_{/\mathscr{Y}}$ of $\mathscr E$ along $\mathscr{Y}$, and that the automorphism group of $\widehat{\mathscr E}_{/\mathscr{Y}}$ acts on them. By proving this comparison theorem, Berkovich [@Ber] provided the positive answer to Deligne’s conjecture.
The following corollary runs over any complete discretely valued field.
\[cormain\] Let $\mathscr{S}$ be an $R$-scheme of locally finite type, $\mathfrak{X}$ a special formal $\widehat{\mathscr{S}}$-scheme which is locally isomorphic to the formal $\mathfrak m$-adic completion of a $\mathscr{S}$-scheme of finite type along a subscheme of its reduction, $F$ an étale sheaf on $\mathfrak{X}_{\eta}$ locally in the étale topology of $\mathfrak{X}$ isomorphic to the pullback of a constructible sheaf on $\widehat{\mathscr{S}}_{\eta}$. Then $R\psi(F)$ is constructible and, for any subscheme $\mathscr{Y}\subset\mathfrak{X}_0$, there is a canonical isomorphism of complexes $$R\Gamma(\overline{\mathscr{Y}},(R\psi F)|_{\overline{\mathscr{Y}}})\stackrel{\sim}{\to} R\Gamma(\overline{\pi^{-1}(\mathscr{Y})},F).$$ If, in addition, the closure of $\mathscr{Y}$ in $\mathfrak{X}_0$ is proper, there is a canonical isomorphism$$R\Gamma_c(\overline{\mathscr{Y}},(R\psi F)|_{\overline{\mathscr{Y}}})\stackrel{\sim}{\to} R\Gamma_{\overline{\pi^{-1}(\mathscr{Y})}}(\mathfrak{X}_{\overline{\eta}},F).$$
The polynomial $f$ and comparisons {#sec3}
==================================
From this section, the condition that $\kappa$ is an algebraically closed field will be used because of applying Berkovich’s comparison theorem for nearby cycles. Also, $R$ and $K$ will stand for $\kappa[[t]]$ and $\kappa((t))$, respectively.
Resetting the data {#sec3.1}
------------------
Let $f(x,y,z)$ be in $\kappa[x,y,z]$ such that $f(0,0,0)=0$ and $f(\tau x,\tau^{-1}y,z)=f(x,y,z)$ for $\tau\in \kappa^{\times}$. Let us consider the following $R$-schemes with the structural morphisms $$\label{eiffel}
\begin{aligned}
\mathscr E:=\text{Spec}(R[x,y,z]/(f(x,y,z)-t))&\to \text{Spec}(R),\\
\mathscr W:=\text{Spec}(R[z]/(f(0,0,z)-t))&\to \text{Spec}(R)
\end{aligned}$$ given by $t=f(x,y,z)$, $t=f(0,0,z)$, respectively. Note that $\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}$ is a closed subvariety of $\kappa$-variety $\mathscr E_0=f^{-1}(0)$. We have identities $\mathfrak X= \widehat{\mathscr E }_{/\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}}$ and $\mathfrak Z=\widehat{\mathscr W}_{/0}$, where the formal schemes on the left hand sides were already defined in first section. Consider the reduction maps $\pi:\mathfrak X_{\eta}\to \mathfrak X_0$ and $\pi_{\mathscr W}: \mathfrak Z_{\eta}\to \mathfrak Z_0$.
Applying the comparison theorem {#sec3.2}
-------------------------------
Let $\mathbf{f}$ be the homogenization of $f$, i.e. $\mathbf{f}(x,y,z,\xi)$ is homogeneous in $d+1$ variables with $\mathbf{f}(x,y,z,1)=f(x,y,z)$ and $\deg(\mathbf{f})=\deg(f)=n$. Note that the $R$-scheme $$\mathbf E:=\text{Proj}\Big(R[x,y,z,\xi]/(\mathbf f(x,y,z,\xi)-t\xi^n)\Big)$$ is locally of finite type. Let us consider the $t$-adic completion $\widehat{\mathbf E}$, which is a formal $R$-scheme canonically glued from the following affine formal $R$-schemes $$\label{eq100}
\begin{aligned}
&\text{Spf} \Big(R\{\frac x {x_i}, \frac y {x_i},\frac z {x_i},\frac {\xi} {x_i}\}/\big(\mathbf f(\frac x {x_i}, \frac y {x_i},\frac z {x_i},\frac {\xi} {x_i})-t(\frac {\xi} {x_i})^n\big)\Big)&\ i=1,\dots, d_1,\\
&\text{Spf} \Big(R\{\frac x {y_j}, \frac y {y_j},\frac z {y_j},\frac {\xi} {y_j}\}/\big(\mathbf f(\frac x {y_j}, \frac y {y_j},\frac z {y_j},\frac {\xi} {y_j})-t(\frac {\xi} {y_j})^n\big)\Big)&\ j=1,\dots, d_2,\\
&\text{Spf} \Big(R\{\frac x {z_l}, \frac y {z_l},\frac z {z_l},\frac {\xi} {z_l}\}/\big(\mathbf f(\frac x {z_l}, \frac y {z_l},\frac z {z_l},\frac {\xi} {z_l})-t(\frac {\xi} {z_l})^n\big)\Big)&\ l=1,\dots,d_3,\\
&\text{Spf} \Big(R\{\frac x {\xi},\frac y {\xi},\frac z {\xi}\}/\big(f(\frac x {\xi},\frac y {\xi},\frac z {\xi})-t\big)\Big)\cong \widehat{\mathscr E}.
\end{aligned}$$ The reduction $\widehat{\mathbf E}_0=\mathbf E_0$ is the hypersurface $\{\mathbf f=0\}$ in the projective space $\mathbb{P}_{\kappa}^d$, it admits the inclusions $\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}\subset \mathscr E_0\subset \mathbf E_0$.
Let $\tilde{\mathbb A}_{\kappa}^{d_1}$ be the closure of $\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}$ in $\mathbf E_0$. By construction, the embedding of $\widehat{\mathscr E}$ in $\widehat{\mathbf E}$ is an open immersion of formal $R$-schemes (thus it is an étale morphism). By [@GD Cor. 10.9.9], the formal $R$-scheme $\mathfrak{X}=\widehat{\mathscr E}_{/\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}}$ can be identified to the fiber product of $\widehat{\mathscr E}\to \widehat{\mathbf E}$ and $\mathbf X:=\widehat{\mathbf E}_{/\tilde{\mathbb A}_{\kappa}^{d_1}}\to \widehat{\mathbf E}$. Since étale morphisms are preserved under base change, the induced morphism $\mathfrak X \to \mathbf X$ is also étale (it is even an open immersion). Denote by ${\widehat{\mathbf f}}$ the structural morphism of $\mathbf X$, which is induced by $\mathbf f$. We shall use the following notation
- $i:\mathfrak{X}_{\overline{\eta}}\to\mathbf X_{\overline{\eta}}$ is the embedding of analytic spaces,
- $j:\mathfrak{X}_0\to\mathbf X_0$, $k:\mathbf X_0 \setminus \mathfrak{X}_0\to \mathbf X_0$, $u:\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}\to \mathfrak{X}_0$ and $v:\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}\to \mathbf{X}_0$ are the embeddings of $\kappa$-schemes (note that $v=j\circ u$).
Let $F$ denote the constant sheaf $(\mathbb{Z}/\ell^n\mathbb{Z})_{\mathfrak{X}_{\overline{\eta}}}$ in $\mathbf S(\mathfrak{X}_{\overline{\eta}})$, $n\geq 1$. By Lemma \[lem2.3\], for any $m\geq 0$, we have $j^*R^m\psi_{\widehat{\mathbf f}}(i_!F)\cong R^m\psi_{\widehat{ f}}F$, hence $j_!j^*R^m\psi_{\widehat{\mathbf f}}(i_!F)\cong j_!R^m\psi_{\widehat{ f}}F$. In the latter isomorphism, the complex on the right hand side can be fitted in the exact triangle $$\to j_!R^m\psi_{\widehat{ f}}F\to R^m\psi_{\widehat{\mathbf f}}(i_!F)\to k_*k^*R^m\psi_{\widehat{\mathbf f}}(i_!F)\to.$$ The functor $v^*$ being exact, we have the following exact triangle $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2}
\to u^*R^m\psi_{\widehat{ f}}F\to v^*R^m\psi_{\widehat{\mathbf f}}(i_!F)\to v^*k_*k^*R^m\psi_{\widehat{\mathbf f}}(i_!F)\to.\end{aligned}$$ Observe that the support of the functor $v^*$ is $\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}$, which is a subset of $\mathfrak X_0$, while that of $k_*k^*$ is $\mathbf X_0 \setminus \mathfrak{X}_0$, and the two subsets $\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}$ and $\mathbf X_0 \setminus \mathfrak{X}_0$ are disjoint in $\mathbf X_0$. This means $v^*k_*k^*R^m\psi_{\widehat{\mathbf f}}(i_!F)\cong 0$, and one deduces that $R^m\psi_{\widehat{ f}}F|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}}\cong R^m\psi_{\widehat{\mathbf f}}(i_!F)|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}}$. The latter leads us to a quasi-isomorphism of complexes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3}
R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},R\psi_{\widehat{ f}}F|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}})\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},R\psi_{\widehat{\mathbf f}}(i_!F)|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}}).\end{aligned}$$
Now apply Corollary \[cormain\] to the nearby cycles functor $R\psi_{\widehat{\mathbf f}}$. For such an $\mathbf f$, the assumptions of that corollary are satisfied: the scheme $\mathbf E $ is of finite type over $R$ and the closure of $\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}$ in $\mathbf X_0$ is proper as $\mathbf X_0$ is. Let $\tilde{\pi}$ denote the reduction map $\mathbf X_{\eta}\to \mathbf X_0$. One then deduces from Corollary \[cormain\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4}
R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},R\psi_{\widehat{\mathbf f}}(i_!F)|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}})\stackrel{\sim}{\to} R\Gamma_{\overline{\tilde{\pi}^{-1}(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1})}}(\mathbf X_{\overline{\eta}},i_!F).\end{aligned}$$
Shrinking analytic domains {#sec3.3}
--------------------------
Let us consider $R\Gamma_{\overline{\tilde{\pi}^{-1}(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1})}}(\mathbf X_{\overline{\eta}},i_!F)$ as in (\[eq4\]). We remark that the analytic space $\mathbf{X}_{\overline{\eta}}$ is the glueing of $A:=\mathfrak X_{\overline{\eta}}$ together with other analytic spaces which correspond to the formal schemes in (\[eq100\]), each of which is a closed analytic domain in $\mathbf{X}_{\overline{\eta}}$ (Lemma \[lem2.2\]). Similarly, $\overline{\tilde{\pi}^{-1}(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1})}$ is the glueing of $X:=\overline{\pi^{-1}(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1})}$ together with others in the same way. Define $P:=\mathbf{X}_{\overline{\eta}}\setminus A$ and $T:=\mathbf{X}_{\overline{\eta}} \setminus \overline{\tilde{\pi}^{-1}(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1})}$.
\[lem3.1\] We have a quasi-isomorphism of complexes as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq20}
R\Gamma_{\overline{\tilde{\pi}^{-1}(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1})}}(\mathbf X_{\overline{\eta}},i_!F)\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma_{X}(A,F).\end{aligned}$$
Let $i_{\alpha}$ be the embedding of an $\widehat{K^s}$-analytic space $\alpha$ in $\mathbf{X}_{\overline{\eta}}$, $i_{\alpha,\beta}$ the embedding of $\alpha$ in $\beta$ (thus $i_{A}=i$), and $B:=A\setminus X$. Now both sides of (\[eq20\]) can be rewritten as follows $$\begin{aligned}
R\Gamma_{\overline{\tilde{\pi}^{-1}(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1})}}(\mathbf X_{\overline{\eta}},i_!F)&\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\widehat{\mathbf f}_{\overline{\eta} *}\text{Cone} (i_! F\to i_{T*}i_T^*i_! F),\\
R\Gamma_{X}(A,F)&\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\widehat{f}_{\overline{\eta} *}\text{Cone} (F\to i_{B,A *}i_{B,A}^*F).\end{aligned}$$
Note that the embeddings $i_P: P\hookrightarrow \mathbf{X}_{\overline{\eta}}$ and $i: A \hookrightarrow \mathbf{X}_{\overline{\eta}}$ altogether give rise to an exact triangle of complexes on $\mathbf{X}_{\overline{\eta}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\to i_{P!}i_P^*\text{Cone}(i_! F\to i_{T*}i_T^*i_! F)\to \text{Cone}(i_! F\to i_{T*}i_T^*i_! F)\\
\stackrel{h}{\longrightarrow} i_*i^*\text{Cone}(i_! F\to i_{T*}i_T^*i_! F)\to.\end{aligned}$$ The supports of $i_P^*$ and $i_!$ are disjoint, hence $h$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Rewrite $h$ in the form $h: \text{Cone} (i_! F\to i_{T*}i_T^*i_! F)\to \text{Cone} (i_* F\to i_{B*}i_{B,A}^* F)$. The identity $i_B=i\circ i_{B,A}$ implies the following isomorphisms of complexes $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Cone} (i_* F\to i_{B*}i_{B,A}^* F)&\cong\text{Cone} (i_* F\to i_*i_{B,A *}i_{B,A}^* F)\\
&\cong i_*\text{Cone} (F\to i_{B,A *}i_{B,A}^* F).\end{aligned}$$ We claim that $R\widehat{\mathbf f}_{\overline{\eta} *}i_*=R\widehat{f}_{\overline{\eta} *}$. Indeed, one deduces from [@Ber1 Cor. 5.2.4] and $\widehat{\mathbf f}_{\overline{\eta}}\circ i=\widehat{f}_{\overline{\eta}}$ that $R\widehat{\mathbf f}_{\eta *}Ri_*=R\widehat{f}_{\eta *}$. That $i_*=i_!$ is as $A$ is closed in $\mathbf X_{\overline{\eta}}$ (cf. Lemma \[lem2.2\]), while $i_!$ is exact since the stalk $(i_!F)_{\mathbf y}$ is equal to $F_{\mathbf y}$ if $\mathbf y\in A$, and zero otherwise, thus $Ri_*=i_*$. Finally, taking the exact functor $R\widehat{\mathbf f}_{\overline{\eta} *}$ to the quasi-isomorphism $h$ yields a quasi-isomorphism of complexes $$R\widehat{\mathbf f}_{\overline{\eta} *}\text{Cone} (i_! F\to i_{T*}i_T^*i_! F)\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\widehat{f}_{\overline{\eta} *}\text{Cone} (F\to i_{B,A*}i_{B,A}^*F),$$ This proves the lemma.
Description of $A$, $X$ and $D$ {#AXD}
-------------------------------
We notice that from now on we shall abuse the notation $x$, $y$, $z$, and others, i.e. we shall use them parallelly with two different senses. Just before $(x,y,z)$ stands for a system of coordinates in $\mathbb A_{\kappa}^d$ ($d=d_1+d_2+d_3$), in what follow it will also denote the corresponding system of coordinates on the analytification $\mathbb A_{K^s}^{d,\text{an}}$. Similarly, if $\tau$ is an element in the group scheme $\mathbb G_{m,\kappa}$, we also write $\tau$ for the corresponding element in $\mathbb G_{m,K^s}^{\text{an}}$.
With $f$ as in Theorem \[maintheorem\], the analytic space $A=\mathfrak X_{\overline{\eta}}$ is the inductive limit of the compact domains $$A_{\gamma,\epsilon}:=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d: |x|\leq \gamma^{-1}, |y|\leq \gamma\epsilon, |z|\leq \epsilon, f(x,y,z)=t\}$$ with $\gamma,\epsilon$ running over the value group $|(K^s)^*|$ of the absolute value on $K^s$ such that $\gamma,\epsilon \in (0,1)$ and $\gamma,\epsilon\to 1$. In the same way, $X=\overline{\pi^{-1}(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1})}$ is the inductive limit of $$X_{\gamma,\epsilon}:=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d: |x|< \gamma^{-1}, |y|\leq \gamma\epsilon, |z|\leq \epsilon, f(x,y,z)=t\}.$$
For each $\gamma\in |(K^s)^*|$, choose an element $\tau_{\gamma}$ in $\mathbb G_{m,\kappa}$ such that its corresponding element $\tau_{\gamma}$ in $\mathbb G_{m,\kappa}^{\text{an}}$ takes absolute value $\gamma$. Since $f(\tau_{\gamma} x, \tau_{\gamma}^{-1}y,z)=f(x,y,z)$, the following special $R$-algebras are isomorphic $$R\{\tau_{\gamma} x, \tau_{\gamma}^{-1} y,z\}/(f(x,y,z)-t)\cong R\{x,y,z\}/(f(x,y,z)-t).$$ Setting $$A_{\gamma}:=\left(\Big(\text{Spf} \frac{R\{\tau_{\gamma} x, \tau_{\gamma}^{-1} y,z\}}{(f(x,y,z)-t)}\Big)_{/\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}}\right)_{\overline{\eta}},$$ it is clear that $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\gamma}&=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d: |\tau_{\gamma} x|\leq 1, |\tau_{\gamma}^{-1} y|< 1, |z|< 1, f(x,y,z)=t\}\\
&=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d: |x|\leq \gamma^{-1}, |y|< \gamma, |z|< 1, f(x,y,z)=t\}\end{aligned}$$ and that all the spaces $A_{\gamma}$’s, with $\gamma\in |(K^s)^*|$, are analytically isomorphic. The latter implies an analytic isomorphism between any pair $(A_{\gamma}, A_{\gamma'})$ with $\gamma$, $\gamma'$ in $|(K^s)^*|$, and thus one can establish an inductive system $$\left\{\{A_{\gamma}\}, \{A_{\gamma}\to A_{\gamma'}\}_{\gamma<\gamma'} : \gamma, \gamma' \in |(K^s)^*|\cap (0,1)\right\}.$$ Then $A$ is exactly the inductive limit of this system $\{A_{\gamma}\}$ when $\gamma\to 1$. On the other hand, the space $\{y: |y|<\gamma\}$ is covered by the compact domains $\{z: |z|\leq \gamma\epsilon\}$ and the space $\{z: |z|<1\}$ is covered by the compact domains $\{z: |z|\leq \epsilon\}$ with $\epsilon\in |(K^s)^*|$ and $0< \epsilon <1$. Therefore $A$ can be viewed as the inductive limit of $A_{\gamma,\epsilon}$’s as above with $\gamma,\epsilon \in |(K^s)^*|\cap (0,1)$ and $\gamma,\epsilon\to 1$.
The inductive system of $X_{\gamma,\epsilon}$’s whose limit describes $X$ is defined by $X_{\gamma,\epsilon}:=A_{\gamma,\epsilon}\cap X$, transition morphisms induce from those in the system of $A_{\gamma,\epsilon}$’s.
We also remark that $D:=\overline{\pi_{\mathscr W}^{-1}(0)}$ is an open and locally compact analytic space, it can be covered by the following compact domains $$D_{\epsilon}:=\{z\in\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^{d_3}: |z|\leq \epsilon, f(0,0,z)=t\},\ \epsilon\in |(K^s)^*|\cap (0,1).$$
\[Ber\] Keeping the assumption of Theorem \[maintheorem\] and fixing a $\gamma\in |(K^s)^*|\cap (0,1)$, we have
\(i) $R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},R\psi_{\widehat{f}}F|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}})\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma_{X_{\gamma}}(A_{\gamma},F_{\gamma}^{\circ})$, $F_{\gamma}^{\circ}$ the pullback of $F\in \mathbf S(A)$ via $A_{\gamma}\cong A$.\
(ii) $(R\psi_{\widehat{f}_{\mathfrak Z }}G)_0\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma(D,G|_D)$, for $G\in\mathbf S(\mathfrak Z_{\overline{\eta}})$.
By the description of $A$ and $X$, there are isomorphisms of analytic spaces $A_{\gamma}\cong A$ and $X_{\gamma}\cong X$ for a fixed $\gamma$ in $|(K^s)^*|\cap (0,1)$. These together with (\[eq3\]), (\[eq4\]) and Lemma \[lem3.1\] imply (i). Also, (ii) follows from Corollary \[cormain\].
\[Bercor\] Keeping the assumption of Theorem \[maintheorem\] and fixing a $\gamma\in |(K^s)^*|\cap (0,1)$, we have (i) $R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},R\psi_{\widehat{f}}\mathbb Q_{\ell}|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}})\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma_{X_{\gamma}}(A_{\gamma},\mathbb Q_{\ell})$,\
(ii) $(R\psi_{\widehat{f}_{\mathfrak Z}}\mathbb Q_{\ell})_0\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma(D,\mathbb Q_{\ell})$.
Proof of Theorem \[maintheorem\] {#sec5}
================================
Using comparison theorem
------------------------
By Corollary \[Bercor\], there is a quasi-isomorphism of complexes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq10}
R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},R\psi_{\widehat{f}}\mathbb Q_{\ell}|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}})\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma_{X_{\gamma}}(A_{\gamma},\mathbb Q_{\ell}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is fixed in $|(K^s)^*|\cap (0,1)$, $A_{\gamma}$ is the analytic subspace of $\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d$ given by $|x|\leq \gamma^{-1}$, $|y|<\gamma$, $|z|<1$ and $f(x,y,z)=t$, and $X_{\gamma}$ is defined as $A_{\gamma}$ but with $|x|< \gamma^{-1}$ in stead of $|x|\leq \gamma^{-1}$. The space $A_{\gamma}$ is a paracompact $\widehat{K^s}$-analytic space which is a union of the following increasing sequence of compact domains $$A_{\gamma,\epsilon}:=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d: |x|\leq \gamma^{-1}, |y|\leq \gamma\epsilon, |z|\leq \epsilon, f(x,y,z)=t\},$$ for $\epsilon\in |(K^s)^*|\cap (0,1)$. The space $X_{\gamma}$ is covered by the corresponding increasing sequence $$X_{\gamma,\epsilon}=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d: |x|< \gamma^{-1}, |y|\leq \gamma\epsilon, |z|\leq \epsilon, f(x,y,z)=t\}.$$ Denote $B_{\gamma}:=A_{\gamma}\setminus X_{\gamma}$ and $B_{\gamma,\epsilon}:=A_{\gamma,\epsilon}\setminus X_{\gamma,\epsilon}$.
Let us consider $f^{\gamma}:=\widehat{f}_{\overline{\eta}}:A_{\gamma}\cong A\to \mathcal M(\widehat{K^s})$ and $f^{\gamma,\epsilon}$, the restriction of $f^{\gamma}$ to $A_{\gamma,\epsilon}$.
\[lem4.1\] For any $m\geq 1$ and $F\in\mathbf S(A_{\gamma})$, there is a canonical isomorphism of groups $$H^m_{X_{\gamma}}(A_{\gamma},F)\cong \projlim_{\epsilon\to 1}H^m_{X_{\gamma,\epsilon}}(A_{\gamma,\epsilon},F).$$
The functors $H^m_{X_{\gamma}}(A_{\gamma},-)$ are the derived functors of the global section functor $H^0_{X_{\gamma}}(A_{\gamma},-)$ defined by $$H^0_{X_{\gamma}}(A_{\gamma},F)=\ker(F(A_{\gamma})\to F(B_{\gamma})),$$ the kernel of the restriction homomorphism $F(A_{\gamma})\to F(B_{\gamma})$. Note that if $J$ is an injective abelian sheaf then the pullback of $J$ on $B_{\gamma}$ is acyclic and the homomorphism $J(A_{\gamma})\to J(B_{\gamma})$ is surjective. Take an injective resolution of $F$, namely $0\to F\to J^0\to J^1\to\cdots$, and consider the following commutative diagram $$\begin{CD}
0 \longrightarrow \ker(\alpha_0)@>d^0>> \ker(\alpha_1)@>d^1>> \ker(\alpha_2)&@>d^2>>\cdots\\
@VVV @VVV @VVV\\
0 \longrightarrow J^0(A_{\gamma})@>d_{A_{\gamma}}^0>> J^1(A_{\gamma})@>d_{A_{\gamma}}^1>> J^2(A_{\gamma})&@>d_{A_{\gamma}}^2>>\cdots\\
@VV\alpha_0V @VV\alpha_1V @VV\alpha_2V\\
0 \longrightarrow J^0(B_{\gamma})@>d_{B_{\gamma}}^0>> J^1(B_{\gamma})@>d_{B_{\gamma}}^1>> J^2(B_{\gamma})&@>d_{B_{\gamma}}^2>>\cdots
\end{CD}$$ Then we have $$H^m_{X_{\gamma}}(A_{\gamma},F)=\ker\big(H^m(A_{\gamma},F)\to H^m(B_{\gamma},F)\big)\cong \ker(d^m)/\text{im}(d^{m-1}).$$
Analogously, we consider the surjections, say, $\alpha_{m,\epsilon}: J^m(A_{\gamma,\epsilon})\to J^m(B_{\gamma,\epsilon})$. There is a commutative diagram as follows, in which every vertical arrow is surjective, $$\begin{CD}
0 \longrightarrow \ker(\alpha_0)@>d^0>> \ker(\alpha_1)@>d^1>> \ker(\alpha_2)&@>d^2>>\cdots\\
@VVV @VVV @VVV\\
0 \longrightarrow \ker(\alpha_{0,\epsilon})@>d_{\epsilon}^0>> \ker(\alpha_{1,\epsilon})@>d_{\epsilon}^1>> \ker(\alpha_{2,\epsilon})&@>d_{\epsilon}^2>>\cdots
\end{CD}$$ Here $H^m_{X_{\gamma,\epsilon}}(A_{\gamma,\epsilon},F)\cong \ker(d_{\epsilon}^m)/\text{im}(d_{\epsilon}^{m-1})$. Then we can use the arguments of [@Ber1 Lemma 6.3.12] to complete the proof. Note that in this situation the following condition is satisfied: For any $0<\epsilon<1$, for any $\epsilon<\epsilon',\epsilon^{\prime\prime}<1$, the image of $H^{m-1}_{X_{\gamma,\epsilon'}}(A_{\gamma,\epsilon'},F)$ and that of $H^{m-1}_{X_{\gamma,\epsilon^{\prime\prime}}}(A_{\gamma,\epsilon^{\prime\prime}},F)$ coincide in $H^{m-1}_{X_{\gamma,\epsilon}}(A_{\gamma,\epsilon},F)$ under the restriction homomorphisms (see [@Ber3 Lemma 7.4] for a similar argument).
Here is an important corollary of (\[eq10\]) and Lemma \[lem4.1\].
\[cor4.2\] There is a canonical quasi-isomorphism of complexes $$R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},R\psi_{\widehat{f}}\mathbb Q_{\ell}|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}})\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to}\projlim_{\epsilon\to 1}R\Gamma_{X_{\gamma,\epsilon}}(A_{\gamma,\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell}).$$
We deduce from (\[eq10\]) and properties of the mapping cone functor that $$\begin{aligned}
R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},R\psi_{\widehat{f}}\mathbb Q_{\ell}|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}})&\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma_{X_{\gamma}}(A_{\gamma},\mathbb Q_{\ell})\\
&\cong Rf^{\gamma}_*\text{Cone}\Big(\mathbb Q_{\ell}\to i_{B_{\gamma},A_{\gamma}*}i_{B_{\gamma},A_{\gamma}}^*\mathbb Q_{\ell}\Big)\\
&\cong \text{Cone}\Big(Rf^{\gamma}_*\mathbb Q_{\ell}\to R(f^{\gamma}|_{B_{\gamma}})_*\mathbb Q_{\ell}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ By the universality of the projective limit, there are canonical morphisms $$\begin{aligned}
Rf^{\gamma}_*\mathbb Q_{\ell}&\to \projlim_{\epsilon\to 1}Rf^{\gamma,\epsilon}_*\mathbb Q_{\ell},\\
R(f^{\gamma}|_{B_{\gamma}})_*\mathbb Q_{\ell}&\to \projlim_{\epsilon\to 1}R(f^{\gamma,\epsilon}|_{B_{\gamma,\epsilon}})_*\mathbb Q_{\ell}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the latter is induced from the former by restriction. Thus there is a canonical morphism of complexes $$\begin{aligned}
R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},R\psi_{\widehat{f}}\mathbb Q_{\ell}|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}})&\to \text{Cone}\Big(\projlim_{\epsilon\to 1}Rf^{\gamma,\epsilon}_*\mathbb Q_{\ell}\to \projlim_{\epsilon\to 1}R(f^{\gamma,\epsilon}|_{B_{\gamma,\epsilon}})_*\mathbb Q_{\ell}\Big)\\
&\cong \projlim_{\epsilon\to 1}\text{Cone}\Big(Rf^{\gamma,\epsilon}_*\mathbb Q_{\ell}\to R(f^{\gamma,\epsilon}|_{B_{\gamma,\epsilon}})_*\mathbb Q_{\ell}\Big)\\
&\cong \projlim_{\epsilon\to 1}R\Gamma_{X_{\gamma,\epsilon}}(A_{\gamma,\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell}).\end{aligned}$$ This morphism of complexes in fact induces the cohomological isomorphisms in Lemma \[lem4.1\].
The second part of Corollary \[Bercor\] asserts that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq11}
(R\psi_{\widehat{f}_{\mathfrak Z}}\mathbb Q_{\ell})_0\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma(D,\mathbb Q_{\ell}).\end{aligned}$$ The space $D$ is open and locally compact, which is covered by the compact domains $D_{\epsilon}=\{z\in\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^r: |z|\leq \epsilon, f(0,0,z)=t\}$, for $\epsilon\in |(K^s)^*|\cap (0,1)$. By [@Ber1 Lem. 6.3.12], there is a canonical isomorphism of cohomology groups $$H^m(D,\mathbb Q_{\ell})\cong \projlim_{\epsilon\to 1} H^m(D_{\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell})$$ for any $m\geq 0$. Thus by the same arguments as in the proof of Corollary \[cor4.2\], one deduces from (\[eq11\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq70}
(R\psi_{\widehat{f}_{\mathfrak Z}}\mathbb Q_{\ell})_0\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} \projlim_{\epsilon\to 1} R\Gamma(D_{\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell}).\end{aligned}$$ (Compare this with [@Ber3 Lem. 7.4].)
Using Künneth isomorphism
-------------------------
We now use the Künneth isomorphism for cohomology with compact support mentioned in Proposition \[prop2.2\], (iii). To begin, we write $A_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ as a disjoint union $A_{\gamma,\epsilon}=A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}\sqcup A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ of analytic spaces $$\begin{aligned}
A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}&:=\{(x,y,z)\in A_{\gamma,\epsilon}: |x||y|=0\},\\
A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}&:=\{(x,y,z)\in A_{\gamma,\epsilon}: |x||y|\not=0\}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, one can write $X_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ as a disjoint union of analytic spaces $$\begin{aligned}
X^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}&:=\{(x,y,z)\in X_{\gamma,\epsilon}: |x||y|=0\},\\
X^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}&:=\{(x,y,z)\in X_{\gamma,\epsilon}: |x||y|\not=0\}.\end{aligned}$$
Observe that we can write $X^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ as the product $Y^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}\times D_{\epsilon}$ with $D_{\epsilon}$ as in Subsection \[AXD\] and $Y^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}:=\{(x,y)\in \mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^{d_1+d_2}: |x||y|=0, |x|< \gamma^{-1}, |y|\leq \gamma\epsilon\}$. By the compactness of $A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}$, $D_{\epsilon}$, and by the Künneth isomorphism, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq12}
R\Gamma_{X^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}}(A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell}) \cong R\Gamma_c(X^0_{\gamma,\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell})&\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma_c(Y^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}, \mathbb Q_{\ell})\otimes R\Gamma_c(D_{\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell})\notag\\
&\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma_c(Y^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}, \mathbb Q_{\ell})\otimes R\Gamma(D_{\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell}).
$$
Decompose $Y^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ into a disjoint union of $Y^{0,1}_{\gamma,\epsilon}:=\{(x,0)\in \mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^{d_1+d_2}: |x|< \gamma^{-1}\}$ and $Y^{0,2}_{\gamma,\epsilon}:=\{(0,y)\in \mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^{d_1+d_2}: 0<|y|\leq \gamma\epsilon\}$.
\[lem5.1\] (i) $R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}, \mathbb Q_{\ell}) \stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma_c(Y^{0,1}_{\gamma,\epsilon} ,\mathbb Q_{\ell})$; (ii) $R\Gamma_c(Y^{0,2}_{\gamma,\epsilon} ,\mathbb Q_{\ell})\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} 0$;
\(iii) $R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}, \mathbb Q_{\ell})\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma_c(Y^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}, \mathbb Q_{\ell})$.
\(i) For notational simplicity, let $F$ denote both constant sheaves $\mathbb Z/\ell^n\mathbb Z$ on $\mathbb A_{K^s}^{d_1}$ and on $\mathbb A_{K^s}^{d_1,\text{an}}=\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^{d_1}$. The comparison theorem for cohomology with compact support [@Ber1 Thm. 7.1.1] gives an isomorphism of groups $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ss}
H_c^m(\mathbb A_{K^s}^{d_1}, F)\cong H_c^m(\mathbb A_{K^s}^{d_1,\text{an}},F),\end{aligned}$$ for any $m\geq 0$. Let $V=\mathbb A_{K^s}^{d_1,\text{an}}\setminus Y^{0,1}_{\gamma,\epsilon}$. By Proposition 5.2.6 (ii) of [@Ber1] (notice that Proposition \[prop2.2\] (ii) is the $\ell$-adic version of this result), we have an exact sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sequence}
\cdots\to H_c^m(V,F)\to H_c^{m+1}(Y^{0,1}_{\gamma,\epsilon},F)\to H_c^{m+1}(\mathbb A_{K^s}^{d_1,\text{an}},F)\to H_c^{m+1}(V,F)\to\cdots.\end{aligned}$$ We shall prove that $H_c^m(V,F)=0$ for every $m$.
Let us choose an [*open*]{} covering $\{\mathscr V_i\}_{i\in \mathbb N}$ of $V=\mathbb A_{K^s}^{d_1,\text{an}}\setminus Y^{0,1}_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ defined as follows: $$\mathscr V_i:=\{x\in \mathbb A_{K^s}^{d_1,\text{an}}: \gamma^{-1}\leq |x|<\gamma_i\},$$ where $\gamma^{-1}<\gamma_i<\gamma_j$ for every $i<j$. Choose an analogous [*open*]{} covering $\{\mathscr V_{ijl}\}_{l\in \mathbb N}$ of $\mathscr V_i\cap \mathscr V_j$ for each pair $i,j$. Let $\alpha_i$ and $\alpha_{ijl}$ be the open embeddings $\mathscr V_i\to V$ and $\mathscr V_{ijl}\to V$, respectively. Then the following exact sequence $$\bigoplus_{i,j,l}\alpha_{ijl!}(F_{\mathscr V_{ijl}})\to \bigoplus_i\alpha_{i!}(F_{\mathscr V_i})\to F_V\to 0$$ induces a exact sequence $$\bigoplus_{i,j,l}H_c^m(\mathscr V_{ijl},F)\to \bigoplus_iH_c^m(\mathscr V_i,F)\to H_c^m(V,F)\to 0.$$ The étale cohomology groups with compact support $H_c^m(\mathscr V_{ijl},F)$ and $H_c^m(\mathscr V_i,F)$ clearly vanish for $m\geq 0$, thus $H_c^m(V,F)=0$ for $m\geq 0$. By (\[sequence\]), one has $H_c^m(\mathbb A_{K^s}^{d_1,\text{an}},F)\cong H_c^m(Y^{0,1}_{\gamma,\epsilon},F)$ for $m\geq 0$, which together with (\[ss\]) implies that $H_c^m(\mathbb A_{K^s}^{d_1}, F)\cong H_c^m(Y^{0,1}_{\gamma,\epsilon},F)$ for $m\geq 0$. Now, since $\kappa$ is algebraically closed and $K^s$ is separably closed (for fields of characteristic zero the concepts “algebraically closed” and “separably closed” coincide), applying a result of SGA$4\frac 1 2$ [@SGA Cor. 3.3], for $m\geq 0$, $H_c^m(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},F)\cong H_c^m(\mathbb A_{K^s}^{d_1},F)$. Therefore $$H_c^m(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},F)\cong H_c^m(Y^{0,1}_{\gamma,\epsilon},F), \ m\geq 0,$$ hence the $\ell$-adic version, namely, $H_c^m(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},\mathbb Q_{\ell})\cong H_c^m(Y^{0,1}_{\gamma,\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell})$ for $m\geq 0$.
\(ii) Let us denote by $F$ the constant sheaf $\mathbb Z/\ell^n\mathbb Z$, and consider the closed immersion $\mathcal M(\widehat{K^s})\to \mathcal M(\widehat{K^s}\{\gamma^{-1}y\})$ of $\widehat{K^s}$-analytic spaces. By [@Ber1 Cor. 4.3.2], there is an isomorphism of groups $$H^m(\mathcal M(\widehat{K^s}),F)\cong H^m(\mathcal M(\widehat{K^s}\{\gamma^{-1}y\}),F)$$ for each $m\geq 0$. This leads an isomorphism of groups in the $\ell$-adic cohomology. Thus using the exact sequence in Proposition \[prop2.2\] (ii), we have $H_c(Y^{0,2}_{\gamma,\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell})=0$.
\(iii) follows from (i) and (ii).
The final step of the proof
---------------------------
The aim of this subsection is to prove the following $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq80}
R\Gamma_{X_{\gamma,\epsilon}}(A_{\gamma,\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell})\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma_{X^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}}(A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell}).\end{aligned}$$ Assume the quasi-isomorphism (\[eq80\]). Then there are quasi-isomorphisms of complexes, due to Corollary \[cor4.2\], (\[eq80\]), (\[eq12\]) and Lemma \[lem5.1\], $$\begin{aligned}
R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1},R\psi_{\widehat{f}}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}|_{\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}})&\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} \projlim_{\epsilon\to 1} \Big(R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}, \mathbb Q_{\ell}){\otimes} R\Gamma(D_{\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell})\Big)\\
&\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R\Gamma_c(\mathbb A_{\kappa}^{d_1}, \mathbb Q_{\ell}){\otimes} \projlim_{\epsilon\to 1} R\Gamma(D_{\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell}).\end{aligned}$$ This together with (\[eq70\]) implies Theorem \[maintheorem\].
To process a proof for (\[eq80\]), we write $R\Gamma_{X_{\gamma,\epsilon}}(A_{\gamma,\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell})$ and $R\Gamma_{X^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}}(A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell})$ in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
R\Gamma_{X_{\gamma,\epsilon}}(A_{\gamma,\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell})&\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} Rf^{\gamma,\epsilon}_*\text{Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell,A_{\gamma,\epsilon}}\to i_{B_{\gamma,\epsilon},A_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell,B_{\gamma,\epsilon}}),\\
R\Gamma_{X^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}}(A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon},\mathbb Q_{\ell})&\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R(f^{\gamma,\epsilon}|_{A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}})_*\text{Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell,A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}}\to i_{B^0_{\gamma,\epsilon},A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell,B^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}:=\{(x,y,z)\in A_{\gamma,\epsilon}: |x||y|=0\}$ and $B^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}:=B_{\gamma,\epsilon}\cap A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}$. To abuse notation we shall use from now on $\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$ in stead of $\mathbb{Q}_{\ell,A_{\gamma,\epsilon}}$, $\mathbb{Q}_{\ell,B_{\gamma,\epsilon}}$, $\mathbb{Q}_{\ell,A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}}$ or $\mathbb{Q}_{\ell,B^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}}$.
\[finaltheorem\] With the previous notation and hypotheses, there is a canonical quasi-isomorphism of complexes $$Rf^{\gamma,\epsilon}_*\text{\rm Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to i_{B_{\gamma,\epsilon},A_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} R(f^{\gamma,\epsilon}|_{A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}})_*\text{\rm Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to i_{B^0_{\gamma,\epsilon},A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}).$$
The space $A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}:=\{(x,y,z)\in A_{\gamma,\epsilon}: |x||y|\not=0\}$ together with $A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ composing a disjoint union of $A_{\gamma,\epsilon}$, there exists a canonical exact triangle $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cet}
\to R\overline{f}^{\gamma,\epsilon}_!\text{Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to i_{B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon},A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})\to Rf^{\gamma,\epsilon}_*\text{Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to i_{B_{\gamma,\epsilon},A_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})\notag\\
\to \quad R(f^{\gamma,\epsilon}|_{A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon}})_*\text{Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to i_{B^0_{\gamma,\epsilon},A^0_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})\to,\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{f}^{\gamma,\epsilon}:=f^{\gamma,\epsilon}|_{A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}}$ and $B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}:=B_{\gamma,\epsilon}\cap A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}$. We are going to verify the following $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tozero}
R\overline{f}^{\gamma,\epsilon}_!\text{Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to i_{B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon},A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})\stackrel{\text{qis}}{\to} 0.\end{aligned}$$
Let us consider the action of $\mathbb G_{m,\widehat{K^s}}^{\text{an} }$ on $\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d$ given by $\tau\cdot (x,y,z)=(\tau x,\tau^{-1}y,z)$ for $\tau\in\mathbb G_{m,\widehat{K^s}}^{\text{an} }$ and $(x,y,z)\in\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d$. This $\mathbb G_{m,\widehat{K^s}}^{\text{an} }$-action is free, since $\tau\cdot (x,y,z)=(x,y,z)$ if and only if $\tau=1$. Each orbit of the action on $A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ has the following form $$\mathbb G_{m,\widehat{K^s}}^{\text{an} }\cdot(x,y,z)\cap A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}=\{(\tau x,\tau^{-1}y,z): \gamma^{-1}\epsilon^{-1}|y|\leq |\tau|\leq \gamma^{-1}|x|^{-1}\}$$ for $(x,y,z)\in A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}$. Also, an orbit of $\mathbb G_{m,\widehat{K^s}}^{\text{an} }$-action on $B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ is of the form $$\mathbb G_{m,\widehat{K^s}}^{an}\cdot(x,y,z)\cap B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}=\{(\tau x,\tau^{-1}y,z): |\tau|=\gamma^{-1}|x|^{-1}\}$$ for $(x,y,z)\in B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}$. Furthermore, the $\mathbb G_{m,\widehat{K^s}}^{\text{an} }$-action has the following
Every orbit on $\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d$ intersects with $A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ in a closed annulus $C$ and with $B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ in a thin annulus contained in $C$.
Let $\mathcal P$ be the space of orbits of $\mathbb G_{m,\widehat{K^s}}^{\text{an} }$-action on $\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d$. By Lemma \[fl\], $\mathcal P$ admits an obvious structure of a $\widehat{K^s}$-analytic space. The property (\*) deduces that the restriction maps of the natural projection onto $\mathcal P$ on $A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}$ and on $B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}$, say, $a: A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}\to \mathcal P$ and $b: B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}\to \mathcal P$, are surjective. We remark that $\overline{f}^{\gamma,\epsilon}$ and $\overline{f}^{\gamma,\epsilon}|_{B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon}}$ factor through $a$ and $b$, respectively. Since one has a spectral sequence (the Leray spectral sequence, see Berkovich [@Ber1 Thm. 5.2.2]) $$H_c^n(\mathcal P,R^ma_!\text{Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to i_{B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon},A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})) \Rightarrow R^{n+m}\overline{f}^{\gamma,\epsilon}_!\text{Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to i_{B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon},A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}),$$ it suffices to verify that $Ra_!\text{Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to i_{B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon},A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})$ is quasi-isomorphic to $0$. Let us consider the following exact triangle of complexes on $\mathcal P$: $$\to Ra_!\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to Rb_!\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to Ra_!\text{Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to i_{B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon},A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})[+1]\to.$$ Applying the Berkovich’s weak base change theorem [@Ber1 Thm. 5.3.1], we have $$\begin{aligned}
(R^ma_!\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})_{\lambda}\cong H_c^m(a^{-1}(\lambda),\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}),\quad (R^mb_!\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})_{\lambda}\cong H_c^m(b^{-1}(\lambda),\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})\end{aligned}$$ for $\lambda\in\mathcal P$ and $m\geq 0$. The embedding of the thin annulus $b^{-1}(\lambda)$ into the closed annulus $a^{-1}(\lambda)$ inducing an isomorphism on étale cohomology (here since $a^{-1}(\lambda)$ and $b^{-1}(\lambda)$ are compact, their étale cohomology and étale cohomology with compact support are the same), we obtain $(R^ma_!\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})_{\lambda}\cong (R^mb_!\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})_{\lambda}$. In other words, for $\lambda\in\mathcal P$ and $m\geq 0$, $$R^ma_!\text{Cone} (\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\to i_{B^1_{\gamma,\epsilon},A^1_{\gamma,\epsilon} *}\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})_{\lambda}\cong 0.$$ This prove (\[tozero\]), which together with (\[cet\]) implies the theorem.
\[fl\] There is a natural structure of an analytic space on the quotient $$\mathcal P=(\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^{d_1+d_2}\setminus\{0\})\times \mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^{d_3}/\mathbb G_{m,K^s}^{\text{an}}.$$
We endow $\mathcal P$ with the quotient topology, then obviously it is a compact Hausdorff space. The construction of analytic structure on $\mathcal P$ is analogous to that of the projective analytic spaces $\mathbb P_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d$, where the natural $\mathbb G_{m,\widehat{K^s}}^{\text{an} }$-action on $\mathbb A_{\widehat{K^s},\text{Ber}}^d$ is replaced by the $\mathbb G_{m,\widehat{K^s}}^{\text{an} }$-action given by $\tau\cdot(x,y,z)=(\tau x, \tau^{-1}y,z)$, which is also free. See [@Tem] for the construction in detail of $\mathbb P_{K,\text{Ber}}^d$.
[9999]{} , [*Spectral theory and analytic geometry over non-archimedian fields*]{}, [Mathematical Surveys and Monograph]{} [vol. 33]{}, [Amer. Math. Soc.]{}, Providence, RI, 1990. , [*Étale cohomology for non-Archimedean analytic spaces*]{}, [Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Étud. Sci.]{} [**78**]{} (1993), 5-171. , [*Vanishing cycles for formal schemes*]{}, [Invent. Math.]{} [**115**]{}(3) (1994), 539-571. , [*Vanishing cycles for formal schemes II*]{}, [Invent. Math.]{} [**125**]{}(2) (1996), 367-390. , [*Vanishing cycles for non-achimedean analytic spaces*]{}, [J. Amer. Math. Soc.]{} [**9**]{}(4) (1996), 1187-1209. , [*Cohomologie étale*]{}, Lectures Notes in Math. [**569**]{} (1977), Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, Springer. , [*Germs of arcs on singular algebraic varieties and motivic integration*]{}, [Invent. Math.]{} [**135**]{} (1999), 201-232. , [*Geometry on arc spaces of algebraic varieties*]{}, [Progr. Math.]{} [**201**]{} (2001), 327-348. , [*Étale cohomology of schemes and analytic spaces*]{}, [Note de cours de l’école d’été de juillet 2010 du projet ANR Espaces de Berkovich]{}. , [*Éléments de Géométrie Algébrique: I. Le langage des Schémas*]{}, [Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Étud. Sci.]{} [**4**]{} (1960), 5-228. , [*Monodromy and the Lefschetz fixed point formula*]{}, [arXiv:1111.1954]{}\[math.AG\], \[math.LO\] [8 Nov 2011]{}. , [*Stability structures, motivic Donalson-Thomas invariants and cluster tranformations*]{}, [arXiv: 0811.2435vl]{}\[math.AG\] [16 Nov 2008]{}. , [*Motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants: summary of results*]{}, [arXiv: 0910.4315v2]{} \[math.AG\] [7 Feb 2010]{}. , [*On a conjecture of Kontsevich and Soibelman*]{}, [Algebra & Number Theory]{} [**6**]{} (2012), no. 2, 389-404. , [*Motivic Serre invariants, ramification, and the analytic Milnor fiber*]{}, [Invent. Math.]{} [**168**]{} (1) (2007), 133–173. , [*Desingularization of quasi-excellent schemes in characteristic zero*]{}, [Adv. Math.]{} [**219**]{} (2008), no. 2, [488–522]{}. , [*Introduction to Berkovich analytic spaces*]{}, [preprint ]{}, [52 pages]{}. , [*Derived Hall algebras*]{}, [Duke Math. J.]{} [**135**]{} (3) (2006), 587-615.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the results of a submillimeter survey of 53 low-mass dense cores with the Submillimeter High Angular Resolution Camera II (SHARC-II). The survey is a follow-up project to the *Spitzer* Legacy Program “From Molecular Cores to Planet-Forming Disks”, with the purpose being to create a complete data set of nearby low-mass dense cores from the infrared to the millimeter. We present maps of 52 cores at 350 $\mu$m and three cores at 450 $\mu$m, two of which were observed at both wavelengths. Of these 52 cores, 41 were detected by SHARC-II: 32 contained one submillimeter source while 9 contained multiple sources. For each submillimeter source detected, we report various source properties including source position, fluxes in various apertures, size, aspect ratio, and position angle. For the 12 cores that were not detected we present upper limits. The sources detected by SHARC-II have, on average, smaller sizes at the 2$\sigma$ contours than those derived from longer-wavelength bolometer observations. We conclude that this is not caused by a failure to integrate long enough to detect the full extent of the core; instead it arises primarily from the fact that the observations presented in this survey are insensitive to smoothly varying extended emission. We find that SHARC-II observations of low-mass cores are much better suited to distinguishing between starless and protostellar cores than observations at longer wavelengths. Very Low Luminosity Objects, a new class of objects being discovered by the *Spitzer Space Telescope* in cores previously classified as starless, look very similar at 350 [$\mu$m]{} to other cores with more luminous protostars.'
author:
- 'Jingwen Wu, Michael M. Dunham, Neal J. Evans II, Tyler L. Bourke, and Chadwick H. Young'
title: '**SHARC-II mapping of Spitzer c2d Small Clouds and Cores**'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Many questions remain concerning the formation of low-mass stars despite several decades of study. One of the primary reasons is that stars form in extremely dense regions of dust and gas, obscuring nearly all the light emitted in the optical portion of the spectrum. In the near- and mid-infrared the opacities of the dust grains are low enough that light can begin to escape. Thus, images at these wavelengths can reveal the central object (a protostar and possibly a circumstellar disk). The *Spitzer Space Telescope* Legacy project “From Molecular Cores to Planet-Forming Disks” (c2d; Evans et al. 2003) has carried out a survey of low-mass dense cores with the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC; Fazio et al. 2004) and the Multiband Imaging Photometer (MIPS; Rieke et al. 2004), providing images ranging from 3.6 to 70 $\mu$m. *Spitzer* is much more sensitive than previous space infrared missions, providing an ability to detect fainter, less-luminous sources than was possible with previous infrared surveys. In fact, *Spitzer* c2d observations have shown that several cores believed to be starless (containing no protostars) actually harbor Very Low Luminosity Objects (VeLLOs) with internal luminosities[^1] $L_{int} \leq 0.1$ (e.g. Young et al. 2004, Di Francesco et al. 2006). Infrared images can reveal a wealth of information about the internal sources embedded in dense cores, but the infrared alone does not tell the whole story.
To fully understand the process of low-mass star formation and the nature of embedded protostars, one must understand the details of the dusty envelopes in which they are embedded. Even though these envelopes are usually quite cold ($\sim$ 10 K; e.g. Di Francesco et al. 2006), except for the inner regions where they are heated by the internal source, their thermal emission can easily be detected at submillimeter and millimeter wavelengths. Complementary surveys are obtaining continuum observations at 850 $\mu$m with the Submillimetre Common User’s Bolometer Array (SCUBA) at the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) (Young et al. 2006), at 1.2 mm with with the Max Planck Millimeter Bolometer (MAMBO) at the IRAM 30 meter telescope (J. Kauffmann et al. 2006, in preparation), and also at 1.2 mm with the SEST Imaging Bolometer Array (SIMBA) at the Swedish ESO Submillimeter Telescope (SEST) (K. Brede et al. 2006, in preparation). SCUBA also provides observations at 450 [$\mu$m]{}, although often of much lower quality. However, since the peak of a 15 K blackbody occurs at 340 $\mu$m, a reliable measurement that is close to this wavelength and fills the gap between 70 $\mu$m (*Spitzer*) and 850 $\mu$m (SCUBA) is essential to constrain the peak of the Spectral Energy Distributions (SEDs) of these objects. The MIPS instrument aboard *Spitzer* can also provide images at 160 $\mu$m, but such data are unavailable for many of the low-mass cores of interest. Thus, SHARC-II, with its capability to provide high-quality data at 350 $\mu$m, is ideally suited to fill this gap.
SHARC-II is a background-limited 350 and 450 $\mu$m facility camera mounted on the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory (CSO) at Mauna Kea, Hawaii (Dowell et al. 2002). It adopts the advanced “CCD-style” bolometer array with 12 $\times$ 32 pixels, resulting in a 259 $\times$ 097 field of view. SHARC-II features relatively high angular resolution: it has a beam size of 85 at 350 $\mu$m and $\sim$11$\arcsec$ at 450 $\mu$m with good focus and pointing. Since the atmospheric transmission is very sensitive to the weather at the higher frequencies at which SHARC-II operates, it only works well in very dry weather. Under optimal weather conditions ($\tau_{225\ GHz} < 0.05$), SHARC-II can reach an RMS noise of 25 mJy beam$^{-1}$ in one hour of integration at 350 $\mu$m.
Because SHARC-II achieves optimum performance at 350 $\mu$m, a wavelength at which high-quality data is often difficult to obtain, and because the peak of a 15 K blackbody occurs closer to 350 $\mu$m than 450 $\mu$m, we mapped our sources at 350 $\mu$m. We also present three sources that were mapped at 450 $\mu$m. In this paper, we present the basic data of this survey, including images and source properties, in a manner that is consistent with other papers presenting submillimeter and millimeter continuum data on the c2d cores and clouds. We leave a detailed analysis combining all available data on these objects to later papers. §\[obs\] discusses the observations, §\[reduction\] details the data reduction, §\[results\] discusses the preliminary results of this survey, §\[starless\] discusses the differences between SHARC-II maps of cores with and without protostars embedded within them, and §\[conclusions\] presents our conclusions.
Observations {#obs}
============
Target Selection {#targets}
----------------
The first column of Table \[info\] lists each core observed, in order of Right Ascension. This survey is designed to provide a complementary dataset to the c2d observations of low-mass dense cores; thus most of our targets are selected from the list of cores observed by that project. For the earlier observation runs that occurred before the *Spitzer* data was available, we chose what we believed to be the most scientifically interesting cores from the Molecular Cloud Cores Database[^2], created by members of the c2d team at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center of Astrophysics (CfA). However, not all of these cores made the final *Spitzer* target list, so some of the cores in our sample do not have corresponding *Spitzer* data. Once the *Spitzer* data became available, we focused on cores found to be interesting and worthy of follow-up submillimeter observations. In addition to the observations of dense cores, c2d also obtained maps of five large molecular clouds and IRS data on a number of sources, and some of our targets are drawn from these two projects. Finally, some targets are chosen from cores observed in both a number of follow-up *Spitzer* General Observer (GO) programs and by other observers with Guaranteed Time Observations (GTO) data.
Consequently, this survey is certainly not unbiased. The primary criteria for selecting sources from the various projects were as follows: (1) provide complementary data to the *Spitzer* c2d data, (2) create as much overlap as possible between the various programs obtaining complementary data at submillimeter and millimeter wavelengths, and (3) obtain submillimeter observations of the most scientifically interesting cores. Regarding the second criterion, Table \[overlap\] lists whether or not each core observed in this survey is included in surveys with SCUBA (850 [$\mu$m]{}; Young et al. 2006), MAMBO (1.2 mm; J. Kauffmann et al. 2006, in preparation), and SIMBA (1.2 mm; K. Brede et al. 2006, in preparation), as well as a complementary program to obtain $\sim$1 resolution [N$_2$H$^+$]{} (1-0) and CS (2-1) maps with the Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory (FCRAO; C. De Vries et al. 2006, in preparation) and a project to construct radiative transfer models of starless cores using 450 and 850 [$\mu$m]{} data from the SCUBA archive (Y. Shirley et al. 2006, in preparation). This is by no means a complete list of projects in which continuum and molecular line data on these cores can be found, especially for the cores in Perseus since many recent studies have focused on that region (e.g., Enoch et al. 2006; Kirk et al. 2006); it is only meant to compare the cores observed in this survey with other, complementary programs currently in progress.
As of November 2005, we have mapped 52 cores at 350 $\mu$m and three at 450 $\mu$m, two of which were observed at both wavelengths. Out of the 53 unique cores observed here, 18 are included in the SCUBA survey, 16 are included in the MAMBO survey, 6 are included in the SIMBA survey, 18 are included in the FCRAO survey, and 7 are included in the radiative transfer modeling project by Y. Shirley et al. (2006, in preparation).
Observations {#subobs}
------------
Observations were conducted in May and September of 2003, June and September of 2004, and March, June and November of 2005 at the CSO. We used the sweep mode of SHARC-II without chopping to observe all our sources. In this mode the telescope moves in a Lissajous pattern that keeps the central regions of the maps fully sampled. Beyond this region of uniform coverage, the integration time per position decreases smoothly from the center outward. According to information presented on the SHARC-II webpage[^3], this mode works best for sources with sizes less than or comparable to the size of the array. During all of our observations except those obtained in June 2005, the Dish Surface Optimization System (DSOS[^4]) was used to correct the dish surface figure for gravitational deformations as the dish moves in elevation during observations. For the June 2005 observations, an equipment malfunction caused the DSOS to correct all observations for a zenith angle of $49\mbox{$^{\circ}$}$ (where the zenith angle is defined to be $90\mbox{$^{\circ}$}-\mathrm{elevation}$), regardless of the actual zenith angle of the observations. The effects of this on our results are discussed in §\[results\].
Table \[info\] lists, for each core observed in this survey, the coordinates of the center of the map, the adopted distance to the core, the project from which the core was selected, the date(s) the core was observed, and the 1$\sigma$ RMS noise of the map, in units of both mJy beam$^{-1}$ and beam$^{-1}$. The coordinates of the map centers were taken from either the positions of interesting objects in the *Spitzer* observations (if available), the location of molecular emission peaks from literature (e.g., Lee et al. 2001; Caselli et al. 2002), or positions suggested by collaborators to optimize the mapping coverage. The B59 core consists of a cluster of low mass sources, and in this survey we only observed the one that is most likely associated with B59-MMS1 (Reipurth et al. 1996; Brooke et al. 2006). Integrations on each source were separated into blocks of ten minutes in stable weather or five minutes in unstable (variable) weather. The pointing was checked every 1-2 hours each night, primarily with planets such as Mars, Uranus, and Neptune. If no planets were available we used secondary objects such as CRL618, IRC+10216, and IRAS 16293-2422. After averaging over all the runs, the blind pointing uncertainty is 21 for azimuth and 31 for zenith angle. But since we corrected the pointing after each check, these actually represent upper limits. For any given observation, the pointing uncertainty should be smaller than this. The pointing sources were also used as flux calibrators (see Section \[cal\]). The RMS noise of each map was calculated based on the statistics of the off-source regions of the maps.
Data Reduction and Calibration {#reduction}
==============================
Data Reduction {#subreduction}
--------------
All of the raw scans were reduced with the Comprehensive Reduction Utility for SHARC-II (CRUSH), a publicly available[^5], Java-based software package. CRUSH iteratively solves a series of models that attempt to reproduce the observations, taking into account both instrumental and atmospheric effects (e.g., Beelen et al. 2006). To first order, sky emission is subtracted by removing emission common to all bolometers (see Enoch et al. 2006 for a discussion of this process in relation to the Bolocam bolometer array at the CSO). Observations obtained through the end of 2004 were reduced with version 1.35 of CRUSH, while observations taken in 2005 were reduced with version 1.40a9-2. We tested the two versions by reducing several sources with both version 1.35 and version 1.40a9-2 and found the results to be consistent between the two versions of the reduction software.
As mentioned above, the Lissajous scan pattern results in a map with less integration time per pixel as the distance from the center of the map increases. Thus, the map is better sampled in the center than at the edges, resulting in noise at the edges that can be mistaken for real emission. To compensate for this, we used “imagetool,” a tool available as part of the CRUSH package, to eliminate the regions of each map that had a total integration time less than 25% of the maximum. This eliminates most, but not all, of the spurious edge emission.
After removing the poorly sampled map edges, we used Starlink’s “stats” package to assess the 1$\sigma$ RMS noise of the map, calculated using all of the pixels in the off-source regions. Because this calculation includes all off-source pixels with total integration time greater than 25% of the maximum, the RMS noise can be biased by the pixels with total integration times only slightly greater than 25% of the maximum. To investigate this, we used the feature of GAIA[^6] that allows for the calculation of statistics in any user-defined region to assess the RMS noise of off-source pixels in the most well-sampled regions possible. We conclude that the 1$\sigma$ RMS in the fully-sampled, central regions of the maps may be up to a factor of two lower than the values presented in Table \[info\], but because the integration time (and thus the noise) varies smoothly in these maps, the values given in Table \[info\] represent the best estimate of the noise over the full map. Finally, we used the derived RMS of each map to create contour maps overlaid on greyscale images for each core, and we present these in Figures \[f1\]-\[f9\] for the cores observed at 350 [$\mu$m]{} and in Figure \[f450\] for those observed at 450 [$\mu$m]{}. Contours start at $2\sigma$ and increase by $2\sigma$ unless otherwise indicated. We arrange the images in alphabetical order rather than by Right Ascension to make a specific map easier to find.
Calibration {#cal}
-----------
To measure the flux densities of the sources in a given aperture in units of Jy (as opposed to the instrument units of nV), we have calculated Flux Conversion Factors (FCF) for each aperture. A brief description of the calibration method, explained in greater detail in Shirley et al. (2000), is as follows. The FCF for an aperture of diameter $\theta$, C$_{\theta}$, is defined to be the total flux density of a calibrator source (a source with a known flux density at the wavelength of the observations) in Jy divided by the flux density in the same aperture of that calibrator in the instrument units. Since CRUSH includes an atmospheric correction, the flux density of a source in a given aperture is then obtained by simply multiplying the flux of the source in that aperture, in the instrument units, by the FCF for that aperture. A set of standard apertures is adopted for all of the papers presenting complementary millimeter and submillimeter data to the c2d project: 20, 40, 80, and 120. Only the two smallest apertures, 20$\arcsec$ and 40$\arcsec$, are used for this survey since these observations are not sensitive to large-scale, smoothly varying extended emission (see §\[2sig\] and §\[models\]). We used Starlink’s “aperadd” package to measure the flux densities in instrument units in these apertures for both the sources and the calibrators.
In addition to the aperture FCFs, C$_{20}$ and C$_{40}$, we also calculate C$_{beam}$, the FCF for one beam (necessary for expressing both the peak flux of each source and the 1$\sigma$ RMS of the maps in units of Jy beam$^{-1}$). Similar to the aperture FCFs, we calculated C$_{beam}$ by dividing the flux density of a calibrator in one beam by the value of the peak pixel of the map in the instrument units. The flux density of the calibrator in one beam, S$_{beam}$, was calculated by assuming a gaussian beam.
Over the various observing runs, we used Mars, Uranus, and Neptune as calibrators. As described above, we also used several secondary calibrators to check the pointing when none of the planets were available. While they are adequate for checking the pointing, we did not use them as calibrators both because their flux densities are not as well known as for the planets and because they are not as bright as the planets and thus produce larger measurement uncertainties. Table \[caltable\] presents C$_{beam}$, C$_{20}$, C$_{40}$ for each observation of one of the three planets listed above. Table \[caltable2\] lists the average and standard deviation of the FCFs for each run. It is clear from these tables that the FCFs are consistent both within and between each run. We were unable to observe any of these three planets in March 2005, but since the FCFs are seen to be consistent between the various observing runs, we used the average FCFs over all of the runs (listed in Table \[caltable2\]) to calibrate data taken during this run. Based on the variation in FCF values from one observation to the next, we assign a 15% calibration uncertainty to all of our data. We investigated whether or not the beam sidelobe structure results in any dependence on the FCF values with the size of the calibrator, as the calibrators used here varied in size from $\sim 2.3$ (Neptune) to greater than 10 (Mars). No significant variation is seen, and if such a variation is present at all, it is dominated by the 15% calibration uncertainty.
Results
=======
The SHARC-II maps are oversampled, with pixel sizes three times smaller than those of a Nyquist sampled map. We have used these oversampled maps to derive the properties listed in Table \[properties1\]: the Barycenter position[^7], flux densities in 20 and 40 diameter apertures (S$_{20}$ and S$_{40}$, respectively), peak position, distance between Barycenter and peak positions ($\delta_{pk}$), and peak flux for each submillimeter source detected by SHARC-II. For cores with no sources detected, we list the 3$\sigma$ upper limit in each aperture. The Barycenter position is derived by extracting sources using Starlink’s Extractor, which is based on SExtractor (Bertin 2003). Extractor locates all sources above a specified intensity level, fits an ellipse to each source found, and calculates both the area ($A=\pi ab$, where a and b are the semi-major and semi-minor axes, respectively) and the aspect ratio of the ellipse ($\epsilon = a/b$). The Barycenter position is derived by extracting sources at the 2$\sigma$ contours. The flux densities and peak flux are derived as described in §\[cal\], and the peak position is located by determining the position of the peak pixel. The flux density uncertainties include components from both the measurement uncertainty and a 15% calibration uncertainty, added in quadrature. The uncertainty in peak flux also includes a 15% calibration uncertainty. The last column of Table \[properties1\] lists whether or not each submillimeter source is associated with a *Spitzer* source (see §\[embedded\]). The peak fluxes (as well as the RMS noise of each map listed in Table \[info\]) are given in units of Jy beam$^{-1}$. To obtain these quantities in MJy sr$^{-1}$, a unit that can be used to compare between different instruments with different beams, the relevant conversions are: 1 Jy beam$^{-1}$ = 519.7 MJy sr$^{-1}$ at 350 $\mu$m; and 1 Jy beam$^{-1}$ = 310.3 MJy sr$^{-1}$ at 450 $\mu$m.
As stated in §\[subobs\], the DSOS corrected all of the observations obtained in June 2005 for a zenith angle of $49\mbox{$^{\circ}$}$, regardless of the actual zenith angle of the observations. All of these observations were obtained with actual zenith angles in the approximate range of $30-50\mbox{$^{\circ}$}$. According to information presented on the DSOS website (see footnote to §\[subobs\] for web address), the corrections to the telescope efficiency introduced by the DSOS vary by up to approximately 10% across this range of zenith angles. Thus, 10% is a conservative estimate of the additional uncertainty introduced by this equipment malfunction. The flux density uncertainties for the June 2005 observations listed in Table \[properties1\] include this additional 10% uncertainty, added in quadrature to both the measurement uncertainty and 15% calibration uncertainty. The uncertainty in the peak flux for the sources observed in June 2005 also includes this additional 10%.
For properties relating to the sizes and shapes of the cores, the oversampled maps may not always give reliable results. Thus, we used the IDL procedure “hrebin,” available as part of the online IDL Astronomy User’s Library[^8], to rebin the data into Nyquist sampled maps. Sources were then extracted with Extractor, as described above, at both the half-maximum and 2$\sigma$ contours. Table \[properties2\] lists the results of these source extractions: the major and minor axes, aspect ratio, and position angle of each submillimeter source, calculated at both the the half-maximum and 2$\sigma$ contours.
2$\sigma$ Sizes {#2sig}
---------------
Figure \[hist\] presents the distributions of the angular diameter at the 2$\sigma$ contour (defined to be $2\sqrt{ab}$, where $a$ and $b$ are the semi-major and semi-minor axes at the 2$\sigma$ contour, respectively), linear diameter at the 2$\sigma$ contour (defined simply as the angular diameter at the 2$\sigma$ contour multiplied by the distance to the core), distance between Barycenter and peak positions ($\delta_{pk}$), and aspect ratio ($\epsilon = a/b$) of each source. As seen in Figure \[hist\], the distribution of 2$\sigma$ linear diameters has a mean and median of 8.1 $\times 10^3$ and 7.2 $\times 10^3$ AU, respectively, while the distribution of 2$\sigma$ angular diameters has both a mean and median of 32 and a maximum of 57. The 2$\sigma$ diameters derived from SHARC-II are generally $1.5-3$ times smaller than those derived from 850 [$\mu$m]{} SCUBA data (Young et al. 2006). This discrepancy does not seem to correlate with the SHARC-II 2$\sigma$ angular diameter, it is observed in essentially all of the cores contained in both surveys regardless of the value of this quantity, including those with SHARC-II 2$\sigma$ angular diameters $\leq 20$. Young et al. present their diameters at the 3$\sigma$ contours instead of the 2$\sigma$ contours, but since the sizes derived from these observations will be larger at the 2$\sigma$ contours than the 3$\sigma$ contours, this difference cannot explain the discrepancy.
One possible explanation for the difference in core sizes between these two surveys is that our observations may not go deep enough to detect the full extent of the core. If so, the source size would increase with integration time, since more of the extended emission would be detected as the signal-to-noise ratio increased. As stated in §\[subobs\], the integrations on each core were separated into blocks of either five or ten minutes. Thus, to test this possibility, Figure \[sizesfig\] shows the angular diameter at the 2$\sigma$ contours as a function of integration time for a randomly selected subset of the 350 [$\mu$m]{} sources.
Some of the sources show slight rises in their 2$\sigma$ angular diameters as the integration time increases, but the trend does not continue past approximately 50 minutes of integration (IRAM 04191+1522 and BOLO68 being the best examples). To consider a few specific examples, Young et al. (2006) derive a 3$\sigma$ diameter at 850 [$\mu$m]{} of 59 for IRAM 04191+1522, while we derive a 2$\sigma$ diameter at 350 [$\mu$m]{} of 28. As seen in Figure \[sizesfig\], integrating beyond about 50 minutes does not increase the size of this source. As another example, Young et al. derive a 3$\sigma$ diameter at 850 [$\mu$m]{} of 111 for L1521F, while we derive a 2$\sigma$ diameter at 350 [$\mu$m]{} of 34. The 350 [$\mu$m]{} 2$\sigma$ diameter increases between 10 and 20 minutes of integration, but beyond that it does not increase with integration time. Furthermore, many of the sources that show little to no change in their 2$\sigma$ angular diameters as the integration time increases do in fact have decreasing 1$\sigma$ RMS values as integration time increases (B335, Bern 48, and L1521F being good examples). Thus, in general, we conclude that the discrepancy in source sizes cannot simply be attributed to the SHARC-II observations not going deep enough to detect the more extended emission seen in the SCUBA data. An alternative explanation is thus required.
Two other possibilities may explain this discrepancy. The first possibility is the fact that observations of low-mass cores at 350 [$\mu$m]{} are much more sensitive to the combination of temperature and density than those at longer submillimeter/millimeter wavelengths, which primarily only trace the dust column density. In the Rayleigh-Jeans limit, the emission depends linearly on the dust temperature, but once this limit is violated the emission decreases exponentially with decreasing dust temperature. At 850 [$\mu$m]{}, the Rayleigh-Jeans limit is satisfied for $T >> 17$ K, but at 350 [$\mu$m]{}, this limit is only satisfied for $T >> 41$ K. Shirley et al. (2002) found a characteristic dust temperature for low-mass cores of $13.8 \pm 2.4$ K based on radiative transfer models of low-mass Class 0 protostars. Thus, observations at 850 [$\mu$m]{} are marginally within the Rayleigh-Jeans limit, but observations at 350 [$\mu$m]{} are not. The dust temperature of low-mass protostellar cores decreases from $\sim$ $50-300$ K in the inner regions of the cores[^9] to $\sim$ $7-10$ K in the intermediate regions far away from the central source but not directly exposed to the Interstellar Radiation Field (e.g., Evans et al. 2001; Shirley et al. 2002; Young et al. 2003). The 350 [$\mu$m]{} emission from these cores should thus decrease exponentially with increasing radius, meaning that the emission at this wavelength might decrease below the detection threshold much more quickly than 850 [$\mu$m]{} emission from the same core, resulting in smaller sizes derived from 350 [$\mu$m]{} data than from 850 [$\mu$m]{} data.
The second possibility is that the method used to obtain these SHARC-II observations might not be sensitive to extended emission. Considering that both the mean and median of the distribution of 2$\sigma$ angular diameters is 32 and that the SHARC-II field of view is 259 $\times$ 097, the observations presented in this work appear to lose sensitivity to extended emission on scales larger than about half the size of the smaller dimension of the array. This is in qualitative agreement with the statement from §\[subobs\] that the Lissajous observing method used for this survey works best for sources with sizes less than or comparable to the size of the array. It also agrees with the findings of Enoch et al. (2006), who showed that their observations of low-mass cores in Perseus with the Bolocam bolometer array at the CSO could not recover extended emission on size scales larger than about half the size of the array, and while the details of the data collection and reduction between Bolocam and SHARC-II are different, they are qualitatively similar. A lack of sensitivity to extended emission is not surprising since, as stated in §\[subreduction\], sky emission is subtracted to first order by removing emission common to all bolometers. Thus, extended emission larger than the size of the array cannot be completely separated from sky emission. Finally, such a discrepancy in source sizes between observations with different instruments is not unique to this survey; low-mass cores observed at both 850 [$\mu$m]{} with SCUBA and 1.2 mm with MAMBO show significantly (between factors of $2-20$) larger 2$\sigma$ angular diameters at 1.2 mm than 850 [$\mu$m]{} (Young et al. 2006; J. Kauffmann et al. 2006, in preparation). Since both 850 [$\mu$m]{} and 1.2 mm are within the Rayleigh-Jeans limit, temperature effects cannot account for these discrepancies.
In reality, the discrepancy between source sizes is most likely a combination of the temperature and instrumental effects discussed above. Comparing the derived 2$\sigma$ angular diameters for sources observed with the same instrument at 350 and 450 [$\mu$m]{} could help distinguish between these two possibilities. However, only two cores were observed at both wavelengths, and, as Figure \[sizesfig2\] shows, only L483 has deep enough integrations at both wavelengths to be used for this purpose. We measure a 2$\sigma$ angular diameter for L483 of 47 at both 350 and 450 [$\mu$m]{}. A much larger sample is required to draw any conclusions, but the exact agreement between these values, combined with the above discussion, leads us to conclude that instrumental effects are primarily responsible for the discrepancy in source sizes. However, the fact that this discrepancy is observed in even the most compact SHARC-II sources suggests a more subtle effect than simple insensitivity to extended emission beyond a fixed size scale. We will return to this question of sensitivity to extended emission in §\[models\], but we note here the basic conclusion from that section that the observations presented in this survey are insensitive to smoothly varying extended emission.
An inability to completely recover extended emission has important implications for the flux densities in 40 apertures presented in Table \[properties1\]. Furthermore, the fact that several sources in Figures \[sizesfig\] and \[sizesfig2\] with less than 50 minutes of total integration time show increasing diameters with integration time right up until the full integration suggests that longer integration times may be required on such sources to reach the size scale at which the SHARC-II array loses sensitivity. Both the flux densities in 40 apertures presented in Table \[properties1\] and the major and minor axes at the 2$\sigma$ contours presented in Table \[properties2\] should be used with the important caveat that they most likely do not capture the full emission and extent of the cores.
FWHM
----
Figure \[fwhmfig\] shows the distribution of the Full-Width Half-Maximum (FWHM) for the 350 [$\mu$m]{} sources. The distribution has a mean and median of 133 and 123, respectively, and shows a narrow distribution similar to that seen in M. Enoch et al. (2006, in preparation) for sources in Serpens observed at 1.1 mm with Bolocam. Using models simulating the collapse of a singular isothermal sphere (the “standard model”; Shu, Adams, & Lizano 1987), Terebey et al. (1993) showed that the FWHM of a source depends on the size of the beam. More recently, Young et al. (2003) showed that, for observations of cores with power-law radial density profiles, the ratio of the deconvolved source size[^10] to the beam size is correlated with the index of the density power law. Assuming a beam FWHM of $\theta_{mb}=$85, the mean source FWHM of $\langle$$\theta_{src}$$\rangle=$ 133 corresponds to a mean deconvolved source size of $\langle$$\theta_{dec}$$\rangle=$ 102. This gives a mean ratio of $\langle$$\theta_{dec}/\theta_{mb}$$\rangle=$ 1.2. Placing this value on Figure 27 of Young et al. (2003), which plots the index of the density power-law, $p$, versus the ratio of the deconvolved source size to beam size, $\theta_{dec}/\theta_{mb}$, we conclude that the average value of the density power-law index is $\langle$$p$$\rangle$ $\sim$ 1.8.
This calculation is only meant to serve as a quick approximation to the average value of $p$ for the cores observed in this survey; full radiative transfer models including data at longer wavelengths would be required to truly determine $p$, a task beyond the scope of this paper. However, we note that a value of $\langle$$p$$\rangle$ $=$ 1.8 is identical to the median value of $p$ determined by Young et al. (2003) through radiative transfer models of nine Class I protostars. Furthermore, the standard model predicts a collapsing envelope with $p=1.5$ surrounded by a static region with $p=2.0$, with the transition between the two propagating outward at the sound speed. Thus, an average power-law index of $\langle$$p$$\rangle$ $\sim$ 1.8 for the cores in this survey is not a surprising result. Since the cores in this survey are located at different distances, this result suggests the power law in density extends over a large linear size range (a mean deconvolved source size of 102 over the distance range of $125-450$ pc for the cores in this sample corresponds to a linear size range of $\sim$ $1000-4500$ AU), as predicted by many models of star formation, including the standard model.
Shapes
------
The distance between the peak and Barycenter positions, $\delta_{pk}$, is a measure of the degree of axial symmetry of each source, while the aspect ratio is a measure of the roundness of the source. Following Enoch et al. (2006), we consider any source with an aspect ratio less than 1.2 to be round. The distribution of aspect ratios in Figure \[hist\] shows that, while most sources do have aspect ratios at the 2$\sigma$ contours greater than 1.2, very few show large flattening (only two sources have aspect ratios greater than 2.0). Figure \[deltapk\], which plots the aspect ratio of each source as a function of its value of $\delta_{pk}$, shows no significant correlation between roundness and axial symmetry.
Multiplicity {#mult}
------------
Nine of the 41 cores detected by SHARC-II (approximately 20%) contain multiple submillimeter sources: L1455, IRAM 04191+1522, B18-4, B35A, CG30, L43, L328, L1221, and L1251B. The multiple sources in L1455, IRAM 04191+1522, B18-4, L43, L1221, and L1251B all correspond to previously known sources, although the eastern, starless core in L43 is resolved into several submillimeter peaks that were not previously known. The multiplicity in B35A, CG30, and L328, however, is a new result. As 350 $\mu$m observations are more sensitive to temperature than longer-wavelength bolometer observations, multiple protostellar sources contained in one core could result in localized heating of the dust surrounding each protostar and thus the detection of multiple sources at 350 $\mu$m, but the detection of only one source at the longer wavelengths that are more sensitive to density than temperature. Indeed this does seem to be the case for CG30, as both of the detected 350 [$\mu$m]{} sources are associated with embedded Young Stellar Objects (see §\[embedded\]). However, one of the three sources in B35A and two of the three sources in L328 are not associated with embedded sources (§\[embedded\]), and, furthermore, the starless core in L43 is resolved into multiple sources despite having no embedded sources. The exact sensitivity of *Spitzer* to embedded, Very Low Luminosity Objects (VeLLOs) is still under investigation, but objects with luminosities $\leq 0.1$ are easily detected (e.g. Young et al. 2004; M. Dunham et al. 2007, in preparation), ruling out the presence of an undetected VeLLO to a high degree of confidence. Thus, the new multiplicity seen in these maps cannot be explained solely by heating from an embedded source.
Instead, the lack of embedded sources in some of these multiple sources suggests that, for these sources, multiple density peaks are in fact present. Since the beam size of 85 for SHARC-II observations at 350 [$\mu$m]{} is significantly smaller than typical beam sizes for longer-wavelength surveys (e.g., 155 for SCUBA observations at 850 [$\mu$m]{}; Young et al. 2006), the SHARC-II observations provide higher spatial resolution. Thus, it is not surprising that these observations may resolve some cores into multiple 350 [$\mu$m]{} sources even when no embedded sources are present. As discussed in §\[starless\], the observations presented in this work do not appear very sensitive to cores without embedded sources, but all of the new 350 [$\mu$m]{} sources without embedded protostars are located close to other protostars and thus other sources of heating, and are thus likely to be warmer than typical isolated starless cores.
Ultimately, sorting out temperature effects from density effects when investigating the multiplicity presented here will require comparing these results to data of comparable resolution but less sensitivity to temperature. Either much higher-resolution data at longer wavelengths than currently available, or, ideally, high-resolution extinction maps are needed to fully investigate the physical structure of these three cores with newly detected multiple sources that aren’t all associated with embedded protostars.
Association with Embedded Young Stellar Objects {#embedded}
-----------------------------------------------
The last column of Table \[properties1\] indicates whether or not each submillimeter source is associated with an embedded Young Stellar Object (YSO) based on a search of *Spitzer* c2d data. Based on the c2d data delivered to the Spitzer Science Center in December 2005 (Evans et al. 2005), the c2d team identified candidate YSOs based on their positions in two different *Spitzer* color-magnitude diagrams: $[8.0]$ vs. $[4.5]-[8.0]$ and $[24]$ vs. $[8.0]-[24]$. The details of this identification of candidate YSOs can be found in Harvey et al. 2006 and Jørgensen et al. 2006, but to summarize, a source had to meet at least one of the two following sets of criteria to be classified as a candidate YSO in the 2005 catalogs:
- $[4.6]-[8.0] > 0.5$ and $[8.0] < 14-([4.6]-[8.0])$
- $[8]-[24] > 0.7$ and $[24] < 12-([8]-[24])$
These criteria were selected both to pick out red objects with excess infrared emission over that of stars and to eliminate most galaxies, which can appear similar to Young Stellar Objects in *Spitzer* data. It is important to note that these criteria were selected to eliminate galaxies in a statistical sense and do not completely separate YSOs from galaxies. The c2d team is developing a revised set of criteria that allow for a more complete separation (P. Harvey et al. 2006, in preparation; Porras et al. 2006), but the original criteria are sufficient for this study since we also visually inspect each source (see below). We searched for objects classified as candidate YSOs, based on the above criteria, within 10 (approximately 1 beam) of the peak position of each submillimeter source. For cores with no detections, we searched for candidate YSOs within the full region covered by the SHARC-II map since peak positions are unavailable for these observations. We also visually inspected each source to verify whether or not it contained a Young Stellar Object since these criteria do not completely separate YSOs from galaxies. We note in the table whether or not a YSO was found for each submillimeter source, and we also indicate the cores for which *Spitzer* data are unavailable. There were four cases where the presence or absence of an embedded YSO as indicated in Table \[properties1\] was changed after visual inspection. We note these cases in the table and describe them below.
The first case is L1455-IRS2. There is no candidate YSO detected by *Spitzer* within 10 of the peak position of L1455-IRS2, but there is one 119 away. The 350 $\mu$m map suggests L1455-IRS2 may in fact be comprised of two separate submillimeter sources, and although they are not well-resolved enough to present them as two separate sources, the *Spitzer* source is coincident with the western sub-structure. Furthermore, L1455-IRS2 is the weakest of the four sources in the 350 [$\mu$m]{} map of L1455, and considering that Jørgensen et al. (2006) concluded that L1455-IRS2 has mid-infrared colors consistent with those of a Class II object, it is not surprising that it is associated with weak 350 [$\mu$m]{} emission. Based on these data, we consider L1455-IRS2 to be associated with an embedded YSO despite not meeting the above criterion of being located less than 10 from the peak of the emission. An alternative possibility is that the *Spitzer* source and the 350 [$\mu$m]{} emission are seen together in projection but not actually associated with each other. We consider this to be less likely but are unable to rule it out.
Another case is HH211-MM. HH211 was originally discovered in near-infrared H$_2$ emission by McCaughrean et al. (1994), and HH211-MM is a millimeter source known to be the driving source of a corresponding CO outflow (Gueth & Guilloteau 1999) that has recently been studied in multiple transitions of SiO and CO at high angular resolution with the SMA (Hirano et al. 2006; Palau et al. 2006). Rebull et al. (2006) show that there is a corresponding *Spitzer* source detected only at 70 [$\mu$m]{}, placing it among the reddest objects in the Perseus cloud. It is not classified as a candidate YSO since detections at *Spitzer* wavelengths shortward of 70 [$\mu$m]{} are required for such a classification, but the detection at 70 [$\mu$m]{} and the fact that this source is driving an outflow lead us to conclude that HH211-MM is associated with an embedded source.
L43-SMM3 is the third case. There is an object detected by *Spitzer*, located $\sim$ 9 from the peak position of L43-SMM3, that has 4.5 and 8.0 $\mu$m fluxes consistent with being a candidate YSO. However, it is not detected by *Spitzer* at 24 or 70 $\mu$m. The combination of the fact that the sample of candidate YSOs identified with *Spitzer* data are expected to contain a small amount of contamination from galaxies, as described above, and the nondetections at 24 and 70 $\mu$m, lead us to conclude that this object is unlikely to actually be a protostar. Thus, we do not consider L43-SMM3 to be associated with an embedded YSO.
The final case is L1251A. There are *Spitzer* sources within 10 of both L1251A-1 and L1251A-2 that fail to meet the criteria for classification as a candidate YSO but still appear to be protostars. The source associated with L1251A-1 was not detected at 8.0 $\mu$m, and since a detection at this wavelength is required according to the above criteria, it is not classified as a candidate YSO. The source associated with L1251A-2 falls just beyond the $[24] < 12-([8]-[24])$ criterion, but since these criteria provide a statistical sample of candidate YSOs that do not separate protostars and galaxies with complete reliability, the failure to meet this criterion does not rule out the possibility that this source is in fact a YSO. Additionally, both sources are detected by *Spitzer* at 70 $\mu$m; thus we consider L1251A-1 and L1251A-2 to be associated with embedded YSOs.
Discussion {#starless}
==========
Detection vs. Nondetection {#detnondet}
--------------------------
Of the 53 cores observed and listed in Table \[info\], 12 are classified as starless based upon no detection of an embedded protostar by either *IRAS* or *Spitzer*: L1521B, L1521E, B18-1, TMC2, B18-4, TMC1-A, L1544, L134A, L43[^11], L492, L694-2, and L1021. Only three of these 12 starless cores are detected by SHARC-II: B18-4, L43, and L492. Both B18-4 and L43 are located close to potential strong sources of external heating, IRAS 04325+2402 in the case of B18-4 and L43-RNO91 in the case of L43. Furthermore, the three starless sources in L43 are located near the edge of the blue-shifted outflow emission from L43-RNO91, as seen from the CO (2-1) maps presented in Bence et al. (1998). In fact, the sharp western edge of these three sources, extending from the southeast to the northwest, directly correlates with the edge of this blue-shifted outflow emission. A similar situation exists for B18-4; IRAS 04325+2402 shows extended, bipolar emission in near-infrared HST images that suggests an outflow pointing in the direction of B18-4 (Hartmann et al. 1999). A different direction for the IRAS 04325+2402 outflow is suggested from CO data (extending to the northwest; Heyer et al. 1987), but it is not clear this CO outflow is actually associated IRAS 04325+2402 (see Hartmann et al. 1999 for discussion). Since an outflow will heat any dust condensation it encounters, the only two starless cores detected in this survey are most likely warmer than would be expected for an isolated, starless core.
The same can not be said for L492, but the detection of L492 is quite weak ($\sim 5 \sigma$). None of the three detected starless cores show very centrally peaked emission. Of the nine starless cores not detected, all have $1\sigma$ noise values well below the average over all the maps presented in this sample, suggesting that these non-detections cannot simply be attributed to lower sensitivity than the rest of the sample. However, since the cores observed in this survey are located at different distances, a more careful analysis is required before such a claim can be made.
To account for possible distance effects, we have converted the measurement of the 1$\sigma$ RMS for each core into distance-independent units of beam$^{-1}$. The sensitivity of a given map in these units, for a core with a 1$\sigma$ RMS of $\sigma$, at distance $d$ and an isothermal dust temperature $T$, is given by the relation $$\sigma_{M}=\frac{d^2 \sigma}{B_{\nu}(T_d) \kappa_{\nu}},$$ where $\kappa_{\nu}=0.101$ cm$^2$ gm$^{-1}$ is the dust opacity at 350 [$\mu$m]{} from Ossenkopf & Henning (1994) divided by the assumed gas-to-dust mass ratio of 100. The last column of Table \[info\] presents this quantity for all the cores in this survey, assuming an isothermal dust temperature of $T=15$K. In general, the isothermal approximation is not valid for deriving masses from these observations since the 350 [$\mu$m]{} emission from low-mass cores, and through this the calculated masses, will depend exponentially on the assumed temperature (see discussion in §\[2sig\]). It is for this reason that we do not derive the masses of the cores in this survey; that is a task best left to surveys at longer wavelengths. However, since all we are interested in here is the relative sensitivity between maps, this approximation is valid; changing the value of $T_d$ will change all of the values of $\sigma_{M}$ by the same factor. This strong dependence on temperature is an important caveat to keep in mind, however, before using the tabulated $\sigma_{M}$ as absolute rather than relative sensitivities.
Based on the values for $\sigma_{M}$ given in Table \[info\], all 12 starless cores in this survey have sensitivities below the average for the entire survey. This is not surprising since the observing strategy pursued was to integrate until we obtained either a strong detection or a strong upper limit, and it leads us to conclude that the non-detections of 9 out of the 12 starless cores observed cannot be attributed to lower sensitivities than the rest of the sample.
In addition to the nine starless cores not detected, the other three cores not detected by SHARC-II are LkH$\alpha$ 327, DC255.4-3.9, and L1148B. Four other cores, IRAS 03301+3111, IRAS 03439+3233, EC74, and EC88, show very weak detections (between 3$\sigma$ and 6$\sigma$). Excluding DC255.4-3.9 and L1148B, which are discussed below, all of these cores were selected from IRS targets of interest that were not restricted to objects known to still be heavily embedded in dense cores. The distance-independent sensitivities obtained for these objects are all at or slightly above average, but are well in line with the typical sensitivies obtained for the rest of the survey. Thus, weak or non-existent submillimeter detections for these cores can be used to infer that they are in later stages of evolution where most of the dense, circumstellar envelope has dissipated. Because of their likely status as more evolved objects, they are not included in the discussion below.
Starless vs. Protostellar Cores {#starlessproto}
-------------------------------
The detection statistics quoted above suggest that the SHARC-II observations presented in this paper distinguish quite well between protostellar cores and isolated, starless cores. This is not unexpected because, as already mentioned, 350 $\mu$m is much more sensitive to the dust temperature than is emission at longer wavelengths. Thus, the presence or absence of central heating from an embedded protostar should be more noticeable at this wavelength. This is explored further with simple radiative transfer models in §\[models\], but, qualitatively, starless cores are generally not detected while protostellar cores generally are detected. Two of the three exceptions to this appear to occur when there is a strong souce of external heating, as in the case of B18-4 and L43, and all three of the exceptions show much less centrally peaked emission than cores with protostars. This comes with the important caveat, however, that only 12 starless cores have been observed, and seven of them are located in Taurus. L492, the only starless core detected that is not close to an obvious source of strong external heating, is also the only starless core observed that is located in the Serpens molecular cloud. The preliminary results from this survey suggest that a clear distinction between starless cores and those with protostars is present in SHARC-II observations.
Perhaps the most interesting result from this survey concerns the VeLLOs. As discussed in §\[intro\], *Spitzer* c2d observations have shown that several cores believed to be starless (containing no protostars) actually harbor Very Low Luminosity Objects (VeLLOs) with internal luminosities $L_{int} \leq 0.1$ (e.g. Young et al. 2004, Di Francesco et al. 2006). Three confirmed VeLLOs (IRAM 04191+1522, Dunham et al. 2006; L1521F, Bourke et al. 2006; L1014, Young et al. 2004) and seven candidate VeLLOs (DC255.4-3.9, CG30, L507, L328, L1148B, L1221, and L673-7) are included in the survey[^12]. Except for DC255.4-3.9 and L1148B, which are not detected, VeLLOs show reasonably strong detections and centrally peaked emission, reminiscent of cores with protostars except with somewhat lower integrated flux densities. In other words, VeLLOs look much more like cores with protostars than starless cores in SHARC-II data, indicating that observations of VeLLO candidates with SHARC-II can be an essential part of confirming their status as very low luminosity, embedded objects. The nondetections of DC255.4-3.9 and L1148B cast doubt on their status as embedded objects, since embedded objects appear to be essentially always detected. Future study will be devoted to these and other VeLLOs (J. Kauffmann et al. 2006, in preparation; M. Dunham et al. 2007, in preparation).
Simple Radiative Transfer Models {#models}
--------------------------------
In an effort to better understand the conclusion that a clear distinction between starless and protostellar cores is seen in these observations, we have used the one-dimensional radiative transfer code Dusty (Ivezic et al. 1999) to construct simple models representative of each of the three types of cores observed in this survey: starless cores, cores harboring VeLLOs, and cores harboring more luminous protostars ($\sim 1$ ).
For the model representative of the VeLLOs, we used that of L1521F described in detail in Bourke et al. (2006): a 4.8 envelope heated both internally by a protostar with $L_{int} = 0.05$ and externally by the Interstellar Radiation Field (ISRF). For the model representative of the starless cores, we simply modified the model for L1521F to include only external heating by the ISRF, and for the model representative of the cores with more luminous protostars, we modified the model for L1521F by increasing the internal luminosity of the central source from $L_{int} = 0.05$ to $L_{int} = 1.0$ . All models are placed at an assumed distance of 140 pc, the distance to Taurus. We then calculated the expected flux densities from these three models in 20 and 40 apertures. In 20 apertures, the models predicted flux densities of 1.23, 2.86, and 12.9 Jy for the starless, VeLLO, and 1 protostellar cores, respectively. In 40 apertures, the predicted flux densities are 4.48, 6.86, and 26.0 Jy.
Comparing the flux densities predicted by the model of a VeLLO core with the observed flux densities of L1521F shows that they are in good agreement with each other, as expected since the representative VeLLO model assumed here is exactly the L1521F model from Bourke et al. (2006) that provided the best fit to the observed SED, including data from this survey. The envelopes of L1521F and L1544 are, generally speaking, quite similar to each other. Using 1.2 mm continuum maps, Crapsi et al. (2005) defined the quantity $r_{70}=\sqrt{A_{70} / \pi}$, where $A_{70}$ is the area within the 70% contour of the dust peak, and showed that both L1521F and L1544 have $r_{70} < 4800$ AU. Thus, both cores have high degrees of central condensation, and, in fact, these two cores were selected by Crapsi et al. as being the most “evolved” starless cores in their sample (the protostar embedded within L1521F was not yet discovered). Furthermore, detailed radiative transfer models show that similar envelope parameters provide good fits to the observations of both cores (e.g., Crapsi et al. 2004; Bourke et al. 2006; Evans et al. 2001; Doty et al. 2005). Finally, both L1521F and L1544 are located in Taurus, and should be exposed to a similar amount of external heating from the ISRF. Thus, the model assumed in this work as being representative of starless cores should be a fairly good approximation for L1544, and, in fact, this is the reason we selected this particular model.
Table \[l1544model\] presents both the modeled and observed flux densities for L1544 from $90-1300$ [$\mu$m]{}, using the simple model described above and observations from both this survey and from the literature (Ward-Thompson et al. 2002; Shirley et al. 2000). For all wavelengths excluding 350 [$\mu$m]{}, the agreement between the observations and this simple model, as well as the agreement between these model predictions and those of the more detailed models of L1544 by Evans et al. (2001), confirm that it is a good approximation for L1544. The slight increase in modeled over observed flux densities at 850 and 1300 [$\mu$m]{} can be attributed to the fact that the L1521F envelope is more massive than L1544 by approximately a factor of 2 (Bourke et al. 2006; Doty et al. 2005). At 350 [$\mu$m]{}, however, the model and observations from this survey disagree by nearly two orders of magnitude.
Differences of a factor of a few could be explained by the fact that the starless core model is not exactly a model of L1544, but, in order to match the model to the SHARC-II 350 [$\mu$m]{} observation of L1544, either the strength of the ISRF or the envelope parameter that sets the scale for the density would have to be decreased to unreasonably low values. Since we can eliminate these possibilities based on the above confirmation that this model is a good approximation for L1544, we turn our attention to instrumental effects.
Figure \[profiles\] presents intensity profiles for all three representative models, on both un-normalized and normalized scales. As expected, the core harboring the 1 protostar is the brightest and the starless core is the weakest. However, displaying the intensity profiles on a normalized scale shows a striking contrast between protostellar and starless cores, regardless of the actual luminosity of the internal source. While the absolute scale of the emission is different, the emission both from cores harboring 1 protostars and from cores harboring VeLLOs falls below 40% of the maximum within the central 30, and in fact the two normalized intensity profiles are nearly indistinguishable within the central 20. The emission from the starless core, on the other hand, decreases by only about 15% from the maximum within 30, and less than 10% within 20. Furthermore, we note that the 350 [$\mu$m]{} emission from both types of protostellar cores drops off much less rapidly beyond $\sim 30-40$, exactly the scale at which the evidence presented in §\[2sig\] suggests our observations lose sensitivity to extended emission.
Ultimately, we conclude that the observations presented in this survey are insensitive to smoothly varying extended emission, as seen by both the inability to detect most starless cores and the small sizes dervived for the detected cores. While a quantitative analysis of the size scales over which extended emission must vary in order to be separated from sky emission is beyond the scope of this paper, we note that it must be greater than 15% over 30 based on the non-detection of L1544. Future work is needed to develop a better understanding of these instrumental effects.
Conclusions
===========
We present maps of 53 low-mass dense cores with SHARC-II at the CSO, 52 at 350 $\mu$m and 3 at 450 $\mu$m, with two observed at both wavelengths. 41 of these cores are detected while 12 are not, and 9 of the 41 detected cores show multiple submillimeter sources. We derive and tabulate the basic properties for each detected submillimeter source: position, fluxes in 20 and 40 apertures, peak flux, size, aspect ratio, and position angle. We also use data from the *Spitzer Space Telescope* to indicate whether or not each core is associated with an embedded Young Stellar Object.
The sizes of the cores as derived from these observations are typically smaller than sizes of the same cores derived from other, longer-wavelength observations by about a factor of $1.5-3$. This is not simply a case of not integrating long enough to detect the extended emission; instead it likely arises primarily from the fact that the observations presented in this survey are insensitive to smoothly varying extended emission. Future investigation is needed to develop a better understanding of these instrumental effects, and care should be taken in using the data presented in this survey. In particular, the upper limits presented for the starless cores not detected should be considered upper limits based on the type of emission these observations are capable of detecting and not true upper limits of the flux densities at 350 [$\mu$m]{}. Some care should also be exercised in using the flux densities presented in 40 apertures for the detected sources.
The results of this survey suggest that SHARC-II observations of dense cores are capable of distinguishing between starless cores and cores with protostars much better than observations with other bolometer arrays at longer wavelengths. VeLLOs, Very Low luminosity Objects discovered by *Spitzer* in cores previously believed to be starless, look very similar to other cores with more luminous protostars, indicating that 350 $\mu$m observations of these objects may be a key component in confirming their status as very low luminosity, embedded objects. Future work will concentrate on expanding the sample of cores observed with SHARC-II and combining this dataset with others being assembed at other submillimeter and millimeter wavelengths in order to assemble a more complete picture of the processes involved in low-mass star formation.
The authors extend our gratitude to Paul Ho, the referee, as well as Jes Jørgensen and Yancy Shirley, for insightful comments that have led to a much improved paper. We also acknowledge the support and assistance provided by the SHARC-II at Caltech: Colin Borys, Darren Dowell, Attila Kovacs, and their colleagues. We thank the staff at the CSO, as well as Katelyn Allers, Jo-hsin Chen, Jackie Kessler-Silacci, and Claudia Knez, for their assistance with obtaining the observations. We acknowledge the data analysis facilities provided by the Starlink Project which is run by CCLRC on behalf of PPARC. We thank the Lorentz Center in Leiden for hosting several meetings that contributed to this paper. Support for this work, part of the Spitzer Legacy Science Program, was provided by NASA through contract 1224608 issued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under NASA contract 1407. This work was also supported by NASA Origins grant NNG04GG24G.
Bertin, E., SExtractor v2.3 User’s Manual (Paris: Insitut d’Astrophysique)
Beelen, A., Cox, P., Benford, D.J., Dowell, C.D., Kovacs, A., Bertoldi, F., Omont, A., & Carilli, C. 2006, ApJ, 642, 694
Bence, S.J., Padman, R., Isaak, K.G., Wiedner, M.C., & Wright, G.S. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 965
Brooke, T. et al. 2006, ApJ, in press
Bourke, T.L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 649, L37
Caselli, P., Benson, P. J., Myers, P. C., & Tafalla, M. 2002, , 572, 238
Crapsi, A., Caselli, P., Walmsley, C.M., Myers, P.C., Tafalla, M., Lee, C.W., & Bourke, T.L. 2005, ApJ, 619, 379
de Geus, E. J., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Lub, J. 1989, , 216, 44
Di Francesco, J. D., Evans N. J .II, Caselli, P., Myers, P. C., Shirley, Y. L., Aikawa, A., and Tafalla, M. 2006, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), in press
Dobashi, K., Bernard, J.-P., Yonekura, Y., & Fukui, Y. 1994, , 95, 419
Dowell, C.D., et al. 2002, SPIE, 4855
Dunham, M.M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 945
Enoch, M.L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 293
Evans, N. J., II et al. 2005, “Third Delivery of Data from the c2d Legacy Project: IRAC and MIPS” (Pasadena, SSC), http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/legacy/
Evans, N.J. II et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 965
Evans, N.J. II, Rawlings, J.M.C., Shirley, Y.L., & Mundy, L.G. 2001, ApJ, 557, 193
Fazio, G.G., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 10
Franco, G. A. P. 1989, A&A, 223, 313
Goldsmith, P. F., Snell, R. L., Hemeon-Heyer, M., & Langer, W. D. 1984, , 286, 599
Gueth, F., and Guilloteau, S. 1999, A&A, 343, 571
Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., Allen, L., Chen, H., & Jayawardhana, R. 1999, AJ, 118, 1784
Harvey, P.M. et al. 2006a, ApJ, 644, 307
Herbig, G. H., & Jones, B. F. 1983, , 88, 1040
Herbst, W. 1975, , 80, 212
Hirano, N., Liu, S.-Y., Shang, H., Ho, P.T.P., Huang, H.-C., Kuan, Y.-J., McCaughrean, M.J., & Zhang, Q. 2006, ApJ, 636, L141
Ivezic, A., Nenkova, M., & Elitzur, M. 1999, User Manual for DUSTY (Lexington: Univ. Kentucky)
Jørgensen, J.K. et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1246
Kawamura, A., Kun, M., Onishi, T., Vavrek, R., Domsa, I., Mizuno, A., & Fukui, Y. 2001, , 53, 1097
Kenyon, S. J., Dobrzycka, D., & Hartmann, L. 1994, , 108, 1872
Kirk, H., Johnstone, D., & Di Francesco, J. 2006, ApJ, 646, 1009
Kun, M. 1998, , 115, 59
Kun, M., & Prusti, T. 1993, , 272, 235
Lee, C W., Myers, P. C., & Tafalla, M. 2001, , 136, 703
McCaughrean, M.J., Rayner, J.T., & Zinnecker, H. 1994, ApJ, 436, 189
Motte, F., & [André]{} P. 2001, A&A, 365, 440
Murdin, P. & Penston, M.V. 1977, MNRAS, 181, 657
Ossenkopf, V., & Henning, T. 1994, A&A, 291, 943
Pagani, L., & Breart de Boisanger, C. 1996, , 312, 989
Palau, A., Ho, P. T. P., Zhang, Q., Estalella, R., Hirano, N., Shang, H., Lee, C.-F., Bourke, T. L., Beuther, H., & Kuan, Y.-J. 2006, ApJ, 636, L137
Porras, A. et al. 2006, ApJ, in press
Rebull, L.M. et al. 2006, submitted to ApJ
Rieke, G.H., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 25
Shirley, Y.Ł., Evans, N. J. II, and Rawling, J. M. C. 2002, ApJ, 575, 337
Shirley, Y. L., Evans, N. J. II, Rawling, J. M. C., and Gregersen, E. M. 2000, , 131, 249
Shu, F.H., Adams, F.C., & Lizano, S. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 23
Strai[ž]{}ys, V., [Č]{}ernis, K., & Barta[š]{}i[= u]{}t[ė]{}, S. 2003, , 405, 585
Strai[ž]{}ys, V., [Č]{}ernis, K., & Barta[š]{}i[= u]{}t[ė]{}, S. 1996, Baltic Astronomy, 5, 125
Strai[ž]{}ys, V., [Č]{}ernis, K., Kazlauskas, A., & Mei[š]{}tas, E. 1992, Baltic Astronomy, 1, 149
Terebey, S., Chandler, C.J., & [André]{}, P. 1993, ApJ, 414, 759
Ward-Thompson, D., [André]{}, P., & Kirk, J.M. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 257
Woermann, B., Gaylard, M. J., & Otrupcek, R. 2001, , 325, 1213
Yonekura, Y., Dobashi, K., Mizuno, A., Ogawa, H., & Fukui, Y. 1997, , 110, 21
Young, C.H., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1998
Young, C.H., et al. 2004, , 154, 396
Young, C.H., Shirley, Y.L., Evans, N.J. II, & Rawlings, J.M.C. 2003, ApJS, 145, 111
tab1.tex tab2.tex tab3.tex tab4.tex tab5.tex tab6.tex tab7.tex
[^1]: The internal luminosity of an object, $L_{int}$, is defined to be the luminosity of the central object (star and disk, if present), and excludes luminosity arising from heating by the Interstellar Radiation Field (ISRF) (Di Francesco et al. 2006).
[^2]: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/sirtf-c2d-cfa/CORES-DB/
[^3]: http://www.submm.caltech.edu/ sharc/
[^4]: See http://www.cso.caltech.edu/dsos/DSOS\_MLeong.html
[^5]: http://www.submm.caltech.edu/ sharc/crush/index.htm
[^6]: http://star-www.rl.ac.uk/star/dvi/sun214.htx/sun214.html
[^7]: The Barycenter position of a source is defined to be the intensity-weighted center of the source.
[^8]: http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/
[^9]: The range of temperatures arises from the range of protostellar luminosities, from $\leq 0.1$ for VeLLOs to $\sim$ $1-10$ for more luminous low-mass protostars
[^10]: The deconvolved source size, $\theta_{dec}$, is determined from the FWHM size of the beam ($\theta_{mb}$) and source ($\theta_{src}$) intensity profiles: $\theta_{dec}=(\theta^2_{src}-\theta^2_{mb})^{1/2}$
[^11]: L43 contains both a starless core and a protostar
[^12]: Confirmed VeLLOs have had their very low internal luminosities confirmed with radiative transfer models, while candidate VeLLOs have simply been identified as potential Very Low Luminosity Objects based on their *Spitzer* fluxes (T. Huard et al. 2006, in preparation).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'P. Ko'
- Takaaki Nomura
- Chaehyun Yu
title: |
$b\rightarrow s \mu^+ \mu^-$ anomalies and related phenomenology\
in $U(1)_{B_3 - x_\mu L_\mu - x_\tau L_\tau}$ flavor gauge models
---
Introduction
============
Although the standard model (SM) of particle physics is very successful we still do not have clear understanding of the physics regarding the flavors; namely the origin of fermion masses and mixing patterns. Then it is interesting to construct a model describing flavor physics with some symmetry as a guiding principle. One of the attractive possibility is an introduction of flavor dependent $U(1)$ gauge symmetry which can constrain structure of Yukawa couplings generating masses for quarks, charged leptons and neutrinos. In this kind of approaches to the flavor problem, these models may generate flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) processes through $Z'$ boson exchange, which will induce rich phenomenology.
Recently there have been some indication of anomalies in $B$ physics measurements for $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ process. The angular observable $P'_5$ in decay of $B$ meson, $B\to K^* \mu^+ \mu^-$ [@DescotesGenon:2012zf], indicates $3.4\sigma$ deviations from the data with integrated luminosity of 3.0 fb$^{-1}$ at the LHCb [@Aaij:2015oid], confirming an earlier observation with $3.7\sigma$ deviations [@Aaij:2013qta]. In addition, $2.1\sigma$ deviations were reported for the same observable by Belle [@Abdesselam:2016llu; @Wehle:2016yoi]. Furthermore, an anomaly in the measurement of lepton flavor universality by the ratio $R_K = BR(B^+ \to K^+ \mu^+\mu^-)/BR(B^+ \to K^+ e^+e^-)$ [@Hiller:2003js; @Bobeth:2007dw] at the LHCb shows $2.6\sigma$ deviations from the SM prediction [@Aaij:2014ora]. [ Moreover the LHCb collaboration also reported an anomaly in the ratio $R_{K^*} = BR(B \to K^* \mu^+\mu^-)/BR(B \to K^* e^+e^-)$ where the observed values are deviated from the SM prediction by $\sim 2.4 \sigma$ as $R_{K^*} = 0.660^{+0.110}_{-0.070} \pm 0.024 (0.685^{+0.113}_{-0.069} \pm 0.047)$ for $(2 m_\mu^2) < q^2 < 1.1$ GeV$^2$ (1.1 GeV$^2 < q^2 < 6$ GeV$^2$) [@Aaij:2017vbb]. ]{}
These anomalies in the $b\rightarrow s \ell^+ \ell^-$ channels (with $\ell=e, \mu$) can be explained by flavor dependent $Z'$ interactions inducing effective operator of $(\bar b \gamma^\alpha s)(\bar \mu \gamma_\alpha \mu)$, if new physics contribution to the corresponding Wilson coefficient $C_9^\mu$ is roughly $\Delta C_9^\mu \sim -1$ by global fits [@Capdevila:2017bsm; @Altmannshofer:2017fio; @Ciuchini:2017mik; @Alok:2017sui]. Then many models have been proposed to explain the anomalies by $Z'$ interactions [@Crivellin:2015lwa; @Sierra:2015fma; @Ko:2017yrd; @Bian:2017rpg; @Bian:2017xzg; @Duan:2018akc; @Alonso:2017bff; @Alonso:2017uky; @Megias:2017ove; @Boucenna:2016qad; @Boucenna:2016wpr; @Greljo:2015mma; @Benavides:2018rgh; @Hutauruk:2019crc; @Chen:2017usq; @Ko:2017quv; @Geng:2018xzd; @Baek:2019qte; @Baek:2018aru; @Darme:2018hqg; @Faisel:2017glo; @Chiang:2017hlj; @Ko:2017lzd; @Falkowski:2018dsl; @Descotes-Genon:2017ptp; @Baek:2017sew; @Tang:2017gkz; @DiChiara:2017cjq; @Altmannshofer:2016jzy; @Guadagnoli:2018ojc; @Chala:2018igk].
In this paper, motivated by $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies, we propose a model based on flavor dependent Abelian gauge symmetry $U(1)_{B_3 - x_\mu L_\mu - x_\tau L_\tau}$, which is anomaly-free for $x_\mu + x_\tau = 1$. In this model we introduce two Higgs doublet fields to generate the realistic CKM matrix, where small mixings associated with third generation quarks can be obtained naturally as shown in Ref. [@Crivellin:2015lwa]. In the reference it is also shown that $Z'bs$ interaction is induced after electroweak symmetry breaking in a model with flavor dependent $U(1)_{L_\mu - L_\tau - a (B_1 + B_2 - 2 B_3)}$ gauge symmetry where $a$ can be arbitrary real number. Then, $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies can be explained by the effective operator induced by exchange of a TeV scale $Z'$ boson. Following the same mechanism to induce $Z' b s$ interaction we can explain the anomalies by our flavor dependent $U(1)$ gauge symmetry if $x_\mu$ has negative value to get $\Delta C_9^\mu \sim -1$. We then consider the minimal model explaining $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies and generating non-zero neutrino masses in which two SM singlet scalar fields are introduced. Also we introduce Dirac fermionic dark matter (DM) candidate in order to account for the dark matter of the Universe. In addition to $\Delta C_9^\mu$, we formulate neutrino mass matrix, lepton flavor violations (LFVs) and $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ mixing, and experimental constraints from them are taken into account. Then we discuss collider physics regarding $Z'$ production at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and relic density of our DM candidate.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce our model and discuss quark mass, $\Delta C_9^\mu$ by $Z'$ and scalar masses in the minimal case. In Sec.III we discuss neutrino mass matrix, charged lepton flavor violations and $B_s$–$\bar {B}_s$ mixing taking into account experimental constraints. The numerical analysis is carried out in Sec. IV to discuss collider physics for $Z'$ production at the LHC and relic density of DM candidate showing allowed parameter region. Finally summary and discussion are given in Sec. V.
Models and formulas
====================
Fermions $Q_{iL}$ $u_{iR}$ $d_{iR}$ $Q_{3L}$ $t_R$ $b_R$ $L_{1L}$ $L_{2L}$ $L_{3L}$ $e_R$ $\mu_{R}$ $\tau_{R}$ $\nu_{1R}$ $\nu_{2R}$ $\nu_{3R}$
------------ ----------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- ----------- ---------------- ------------ ------------ ------------- ---------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ --
$SU(3)_C$ $\bf{3}$ $\bf{3}$ $\bf{3}$ $\bf{3}$ $\bf{3}$ $\bf{3}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$
$SU(2)_L$ $\bf{2}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{2}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{2}$ $\bf{2}$ $\bf{2}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$
$U(1)_Y$ $\frac16$ $\frac23$ $-\frac{1}{3}$ $\frac16$ $\frac23$ $-\frac{1}{3}$ $-\frac12$ $-\frac12$ $- \frac12$ $-1$ $-1$ $-1$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$U(1)_{X}$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $\frac13$ $\frac13$ $\frac13$ $0$ $-x_\mu$ $-x_\tau$ $0$ $-x_\mu$ $-x_\tau$ $0$ $-x_\mu$ $-x_\tau$
: Charge assignment for the SM fermions and right-handed neutrinos where the indices $i = 1,2$ indicate the first and second generations.[]{data-label="tab:1"}
In this section we introduce our model based on flavor dependent $U(1)_{B_3 - x_\mu L_\mu - x_\tau L_\tau}$ gauge symmetry that we denote simply $U(1)_X$ in the following [^1]. The SM fermions with 3 right-handed (RH) neutrinos are charged under the $U(1)_X$ as shown in Table. \[tab:1\]. The gauge anomalies are cancelled when the $U(1)_X$ charges of fermions satisfy the condition $$\label{Eq:anomaly}
x_\mu + x_\tau = 1 ,$$ which we will always assume in the following. In Sec. 2.1, we first discuss the case with general $x_{\mu, \tau}$ and investigate an explanation of $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies via flavor-changing $Z'$ interactions. Then the minimal model with $x_\mu = -1/3$ is constructed in Sec. 2.2, taking into account the generation of active neutrino masses and mixings via Type-I seesaw mechanism.
Discussion for general $(x_{\mu} , x_{\tau})$ case
--------------------------------------------------
Firstly we consider quark sector which does not depend on our choice of $x_\mu$ and $x_\tau = 1 - x_\mu$. In this model we have to introduce at least two Higgs doublets in order to induce the realistic CKM mixing matrix: $$\Phi_1 \ : \ ({\bf 1},{\bf 2})(1/2,-1/3), \quad \Phi_2 \ : \ ({\bf 1},{\bf 2})(1/2,0), \quad (SU(3)_C,SU(2)_L)(U(1)_Y, U(1)_X)$$ Then the Yukawa couplings for quarks are given by $$\begin{aligned}
-{\cal L}_{Q} = & y^u_{i j}\bar Q_{i L} \tilde\Phi_2 u_{j R} + y^d_{ij} \bar Q_{i L}\Phi_2 d_{j R} + y^u_{33}\bar Q_{3 L} \tilde\Phi_2 t_R + y^d_{33} \bar Q_{3 L}\Phi_2 b_{R} \nonumber \\
& + \tilde y^u_{3i}\bar Q_{3 L} \tilde\Phi_1 u_{i R} + \tilde y^d_{i3} \bar Q_{i L} \Phi_1 b_{R} +{\rm h.c.},\end{aligned}$$ where $i = 1,2$ and $\tilde \Phi_i = i \sigma_2 \Phi_i^*$. $\Phi_2$ is the Higgs doublet with vanishing $U(1)_X$ charge, and is the SM-like Higgs doublet. After two Higgs doublet fields get the non-zero vacuum expectation values (VEVs) $\langle \Phi_{1,2} \rangle =(0~ v_{1,2}/\sqrt{2})^T$, we obtain the following forms of quark mass matrices: $$\begin{aligned}
& M^u = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} v_2 y^u_{11} & v_2 y^u_{12} & 0 \\ v_2 y^u_{21} & v_2 y^u_{22} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & v_2 y^u_{33} \end{array} \right)
+ \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ (\xi_u)_{31} & (\xi_u)_{32} & 0 \end{array} \right), \nonumber \\
& M^d = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} v_2 y^d_{11} & v_2 y^d_{12} & 0 \\ v_2 y^d_{21} & v_2 y^d_{22} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & v_2 y^d_{33} \end{array} \right)
+ \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & (\xi_d)_{13} \\ 0 & 0 & (\xi_d)_{23} \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right).
\label{Eq:Massmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the matrices $\left(\xi_{u,d}\right)_{ij} \equiv \tilde y^{u,d}_{ij} v_1/\sqrt{2}$ have the same structure as those discussed in Ref. [@Crivellin:2015lwa]. We shall assume the second terms with $\xi_{u,d}$ are small perturbation effects generating realistic $3 \times 3$ CKM mixing matrix where the $(33)$ elements are $v_2 y^{u(d)}_{33} \sim \sqrt{2} m_{t(b)}$ following the discussion in Ref. [@Crivellin:2015lwa].
As in the SM, the quark mass matrices are diagonalized by unitary matrices $U_{L, R}$ and $D_{L,R}$ which change quark fields from interaction basis to mass basis: $u_{L,R} \to U_{L,R}^\dagger u_{L,R} ~ (d_{L,R} \to D_{L,R}^\dagger d_{L,R})$. Then the CKM matrix is given by $V_{CKM} = U^\dagger_L D_L$. Thus we obtain relation between mass matrices $M^{u,d}$ and diagonalized ones as follows: $$M^d = D_L m^d_{\rm diag} D_R^\dagger, \quad M^u = U_L m^u_{\rm diag} U_R^\dagger,$$ where diagonal mass matrices are given by $m^d_{\rm diag} = {\rm diag}(m_d,m_s,m_b)$ and $m^u_{\rm diag} = {\rm diag}(m_u,m_c,m_t)$. Then $U_{L[R]}$ and $D_{L[R]}$ are associated with diagonalization of $M^u (M^u)^\dagger [ (M^u)^\dagger M^u]$ and $M^d (M^d)^\dagger [ (M^d)^\dagger M^d]$ by $$\begin{aligned}
& M^{u} (M^{u})^\dagger \left[ (M^{u})^\dagger M^{u} \right] = U^\dagger_L (m^u_{\rm diag})^2 U_L \left[ U^\dagger_R (m^u_{\rm diag})^2 U_R \right], \nonumber \\
& M^{d} (M^{d})^\dagger \left[ (M^{d})^\dagger M^{d} \right] = D^\dagger_L (m^u_{\rm diag})^2 D_L \left[ D^\dagger_R (m^u_{\rm diag})^2 D_R \right].
\label{Eq:diagonalize}\end{aligned}$$ The structures of mass matrices in Eq. (\[Eq:Massmatrix\]) indicate that the off-diagonal elements associated with 3rd generations are more suppressed for $M^u (M^u)^\dagger$ and $(M^d)^\dagger M^d$ than those in $(M^u)^\dagger M^u$ and $M^d (M^d)^\dagger$. More specifically, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\left( M^u (M^u)^\dagger \right)_{31, 32, 13, 23} \left[ \left((M^d)^\dagger M^d \right)_{31, 32, 13, 23} \right] \propto \frac{v_2}{\sqrt{2}} y_{ij} \xi_{3k[k3]}, \nonumber \\
\left( (M^u)^\dagger M^u \right)_{31, 32, 13, 23} \left[ \left(M^d (M^d)^\dagger \right)_{31, 32, 13, 23} \right] \propto \frac{v_2}{\sqrt{2}} y_{33} \xi_{3k[k3]},\end{aligned}$$ where $\{i, j, k \} = 1,2$. Then we can approximate $U_L$ and $D_R$ to be close to unity matrix since they are associated with diagonalizaition of $M^u (M^u)^\dagger$ and $(M^d)^\dagger M^d$, respectively, where mixing angles in $D_R(U_L)$ generated by $\xi$ parameters are suppressed by $m_{d,s(u,c)}/m_{b(t)}$ to those in $D_L(U_R)$. Therefore CKM matrix can be approximated as $V_{CKM} \simeq D_L$, and $D_R \simeq {\bf 1}$, as obtained in Ref. [@Crivellin:2015lwa]. Taking $D_L = V_{CKM}$, we can obtain sizes of $(\xi_d)_{13}$ and $(\xi_d)_{23}$ from Eq. (\[Eq:diagonalize\]) applying mass eigenvalues of down-type quarks. We thus obtain $$\left| (\xi_d)_{13} \right| \sim 0.034 \ {\rm GeV}, \quad \left| (\xi_d)_{23} \right| \sim 0.18 \ {\rm GeV}$$ with $y_{33} v_2/\sqrt{2} \simeq m_b \simeq 4.2$ GeV. Therefore we can reconstruct mass eigenvalues of down-type quarks with $D_L \simeq V_{CKM}$ taking these values for $\xi_d$ (values of $y_{ij}$ are chosen to fit $m_d$ and $m_s$). In addition, the values of $\xi_u$ tend to be smaller than $\xi_d$ due to mass relation $m_b \ll m_t$.
### $Z'$ interactions with SM fermions
The $Z'$ couplings to the SM fermions are written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L} \supset & -g_X \left( x_\mu \bar \mu \gamma^\mu \mu + x_\tau \bar \tau \gamma^\mu \tau + x_\mu \bar \nu_\mu \gamma^\mu P_L \nu_\mu + x_\tau \bar \nu_\tau \gamma^\mu P_L \nu_\tau + x_\mu \bar \nu_2 \gamma^\mu P_R\nu_2 + x_\tau \bar \nu_3 \gamma^\mu P_R\nu_3 \right) Z'_\mu \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{g_X}{3} \bar t \gamma^\mu t Z'_\mu + \frac{g_X}{3} \left( \bar d_\alpha \gamma^\mu P_L d_\beta \Gamma^{d_L}_{\alpha \beta} + \bar d_\alpha \gamma^\mu P_R d_\beta \Gamma^{d_R}_{\alpha \beta} \right) Z'_\mu \ ,
\label{eq:int_Z'}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_X$ is the gauge coupling constant associated with the $U(1)_X$ and the lepton sector is given in the flavor basis here. The coupling matrices $\Gamma^{d_R}$ and $\Gamma^{d_L}$ for down-type quarks are given approximately by $$\Gamma^{d_L} \simeq \left( \begin{array}{ccc} |V_{td}|^2 & V_{ts}V^*_{td} & V_{tb} V^*_{td} \\ V_{td} V^*_{ts} & |V_{ts}|^2 & V_{tb} V^*_{ts} \\ V_{td} V^*_{tb} & V_{ts} V^*_{tb} & |V_{tb}|^2 \end{array} \right), \quad
\Gamma^{d_R} \simeq \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right),
\label{eq:ckm}$$ where $V_{qq'}$’s are the CKM matrix elements. We have applied the relation $V_{CKM} \simeq D_{ L}$, as we discussed above. In our model the $Z'$ mass, $m_{Z'}$, is dominantly given by the VEV of SM singlet scalar field as discussed below.
At this point, $x_\mu$ is an arbitrary parameter requiring only anomaly cancellation condition Eq. (\[Eq:anomaly\]). This value will be fixed to obtain negative $\Delta C_9^\mu$ and to realize minimal scalar sector. The mass of $Z'$ can be a free parameter since it is given by new gauge coupling $g_X$ and scalar singlet VEV where we have freedom to chose the VEV even if the gauge coupling is fixed.
### Effective interaction for $b \to s \mu^+ \mu^-$
Gauge interactions in Eq. (\[eq:int\_Z’\]) induce the effective Hamiltonian for $b \to s \mu^+ \mu^-$ process such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta H_{\rm eff} &= -\frac{x_\mu g_{X}^2 V_{tb} V_{ts}^* }{3 m_{Z'}^2} (\bar s \gamma^\mu P_L b) (\bar \mu \gamma_\mu \mu) + h.c. \nonumber \\
& = \frac{x_\mu g_X^2}{3 m_{Z'}^2} \left( \frac{\sqrt{2} \pi}{G_F \alpha_{em}} \right) \left( \frac{- 4 G_F}{\sqrt{2} } \frac{\alpha_{em}}{4 \pi} V_{tb} V_{ts}^* \right)(\bar s \gamma^\mu P_L b) (\bar \mu \gamma_\mu \mu) + h.c.,\end{aligned}$$ where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant and $\alpha_{em}$ is the electromagnetic fine structure constant. We thus obtain the $Z'$ contribution to Wilson coefficient $\Delta C_9^\mu$ as $$\Delta C_9^\mu = \frac{x_\mu g_X^2}{3 m_{Z'}^2} \left( \frac{\sqrt{2} \pi}{G_F \alpha_{em}} \right) \simeq 2.78 \times x_\mu \left( \frac{ g_X}{0.62} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1.5 \ {\rm TeV}}{m_{Z'}} \right)^2.$$ In order to obtain $\Delta C_9^\mu \sim -1$, $x_\mu$ should be negative and $g_X$ is required to be $\sim 0.6$ for $m_{Z'} = 1.5$ TeV and $x_\mu = - \frac{1}{3}$. Figure \[fig:C9\] shows the contour of $\Delta C_9^\mu$ in the $( m_{Z'} , g_X )$ plane where we took $x_\mu = - \frac{1}{3}$ where the yellow(light-yellow) region corresponds to 1$\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) region from global fit in Ref. [@Capdevila:2017bsm].
![ The contours showing $Z'$ contribution to $\Delta C_9^\mu$ on the $m_{Z'}$-$g_X$ plane with $x_\mu = -\frac{1}{3}$ where yellow(light-yellow) region corresponds to 1$\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) region from global fit in Ref. [@Capdevila:2017bsm]. []{data-label="fig:C9"}](C9.eps){width="75mm"}
Fields $\Phi_1$ $\Phi_2$ $\varphi_1$ $\varphi_2$ $\chi$
------------ ------------ ------------ --------------- --------------- -----------
$SU(2)_L$ $\bf{2}$ $\bf{2}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$ $\bf{1}$
$U(1)_Y$ $\frac12$ $\frac12$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$U(1)_{X}$ $-\frac13$ $0$ $\frac13$ $1$ $\frac56$
: Scalar fields and extra fermion $\chi$ in the minimal model and their representation under $SU(2) \times U(1)_Y \times U(1)_X$ where these fields are color singlet.[]{data-label="tab:2"}
Minimal model
-------------
Here we consider the minimal cases for choosing $U(1)_X$ charges of leptons as $$x_\mu = -\frac{1}{3}, \quad x_\tau = \frac{4}{3}.$$ In this case we add two $SU(2)_L$ singlet scalar fields: $$\varphi_1 : ({\bf 1},{\bf 1})(0,1/3), \quad \varphi_2 : ({\bf 1},{\bf 1})(0,1),$$ where $\varphi_1$ is also necessary to induce $\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2$ terms [^2], while $\varphi_2$ is added for generating the $23(32)$ element of Majorana mass matrix of right-handed neutrino. Note that we obtain a massless Goldstone boson from two Higgs doublet sector without $\varphi_1$ due to an additional global symmetry. In addition we introduce additional Dirac fermion $\chi$ of mass $m_X$ with $U(1)_X$ charge $5/6$, which can be our DM candidate since its stability is guaranteed due to fractional charge assignment under $U(1)_X$. Note that the stability of Dirac fermion DM $\chi$ is guaranteed by remnant $Z_2$ symmetry after $U(1)_X$ symmetry breaking: particles with $U(1)_X$ charge $2n/6$ ($n$ is integer) are $Z_2$ even and those with $U(1)_X$ charge $(2n+1)/6$ are $Z_2$ odd, since $U(1)_X$ symmetry is broken by VEVs of scalar fields $\varphi_1$, $\varphi_2$ and $\Phi_1$ whose charges correspond to $2n/6$ [@Krauss:1988zc]. We summarize the charge assignment of scalar fields and new fermion in Table \[tab:2\]. In the later analysis, we will adopt this minimal setting.
In our set up, the full scalar potential for scalar fields in our model is given by $$\begin{aligned}
V_{}=& -\mu (\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2 \varphi_1^*+{\rm h.c.}) + \mu_{11}^2 |\Phi_1|^2 + \mu_{22}^2 |\Phi_2|^2
+ \mu_{\varphi_1}^2 |\varphi_1|^2 + \mu_{\varphi_2}^2 |\varphi_2|^2 \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{\lambda_1}{2} |\Phi_1|^4 + \frac{\lambda_2}{2} |\Phi_2|^4 + \lambda_3 |\Phi_1|^2 |\Phi_2|^2
+ \lambda_4 |\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2|^2 + \lambda_{\varphi_1} |\varphi_1|^4 + \lambda_{\varphi_2} |\varphi_2|^4 \nonumber \\
&
+ \lambda_{\Phi_1 \varphi_1} |\Phi_1|^2 |\varphi_1|^2 + \lambda_{\Phi_2 \varphi_1} |\Phi_2|^2 |\varphi_1|^2
+ \lambda_{\Phi_1 \varphi_2} |\Phi_1|^2 |\varphi_2|^2 + \lambda_{\Phi_2 \varphi_2} |\Phi_2|^2 |\varphi_2|^2 + \lambda_{\varphi_1 \varphi_2} |\varphi_1|^2 |\varphi_2|^2 \nonumber \\
&
- \lambda_X (\varphi_1^3 \varphi_2^* + h.c.),
\label{eq:Fullpotential}\end{aligned}$$ where we assumed all the coupling constants are real for simplicity. The VEVs of singlet scalar fields are written by $\sqrt{2} \langle \varphi_1 \rangle = v_{\varphi_1}$ and $\sqrt{2} \langle \varphi_2 \rangle = v_{\varphi_2}$. In our scenario, we assume $v_{\varphi_1}^2 \gg v_{\varphi_2}^2 \gg v_{1,2}^2$ and $U(1)_X$ symmetry is spontaneously broken at a scale higher than the electroweak scale. We then approximately obtain VEVs of $\varphi_{1,2}$ from the condition $\partial V/\partial v_{\varphi_{1,2}} =0$: $$v_{\varphi_1} \simeq \sqrt{\frac{- \mu_{\varphi_1}^2}{\lambda_{\varphi_1}}}, \quad v_{\varphi_2} \simeq \frac{ \lambda_X v_{\varphi_1}^3}{4 \mu_{\varphi_2}^2 + 2 \lambda_{\varphi_1 \varphi_2} v_{\varphi_1}^2},$$ where the above assumption for VEV hierarchy can be consistent requiring $\lambda_X v_{\varphi_1}^2 \ll \mu_{\varphi_2}^2$. Then the mass of the $Z'$ boson is approximately given by $$m_{Z'} \simeq \frac{1}{3} g_X v_{\varphi_1}.$$ Then a typical value of the $\varphi_1$ VEV is $v_{\varphi_1} \simeq 7.5 \times (m_{Z'}/1.5 \ {\rm TeV})(0.6/g_X) \ {\rm TeV}$ in our scenario. Note that the $Z$–$Z'$ mass mixing is highly suppressed by $v_1^2/v_{\varphi_1}^2$ factor which is $\sim 10^{-5}$ for $\tan \beta = v_2/v_1 = 10$ and $v_{\varphi_1} = 7. 5$ TeV. Thus we will ignore this effect in our analysis [^3].
After $U(1)_X$ symmetry breaking, we obtain two-Higgs doublet potential effectively [^4]: $$\begin{aligned}
V_{THDM} = & m_1^2 |\Phi_1|^2 + m_2^2 |\Phi_2|^2 - (m_3^2 \Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2 + h.c. ) \nonumber \\
& + \frac{\lambda_1}{2} |\Phi_1|^4 + \frac{\lambda_2}{2} |\Phi_2|^4 + \lambda_3 |\Phi_1|^2 |\Phi_2|^2 + \lambda_4 |\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2|^2, \\
m_{1(2)}^2 = & \mu_{11(22)}^2 + \frac{1}{2} \lambda_{\Phi_{1(2)} \varphi_1} v_{\varphi_1}^2 + \frac{1}{2} \lambda_{\Phi_{1(2)} \varphi_2} v_{\varphi_2}^2, \quad
m_3^2 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mu v_{\varphi_1}. \end{aligned}$$ Here we write $\Phi_{i}$ ($i=1,2$) as $$\Phi_i = \begin{pmatrix} w_i^+ \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (v_i + h_i + i z_i) \end{pmatrix}.$$ As in the two-Higgs-doublet model (THDM), we obtain mass eigenstate $\{H, h, A, H^\pm \}$ in the two Higgs doublet sector: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} z_1 (w^+_1) \\ z_2 (w^+_2) \end{pmatrix} & = \begin{pmatrix} \cos \beta & - \sin \beta \\ \sin \beta & \cos \beta \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} G_Z (G^+) \\ A(H^+) \end{pmatrix}, \\
\begin{pmatrix} h_1 \\ h_2 \end{pmatrix} & = \begin{pmatrix} \cos \alpha & - \sin \alpha \\ \sin \alpha & \cos \alpha \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} H \\ h \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tan \beta = v_2/v_1$, $G_Z (G^+)$ is a Nambu-Goldstone boson (NG) absorbed by the $Z(W^+)$ boson, and $h$ is the SM-like Higgs boson. The masses of $H^\pm$ and $A$ are given as in THDM: $$m^2_{H^\pm} = \frac{m_3^2}{\sin \beta \cos \beta} - \frac{v^2}{2} \lambda_4, \quad m_A^2 = \frac{m_3^2}{\sin \beta \cos \beta}.$$ Mass eigenvalues of CP-even scalar bosons are also obtained by $$\begin{aligned}
& m^2_{H,h} = \frac{1}{2} \left( M_1^2 + M_2^2 \pm \sqrt{(M_1^2 - M_2^2)^2 + 4 M_{12}^4} \right), \\
& M_1^2 = v^2 (\lambda_1 \cos^4 \beta + \lambda_2 \sin^4 \beta) + \frac{v^2}{2} \bar \lambda \sin^2 2 \beta, \\
& M_2^2 = \frac{m_3^2}{\sin \beta \cos \beta} + v^2 \sin^2 \beta \cos^2 \beta (\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 - 2 \bar \lambda), \\
& M^2_{12} = \frac{v^2}{2} \sin 2 \beta (- \lambda_1 \cos^2 \beta + \lambda_2 \sin^2 \beta) + \frac{v^2}{2} \bar \lambda \sin 2 \beta \cos 2 \beta ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar \lambda = \lambda_3 + \lambda_4$ and lighter mass eigenvalue $m_h$ is identified as the SM-like Higgs mass.
Note that Higgs bosons in doublet interact with $Z'$ and three point couplings can be obtained such that $$\begin{aligned}
(D_\mu H_1)^\dagger (D^\mu H_1) \supset & i \frac{g_X}{3} Z'^\mu (w^+_1 \partial_\mu w^-_1 - w_1^- \partial_\mu w_1^+ )
+ \frac{2 g_X}{3} Z'^\mu (h_1 \partial_\mu z_1 - z_1 \partial_\mu h1 ) \nonumber \\
\supset & i \frac{g_X \sin^2 \beta}{3} Z'^\mu (H^+ \partial_\mu H^- - H^- \partial_\mu H^+)
+ \frac{2 g_X \sin \beta \sin \alpha}{3} Z'^\mu (h \partial_\mu A - A \partial_\mu h) \nonumber \\
& + \frac{2 g_X \sin \beta \cos \alpha}{3} Z'^\mu (A \partial_\mu H - H \partial_\mu A).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $Z'$ can decay into $HA$, $hA$ and $H^+H^-$ pair.
Here we briefly comment on deviation in the couplings of the SM-like Higgs $h$ and constraint in the scalar sector in the model. The Yukawa interactions with $h$ are given by Eq. (\[Eq:YukawaH\]) in the Appendix. In particular, we have flavor violating interaction associated with $\xi^{u,d}$ coupling. In our analysis, we assume the interactions are SM-like that can be realized taking large $\tan \beta$ and alignment limit of $\cos (\alpha - \beta) \simeq 0$. Note also that new scalar bosons do not contribute to explanation of $b \to s \mu^{+} \mu^{-}$ anomalies in our scenario except for relaxing the constraint from $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ mixing as we discuss below; we can fit the data with the mass value of $\sim 500$ to $\sim 1000$ GeV for exotic scalar bosons from two-Higgs doublet sector. In such a mass region, we can find a parameter to avoid collider constraints for exotic scalar production like that of charged scalar bosons [@Aaboud:2018cwk]. We thus just assume new scalar bosons are sufficiently heavy and we can avoid constraints from scalar boson search at the LHC. Discussion of scalar sector can be referred to, for example, Refs. [@Crivellin:2015lwa; @Bian:2017xzg].
Neutrino mass and flavor constraints
====================================
In this section we formulate neutrino mass matrices (both Dirac and Majorana mass matrices), and explore constraints from flavor physics such as $\mu \to e \gamma$, $\mu \to e$ conversion and $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ mixing.
Neutrino mass matrices
----------------------
The Yukawa interactions for leptons are given by $$\begin{aligned}
- \mathcal{L} \ \supset \ & y^e_{aa} \bar L_{a L} e_{a R} \Phi_2 + y^\nu_{aa} \bar L_{a L} \nu_{a R} \tilde \Phi_2 + \tilde y^e_{12} \bar L_{1 L} \mu_{ R} \Phi_1 + \tilde y^\nu_{21} \bar L_{2 L} \nu_{1 R} \tilde \Phi_1 \nonumber \\
& + M \bar \nu_{1R}^c \nu_{1 R} + Y_{12} \bar \nu_{1R}^{ c} \nu_{2 R} \varphi_1^* + Y_{23} \bar \nu_{2 R}^{ c} \nu_{3 R} \varphi_2^* + h.c.,\end{aligned}$$ where $a=1,2,3$ and $Y_{ab} = Y_{ba}$. After the symmetry breaking, Dirac and Majorana mass matrices for neutrinos have the structure of $$M_D = \begin{pmatrix} (M_D)_{11} & 0 & 0 \\ (M_D)_{21} & (M_D)_{22} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & (M_D)_{33} \end{pmatrix}, \quad
M_{\nu_R} = \begin{pmatrix} (M_{\nu_R})_{11} & (M_{\nu_R})_{12} & 0 \\ (M_{\nu_R})_{21} & 0 & (M_{\nu_R})_{23} \\ 0 & (M_{\nu_R})_{32} & 0 \end{pmatrix},$$ where the elements of the mass matrices are given by $$\begin{aligned}
& (M_{D})_{aa} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} y^\nu_{aa} v_2, \quad (M_D)_{21} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \tilde y_{21} v_1, \nonumber \\
& (M_{\nu_R})_{11} = M, \quad (M_{\nu_R})_{12(21)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} Y_{12} v_{\varphi_1}, \quad (M_{\nu_R})_{23(32)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} Y_{23} v_{\varphi_2}.\end{aligned}$$ The active neutrino mass matrix is given by type-I seesaw mechanism: $$\begin{aligned}
& m_\nu \simeq - M_D M_{\nu_R}^{-1} M_D^T \nonumber \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} \frac{(M_D)_{11}^2}{(M_{\nu_R})_{11}} & \frac{(M_D)_{11} (M_D)_{21}}{(M_{\nu_R})_{11}} & -\frac{(M_D)_{11} (M_D)_{33} (M_{\nu_R})_{12}}{(M_{\nu_R})_{11} (M_{\nu_R})_{32}} \\
\frac{(M_D)_{11} (M_D)_{21}}{(M_{\nu_R})_{11}} & \frac{(M_D)_{21}^2}{(M_{\nu_R})_{11}} & \frac{(M_D)_{33} (M_D)_{22}}{(M_{\nu_R})_{32}} \left( 1 - \frac{(M_D)_{21}(M_{\nu_R})_{12}}{(M_{\nu_R})_{11} (M_D)_{22}} \right) \\
-\frac{(M_D)_{11} (M_D)_{33} (M_{\nu_R})_{12}}{(M_{\nu_R})_{11} (M_{\nu_R})_{32}} & \frac{(M_D)_{33} (M_D)_{22}}{(M_{\nu_R})_{32}} \left( 1 - \frac{(M_D)_{21}(M_{\nu_R})_{12}}{(M_{\nu_R})_{11} (M_D)_{22}} \right) & \frac{ (M_D)_{33}^2 (M_{\nu_R})_{12}^2}{(M_{\nu_R})_{11} (M_{\nu_R})_{23}^2}
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that our neutrino mass matrix does not have zero structure and neutrino oscillation data can be easily fit. Here we do not carry out further analysis of the neutrino phenomenology in this paper.
Charged lepton mass matrices
----------------------------
The charged lepton mass matrix is given by $$\begin{aligned}
M^e &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} y^e_{11} v_2 & \tilde y^e_{12} v_1 & 0 \\ 0 & y^e_{22} v_2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & y^e_{33} v_2 \end{pmatrix} \equiv \begin{pmatrix} m^e_{11} & \delta m^e_{12} & 0 \\ 0 & m^e_{22} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & m^e_{33} \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ For $\delta m^e_{12} \ll m^e_{22}$, the mass matrix can be diagonalized in good approximation as $$\begin{aligned}
& \begin{pmatrix} m_e & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & m_\mu & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & m_\tau \end{pmatrix} \simeq V_L^e M^e (V_R^e)^\dagger, \\
& V_R^e \simeq {\bm 1}, \quad V_L^e \simeq \begin{pmatrix} 1 & - \epsilon & 0 \\ \epsilon & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon = \delta m^e_{12}/m^e_{22}$ we also find $m_e \simeq m^e_{11}$, $m_\mu \simeq m^e_{22}$ and $m^e_{33} = m_\tau$.
Charged lepton flavor violation
-------------------------------
![ One loop diagrams inducing $\mu \to e \gamma$ process.[]{data-label="fig:diagram"}](diagram.eps){width="90mm"}
Here we consider charged lepton flavor violation (cLFV) in the model associated with $Z'$. The $Z'$ gauge interactions for mass eigenstates of charged leptons are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L} \supset - \frac{g_X}{3} \bar \ell_i \gamma^\mu \left[ V_L^e \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 &0 \\ 0 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 4 \end{pmatrix} V_L^{e\dagger} \right]_{ij} P_L \ell_j Z'_\mu - \frac{g_X}{3} \bar \ell_i \gamma^\mu \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 &0 \\ 0 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 4 \end{pmatrix}_{ij} P_R \ell_j Z'_\mu, \end{aligned}$$ where the flavor violating structure for left-handed charged lepton currents is given by $$\begin{aligned}
V_L^e \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 &0 \\ 0 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 4 \end{pmatrix} V_L^{e\dagger} \simeq
\begin{pmatrix} - \epsilon^2 & \epsilon & 0 \\ \epsilon & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 4 \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have LFV interaction for $e$ and $\mu$. Then we first consider $\mu \to e \gamma$ process induced by $Z'$ loop in Fig. \[fig:diagram\] where the left diagram gives dominant contribution due to suppression by $\epsilon$. Estimating the loop diagram we obtain dominant contribution to the decay width for the $\mu \to e \gamma$ process such that $$\begin{aligned}
& \Gamma_{\mu \to e \gamma} \simeq \frac{e^2 m_\mu^3}{16 \pi} |a_R|^2 , \\
& a_R \simeq \frac{e \epsilon g_X^2 m_\mu}{144 \pi^2} \int_0^1 dx dy dz \delta(1-x-y-z) \frac{2x (1+y) }{[(x^2-x) + xz + y+ z] m_\mu^2 + x m_{Z'}^2 }.\end{aligned}$$ Branching ratio for the LFV process is given by $$BR(\mu \to e \gamma) = \frac{\Gamma_{\mu \to e \gamma}}{\Gamma_{\mu \to e \bar \nu_e \nu_\mu}} \simeq \frac{12 \alpha}{G_F^2 m_\mu^2} |a_R|^2,$$ where $G_F \simeq 1.17 \times 10^{-5} \ {\rm GeV}^{-2}$ is the Fermi constant and $\alpha \simeq 1/137$ is the fine structure constant. In Fig. \[fig:LFV\], we show $BR(\mu \to e \gamma)$ on $\{g_X, \log |\epsilon| \}$ plane fixing $m_{Z'} = 1.5 (2.0)$ TeV where the shaded regions are excluded by the current constraint $BR (\mu \to e \gamma) \lesssim 4.2 \times 10^{-13}$ by the MEG experiment [@TheMEG:2016wtm]. Further parameter region will be explored in future with improved sensitivity [@Baldini:2018nnn].
![ $BR(\mu \to e \gamma)$ as a function of $\{g_X, \log |\epsilon| \}$ fixing $m_{Z'} = 1.5(2.0)$ TeV for left(right) plot where the shaded regions are excluded.[]{data-label="fig:LFV"}](LFV15.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ $BR(\mu \to e \gamma)$ as a function of $\{g_X, \log |\epsilon| \}$ fixing $m_{Z'} = 1.5(2.0)$ TeV for left(right) plot where the shaded regions are excluded.[]{data-label="fig:LFV"}](LFV2.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
Here we also discuss $\mu \to e$ conversion via $Z'$ exchange. In our case, the relevant effective Lagrangian for the process is derived as follows [@Kuno:1999jp; @Kitano:2002mt; @Davidson:2018kud] $$\mathcal{L}_{eff} = - \frac{4 G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_{N=p,n} \left[ C_{VL}^{NN} \bar e \gamma^\alpha P_L \mu \bar N \gamma_\alpha N
+ C_{AL}^{NN} \bar e \gamma^\alpha P_L \mu \bar N \gamma_\alpha \gamma_5 N \right],$$ where the corresponding coefficients are given by $$C_{VL}^{pp(nn)} = -C_{AL}^{pp(nn)} = (2) \frac{\sqrt{2} \epsilon g_X^2 |V_{td}|^2 }{216 G_F m_{Z'}^2}.$$ Then we obtain the spin-independent contribution to the BR for $\mu \to e$ conversion on a nucleus such that $$BR(\mu \to e) = \frac{32 G_F^2 m_\mu^5}{\Gamma_{cap}} \left| C_{VL}^{pp} V^{(p)} + C_{VL}^{nn} V^{(n)} \right|^2,$$ where $\Gamma_{cap}$ is the rate for the muon to transform to a neutrino by capture on the nucleus, and $V^{(p,n)}$ is the integral over the nucleus for lepton wavefunctions with corresponding nucleon density. The values of $\Gamma_{cap}$ and $V^{(n,p)}$ depend on target nucleus and those for $^{197}_{79}$Au and $^{27}_{13}$Al are given in Table. \[tab:mue-conv\] [@Kitano:2002mt; @Suzuki:1987jf]. In Fig. \[fig:MtoE\], we show $BR(\mu \to e)$ for $^{27}_{13}$Al on $\{g_X, \log |\epsilon| \}$ plane fixing $m_{Z'} = 1.5(2.0)$ TeV in left(right)-panel where gray(light-gray) shaded region is excluded by current $\mu \to e \gamma$ BR ($\mu \to e$ BR on $^{197}_{79}$Au [@Bertl:2006up]) constraints. We find that large parameter region can be explored by $\mu \to e$ conversion measurement since its sensitivity will reach $\sim 10^{-16}$ on $^{27}_{13}$Al nucleus in future experiments [@Kuno:2013mha; @Carey:2008zz].
Nucleus $^A_Z N$ $V^{p}$ $V^{n}$ $ \Gamma_{\rm capt}~[10^6{\rm sec}^{-1}]$
------------------ ---------- ---------- -------------------------------------------
$^{27}_{13}$Al $0.0161$ $0.0173$ $0.7054$
$^{197}_{79}$Au $0.0974$ $0.146$ $13.07$
: A summary of parameters for the $\mu-e$ conversion formula for $^{27}_{13}$Al and $^{197}_{79}$Au nuclei [@Kitano:2002mt; @Suzuki:1987jf].[]{data-label="tab:mue-conv"}
![ $BR(\mu \to e)$ on $^{27}_{13}$Al as a function of $\{g_X, \log |\epsilon| \}$ fixing $m_{Z'} = 1.5(2.0)$ TeV for left(right) plot where gray(light-gray) shaded region is excluded by current $\mu \to e \gamma$ BR ($\mu \to e$ BR on $^{197}_{79}$Au [@Bertl:2006up]) constraints.[]{data-label="fig:MtoE"}](MtE15.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ $BR(\mu \to e)$ on $^{27}_{13}$Al as a function of $\{g_X, \log |\epsilon| \}$ fixing $m_{Z'} = 1.5(2.0)$ TeV for left(right) plot where gray(light-gray) shaded region is excluded by current $\mu \to e \gamma$ BR ($\mu \to e$ BR on $^{197}_{79}$Au [@Bertl:2006up]) constraints.[]{data-label="fig:MtoE"}](MtE2.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
We next consider the LFV B decay $B_s \to \mu^\pm e^\mp$ which is related to $C_9^\mu$ above. It is because that the process is induced from $C_{10}^{\mu e}$ which is obtained as $C_{10}^{\mu e} = - \epsilon \Delta C_9^\mu$ in the model. The branching ratio can be given by $$BR(B_s \to \mu e) = \left| \frac{C_{10}^{\mu e}}{C_{10}^{SM}} \right|^2 BR(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-)_{SM} \simeq |0.24 \times \epsilon \Delta C_9^\mu|^2 BR(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-)_{SM},$$ where we used $C_{10}^{SM} (\mu_b) \simeq -4.2$ and $BR(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-)_{SM} = (3.65 \pm 0.23) \times 10^{-9}$ is the SM prediction for the BR of $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$. We find that $BR(B_s \to \mu e) < 10^{-11}$ in the parameter region satisfying the constraint from $BR(\mu \to e \gamma)$ which is well below the current constraint.
Here we also discuss the branching ratio for $B \to K^{(*)} \mu e$ through lepton flavor violating $Z'$ coupling. It is suppressed compared to $BR (B \to K^{(*)} \mu \mu)$ by a factor of $|\epsilon \Delta C_9^{\mu}/C_9^\mu|^2 \sim 10^{-3}$ for $\Delta C_9^\mu = -1$ and $\epsilon = 0.1$. Thus the BR is small as order of $10^{-10} - 10^{-9}$ and it is well below current bound and challenging to search for the signal at the future experiments such as (upgraded) LHCb [@Bediaga:2012uyd] and Belle II [@Kou:2018nap].
Constraint from neutrino trident process and $Z'$ contribution to muon $g-2$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$U(1)_X$ gauge coupling and $Z'$ mass are constrained by the neutrino trident process $\nu N \to \nu N \mu^+ \mu^- $ where $N$ is a nucleon [@Altmannshofer:2014pba]. The bound is approximately given by $m_{Z'}/g_X \gtrsim 550 \ {\rm GeV}$ for $m_{Z'} > 1$ GeV. We then consider parameter region of $\{m_{Z'}, g_X\}$ satisfying this bound.
The observed muon magnetic dipole moment is deviated from the SM prediction as $\Delta a_\mu = (26.1 \pm 8.0) \times 10^{-10}$ [[@bennett]]{} (muon $g-2$). The $Z'$ boson can contribute to muon $g-2$ at one loop level as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta a_{\mu}^{Z'}\approx \frac{g_{X}^2 x_\mu^2}{4 \pi^2}\int_0^1 da \frac{r a (1-a)^2}{r(1-a)^2+a}, \end{aligned}$$ where $r\equiv(m_\mu/M_{Z'})^2$. We find that the $Z'$ contribution is small for the parameter region providing $\Delta C_9 \sim -1$; for example $\Delta a_{\mu}^{Z'} \sim 1.7 \times 10^{-12}$ with $m_{Z'} = 1500$ GeV and $g_X = 0.6$.
Constraint from $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ mixing
----------------------------------------
In our model, $Z'$ and neutral scalar bosons induce flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) interactions. Here we consider constraints from $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ mixing where other $\Delta F =2$ processes are more suppressed by CKM factors.
The effective Hamiltonian for the $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ mixing is given by $$H_{eff} = C_1 (\bar s \gamma^\mu P_L b) (\bar s \gamma_\mu P_L b) +
C'_2 (\bar s P_R b)(\bar s P_R b) .$$ The relevant Wilson coefficients are $$C_1 = \frac12 \frac{g_X^2}{9 m_{Z'}^2} (\Gamma^{d_L}_{sb})^2, \quad C'_2 = \sum_{\eta = h,H,A} \frac{-1}{2 m^2_\eta} (\Gamma^\eta_{sb})^2,$$ where $\Gamma^\eta_{qq'}$ is couplings for $\eta \bar q q'$ interactions ($\eta = h, H, A$), the explicit expressions of which are given in the Appendix. Using these Wilson coefficients we obtain ratio between $\Delta m_{B_s}$ in our model and the SM prediction $\Delta m_{B_s}^{SM}$, under large $\tan \beta$ and small $\alpha$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
R_{B_s} & = \frac{\Delta m_{B_s}}{\Delta m_{B_s}^{SM}} \nonumber \\
& \simeq \frac{g_X^2 (V_{tb} V_{ts}^*)^2}{9 m^2_{Z'}} (8.2 \times 10^{-5} \ {\rm TeV^{-2}})^{-1} \nonumber \\
&+ \left[ 0.12 \cos^2 (\alpha - \beta) \tan^2 \beta + 0.19 \tan^2 \beta \left( \frac{(200 \ {\rm GeV})^2}{m_H^2} - \frac{(200 \ {\rm GeV})^2}{m_A^2} \right) \right],\end{aligned}$$ where the first and second terms in the right-hand side corresponds to contributions from $Z'$ and scalars, respectively [@Crivellin:2015lwa; @Arnan:2016cpy; @Bazavov:2016nty]. The allowed range of $R_{B_s}$ is estimated by [@Arnan:2016cpy; @Bazavov:2016nty] $$0.83 < R_{B_s} < 0.99.$$ We find that $R_{B_s}$ will be deviated from the allowed range by $Z'$ contribution when $\Delta C_9^{\mu} \simeq -1$ is required. Thus cancellation between $Z'$ and scalar contribution is necessary to satisfy the experimental constraint[^5]. Here we derive allowed parameter region on $\{m_H, m_A -m_H \}$ plane satisfying $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ constraints when we fit $C_9^\mu$ to explain $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies choosing $\tan \beta = 10$ and $\cos (\alpha - \beta) \sim 0$ as reference values. In Fig. \[fig:BsBsbar\], we show the allowed parameter region where the yellow(light yellow) region corresponds to that in Fig. \[fig:C9\].
![ The allowed region on $\{m_H, m_A -m_H \}$ plane satisfying $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ constraints with fitting $C_9$ to explain $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies where the yellow(light yellow) region corresponds to that in Fig. \[fig:C9\]. Here we take $\tan \beta = 10$ and $\cos (\alpha - \beta) \sim 0$ as reference values.[]{data-label="fig:BsBsbar"}](BsBsbar.eps){width="75mm"}
Prediction on $B\rightarrow K^{(*)} \tau^+ \tau^-$
--------------------------------------------------
Here we discuss $B\rightarrow K^{(*)} \tau^+ \tau^-$ process in our model. The branching ratios are given by Wilson coefficient $C_9$ associated with $\tau$ such that [@Capdevila:2017iqn] $$\begin{aligned}
10^7 \times BR(B \to K \tau^+ \tau^-)^{[15, 22]} = & (1.20 + 0.15 \Delta C_9^{\tau} + 0.02 (\Delta C_9^{\tau})^2 ) \nonumber \\
& \pm (0.12 + 0.02 \Delta C_9^{\tau} ), \\
10^7 \times BR(B \to K^* \tau^+ \tau^-)^{[15, 19]} = & (0.98 + 0.38 \Delta C_9^{\tau} + 0.05 (\Delta C_9^{\tau})^2 ) \nonumber \\
& \pm (0.09 + 0.03 \Delta C_9^{\tau} + 0.01 (\Delta C_9^{\tau})^2 ), \end{aligned}$$ where the superscript indicates the $q^2$ range for the dilepton invariant mass in unit of \[GeV$^2$\]. For the $b \rightarrow s \tau^+ \tau^-$ channel, we obtain $\Delta C_9^\tau = - 4 C_9^\mu$ from our charge assignments, and the BRs are slightly enhanced from the SM prediction by factor $\sim 1.5$. However current upper bounds of the BRs are much larger than the prediction as $BR(B \to K \tau^+ \tau^-) < 2.25 \times 10^{-3} $ [@TheBaBar:2016xwe]. Therefore it is difficult to test the enhancement effect.
Collider physics and dark matter
================================
In this section we explore collider physics focusing on $Z'$ production at the LHC and estimate relic density of our DM candidate searching for parameter region providing observed value.
$Z'$ production at the LHC
--------------------------
Here we discuss $Z'$ production at the LHC 13 TeV where $Z'$ can be produced via interaction in Eq. (\[eq:int\_Z’\]), followed by decay modes of $Z' \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ and $Z' \to \tau^+ \tau^-$ \[Drell-Yan (DY) productions\]. In this model $Z'$ mainly decays into $\tau^+ \tau^-$ model with $BR(Z' \to \tau^+ \tau^-) \sim 0.5$ and BR of $\mu^+ \mu^-$ mode is suppressed by factor of $1/16$. The production cross section is estimated by CalcHEP [@Belyaev:2012qa] using the CTEQ6 parton distribution functions (PDFs) [@Nadolsky:2008zw]. In Fig. \[fig:LHC\], we show $\sigma (pp \to Z') BR(Z' \to \ell^+ \ell^-/\tau^+ \tau^-)$ ($\ell = e, \mu$) as a function of the $Z'$ mass for several values of $g_X$. The cross sections are compared with constraints from LHC data; from Refs. [@Aaboud:2017buh] and [@Khachatryan:2016qkc] for $\ell^+ \ell^-$ and $\tau^+ \tau^-$ modes. We thus find that $\ell^+ \ell^-$ mode (mostly $\mu^+ \mu^-$) provides more strict bound although $BR(Z' \to \mu^+ \mu^-) : BR(Z' \to \tau^+ \tau^-) = 1: 16$. Here we set masses of $H$, $A$ and $H^\pm$ as 400 GeV and apply $\tan \beta = 10$ and $\cos(\alpha - \beta) = 0$ where the effects of the $Z'$ decays into scalar bosons are small. Also right-handed neutrinos and DM $\chi$ are taken to be heavier than $m_{Z'}/2$ so that $Z'$ does not decay into on-shell right-handed neutrinos and DM.
Our $Z'$ boson also decays into neutrinos with BR value of $BR(Z' \to \nu_\tau \bar \nu_\tau) = 16 BR(Z' \to \nu_\mu \bar \nu_\mu) \simeq 0.25$. Thus we can also test our model by $pp \to Z' g \to \nu \bar \nu g$ process at the LHC experiments searching for signal with mono-jet plus missing transverse momentum. The cross section of $pp \to Z' g \to \nu \bar \nu g$ process is, for example, $\sim 1$ fb with $g_X = 0.6$ and $m_{Z'} = 1500$ GeV estimated by CalcHEP with $p_T > 25$ GeV cut. We thus need large integrated luminosity to analyze the signal [@Aaboud:2017phn] and it will be tested in future LHC experiments.
![Left(right) plot: $\sigma(pp \to Z') BR(Z' \to \ell^+ \ell^- (\tau^+ \tau^-))$ with $\ell = e, \mu$ for several values of $g_X$ compared with LHC limit; from Refs. [@Aaboud:2017buh] and [@Khachatryan:2016qkc] for $\ell^+ \ell^-$ and $\tau^+ \tau^-$ modes. []{data-label="fig:LHC"}](LHCll.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![Left(right) plot: $\sigma(pp \to Z') BR(Z' \to \ell^+ \ell^- (\tau^+ \tau^-))$ with $\ell = e, \mu$ for several values of $g_X$ compared with LHC limit; from Refs. [@Aaboud:2017buh] and [@Khachatryan:2016qkc] for $\ell^+ \ell^-$ and $\tau^+ \tau^-$ modes. []{data-label="fig:LHC"}](LHCtt.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
Dark matter
-----------
We consider a Dirac fermion $\chi$ as our DM candidate, and the relic density is determined by the DM annihilation process $\chi \bar \chi \to Z' \to f_{SM} \bar f_{SM}/HA/H^+H^-$ where $f_{SM}$ is a SM fermion and/or $\chi \bar \chi \to Z' Z'$ depending on kinematic condition. Then we estimate relic density of our DM using [micrOMEGAs 4.3.5]{} [@Belanger:2014vza] implementing relevant interactions. Fig. \[fig:relic0\] shows the relic density $\Omega h^2$ as a function of DM mass $m_X$ where we apply several values of $g_X$ and $m_{Z'} = 1.5$ TeV as reference values, and indicate observed $\Omega h^2$ value by horizontal dashed line [@Aghanim:2018eyx]. We see that the relic density drops at around $m_{Z'} \sim 2 m_X$ due to resonant enhancement of the annihilation cross section.
In addition, we scan parameters in the range of $$m_X \in [200, 3100] \ {\rm GeV}, \quad m_{Z'} \in [500, 7000] \ {\rm GeV}, \quad g_X \in [0.01, 1.5] ,$$ with assuming that $\tan \beta = 10$ and $\cos (\alpha - \beta) = 0$ as reference values. We note that the effects of scalar bosons are subdominant. The left panel of Fig. \[fig:relic\] shows the parameter region which accommodates the observed relic density of DM, $\Omega h^2 = 0.1206 \pm 0.0063$, taking $3 \sigma$ range of observed value by the Planck collaboration [@Aghanim:2018eyx]. Moreover the right panel of the figure indicates the region in which both observed relic density and $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies are explained within 2$\sigma$. Notice that the allowed region with $m_{Z'} < m_X$ is partly excluded by or close to LHC constraint shown in Fig. \[fig:LHC\] and will be explored in future LHC experiments. In addition DM-nucleon scattering cross section by $Z'$ exchange is suppressed by CKM factor and the allowed region is not constrained by the DM direct detection experiments.
Before closing this section we discuss possibility of indirect detection of our DM. In this model DM pair annihilates mainly through $\chi \bar \chi \to Z' \to \tau^+ \tau^-$ and/or $\chi \bar \chi \to Z' Z' \to 2 \tau^+ \tau^-$ and gamma-ray search gives the strongest constraint on the annihilation cross section by Fermi-LAT observation [@Hoof:2018hyn; @Fermi-LAT:2016uux]. In our parameter region of $m_{Z'} > 500$ GeV, DM annihilation cross section explaining the relic density is well below the constraint for the $\tau^+ \tau^-$ dominant case [@Fermi-LAT:2016uux; @Hoof:2018hyn] unless there is large enhancement factor; constraint on cross section for four $\tau$ mode would be similar. Thus our model is safe from indirect detection cross section and will be tested with larger amount of data in future.
![ Relic density of DM as function of DM masses for different values of $U(1)_X$ gauge couplings, $g_X = 0.1, 0.2$ and $0.3$. We have fixed $m_{Z'} = 1.5$ TeV. []{data-label="fig:relic0"}](RD.eps){width="75mm"}
![ (Left): parameter region which accommodates the observed DM relic density. (Right): parameter region which explains both DM relic density and $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies.[]{data-label="fig:relic"}](DM.png "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ (Left): parameter region which accommodates the observed DM relic density. (Right): parameter region which explains both DM relic density and $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies.[]{data-label="fig:relic"}](DM2.png "fig:"){width="75mm"}
Summary and discussions
========================
We have discussed a flavor model based on $U(1)_{B_3 - x_\mu L_\mu - x_\tau L_\tau}
(\equiv U(1)_X)$ gauge symmetry in which two Higgs doublet fields are introduced to obtain the observed CKM matrix. Flavor changing $Z'$ interactions with the SM quarks are obtained after diagonalizing quark mass matrix, and $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies can be explained due to lepton flavor non-universal charge assignment when $x_\mu$ is taken to be negative value. Then we have considered minimal set up explaining $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies and generated neutrino mass matrix where two SM singlet scalar fields and Dirac fermionic DM candidate are introduced.
We have computed the $Z'$ contribution to the Wilson coefficient $C_9^\mu$ relevant for $b\rightarrow s \mu^+ \mu^-$, as wel as neutrino mass matrices, charged lepton flavor violations and the $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ mixing, including the relevant experimental constraints. We have found that cancellation between $Z'$ and scalar bosons contributions to $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ is required to satisfy experimental constraint, while explaining $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies. In addition, we have shown constraints from lepton flavor violation process $\mu \to e \gamma$ and future prospects for $\mu \to e$ conversion measurements.
Then collider physics regarding $Z'$ production at the LHC and relic density of DM are explored. We have shown cross sections for the DY processes, $pp \to Z' \to \mu^+ \mu^- (\tau^+ \tau^-)$, where constraints on the $\{ m_{Z'} , g_X \}$ parameter space dominantly come from the data of di-muon resonance search at the LHC. The relic density of DM further constrains $\{ m_{Z'} , g_X \}$ parameter space since the relic density is determined by DM pair annihilation process via $Z'$ interactions. The preferred parameter region can be further tested in future LHC experiments and observations for flavor physics such as LFVs.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The work of CY was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT), NRF-2017R1A2B4011946 and NRF-2017R1E1A1A01074699.
Appendix: Yukawa interactions {#appendix-yukawa-interactions .unnumbered}
==============================
Here we summarize Yukawa interactions in two Higgs doublet sector which are taken from ref. [@Crivellin:2015lwa]. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_Y = & - \bar u_L \left( \frac{\cos \alpha}{v \sin \beta} m_u^D - \frac{\cos (\alpha - \beta)}{\sqrt{2} \sin \beta} \tilde \xi^u \right) u_R h
- \bar d_L \left( \frac{\cos \alpha}{v \sin \beta} m_d^D - \frac{\cos (\alpha - \beta)}{\sqrt{2} \sin \beta} \tilde \xi^d \right) d_R h \nonumber \\
& - \bar u_L \left( \frac{\sin \alpha}{v \sin \beta} m_u^D - \frac{\sin (\alpha - \beta)}{\sqrt{2} \sin \beta} \tilde \xi^u \right) u_R H
- \bar d_L \left( \frac{\sin \alpha}{v \sin \beta} m_d^D - \frac{\sin (\alpha - \beta)}{\sqrt{2} \sin \beta} \tilde \xi^d \right) d_R H \nonumber \\
& - i \bar u_L \left( \frac{m_u^D}{v \tan \beta} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2} \sin \beta} \tilde \xi^u \right) u_R A
+ i \bar d_L \left( \frac{m_d^D}{v \tan \beta} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2} \sin \beta} \tilde \xi^d \right) d_R A \nonumber \\
& - \left[ \bar u_R \left( \frac{\sqrt{2}}{v \tan \beta} m_u^D V - \frac{1}{\sin \beta} (\tilde \xi^u)^\dagger \right) d_L
+ \bar u_L \left( \frac{\sqrt{2}}{v \tan \beta} V m_d^D - \frac{1}{\sin \beta} V \tilde \xi^d \right) d_R \right] H^+ \nonumber \\
& + h. c. \, ,
\label{Eq:YukawaH}\end{aligned}$$ where flavor indices are omitted and the non-diagonal coupling matrices are defined as $$\tilde \xi^u = U_L^\dagger \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \tilde y^u_{31} & \tilde y^u_{32} & 0 \end{pmatrix} U_R, \quad
\tilde \xi^d = D_L^\dagger \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & \tilde y^d_{13} \\ 0 & 0 & \tilde y^d_{23} \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} D_R.$$ Under the approximation $V \simeq D_L$ and $D_R \simeq {\bf 1}$, we obtain $$\tilde \xi^d \simeq V^\dagger \xi^d \simeq \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\cos \beta} \frac{m_b}{v}
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & - V_{td}^* V_{tb} \\ 0 & 0 & - V_{ts}^* V_{tb} \\ 0 & 0 & 1 - |V_{tb}|^2 \end{pmatrix}.$$
[99]{}
S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, M. Ramon and J. Virto, JHEP [**1301**]{}, 048 (2013) \[arXiv:1207.2753 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], JHEP [**1602**]{}, 104 (2016) \[arXiv:1512.04442 \[hep-ex\]\]. R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 191801 (2013) \[arXiv:1308.1707 \[hep-ex\]\].
A. Abdesselam [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], arXiv:1604.04042 \[hep-ex\]. S. Wehle [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], arXiv:1612.05014 \[hep-ex\]. G. Hiller and F. Kruger, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 074020 (2004) \[hep-ph/0310219\]. C. Bobeth, G. Hiller and G. Piranishvili, JHEP [**0712**]{}, 040 (2007) \[arXiv:0709.4174 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 151601 (2014) \[arXiv:1406.6482 \[hep-ex\]\]. R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], arXiv:1705.05802 \[hep-ex\]. W. Altmannshofer, C. Niehoff, P. Stangl and D. M. Straub, Eur. Phys. J. C [**77**]{}, no. 6, 377 (2017) \[arXiv:1703.09189 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias and J. Virto, JHEP [**1801**]{}, 093 (2018) \[arXiv:1704.05340 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Ciuchini, A. M. Coutinho, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini and M. Valli, Eur. Phys. J. C [**77**]{}, no. 10, 688 (2017) \[arXiv:1704.05447 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. K. Alok, B. Bhattacharya, A. Datta, D. Kumar, J. Kumar and D. London, Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}, no. 9, 095009 (2017) \[arXiv:1704.07397 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 7, 075006 (2015) \[arXiv:1503.03477 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. Aristizabal Sierra, F. Staub and A. Vicente, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 1, 015001 (2015) \[arXiv:1503.06077 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Greljo, G. Isidori and D. Marzocca, JHEP [**1507**]{}, 142 (2015) \[arXiv:1506.01705 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. M. Boucenna, A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente and J. Virto, Phys. Lett. B [**760**]{}, 214 (2016) \[arXiv:1604.03088 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. M. Boucenna, A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente and J. Virto, JHEP [**1612**]{}, 059 (2016) \[arXiv:1608.01349 \[hep-ph\]\]. W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, JHEP [**1612**]{}, 106 (2016) \[arXiv:1609.04026 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. Ko, T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B [**772**]{}, 547 (2017) \[arXiv:1701.05788 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Ko, Y. Omura, Y. Shigekami and C. Yu, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 11, 115040 (2017) \[arXiv:1702.08666 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. Ko, T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 11, 111701 (2017) \[arXiv:1702.02699 \[hep-ph\]\].
E. Megias, M. Quiros and L. Salas, JHEP [**1707**]{}, 102 (2017) \[arXiv:1703.06019 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Di Chiara, A. Fowlie, S. Fraser, C. Marzo, L. Marzola, M. Raidal and C. Spethmann, Nucl. Phys. B [**923**]{}, 245 (2017) \[arXiv:1704.06200 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Alonso, P. Cox, C. Han and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}, no. 7, 071701 (2017) \[arXiv:1704.08158 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y. Tang and Y. L. Wu, Chin. Phys. C [**42**]{}, no. 3, 033104 (2018) \[arXiv:1705.05643 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Alonso, P. Cox, C. Han and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**774**]{}, 643 (2017) \[arXiv:1705.03858 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. W. Chiang, X. G. He, J. Tandean and X. B. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}, no. 11, 115022 (2017) \[arXiv:1706.02696 \[hep-ph\]\].
C. H. Chen and T. Nomura, Phys. Lett. B [**777**]{}, 420 (2018) \[arXiv:1707.03249 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Baek, Phys. Lett. B [**781**]{}, 376 (2018) \[arXiv:1707.04573 \[hep-ph\]\].
L. Bian, S. M. Choi, Y. J. Kang and H. M. Lee, Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}, no. 7, 075038 (2017) \[arXiv:1707.04811 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Faisel and J. Tandean, JHEP [**1802**]{}, 074 (2018) \[arXiv:1710.11102 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Descotes-Genon, M. Moscati and G. Ricciardi, Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{}, no. 11, 115030 (2018) \[arXiv:1711.03101 \[hep-ph\]\].
L. Bian, H. M. Lee and C. B. Park, Eur. Phys. J. C [**78**]{}, no. 4, 306 (2018) \[arXiv:1711.08930 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Chala and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{}, no. 3, 035010 (2018) \[arXiv:1803.02364 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Falkowski, S. F. King, E. Perdomo and M. Pierre, JHEP [**1808**]{}, 061 (2018) \[arXiv:1803.04430 \[hep-ph\]\].
L. Darme, K. Kowalska, L. Roszkowski and E. M. Sessolo, JHEP [**1810**]{}, 052 (2018) \[arXiv:1806.06036 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. Baek and C. Yu, JHEP [**1811**]{}, 054 (2018) \[arXiv:1806.05967 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. Guadagnoli, M. Reboud and O. Sumensari, JHEP [**1811**]{}, 163 (2018) \[arXiv:1807.03285 \[hep-ph\]\].
G. H. Duan, X. Fan, M. Frank, C. Han and J. M. Yang, Phys. Lett. B [**789**]{}, 54 (2019) \[arXiv:1808.04116 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. H. Benavides, L. Munoz, W. A. Ponce, O. Rodriguez and E. Rojas, arXiv:1812.05077 \[hep-ph\]. C. Q. Geng and H. Okada, arXiv:1812.07918 \[hep-ph\].
P. T. P. Hutauruk, T. Nomura, H. Okada and Y. Orikasa, arXiv:1901.03932 \[hep-ph\]. S. Baek, arXiv:1901.04761 \[hep-ph\].
M. Tanabashi [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{}, no. 3, 030001 (2018).
P. Langacker, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{}, 1199 (2009) \[arXiv:0801.1345 \[hep-ph\]\].
L. M. Krauss and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 1221 (1989). M. Aaboud [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], JHEP [**1811**]{}, 085 (2018) \[arXiv:1808.03599 \[hep-ex\]\]. A. M. Baldini [*et al.*]{} \[MEG Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, no. 8, 434 (2016) \[arXiv:1605.05081 \[hep-ex\]\].
A. M. Baldini [*et al.*]{} \[MEG II Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**78**]{}, no. 5, 380 (2018) \[arXiv:1801.04688 \[physics.ins-det\]\].
Y. Kuno and Y. Okada, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{}, 151 (2001) \[hep-ph/9909265\].
R. Kitano, M. Koike and Y. Okada, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 096002 (2002) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 059902 (2007)\] \[hep-ph/0203110\]. S. Davidson, Y. Kuno and M. Yamanaka, arXiv:1810.01884 \[hep-ph\].
T. Suzuki, D. F. Measday and J. P. Roalsvig, Phys. Rev. C [**35**]{}, 2212 (1987). W. H. Bertl [*et al.*]{} \[SINDRUM II Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**47**]{}, 337 (2006). Y. Kuno \[COMET Collaboration\], PTEP [**2013**]{}, 022C01 (2013). doi:10.1093/ptep/pts089 R. M. Carey [*et al.*]{} \[Mu2e Collaboration\], FERMILAB-PROPOSAL-0973 I. Bediaga [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], CERN-LHCC-2012-007, LHCb-TDR-12. E. Kou [*et al.*]{} \[Belle II Collaboration\], arXiv:1808.10567 \[hep-ex\].
W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov and I. Yavin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 091801 (2014) \[arXiv:1406.2332 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. W. Bennett [*et al.*]{} \[Muon G-2 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 072003 (2006) \[hep-ex/0602035\].
P. Arnan, L. Hofer, F. Mescia and A. Crivellin, JHEP [**1704**]{}, 043 (2017) \[arXiv:1608.07832 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Bazavov [*et al.*]{} \[Fermilab Lattice and MILC Collaborations\], Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 11, 113016 (2016) \[arXiv:1602.03560 \[hep-lat\]\]. P. Ko, Y. Omura and C. Yu, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 115010 (2012) \[arXiv:1108.0350 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Ko, Y. Omura and C. Yu, JHEP [**1201**]{}, 147 (2012) \[arXiv:1108.4005 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Ko, Y. Omura and C. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{}, no. 1, 2269 (2013) \[arXiv:1205.0407 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Ko, Y. Omura and C. Yu, JHEP [**1303**]{}, 151 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.4607 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer and J. Matias, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**120**]{}, no. 18, 181802 (2018) \[arXiv:1712.01919 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. P. Lees [*et al.*]{} \[BaBar Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**118**]{}, no. 3, 031802 (2017) \[arXiv:1605.09637 \[hep-ex\]\].
A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen and A. Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**184**]{}, 1729 (2013) \[arXiv:1207.6082 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. M. Nadolsky, H. L. Lai, Q. H. Cao, J. Huston, J. Pumplin, D. Stump, W. K. Tung and C.-P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 013004 (2008) \[arXiv:0802.0007 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Aaboud [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], JHEP [**1710**]{}, 182 (2017) \[arXiv:1707.02424 \[hep-ex\]\]. V. Khachatryan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], JHEP [**1702**]{} (2017) 048 \[arXiv:1611.06594 \[hep-ex\]\]. M. Aaboud [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], JHEP [**1801**]{}, 126 (2018) \[arXiv:1711.03301 \[hep-ex\]\].
G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**192**]{}, 322 (2015) \[arXiv:1407.6129 \[hep-ph\]\]. N. Aghanim [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], arXiv:1807.06209 \[astro-ph.CO\]. A. Albert [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT and DES Collaborations\], Astrophys. J. [**834**]{}, no. 2, 110 (2017) \[arXiv:1611.03184 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. S. Hoof, A. Geringer-Sameth and R. Trotta, arXiv:1812.06986 \[astro-ph.CO\].
[^1]: In our analysis we ignore kinetic mixing between $U(1)_Y$ and $U(1)_X$ assuming it is sufficiently small.
[^2]: Note that we need one more scalar singlet to generate neutrino mass when $x_\mu \neq -1/3$.
[^3]: The $Z$–$Z'$ mixing effect is constrained by precision measurements of $Z \bar f_{SM} f_{SM}$ coupling at the LEP experiments where the upper bound of the mixing $\theta_{ZZ'}$ is around $\sim 10^{-3}-10^{-4}$ [@Tanabashi:2018oca; @Langacker:2008yv]. Thus our mixing angle is sufficiently smaller than the bound.
[^4]: Here we do not consider scalar bosons from $\varphi_{1,2}$ since they are assumed to be much heavier than those from Higgs doublets and mixing among singlet and doublet scalars will be small.
[^5]: Similar phenomena were also observed in the flavor gauge model where $U(1)^{'}$ gauge interaction couples only to the right-handed top quark in the interaction basis in the context of the top forward-backward asymmetry and the same sign top pair productions at hadron colliders [@Ko:2011vd; @Ko:2011di; @Ko:2012ud; @Ko:2012sv]. In that model, cancellation between the amplitudes with $t$-channel exchanges of vector and (pseudo)scalar bosons occur in the same sign top pair production through $u_R u_R \rightarrow t_R t_R$, which saves the $U(1)$ flavor model from the stringent constraints from the same sign top pair production at the Tevatron and the LHC.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Jean-Louis Krivine\
[University Paris-Diderot - CNRS]{}
title: 'Realizability algebras III : some examples'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The notion of *realizability algebra*, which was introduced in [@krivine5; @krivine6], is a tool to study the proof-program correspondence and to build new models of set theory, which we call *realizability models of ZF*.\
It is a variant of the well known notion of *combinatory algebra*, with a new instruction $\ccc$, and a new type for the *environments*.\
The *sets of forcing conditions*, in common use in set theory, are (very) particular cases of realizability algebras ; and the forcing models of ZF are very particular cases of realizability models.
We show here how to extend an arbitrary realizability algebra, by means of a certain set of conditions, so that the axiom DC of dependent choice is realized.\
In order to avoid introducing new instructions, we use an idea of A. Miquel [@miquel1].\
This technique has applications of two kinds :
1\. Construction of models of ZF + DC.\
When the initial realizability algebra is not trivial (that is, if we are not in the case of forcing or equivalently, if the associated Boolean algebra $\gimel2$ is $\ne\{0,1\}$), then we always obtain in this way a model of ZF *which satisfies DC + there is no well ordering of ${\mathbb{R}}$*.\
By suitably choosing the realizability algebras, we can get, for instance, the relative consistency over ZF of the following two theories :
i) ZF + DC + there exists an increasing function $i\mapsto X_i$, from the countable atomless Boolean algebra ${\cal B}$ into ${\cal P}({\mathbb{R}})$ such that :\
$X_0=\{0\}$ ; $i\ne0$ $\Fl$ $X_i$ is uncountable ;\
$X_i\cap X_j=X_{i\land j}$ ;\
if $i\land j=0$ then $X_{i\lor j}$ is equipotent with $X_i\fois X_j$ ;\
$X_i\fois X_i$ is equipotent with $X_i$ ;\
there exists a surjection from $X_1$ onto ${\mathbb{R}}$ ;\
if there exists a surjection from $X_j$ onto $X_i$, then $i\le j$ ;\
if $i,j\ne0,i\land j=0$, there is no surjection from $X_i\oplus X_j$ onto $X_i\fois X_j$ ;\
more generally, if $A\subset{\cal B}$ and if there exists a surjection from $\bigcup_{j\in A}X_j$ onto $X_i$, then $i\le j$ for some $j\in A$.
In particular, there exists a sequence of subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$, the cardinals of which are not comparable, and also a sequence of subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$, the cardinals of which are strictly decreasing.
ii) ZF + DC + there exists $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}$ such that :\
$X$ is uncountable and there is no surjection from $X$ onto $\aleph_1$\
(and therefore, every well orderable subset of $X$ is countable) ;\
$X\fois X$ is equipotent with $X$ ;\
there exists a total order on $X$, every proper initial segment of which is countable ;\
there exists a surjection from $X\fois\aleph_1$ onto ${\mathbb{R}}$ ;\
there exists an injection from $\aleph_1$ (thus also from $X\fois\aleph_1$) into ${\mathbb{R}}$.
2. Curry-Howard correspondence.\
With this technique of extension of realizability algebras, we can obtain a program from a proof, in ZF + DC, of an arithmetical formula $F$, which is a $\lbd_c$-term, that is, a $\lbd$-term containing $\ccc$, *but no other new instruction*.\
This is a notable difference with the method given in [@krivine2; @krivine3], where we use the instruction [quote]{} and which is, on the other hand, simpler and not limited to arithmetical formulas.
It is important to observe that the program we get in this way does not really depend on the given proof of $DC\to F$ in ZF, but only on the *program P extracted from this proof*, which is a closed $\lbd_c$-term. Indeed, we obtain this program by means of an operation of *compilation* applied to P (look at the remark at the end of the introduction of [@krivine5]).
Finally, apart from applications 1 and 2, we may notice theorem \[kappa+nbo\], which gives an interesting property of *every* realizability model : as soon as the Boolean algebra $\gimel2$ is not trivial (i.e. if the model is not a forcing model), there exists a non well orderable individual.
Generalities {#general}
============
Realizability algebras {#realizability-algebras .unnumbered}
----------------------
It is a first order structure, which is defined in [@krivine5]. We recall here briefly the definition and some essential properties :
A *realizability algebra* ${\cal A}$ is made up of three sets : $\Lbd$ (the set of *terms*), $\Pi$ (the set of *stacks*), $\Lbd\star\Pi$ (the set of *processes*) with the following operations :
$(\xi,\eta)\mapsto(\xi)\eta$ from $\Lbd^2$ into $\Lbd$ (*application*) ;\
$(\xi,\pi)\mapsto\xi\ps\pi$ from $\Lbd\fois\Pi$ into $\Pi$ (*push*) ;\
$(\xi,\pi)\mapsto\xi\star\pi$ from $\Lbd\fois\Pi$ into $\Lbd\star\Pi$ (*process*) ;\
$\pi\mapsto\kk_\pi$ from $\Pi$ into $\Lbd$ (*continuation*).
There are, in $\Lbd$, distinguished elements ${\mbox{\sffamily B}},{\mbox{\sffamily C}},{\mbox{\sffamily I}},{\mbox{\sffamily K}},{\mbox{\sffamily W}},\ccc$, called *elementary combinators* or *instructions*.
[**Notation.**]{}\
The term $(\ldots(((\xi)\eta_1)\eta_2)\ldots)\eta_n$ will be also written as $(\xi)\eta_1\eta_2\ldots\eta_n$ or $\xi\eta_1\eta_2\ldots\eta_n$.\
For instance : $\xi\eta\zeta=(\xi)\eta\zeta=(\xi\eta)\zeta=((\xi)\eta)\zeta$.
We define a preorder on $\Lbd\star\Pi$, denoted by $\succ$, which is called *execution* ;\
$\xi\star\pi\succ\xi'\star\pi'$ is read as : *the process $\xi\star\pi$ reduces to $\xi'\star\pi'$.*\
It is the smallest reflexive and transitive binary relation, such that, for any $\xi,\eta,\zeta\in\Lbd$ and $\pi,\varpi\in\Pi$, we have :
$(\xi)\eta\star\pi\succ\xi\star\eta\ps\pi$.\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\star\xi\ps\pi\succ\xi\star\pi$.\
${\mbox{\sffamily K}}\star\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi\succ\xi\star\pi$.\
${\mbox{\sffamily W}}\star\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi\succ\xi\star\eta\ps\eta\ps\pi$.\
${\mbox{\sffamily C}}\star\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi\succ\xi\star\zeta\ps\eta\ps\pi$.\
${\mbox{\sffamily B}}\star\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi\succ\xi\star(\eta)\zeta\ps\pi$.\
$\ccc\star\xi\ps\pi\succ\xi\star\kk_\pi\ps\pi$.\
$\kk_\pi\star\xi\ps\varpi\succ\xi\star\pi$.
We are also given a subset $\bbot$ of $\Lbd\star\Pi$ such that :\
$\xi\star\pi\succ\xi'\star\pi'$, $\xi'\star\pi'\in\bbot$ $\Fl$ $\xi\star\pi\in\bbot$.
Given two processes $\xi\star\pi,\xi'\star\pi'$, the notation $\xi\star\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi'\star\pi'$ means :\
$\xi\star\pi\notin\bbot\Fl\xi'\star\pi'\notin\bbot$.
Therefore, obviously, $\xi\star\pi\succ\xi'\star\pi'\;\Fl\;\xi\star\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi'\star\pi'$.
Finally, we choose a set of terms QP$_{\cal A}\subset\Lbd$, containing the elementary combinators :\
${\mbox{\sffamily B}},{\mbox{\sffamily C}},{\mbox{\sffamily I}},{\mbox{\sffamily K}},{\mbox{\sffamily W}},\ccc$ and closed by application. They are called the *proof-like terms of the algebra ${\cal A}$*. We write also QP instead of QP$_{\cal A}$ if there is no ambiguity about ${\cal A}$.\
The algebra ${\cal A}$ is called *coherent* if, for every proof-like term $\theta\in\mbox{QP}_{\cal A}$, there exists a stack $\pi$ such that $\theta\star\pi\notin\bbot$.
[ The *sets of forcing conditions* can be considered as degenerate cases of realizability algebras, if we present them in the following way : an inf-semi-lattice $P$, with a greatest element $1$ and an initial segment $\bbot$ of $P$ (the set of *false* conditions). Two conditions $p,q\in P$ are called *compatible* if their g.l.b. $p{{\scriptstyle\land}}q$ is not in $\bbot$.\
We get a realizability algebra if we set $\Lbd=\Pi=\Lbd\star\Pi=P$ ; ${\mbox{\sffamily B}}={\mbox{\sffamily C}}={\mbox{\sffamily I}}={\mbox{\sffamily K}}={\mbox{\sffamily W}}=\ccc=1$ and QP$=\{1\}$ ; $(p)q=p\ps q=p\star q=p{{\scriptstyle\land}}q$ and $\kk_p=p$. The preorder $p\succ q$ is defined as $p\le q$, i.e. $p{{\scriptstyle\land}}q=p$. The condition of coherence is $1\notin\bbot$.]{}
-terms and $\lbd$-terms {#terms-and-lbd-terms .unnumbered}
-----------------------
The terms of the language of combinatory algebra, which are built with variables, elementary combinators and the application (binary operation), will be called *combinatory terms* or *$\cc$-terms*, in order to distinguish them from the terms of the algebra ${\cal A}$, which are elements of $\Lbd$.\
Each closed $\cc$-term (i.e. without variable) takes a value in the algebra ${\cal A}$, which is a proof-like term of ${\cal A}$.
Let us call *atom* a $\cc$-term of length $1$, i.e. a constant symbol ${\mbox{\sffamily B}},{\mbox{\sffamily C}},{\mbox{\sffamily I}},{\mbox{\sffamily K}},{\mbox{\sffamily W}},\ccc$ or a variable.
\[att\] Every $\cc$-term $t$ can be written, in a unique way, in the form $t=(a)t_1\ldots t_k$ where $a$ is an atom and $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ are $\cc$-terms.
Immediate, by recurrence on the length of $t$.
The result of the *substitution of $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n\in\Lbd$ to the variables $x_1,\ldots,x_n$* in a $\cc$-term $t$, is a *term* (i.e. an element of $\Lbd$) denoted by $t[\xi_1/x_1,\ldots,\xi_n/x_n]$ or, more briefly, $t[\vec{\xi}/\vec{x}]$.\
The inductive definition is :
$a[\vec{\xi}/\vec{x}]=\xi_i$ if $a=x_i(1\le i\le n)$ ;\
$a[\vec{\xi}/\vec{x}]=a$ if $a$ is an atom $\ne x_1,\ldots,x_n$ ;\
$(tu)[\vec{\xi}/\vec{x}]=(t[\vec{\xi}/\vec{x}])u[\vec{\xi}/\vec{x}]$.
Given a -term $t$ and a variable $x$, we define inductively on $t$, a new -term denoted by ${\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,t$, which does not contain $x$. To this aim, we apply the first possible case in the following list :
1. ${\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,t=({\mbox{\sffamily K}})t$\[def\_lbd\] if $t$ does not contain $x$.\
2. ${\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,x=\,{\mbox{\sffamily I}}$.\
3. ${\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,tu=({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,t)u$ if $u$ does not contain $x$.\
4. ${\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,tx=t$ if $t$ does not contain $x$.\
5. ${\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,tx=({\mbox{\sffamily W}}){\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,t$ (if $t$ contains $x$).\
6. ${\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x(t)(u)v={\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x({\mbox{\sffamily B}})tuv$ (if $uv$ contains $x$).
It is easy to see that this rewriting is finite, for any given $\cc$-term $t$ : indeed, during the rewriting, no combinator is introduced inside $t$, but only in front of it. Moreover, the only changes in $t$ are : moving parentheses and erasing occurrences of $x$. Now, rules 1 to 5 strictly decrease, and rule 6 does not increase, the part of $t$ which remains under ${\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x$. Moreover, rule 6 can be applied consecutively only finitely many times.
Given a -term $t$ and a variable $x$, we now define the $\cc$-term $\lbd x\,t$ by setting :\
$\lbd x\,t={\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,({\mbox{\sffamily I}})t$.
This enables us to translate every $\lbd$-term into a $\cc$-term. In the sequel, almost all $\cc$-terms will be written as $\lbd$-terms.
The fundamental property of this translation is given by theorem \[beta\_red\_gauche\] :
\[beta\_red\_gauche\] Let $t$ be a -term with the only variables $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ ; let $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n\in\Lbd$ and $\pi\in\Pi$. Then $\lbd x_1\ldots\lbd x_n\,t\star\xi_1\ps\ldots\ps\xi_n\ps\pi
\succ t[\xi_1/x_1,\ldots,\xi_n/x_n]\star\pi$.
\[brg1\] Let $a$ be an atom, $t=(a)t_1\ldots t_k$ a -term with the only variables $x,y_1,\ldots,y_n$, and $\xi,\eta_1,\ldots,\eta_n\in\LLbd$ ; then :\
$({\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,t)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi\succ a[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star
t_1[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\ldots\ps t_k[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\pi$.
The proof is done by induction on the number of rules 1 to 6 used to translate the term ${\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,t$. Consider the rule used first.
$\bullet$ Rule 1 : we have $({\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,t)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi
\equiv({\mbox{\sffamily K}})t[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi
\succ{\mbox{\sffamily K}}\star t[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\xi\ps\pi\succ t[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\pi\\
\equiv t[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\pi$ because $x$ is not in $t$. The result follows immediately.
$\bullet$ Rule 2 : we have $t=x,{\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,t={\mbox{\sffamily I}}$ and the result is trivial.
In rules 3, 4, 5 or 6, we have $t=ut_k$ with $u=at_1\ldots t_{k-1}$, by lemma \[att\].
$\bullet$ Rule 3 : $({\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,t)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi\equiv
(({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,u)t_k)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi
\succ{\mbox{\sffamily C}}\star({\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,u)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps t_k[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\xi\ps\pi\\
\succ({\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,u)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps t_k[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\pi\\
\succ a[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star
t_1[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\ldots\ps t_{k-1}[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps t_k[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\pi$ by the induction hypothesis\
$\equiv a[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star
t_1[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\ldots\ps t_{k-1}[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps t_k[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\pi$ since $x$ is not in $t_k$.
In rules 4 and 5, we have $t_k=x$, i.e. $t=(u)x$.
$\bullet$ Rule 4 : we have $({\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,t)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi\equiv
u[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi\equiv u[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi$ because $x$ is not in $u$. Since $u=at_1\ldots t_{k-1}$ and $t_k=x$, the result follows immediately.
$\bullet$ Rule 5 : we have $t_k=x$ and $({\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,t)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi\equiv
({\mbox{\sffamily W}}{\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,u)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi\\
\succ{\mbox{\sffamily W}}\star({\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,u)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\xi\ps\pi
\succ({\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,u)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\xi\ps\pi\\
\succ a[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star
t_1[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\ldots\ps t_{k-1}[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\xi\ps\pi$ (by the induction hypothesis)\
$\equiv a[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star
t_1[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\ldots\ps t_k[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\pi$.
$\bullet$ Rule 6 : we have $t_k=(v)w$ and $({\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x\,t)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi\equiv
({\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x({\mbox{\sffamily B}})uvw)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi\\
\succ{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\star u[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps v[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps w[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\pi$ (by the induction hypothesis)\
$\succ u[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star t_k[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\pi\\
\succ a[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star
t_1[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\ldots\ps t_{k-1}[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]
\ps t_k[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\ps\pi$.
\[brg2\] $(\lbd x\,t)[\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\xi\ps\pi\succ t[\xi/x,\vec{\eta}/\vec{y}]\star\pi$.
Immediate by lemma \[brg1\] and the definition of $\lbd x\,t$ which is ${\reflectbox{$\lambda$}}x({\mbox{\sffamily I}})t$.
We can now prove theorem \[beta\_red\_gauche\] by induction on $n$ ; the case $n=0$ is trivial.\
We have $\lbd x_1\ldots\lbd x_{n-1}\lbd x_n\,t\star\xi_1\ps\ldots\ps\xi_{n-1}\ps\xi_n\ps\pi\succ
(\lbd x_nt)[\xi_1/x_1,\ldots,\xi_{n-1}/x_{n-1}]\star\xi_n\ps\pi$\
(by induction hypothesis) $\succ t[\xi_1/x_1,\ldots,\xi_{n-1}/x_{n-1},\xi_n/x_n]\star\pi$ by lemma \[brg2\].
The formal system {#the-formal-system .unnumbered}
-----------------
We write formulas and proofs in the language of first order logic. This formal language consists of :
$\bullet$ *individual variables* $x,y,\ldots$ ;\
$\bullet$ *function symbols* $f,g,\ldots$ of various arities ; function symbols of arity $0$ are called *constant symbols*.\
$\bullet$ *relation symbols* ; there are three binary relation symbols : $\neps,\notin,\subset$.
The terms of this first order language will be called *$\ell$-terms* ; they are built in the usual way with individual variables and function symbols.
[ Thus, we use four expressions with the word *term* : term, $\cc$-term, $\lbd$-term and $\ell$-term.]{}
The *atomic formulas* are the expressions $\top,\bot,t\neps u,t\notin u,t\subset u$, where $t,u$ are $\ell$-terms.
*Formulas* are built as usual, from atomic formulas, *with the only logical symbols* $\to$, $\pt$ :\
$\bullet$ each atomic formula is a formula ;\
$\bullet$ if $A,B$ are formulas, then $A\to B$ is a formula ;\
$\bullet$ if $A$ is a formula and $x$ an individual variable, then $\pt x\,A$ is a formula.
[**Notations.**]{} Let $A_1,\ldots,A_n,A,B$ be formulas. Then :\
$A\to\bot$ is written $\neg A$ ;\
$A_1\to(A_2\to\cdots\to(A_n\to B)\cdots)$ is written $A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n\to B$ ;\
$\neg A_1,\ldots,\neg A_n\to\bot$ is written $A_1\lor\ldots\lor A_n$ ;\
$(A_1,\ldots,A_n\to\bot)\to\bot$ is written $A_1\land\ldots\land A_n$ ;\
$\neg\pt x(A_1,\ldots,A_n\to\bot)$ is written $\ex x\{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$.
The *rules of natural deduction* are the following (the $A_i$’s are formulas, the $x_i$’s are variables of -term, $t,u$ are -terms, written as $\lbd$-terms) :
1. $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash x_i:A_i$.\
2. $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash t:A\to B$, $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash u:A$ $\Fl$ $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash tu:B$.\
3. $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n,x:A\vdash t:B$ $\Fl$ $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash\lbd x\,t:A\to B$.\
4. $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash t:A$ $\Fl$ $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash t:\pt x\,A$ where $x$ is an individual variable which does not appear in $A_1,\ldots,A_n$.\
5. $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash t:\pt x\,A$ $\Fl$ $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash t:A[\tau/x]$ where $x$ is an individual variable and $\tau$ is a $\ell$-term.\
6. $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash\ccc:((A\to B)\to A)\to A$ (law of Peirce).\
7. $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash t:\bot$ $\Fl$ $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash t:A$ for every formula $A$.
Realizability models {#realizability-models .unnumbered}
--------------------
We formalize set theory with the first order language described above. We write, in this language, the axioms of a theory named [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{}, which are given in [@krivine6].\
The usual set theory ZF is supposed written with the only relation symbols $\notin,\subset$.\
Then, [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{} is a *conservative extension* of ZF, which is proved in [@krivine6].
Let us consider a *coherent* realizability algebra ${\cal A}$, defined in a model ${\cal M}$ of ZFL, which is called the *ground model*. The elements of ${\cal M}$ will be called *individuals* (in order to avoid the word *set*, as far as possible).
We defined, in [@krivine6], a *realizability model*, denoted by ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$ (or even ${\cal N}$, if there is no ambiguity about the algebra ${\cal A}$).\
It has the same domain (the same individuals) as ${\cal M}$ and the interpretation of the function symbols is the same as in ${\cal M}$.
Each closed formula $F$ of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{} with parameters in ${\cal M}$, has *two truth values* in ${\cal N}$, which are denoted by $\|F\|$ (which is a subset of $\Pi$) and $|F|$ (which is a subset of $\Lbd$).\
Here are their definitions :
$|F|$ is defined immediately from $\|F\|$ as follows :\
$\xi\in|F|$ $\Dbfl$ $(\pt\pi\in\|F\|)\,\xi\star\pi\in\bbot$.
We shall write $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F$ (read *“ $\xi$ realizes $F$ ”*) for $\xi\in|F|$.
$\|F\|$ is now defined by recurrence on the length of $F$ :
$\bullet$ $F$ is atomic ;\
then $F$ has one of the forms $\top,\,\bot,\,a\neps b,\,a\subset b,\,a\notin b$ where $a,b$ are parameters in ${\cal M}$. We set :
$\|\top\|=\vide$ ; $\|\bot\|=\Pi$ ; $\|a\neps b\|=\{\pi\in\Pi;\;(a,\pi)\in b\}$.
$\|a\subset b\|,\|a\notin b\|$ are defined simultaneously by induction on $(\mbox{rk}(a)\cup\mbox{rk}(b),\mbox{rk}(a)\cap\mbox{rk}(b))$\
($\mbox{rk}(a)$ being the rank of $a$ in ${\cal M}$).
$\dsp\|a\subset b\|=\bigcup_c\{\xi\ps\pi;\;\xi\in\Lbd,\;\pi\in\Pi,\;(c,\pi)\in a,\;
\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}c\notin b\}$ ;
$\dsp\|a\notin b\|=\bigcup_c\{\xi\ps\xi'\ps\pi;\;\xi,\xi'\in\Lbd,\;\pi\in\Pi,\;(c,\pi)\in b,\;
\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}a\subset c,\;\xi'{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}c\subset a\}$.
$\bullet$ $F\equiv A\to B$ ; then $\|F\|=\{\xi\ps\pi~;\;\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}A,\;\pi\in\|B\|\}$.
$\bullet$ $F\equiv\pt x\,A$ : then $\dsp\|F\|=\bigcup_a\|A[a/x]\|$.
The following theorem, proved in [@krivine6], is an essential tool :
\[adequat\] \
Let $A_1,\ldots,A_n,A$ be closed formulas of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{}, and suppose that $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n\vdash t:A$.\
If $\xi_1{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}A_1,\ldots,\xi_n{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}A_n$ then $t[\xi_1/x_1,\ldots,\xi_n/x_n]{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}A$.\
In particular, if $\vdash t:A$, then $t{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}A$.
Let $F$ be a closed formula of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{}, with parameters in ${\cal M}$. We say that *${\cal N}_{\cal A}$ realizes $F$* or that *$F$ is realized in ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$* (which is written ${\cal N}_{\cal A}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F$ or even ${\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F$), if there exists a proof-like term $\theta$ such that $\theta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F$.
It is shown in [@krivine6] that *all the axioms of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{} are realized in ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$,* and thus also all the axioms of ZF.
[**Definitions.**]{} Given a set of terms $X\subset\Lbd$ and a formula $F$, we shall use the notation $X\to F$ as an *extended formula* ; its truth value is $\|X\to F\|=\{\xi\ps\pi~;\;\xi\in X,\;\pi\in\|F\|\}$.
Two formulas $F[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ and $G[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{} will be called *interchangeable* if the formula $\pt x_1\ldots\pt x_n(F[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\dbfl G[x_1,\ldots,x_n])$ is realized.\
That is, for instance, the case if $\|F[a_1,\ldots,a_n]\|=\|G[a_1,\ldots,a_n]\|$\
or also if $\|F[a_1,\ldots,a_n]\|=\|\neg\neg G[a_1,\ldots,a_n]\|$\
for every $a_1,\ldots,a_n\in{\cal M}$.
The following lemma gives a useful example :
\[nAtoB\] For every formula $A$, define $^{\neg}A\subset\Lbd$ by $^{\neg}A=\{\kk_\pi\;;\;\pi\in\|A\|\}$.\
Then $\neg A\to B$ and $^{\neg}A\to B$ are interchangeable, for every formula $B$.
We have immediately $\kk_\pi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\neg A$ for every $\pi\in\|A\|$. Therefore, $\|^{\neg}A\to B\|\subset\|\neg A\to B\|$ and it follows that ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(\neg A\to B)\to(^{\neg}A\to B)$.\
Conversely, let $\xi,\eta\in\Lbd,\,\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}^{\neg}A\to B\,,\eta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\neg B$ and let $\pi\in\|A\|$.\
We have $\xi\kk_\pi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}B$, thus $(\eta)(\xi)\kk_\pi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\bot$ and therefore $(\eta)(\xi)\kk_\pi\star\pi\in\bbot$.\
It follows that $\theta\star\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi\in\bbot$ with $\theta=\lbd x\lbd y(\ccc)\lbd k(y)(x)k$.\
Finally, we have shown that $\theta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(^{\neg}A\to B)\to(\neg B\to A)$, from which the result follows.
Equality and type-like sets {#equality-and-type-like-sets .unnumbered}
---------------------------
The formula $x=y$ is, by definition, $\pt z(x\neps z\to y\neps z)$ *(Leibniz equality)*.
If $t,u$ are $\ell$-terms and $F$ is a formula of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{}, with parameters in ${\cal M}$, we define the formula $t=u{\hookrightarrow}F$. When it is closed, its truth value is :\
$\|t=u{\hookrightarrow}F\|=\|\top\|=\vide$ if ${\cal M}{\;|\!\!\!=\,}t\ne u$ ; $\|t=u{\hookrightarrow}F\|=\|F\|$ if ${\cal M}{\;|\!\!\!=\,}t=u$.\
The formula $t=u{\hookrightarrow}\bot$ is written $t\ne u$.\
The formula $t_1=u_1{\hookrightarrow}(t_2=u_2{\hookrightarrow}\cdots{\hookrightarrow}(t_n=u_n{\hookrightarrow}F)\cdots)$ is written :\
$t_1=u_1,t_2=u_2,\ldots,t_n=u_n{\hookrightarrow}F$.
The formulas $t=u\to F$ and $t=u{\hookrightarrow}F$ are interchangeable, as is shown in the :
\
i) ${\mbox{\sffamily C}}\,{\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x\pt y\left((x=y\to F)\to(x=y{\hookrightarrow}F)\right)$ ;\
ii) ${\mbox{\sffamily C}}\,{\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x\pt y\left((x=y{\hookrightarrow}F)\to(x=y\to F)\right)$.
i) Trivial.\
ii) Let $a,b$ be individuals ; let $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}a=b{\hookrightarrow}F$, $\eta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}a=b$ and $\pi\in\|F\|$.\
We show that $\eta\star\xi\ps\pi\in\bbot$.\
Let $c=\{(b,\pi)\}$ ; by hypothesis on $\eta$, we have $\eta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}a\neps c\to b\neps c$. Since $\pi\in\|b\neps c\|$, it suffices to show that $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}a\neps c$. This is clear if $a\ne b$, since $\|a\neps c\|=\vide$ in this case.\
If $a=b$, then $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F$, by hypothesis on $\xi$, thus $\xi\star\pi\in\bbot$ ; but $\|a\neps c\|=\{\pi\}$ in this case, and therefore $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}a\neps c$.
We set $\gimel X=X\fois\Pi$ for every individual $X$ of ${\cal M}$ ; we define the quantifier $\pt x^{\gimel X}$ as follows :\
$\|\pt x^{\gimel X}F[x]\|=\bigcup_{a\in X}\|F[a]\|$.
Of course, we set $\ex x^{\gimel X}F[x]\equiv\neg\pt x^{\gimel X}\neg F[x]$.
The quantifier $\pt x^{\gimel X}$ has the intended meaning, which is that the formulas $\pt x^{\gimel X}F[x]$ and $\pt x(x\eps\gimel X\to F[x])$ are interchangeable. This is shown by the :
\
${\mbox{\sffamily C}}\,{\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x^{\gimel X}F[x]\to\pt x^{\gimel X}\neg\neg F[x]$ ;\
$\ccc{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x^{\gimel X}\neg\neg F[x]\to\pt x^{\gimel X}F[x]$ ;\
$\|\pt x^{\gimel X}\neg\neg F[x]\|=\|\pt x(\neg F[x]\to x\neps\gimel X)\|$.
Immediate.
Each *functional* $f:{\cal M}^n\to{\cal M}$, defined in ${\cal M}$ by a formula of ZF with parameters, gives a function symbol, that we denote also by $f$, and which has the same interpretation in the realizability model ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$.
\[horn\_equ\] \
Let $t,t_1,\ldots,t_n,u,u_1,\ldots,u_n$ be $\ell$-terms, built with variables $x_1,\ldots,x_k$ and functional symbols of ${\cal M}$.\
If ${\cal M}{\;|\!\!\!=\,}\pt x_1\ldots\pt x_k(t_1=u_1,\ldots,t_k=u_k\to t=u)$, then :\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x_1\ldots\pt x_k(t_1=u_1,\ldots,t_k=u_k{\hookrightarrow}t=u)$.\
If ${\cal M}{\;|\!\!\!=\,}(\pt x_1\in X_1)\ldots(\pt x_k\in X_k)(t_1=u_1,\ldots,t_k=u_k\to t=u)$, then :\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x_1^{\gimel X_1}\ldots\pt x_k^{\gimel X_k}(t_1=u_1,\ldots,t_k=u_k{\hookrightarrow}t=u)$.
Trivial.
If $f:X_1\fois\cdots\fois X_n\to Y$ is a function in ${\cal M}$, its interpretation in ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$ is a function $f:\gimel X_1\fois\cdots\fois\gimel X_n\to\gimel Y$.
Indeed, let $f',f'':{\cal M}^n\to{\cal M}$ be any two functionals which are extensions of the function $f$ to the whole of ${\cal M}^n$. By proposition \[horn\_equ\](ii), we have :\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x_1^{\gimel X_1}\ldots\pt x_k^{\gimel X_k}(f'(x_1,\ldots,x_k)=f''(x_1,\ldots,x_k))$.
An important example is the set $2=\{0,1\}$ equipped with the trivial boolean functions, written ${{\scriptstyle\land}},{{\scriptstyle\lor}},\neg$. The extension to ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$ of these operations gives a structure of Boolean algebra on $\gimel2$. It is called the *characteristic Boolean algebra* of the model ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$.
### Conservation of well-foundedness {#conservation-of-well-foundedness .unnumbered}
Theorem \[bien\_fonde\] says that every well founded relation in the ground model ${\cal M}$, gives a well founded relation in the realizability model ${\cal N}$.
\[bien\_fonde\] Let $f:{\cal M}^2\to2$ be a function defined in the ground model ${\cal M}$ such that ${f(x,y)=1}$ is a well founded relation on ${\cal M}$. Then, for every formula $F[x]$ of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{} with parameters in ${\cal M}$ :\
$\Y{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt y\left(\pt x(f(x,y)=1{\hookrightarrow}F[x])\to F[y]\right)\to\pt y\,F[y]$\
with $\Y=AA$ and $A=\lbd a\lbd f(f)(a)af$ (or $A=({\mbox{\sffamily W}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}}{\mbox{\sffamily W}})({\mbox{\sffamily C}}){\mbox{\sffamily B}}$).
Let us fix $b\in X$ and let $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt y\left(\pt x(f(x,y)=1{\hookrightarrow}F[x])\to F[y]\right)$.\
We show, by induction on $b$, following the well founded relation $f(x,y)=1$, that :\
$\Y\star\xi\ps\pi\in\bbot$ for every $\pi\in\|F[b]\|$.\
Thus, suppose that $\pi\in\|F[b]\|$ ; since $\Y\star\xi\ps\pi\succ\xi\star\Y\xi\ps\pi$, we need to show that $\xi\star\Y\xi\ps\pi\in\bbot$. By hypothesis, we have $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x(f(x,b)=1{\hookrightarrow}F[x])\to F[ b]$ ;\
Thus, it suffices to show that $\Y\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}f(a,b)=1{\hookrightarrow}F[a]$ for every $a\in X$.\
This is clear if $f(a,b)\ne1$, by definition of ${\hookrightarrow}$.\
If $f(a,b)=1$, we must show $\Y\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[a]$, i.e. $\Y\star\xi\ps\varpi\in\bbot$ for every $\varpi\in\|F[a]\|$.\
But this follows from the induction hypothesis.
[\
i) If the function $f$ is only defined on a set $X$ in the ground model ${\cal M}$, we can apply theorem \[bien\_fonde\] to the extension $f'$ of $f$ defined by $f'(x,y)=0$ if $(x,y)\notin X^2$.\
This shows that, in the realizability model ${\cal N}$, the binay relation $f(x,y)=1$ is well founded on $\gimel X$.\
ii) We can use theorem \[bien\_fonde\] to show that the axiom of foundation of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{} is realized in ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$.\
Indeed, let us define $f:{\cal M}^2\to2$ by setting $f(x,y)=1\Dbfl\ex z((x,z)\in y)$. The binary relation $f(x,y)=1$ is obviously well founded in ${\cal M}$. Now, we have ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x\pt y(f(x,y)\ne1\to x\neps y)$ because $\pi\in\|x\neps y\|\To f(x,y)=1$. Thus, the relation $x\eps y$ is stronger than the relation $f(x,y)=1$, which is well founded in ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$ by theorem \[bien\_fonde\].]{}
Integers {#integers .unnumbered}
--------
Let $\phi,\alpha\in\Lbd$ and $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ ; we define $(\phi)^n\alpha\in\Lbd$ by setting $(\phi)^0\alpha=\alpha$ ; $(\phi)^{n+1}\alpha=(\phi)(\phi)^n\alpha$.\
For $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we define $\ul{n}=(\sig)^n\ul{0}$ with $\ul{0}={\mbox{\sffamily K}}{\mbox{\sffamily I}}$ and $\sig=({\mbox{\sffamily B}}{\mbox{\sffamily W}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}}){\mbox{\sffamily B}}$ ;\
$\ul{n}$ is “the integer $n$” and $\sig$ the “successor” in combinatory logic.\
The essential property of $\ul{0}$ and $\sig$ is : $\ul{0}\star\phi\ps\alpha\ps\pi\succ\alpha\star\pi$ ; $\sig\star\nu\ps\phi\ps\alpha\ps\pi\succ\nu\star\phi\ps\phi\alpha\ps\pi$.
The following lemmas \[phi\^n-alpha\] and \[phi\^n-alpha-delta\] will be used in section \[gkappaden\].
\[phi\^n-alpha\] \
Let $O,\vsig\in\Lbd$ be such that : $O\star\phi\ps\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\alpha\star\pi$ and $\vsig\star\nu\ps\phi\ps\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\nu\star\phi\ps\phi\alpha\ps\pi$\
for every $\alpha,\zeta,\nu,\phi\in\Lbd$ and $\pi\in\Pi$.\
Then, for every $n\in{\mathbb{N}},\alpha,\zeta,\phi\in\Lbd$ and $\pi\in\Pi$ :\
i) $(\vsig)^nO\star\phi\ps\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}(\phi)^n\alpha\star\pi$ ; in particular, $\ul{n}\star\phi\ps\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}(\phi)^n\alpha\star\pi$\
ii) $(\vsig)^nO\star{\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\phi\ps\zeta\ps\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\zeta\star(\phi)^n\alpha\ps\pi$.
i) Proof by recurrence on $n$ ; this is clear if $n=0$ ; if $n=m+1$, we have :\
$\vsig\star(\vsig)^mO\ps\phi\ps\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}(\vsig)^mO\star\phi\ps\phi\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}(\phi)^m(\phi)\alpha\star\pi$ by the recurrence hypothesis.\
The particular case is $O=\ul{0},\vsig=\sig$.\
ii) By (i), we have $(\vsig)^nO\star{\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\phi\ps\zeta\ps\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\phi)^n\zeta\star\alpha\ps\pi$.\
We now show, by recurrence on $n$, that $({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\phi)^n\zeta\star\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\zeta\star(\phi)^n\alpha\ps\pi$.\
This is clear if $n=0$ ; if $n=m+1$, we have :\
$({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\phi)^n\zeta\star\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}{\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\phi\star({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\phi)^m\zeta\ps\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}{\mbox{\sffamily C}}\star{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\ps\phi\ps({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\phi)^m\zeta\ps\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\\
{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\star({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\phi)^m\zeta\ps\phi\ps\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\phi)^m\zeta\star\phi\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\zeta\star(\phi)^m(\phi)\alpha\ps\pi$ (by the recurrence hypothesis).
\[phi\^n-alpha-delta\] \
Let $\Omega,\Sigma\in\Lbd$ be such that : $\Omega\star\delta\ps\phi\ps\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\alpha\star\pi$ and $\Sigma\star\nu\ps\delta\ps\phi\ps\alpha\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\nu\star\delta\ps\phi\ps\phi\alpha\ps\pi$\
for every $\alpha,\delta,\nu,\phi\in\Lbd$ and $\pi\in\Pi$. For instance : $\Omega=({\mbox{\sffamily K}})({\mbox{\sffamily K}}){\mbox{\sffamily I}}$ ; $\Sigma=({\mbox{\sffamily B}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}}{\mbox{\sffamily W}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}}){\mbox{\sffamily B}}$.\
Then, for every $n\in{\mathbb{N}},\alpha,\delta,\zeta,\phi\in\Lbd$ and $\pi\in\Pi$ :\
i) $(\Sigma)^n\Omega\star\delta\ps\phi\ps\alpha\ps\pi\succ(\phi)^n\alpha\star\pi$.\
ii) $(\Sigma)^n\Omega\star\delta\ps{\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\phi\ps\zeta\ps\alpha\ps\pi\succ\zeta\star(\phi)^n\alpha\ps\pi$.
Same proof as lemma \[phi\^n-alpha\].
We set ${\mathbb{N}}_{\cal A}=\{(n,\ul{n}\ps\pi)\;;\;n\in{\mathbb{N}},\pi\in\Pi\}$ ; it is shown below that ${\mathbb{N}}_{\cal A}$ is the set of integers of the realizability model ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$.
We define the quantifier $\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}$ as follows :
$\|\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}F[x]\|=\{\ul{n}\ps\pi\;;\;n\in{\mathbb{N}},\,\pi\in\|F[n]\|\}$.
that is also :
$\|\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}F[x]\|=\|\pt n^{\gimel{\mathbb{N}}}(\{\ul{n}\}\to F[n])\|$.
The formulas $\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}F[x]$ and $\pt x(x\eps{\mathbb{N}}_{\cal A}\to F[x])$ are interchangeable, as is shown in the :
\
$\lbd x\lbd n\lbd y(y)(x)n{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}F[x]\to\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}\neg\neg F[x]$ ;\
$\lbd x\lbd n(\ccc)(x)n{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}\neg\neg F[x]\to\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}F[x]$ ;\
$\|\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}\neg\neg F[x]\|=\|\pt x(\neg F[x]\to x\neps{\mathbb{N}}_{\cal A})\|$.
Immediate
\[NA\_ent\] \
i) ${\mbox{\sffamily K}}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x(x\neps\gimel{\mathbb{N}}\to x\neps{\mathbb{N}}_{\cal A})$.\
ii) $\lbd x(x)\ul{0}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}0\neps{\mathbb{N}}_{\cal A}\to\bot$ ; $\lbd f\lbd x(f)(\sig)x{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt y^{\gimel{\mathbb{N}}}((y+1)\neps{\mathbb{N}}_{\cal A}\to y\neps{\mathbb{N}}_{\cal A})$.\
iii) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}\left(\pt y^{\gimel{\mathbb{N}}}(F[y]\to F[y+1]),F[0]\to F[x]\right)$ for every formula $F[x]$ of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{}.
i\) and ii) Immediate.\
iii) Let $n\in{\mathbb{N}},\,\phi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt y^{\gimel{\mathbb{N}}}(F[y]\to F[y+1]),\alpha{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[0]$ et $\pi\in\|F[n]\|$. We must show :\
$\ul{n}\star\phi\ps\alpha\ps\pi\in\bbot$ i.e., by lemma \[phi\^n-alpha\], $(\phi)^n\alpha\star\pi\in\bbot$.\
But it is clear, by recurrence on $n$, that $(\phi)^n\alpha{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[n]$ for every $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
Lemma \[NA\_ent\](i) shows that ${\mathbb{N}}_{\cal A}$ is a subset of $\gimel{\mathbb{N}}$.\
But it is clear that $\gimel{\mathbb{N}}$ contains $0$ and is closed by the function $n\mapsto n+1$.\
Now, by lemma \[NA\_ent\](ii) and (iii), ${\mathbb{N}}_{\cal A}$ is the smallest subset of $\gimel{\mathbb{N}}$ which contains $0$ and is closed by the function $n\mapsto n+1$. Therefore :\
*${\mathbb{N}}_{\cal A}$ is the set of integers of the model ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$.*
The characteristic Boolean algebra $\gimel2$
============================================
Function symbols {#function-symbols .unnumbered}
----------------
Let us now define the principal function symbols commonly used in the sequel :
$\bullet$ The projections $pr_0:X\fois Y\to X$ and $pr_1:X\fois Y\to Y$ defined by :\
$pr_0(x,y)=x,\;pr_1(x,y)=y$\
give, in ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$, a *bijection* from $\gimel(X\fois Y)$ onto $\gimel X\fois\gimel Y$.
$\bullet$ We define, in ${\cal M}$, the function app $:Y^X\fois X\to Y$ (read *application*) by setting :\
app$(f,x)=f(x)$ for $f\in Y^X$ and $x\in X$.\
This gives, in ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$, an application app $:\gimel(Y^X)\fois\gimel X\to \gimel Y$.\
We shall write $f(x)$ for app$(f,x)$.
\[app\_inj\] \
If $X\ne\vide$, the function *app* gives an injection from $\gimel(Y^X)$ into $(\gimel Y)^{\gimel X}$. Indeed, we have :\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt f^{\gimel(Y^X)}\pt g^{\gimel(Y^X)}
\left(\pt x^{\gimel X}(\mbox{app}(f,x)=\mbox{app}(g,x))\to f=g\right)$.
Let $f,g\in Y^X$, $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x^{\gimel X}(\mbox{app}(f,x)\ne\mbox{app}(g,x)\to\bot)$ and $\pi\in\|f\ne g\to\bot\|$.\
We must show $\xi\star\pi\in\bbot$. We choose $a\in X$ ; then $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(f(a)\ne g(a)\to\bot)$.\
If $f=g$, we have $\|f(a)\ne g(a)\to\bot\|=\|f\ne g\to\bot\|=\|\bot\to\bot\|$. Hence the result.\
If $f\ne g$, we could choose $a$ such that $f(a)\ne g(a)$.\
Then, $\|f(a)\ne g(a)\to\bot\|=\|f\ne g\to\bot\|=\|\top\to\bot\|$. Hence the result.
$\bullet$ Let $\mbox{sp}:{\cal M}\to\{0,1\}$ (read *support*) the unary function symbol defined by :\
sp$(\vide)=0$ ; sp$(x)=1$ if $x\ne\vide$.\
In the realizability model ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$, we have sp $:{\cal N}\to\gimel2$.
$\bullet$ Let ${\mbox{\footnotesize\sffamily P}}:\{0,1\}\fois{\cal M}\to{\cal M}$ (read *projection*) the binary function symbol defined by :\
${\mbox{\footnotesize\sffamily P}}(0,x)=\vide$ ; ${\mbox{\footnotesize\sffamily P}}(1,x)=x$.\
In the realizability model ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$, we have ${\mbox{\footnotesize\sffamily P}}:\gimel2\fois{\cal N}\to{\cal N}$.\
In the following, we shall write $ix$ instead of ${\mbox{\footnotesize\sffamily P}}(i,x)$.\
When $t,u$ are $\ell$-terms with values in $\gimel2$, we write $t\le u$ for $t{{\scriptstyle\land}}u=t$.
\[prop1\_P\] \
i) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x(i(jx)=(i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j)x)$.\
ii) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x(ix=x\;\rightleftharpoons\mbox{ sp}(x)\le i)$.\
iii) If $\vide\in E$, then ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel 2}\pt x^{\gimel E}(ix\eps\gimel E)$.\
iv) If $f:{\cal M}^n\to{\cal M}$ is a function symbol such that $f(\vide,\ldots,\vide)=\vide$, then :\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt j^{\gimel2}\pt x_1\ldots\pt x_n
\left(jf(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=f(jx_1,\ldots,jx_n)\right)$.\
v) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel 2}\pt x\left(i\ne1\to\pt y(y\neps ix)\right)$ and therefore ${\mbox{\sffamily K}}^2{\mbox{\sffamily I}}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel 2}\pt x\left(i\ne1\to\pt y(y\notin ix)\right)$.
Trivial.
[. Proposition \[prop1\_P\](v) shows that, in the realizability model ${\cal N}$, every non empty individual has support 1.]{}
Because of property (iv), we shall define, as far as possible, each function symbol $f$ in ${\cal M}$, so that to have $f(\vide,\ldots,\vide)=\vide$.
$\bullet$ Thus, let us change the ordered pair $(x,y)$ by setting $(\vide,\vide)=\vide$. Then, we have :\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x\pt y\left(i(x,y)=(ix,iy)\right)$.
$\bullet$ We define the binary function symbol $\sqcup:{\cal M}^2\to{\cal M}$ by setting : $a\sqcup b=a\cup b$.
[. The extension to ${\cal N}$ of this operation *is not* the union $\cup$.]{}
$\bullet$ We define the *strong inclusion symbol* $\subseteq$ : $x\subseteq y\equiv\pt z(z\neps y\to z\neps x)$.
### The operation $\gimel_i$ {#the-operation-gimel_i .unnumbered}
Let $E\in{\cal M}$ be such that $\vide\in E$. In ${\cal M}$, we define $\gimel_iE$ for $i\in2$ by setting :\
$\gimel_0E=\gimel\{\vide\}=\{\vide\}\fois\Pi$ ; $\gimel_1E=\gimel E=E\fois\Pi$.\
In this way, we have now defined $\gimel_iE$ in ${\cal N}$, for every $i\eps\gimel2$.
\[prop2\_P\] \
i) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x\pt y(i(x\sqcup y)=ix\sqcup iy)$.\
ii) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt j^{\gimel2}\pt x((i{{\scriptstyle\lor}}j)x=ix\sqcup jx)$.\
iii) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt j^{\gimel2}\pt x\pt y\pt z
(i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j=0,z=ix\sqcup jy{\hookrightarrow}iz=ix)$.\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt j^{\gimel2}\pt x\pt y\pt z
(i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j=0,z=ix\sqcup jy{\hookrightarrow}jz=jy)$.\
iv) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt j^{\gimel2}\pt x^{\gimel E}\pt y^{\gimel E}\pt z
\left(i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j=0,z=ix\sqcup jy{\hookrightarrow}z\eps\gimel_{i{{\scriptstyle\lor}}j}E\right)$.
Trivial.
\[propr\_gimel\_i\] \
If $\vide\in E,E'$, the following formulas are realized :\
i) $\gimel_iE$ increases with $i$. In particular, $\gimel_iE\subseteq\gimel E$.\
ii) The $\veps$-elements of $\,\gimel_iE$ are the $ix$ for $x\eps\gimel E$.\
iii) The $\veps$-elements of $\,\gimel_iE$ are those of $\gimel E$ such that sp$(x)\le i$.\
iv) The only $\veps$-element common to $\gimel_iE$ and $\gimel_{1-i}E$ is $\vide$.\
v) If $i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j=0$, then the application $x\mapsto(ix,jx)$ is a bijection from $\gimel_{i\lor j}E$\
onto $\gimel_iE\fois\gimel_jE$. The inverse function is $(x,y)\mapsto x\sqcup y$.\
vi) $\gimel_i(E\fois E')=\gimel_iE\fois\gimel_iE'$.
We check immediately i), ii), iii), iv) below :
i) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt j^{\gimel2}\pt x(i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j=i{\hookrightarrow}(x\neps\gimel_jE\to x\neps\gimel_iE))$.\
ii) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x^{\gimel E}(ix\eps\gimel_iE)$ ; ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x^{\gimel E}(ix\ne x\to x\neps\gimel_iE)$.\
iii) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x^{\gimel E}(x\neps\gimel_iE\to\mbox{sp}(x)i\ne\mbox{sp}(x))$ ; ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x^{\gimel E}(\mbox{sp}(x)i\ne\mbox{sp}(x)\to x\neps\gimel_iE)$ ;\
iv) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x^{\gimel E}\pt y^{\gimel E}
(ix=(1-i)y{\hookrightarrow}ix=\vide)$.
v) By proposition \[prop2\_P\](ii), we have $ix\sqcup jx=(i\lor j)x=x$ if $x\eps\gimel_{i{{\scriptstyle\lor}}j}E$.\
By proposition \[prop2\_P\](iii,iv), if $x,y\eps\gimel E$, there exists $z\eps\gimel_{i{{\scriptstyle\lor}}j}E$ such that $iz=ix,jz=jy$, namely $z=ix\sqcup jy$.
vi) By proposition \[prop1\_P\](iv), we have ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x\pt y(i(x,y)=(ix,iy))$.
\[EequipE’\] Let $E,E'\in{\cal M}$ be such that $\vide\in E,E'$ and $E$ is equipotent with $E'$. Then : ${\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}(\gimel_iE$ is equipotent with $\gimel_iE')$.
Let $\phi$ be, in ${\cal M}$, a bijection from $E$ onto $E'$, such that $\phi(\vide)=\vide$. Then $\phi$ is, in ${\cal N}$, a bijection from $\gimel E$ onto $\gimel E'$. But we have immediately : ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x^{\gimel E}(\phi(ix)=i\phi(x))$. This shows that $\phi$ is a bijection from $\gimel_iE$ onto $\gimel_iE'$.
Some general theorems {#some-general-theorems .unnumbered}
---------------------
Theorems \[CF\] to \[k+ibf\], which are shown in this section, are valid *in every realizability model*.
In the ground model ${\cal M}$, which satisfies ZFL, we denote by $\kappa$ the cardinal of $\Lbd\cup\Pi\cup{\mathbb{N}}$ (which we shall also call the *cardinal of the algebra ${\cal A}$*) and by $\kappa_+={\cal P}(\kappa)$ the power set of $\kappa$.
\[CF\] \
Let $\pt\vec{x}\pt y\,F[\vec{x},y]$ be a closed formula of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{} with parameters in ${\cal M}$ (where $\vec{x}=\!(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$).\
Then, there exists in ${\cal M}$, a functional $f_F:\kappa\fois{\cal M}^n\to{\cal M}$ such that :\
i) If $\vec{a},b\in{\cal M}$ and $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[\vec{a},b]$, then there exists $\alpha\in\kappa$ such that $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[\vec{a},f_F(\alpha,\vec{a})]$.\
ii) ${\mbox{\sffamily C}}\,{\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt\vec{x}\pt y\left(F[\vec{x},y]\to
\ex\nu^{\gimel\kappa}F[\vec{x},f_F(\nu,\vec{x})]\right)$.
i) Let $\xi\mapsto\alpha_\xi$ be an injection from $\Lbd$ into $\kappa$. Using the principle of choice in ${\cal M}$ (which satisfies $V=L$), we can define a functional $f_F:\kappa\fois {\cal M}^n\to{\cal M}$ such that, in ${\cal M}$, we have : $\pt\vec{x}\pt y(\pt\xi\in\Lbd)
\left(\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[\vec{x},y]\Fl\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[\vec{x},f_F(\alpha_\xi,\vec{x})]\right)$.
ii) Let $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[\vec{a},b]$, $\eta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt \nu^{\gimel\kappa}\neg F[\vec{a},f_F(\nu,\vec{a})]$ and $\pi\in\Pi$.\
Thus, we have $\eta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\neg F[\vec{a},f_F(\alpha_\xi,\vec{a})]$ ; by definition of $f_F$, we have $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[\vec{a},f_F(\alpha_\xi,\vec{a})]$. Therefore $\eta\star\xi\ps\pi\in\bbot$, and ${\mbox{\sffamily C}}\,{\mbox{\sffamily I}}\star\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi\in\bbot$.
### Subsets of $\gimel\kappa_+$ {#subsets-of-gimelkappa_ .unnumbered}
\[Fsp(x)ne1\] Let $\pt x\pt y\pt z\,F[x,y,z]$ be a closed formula of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{}, with parameters in ${\cal M}$.\
Then, there exists, in ${\cal M},$ a functional $\beta_F:{\cal M}\to\kappa_+$ such that :\
${\mbox{\sffamily W}}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt z\left(\pt x\pt y\pt y'(F[x,y,z],F[x,y',z]\to y=y')
\to\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x(F[x,i\beta_F(z),z]\to\mbox{sp}(x)\ge i)\right)$.
By theorem \[CF\](i), there exists, in ${\cal M}$, a functional $g:\kappa\fois{\cal M}^2\to{\cal M}$ such that :\
$(*)$ For $a,b,c\in{\cal M}$ and $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[a,b,c]$, there exists $\alpha\in\kappa$ such that $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[a,g(\alpha,a,c),c]$.
Using the principle of choice in ${\cal M}$, we define a functional $\beta_F:{\cal M}\to\kappa_+$ such that :\
for every $\alpha\in\kappa$ and $c\in{\cal M}$, we have $\beta_F(c)\ne g(\alpha,\vide,c)$.\
This is possible since $\kappa_+$ is of cardinal $>\kappa$.
Now let : $a,c\in{\cal M}$, $i\in\{0,1\}$, $\phi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x\pt y\pt y'(F[x,y,c],F[x,y',c],y\ne y'\to\bot)$,\
$\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[a,i\beta_F(c),c]$, $\eta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\mbox{sp}(a)i\ne i$ and $\pi\in\Pi$.
We must show that ${\mbox{\sffamily W}}\star\phi\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi\in\bbot$, that is $\phi\star\xi\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi\in\bbot$.\
We set $b=i\beta_F(c)$ and therefore, we have $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[a,b,c]$.\
Thus, by $(*)$, we have $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[a,g(\alpha,a,c),c]$ for some $\alpha\in\kappa$.
Let us show that $\|b\ne g(\alpha,a,c)\|\subset\|\mbox{sp}(a)i\ne i\|$ ; there are three possible cases :\
If $i=0$, then $\|\mbox{sp}(a)i\ne i\|=\|0\ne0\|=\Pi$, hence the result.\
If $i=1$ and $a\ne\vide$, then $\|\mbox{sp}(a)i\ne i\|=\|1\ne1\|=\Pi$, hence the result.\
If $i=1$ and $a=\vide$, then :\
$\|b\ne g(\alpha,a,c)\|=\|i\beta_F(c)\ne g(\alpha,a,c)\|=\|\beta_F(c)\ne g(\alpha,\vide,c)\|
=\|\top\|=\vide$, by definition of $\beta_F$, hence the result.
It follows that $\eta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}b\ne g(\alpha,a,c)$. Now, we have seen that :\
$\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[a,b,c]$ and $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F[a,g(\alpha,a,c),c]$.\
Therefore, by hypothesis on $\phi$, we have $\phi\star\xi\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi\in\bbot$.
\[no\_surj\] The following formulas are realized :\
i) $\pt E\pt i^{\gimel2}(\mbox{there is no surjection from }\bigcup\{\gimel_j E\;;\;j\eps\gimel2,j\not\geq i\}
\mbox{ onto }\gimel_i\kappa_+)$.\
ii) $\pt E\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt j^{\gimel2}(\mbox{if there exists a surjection from }
\gimel_j E\mbox{ onto }\gimel_i\kappa_+\mbox{ then }j\ge i)$.\
iii) $\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt j^{\gimel2}(i,j\ne0,i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j=0\to$\
$($there is no surjection from $\gimel_i\kappa_+\oplus\gimel_j\kappa_+
\mbox{ onto }\gimel_i\kappa_+\fois\gimel_j\kappa_+))$.
[ The notation $\bigcup\{\gimel_j E\;;\;j\eps\gimel2,j\not\geq i\}$ denotes any individual $X$ of ${\cal N}$ such that :\
${\cal N}{\;|\!\!\!=\,}\pt x(x\eps X\dbfl\ex j^{\gimel2}(j\not\geq i\land x\eps\gimel_j E))$.]{}
i) We apply theorem \[Fsp(x)ne1\], with the formula $F[x,y,z]\equiv(x,y)\eps z$.\
In the realizabiblity model ${\cal N}$, we have $\beta_F:{\cal N}\to\gimel\kappa_+$.\
Let $z_0$ be, in ${\cal N}$, a surjective function onto $\gimel_i\kappa_+$.\
We have $\beta_F(z_0)\eps\gimel\kappa_+$, and therefore $i\beta_F(z_0)\eps\gimel_i\kappa_+$.\
If $x_0$ is such that $(x_0,i\beta_F(z_0))\eps z_0$, then sp$(x_0)\ge i$ by theorem \[Fsp(x)ne1\]. Therefore, for any individual $E$, we have $x_0\eps\gimel_j E\;\Fl j\ge i$, by proposition \[propr\_gimel\_i\](iii).
ii) It is a trivial consequence of (i).
iii) We take $E=\kappa_+$ ; since $i,j\ne0,i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j=0$, we have $i,j\not\ge i{{\scriptstyle\lor}}j$ ; by (i), there is no surjection from $\gimel_i\kappa_+\cup\gimel_j\kappa_+$ onto $\gimel_{i{{\scriptstyle\lor}}j}\kappa_+$.\
Now, since $i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j=0$, $\gimel_{i{{\scriptstyle\lor}}j}\kappa_+$ is equipotent with $\gimel_i\kappa_+\fois\gimel_j\kappa_+$ by proposition \[propr\_gimel\_i\](v).\
Moreover, $\vide$ is the only $\veps$-element common to $\gimel_i\kappa_+$ and $\gimel_j\kappa_+$ by proposition\[propr\_gimel\_i\](iv).\
But these sets contain a countable subset by theorem \[GEinfini\]. It follows that $\gimel_i\kappa_+\cup\gimel_j\kappa_+$ is equipotent with $\gimel_i\kappa_+\oplus\gimel_j\kappa_+$.
\[surj\_2gk\] The formula : $($there exists a surjection from $\gimel\kappa_+$ onto $2^{\gimel\kappa})$ is realized.
In the ground model ${\cal M}$, there exists a bijection from $\kappa_+=2^{\kappa}$ onto $2^{\kappa\fois\Pi}$. Therefore, in ${\cal N}$, there exists a bijection from $\gimel\kappa_+$ onto $\gimel2^{\kappa\fois\Pi}$.\
We now need a surjection from $\gimel2^{\kappa\fois\Pi}$ onto $2^{\gimel\kappa}$.\
Let $\phi:{\cal M}\to2^{\kappa\fois\Pi}$ be the unary function symbol defined by $\phi(x)=x\cap(\kappa\fois\Pi)$.\
In ${\cal N}$, we have $\phi:{\cal N}\to\gimel2^{\kappa\fois\Pi}$. Now, we check immediately that :
i) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt\nu\pt x^{\gimel2^{\kappa\fois\Pi}}(\nu\neps\gimel\kappa\to\nu\neps x)$ because $\|\nu\neps a\|\subset\|\nu\neps\gimel\kappa\|$ for all $a\in{\cal P}(\kappa\fois\Pi)$.\
ii) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x\pt\nu^{\gimel\kappa}(\nu\neps x\rightleftharpoons\nu\neps\phi(x))$ because $\|\nu\neps a\|=\|\nu\neps\phi(a)\|$ for all $\nu\in\kappa$.
From (i), it follows that $\gimel2^{\kappa\fois\Pi}$ is, in ${\cal N}$, a set of subsets of $\gimel\kappa$ ;\
from (ii), it follows that it contains at least one representative for each equivalence class of extensionality.\
Thus, the desired surjection simply associates, with each $\veps$-element of $\gimel2^{\kappa\fois\Pi}$, its equivalence class of extensionality.
\[GEinfini\] Let $E\in{\cal M}$ be infinite and such that $\vide\in E$. Then we have :\
${\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}(i\ne0\to$ there exists an injection from ${\mathbb{N}}$ into $\gimel_iE)$.
In ${\cal M}$, let $\phi:{\mathbb{N}}\to(E\setminus\{\vide\})$ be injective. In ${\cal N}$, we have $\phi:\gimel{\mathbb{N}}\to\gimel E$.\
The desired function is $n\mapsto i\phi(n)$. Indeed, we have :\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt m^{\gimel{\mathbb{N}}}\pt n^{\gimel{\mathbb{N}}}
(i\ne0\to i\phi(m+n+1)\ne i\phi(m))$.\
This shows that the restriction of this function to ${\mathbb{N}}_{\cal A}$ (the set of integers of ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$) is injective.
\[kappa+nbo\] ${\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\left(i\ne0,i\ne1\to(\gimel\kappa_+\mbox{ cannot be well ordered}\,)\right)$.
Let $i\in\gimel2,i\ne0,1$ ; then, $\gimel_i\kappa_+$ and $\gimel_{1-i}\kappa_+$ are infinite (theorem \[GEinfini\]) and $\subset\gimel\kappa_+$ by proposition \[propr\_gimel\_i\](i). But there exists no surjection from $\gimel_i\kappa_+$ onto $\gimel_{1-i}\kappa_+$, neither from $\gimel_{1-i}\kappa_+$ onto $\gimel_i\kappa_+$, by corollary \[no\_surj\].
[ By theorem \[kappa+nbo\], if the Boolean algebra $\gimel2$ is not trivial, then $\gimel\kappa_+$ is not well orderable. On the other hand, it can be shown that, if this Boolean algebra is trivial, then the realizability model ${\cal N}$ is an extension by forcing of the ground model ${\cal M}$. In this case, ${\cal N}$ itself can be well ordered, since we suppose that the ground model ${\cal M}$ satisfies ZFL.]{}
### A strict order on $\gimel\kappa_+$ {#a-strict-order-on-gimelkappa_ .unnumbered}
A binary relation $<$ on $X$ is a *strict order* if it is transitive ($x<y,y<z\Fl x<z$) and antireflexive ($x\not<x$). This strict order is called *total* if we have : $x<y$ or $y<x$ or $x=y$.
If $(X_0,<_0),(X_1,<_1)$ are two strictly ordered sets, then the *strict order product* $<$ on $X_0\fois X_1$ is defined by : $(x_0,x_1)<(y_0,y_1)\Dbfl x_0<y_0$ and $x_1<y_1$.
\[osbf\] The strict order product of $<_0,<_1$ is well founded if and only if one of the strict orders $<_0,<_1$ is well founded.
Proof of $\Fl$ : by contradiction ; if $<_0$ and $<_1$ are not well founded, we have :\
$\pt y_0\left(\pt x_0(x_0<_0y_0\to F_0[x_0])\to F_0[y_0]\right)$ ; $\neg F_0[b_0]$ ;\
$\pt y_1\left(\pt x_1(x_1<_1y_1\to F_1[x_1])\to F_1[y_1]\right)$ ; $\neg F_1[b_1]$ ;\
for some formulas $F_0,F_1$ and some individuals $b_0,b_1$. It follows that :\
$\pt y_0\pt y_1\left(\pt x_0\pt x_1(x_0<_0y_0,x_1<_1y_1\to G[x_0,x_1])\to G[y_0,y_1]\right)$ ; $\neg G[b_0,b_1]$\
where $G[x_0,x_1]\equiv F_0[x_0]\lor F_1[x_1]$.
Proof of $\Leftarrow$ : suppose that $<_0$ is well founded and let $G[x_0,x_1]$ be any formula.\
Let $F[x_0]\equiv\pt x_1G[x_0,x_1]$. We have to prove $\pt y_0\pt y_1G[y_0,y_1]$, i.e. $\pt y_0F[y_0]$ with the hypothesis $\pt y_0\pt y_1\left(\pt x_0\pt x_1(x_0<_0y_0,x_1<_1y_1\to G[x_0,x_1])\to G[y_0,y_1]\right)$. But this implies :\
$\pt y_0\left(\pt x_0(x_0<_0y_0\to F[x_0])\to F[y_0]\right)$ and the result follows, because $<_0$ is well founded.
We denote by ${\triangleleft}$ a strict well ordering on $\kappa_+$, in ${\cal M}$ ; we suppose that its least element is $\vide$ and that the cardinal of each proper initial segment is $\le\kappa$.
This gives a binary function from $\kappa_+^2$ into $\{0,1\}$, denoted by $(x{\triangleleft}y)$, which is defined as follows : $(x{\triangleleft}y)=1$ $\Dbfl$ $x{\triangleleft}y$.\
We can extend it to the realizability model ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$, which gives a function from $(\gimel\kappa_+)^2$ into $\gimel2$.
\[k+iprod\] The following propositions are realized :\
If $i\eps\gimel2,i\ne0$, then $(x{\triangleleft}y)=i$ is a strict ordering of $\,\gimel_i\kappa_+$, which we denote by ${\triangleleft}_i$.\
If $i$ is an atom of the Boolean algebra $\gimel2$, then this ordering is total.
We have immediately :\
i) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x^{\gimel\kappa_+}\pt y^{\gimel\kappa_+}\pt z^{\gimel\kappa_+}
((x{\triangleleft}y){{\scriptstyle\land}}(y{\triangleleft}z)\le(x{\triangleleft}z))$ ; ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x^{\gimel\kappa_+}((x{\triangleleft}x)=0)$.\
ii) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x^{\gimel\kappa_+}\pt y^{\gimel\kappa_+}
\left((ix{\triangleleft}\,iy)\le i\right)$.\
iii) ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x^{\gimel\kappa_+}\pt y^{\gimel\kappa_+}\left((x{\triangleleft}y)=0,(y{\triangleleft}x)=0{\hookrightarrow}x=y\right)$.
It follows from (i) that, if $i\ne0$, then $(x{\triangleleft}y)\ge i$ is a strict ordering relation on $\gimel\kappa_+$.\
It follows from (ii), that this relation, restricted to $\gimel_i\kappa_+$, is equivalent to $(x{\triangleleft}y)=i$.\
Finally, it follows from (iii), that the relation $(x{\triangleleft}y)=i$, restricted to $\gimel_i\kappa_+$, is total when $i$ is an atom of $\gimel2$.
\[k+ibf\] The following propositions are realized :\
i) $\pt i^{\gimel2}(\mbox{the application }x\mapsto(ix,(1-i)x)\,\mbox{is an isomorphism of strictly ordered sets}\\
\mbox{ from }(\gimel\kappa_+,\!{\triangleleft})\mbox{ onto\ }(\gimel_i\kappa_+,{\triangleleft}_i)\fois(\gimel_{1-i}\kappa_+,{\triangleleft}_{1-i}))$.\
ii) $\pt i^{\gimel2}($either $\gimel_i\kappa_+$ or $\gimel_{1-i}\kappa_+$ is a well founded ordered set$)$.
i) It follows from proposition \[propr\_gimel\_i\](v), that the application $x\mapsto(ix,(1-i)x)$ is a bijection from $\gimel\kappa_+$ onto ${\gimel_i\kappa_+\fois\gimel_{1-i}\kappa_+}$. In fact, it is an *isomorphism* of ordered sets, since we have :
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x^{\gimel\kappa_+}\pt y^{\gimel\kappa_+}
\left((x{\triangleleft}y)=(ix{\triangleleft}iy){{\scriptstyle\lor}}((1-i)x{\triangleleft}(1-i)y)\right)$ and therefore :\
${\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt i^{\gimel2}\pt x^{\gimel\kappa_+}\pt y^{\gimel\kappa_+}
\left((x{\triangleleft}y)=1\dbfl(ix{\triangleleft}iy)=i\land((1-i)x{\triangleleft}(1-i)y)=1-i\right)$.
ii) By theorem \[bien\_fonde\], the relation $(x{\triangleleft}y)=1$ is well founded on $\gimel\kappa_+$. Thus, the result follows immediately from (i) and lemma \[osbf\].
$\gimel{\kappa}$ countable {#gimelkappa-countable .unnumbered}
--------------------------
In this section, we consider some consequences of the hypothesis : ($\gimel{\kappa}$ is countable).
### Non extensional and dependent choice {#non-extensional-and-dependent-choice .unnumbered}
The formula $\pt z(z\neps y\to z\neps x)$ will be written $x\subseteq y$.\
The formula $\pt x\pt y\pt y'((x,y)\eps f,(x,y')\eps f\to y=y')$ will be written Func$(f)$\
(read : *$f$ is a function*).\
We recall that $x\subseteq y$ is the formula $\pt z(z\neps y\to z\neps x)$.
The formula $\pt z\ex f\left(f\subseteq z\land\mbox{Func}(f)\land\pt x\pt y\ex y'((x,y)\eps z\to(x,y')\eps f)\right)$\
is called the *non extensional axiom of choice* and denoted by NEAC.
It is easily shown [@krivine6] that [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{}+ NEAC $\vdash\mbox{DC}$ (axiom of dependent choice). On the other hand, we have built, in [@krivine6], a model of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{} + NEAC + $\neg$AC ; and other such models will be given in the present paper. In all these models, ${\mathbb{R}}$ is not well orderable.
\[gimel\_k\_DC\] \
There exists a closed $\cc$-term such that ${\mbox{\sffamily H}}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(\gimel\kappa\mbox{ is countable})\to\mbox{ NEAC}$.
We apply theorem \[CF\](ii) to the formula $(x,y)\eps z$. We get a function symbol $g$ such that ${\mbox{\sffamily C}}\,{\mbox{\sffamily I}}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x\pt y\pt z((x,y)\eps z\to\ex\nu^{\gimel\kappa}(x,g(\nu,x,z))\eps z)$.\
Therefore, it suffices to prove NEAC in [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{}, by means of this formula and the additional hypothesis : $(\gimel\kappa\mbox{ is countable})$. Now, from this hypothesis, it follows that there exists a strict well ordering $<$ on $\gimel\kappa$. Then, we can define the desired function $f$ by means of the comprehension scheme :\
$(x,y)\eps f\dbfl(x,y)\eps z\land\ex\nu^{\gimel\kappa}\left(y=g(\nu,x,z)\land
\pt\alpha^{\gimel\kappa}(\alpha<\nu\to(x,g(\alpha,x,z))\neps z\right)$.\
Intuitively, $f(x)=g(\nu,x,z)$ for the least $\nu\eps\gimel\kappa$ such that $(x,g(\nu,x,z))\eps z$.
### Subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$ {#subsets-of-mathbbr .unnumbered}
\[segdentrgl\] ${\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(\gimel\kappa\mbox{ is countable})\,\to$\
every bounded above subset of the ordered set $(\gimel\kappa_+,{\triangleleft})$ is countable.
Every proper initial segment of the well ordering ${\triangleleft}$ on $\kappa_+$ is of cardinal $\kappa$. Thus, there exists a function $\phi:\kappa\fois\kappa_+\to\kappa_+$ such that, for each $x\in\kappa_+,\,x\ne\vide$, the function $\alpha\mapsto\phi(\alpha,x)$ is a surjection from $\kappa$ onto $\{y\in\kappa_+\;;\;y\triangleleft x\}$. Then, we have immediately :\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x^{\gimel\kappa_+}\pt y^{\gimel\kappa_+}\left((y{\triangleleft}x)=1{\hookrightarrow}(\pt\alpha^{\gimel\kappa}(y\ne\phi(\alpha,x))\to\bot)\right)$.
This shows that, in ${\cal N}$, there exists a surjection from $\gimel\kappa$, onto every subset of $\gimel\kappa_+$ which is bounded from above for the strict ordering ${\triangleleft}$.\
Thus, all these subsets of $\gimel\kappa_+$ are countable, since $\gimel\kappa$ is.
\[gk+R\] ${\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(\gimel\kappa\mbox{ is countable}\,)\to$ there exists an injection from $\gimel\kappa_+$ into ${\mathbb{R}}$.
We have obviously ${\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(\gimel\kappa\mbox{ is countable}\,\to\gimel2\mbox{ is countable})$, and therefore :\
${\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(\gimel\kappa\mbox{ is countable}\,\to(\gimel2)^{\gimel\kappa}\mbox{ is equipotent to }{\mathbb{R}})$.\
Now, by theorem \[app\_inj\], we have : ${\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(\mbox{there is an injection from }
\gimel\kappa_+=\gimel(2^\kappa)\mbox{ into }(\gimel2)^{\gimel\kappa})$.
\[gk\_den\] The following formula is realized :\
$(\gimel\kappa\mbox{ is countable}\,)\to$ there exists an application $i\mapsto X_i$ from the countable Boolean algebra $\gimel2$ into ${\cal P}({\mathbb{R}})$ such that :\
i) $X_0=\{\vide\}$ ; $i\ne0\,\to X_i$ is uncountably infinite ;\
ii) $X_i\fois X_i$ is equipotent with $X_i$ ;\
iii) $X_i\cap X_j=X_{i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j}$ and therefore $i\le j\,\to X_i\subset X_j$ ;\
iv) $i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j=0\,\to X_{i{{\scriptstyle\lor}}j}$ is equipotent with $X_i\fois X_j$ ;\
v) there exists a surjection from $X_1$ onto ${\mathbb{R}}$.\
vi) if $A$ is a subset of $\gimel2$ and if there is a surjection from $\bigcup_{j\veps A}X_j$ onto $X_i$, then $i\le j$ for some $j\eps A$.\
vii) if there is a surjection from $X_j$ onto $X_i$, then $i\le j$ ;\
viii) if $i,j\ne0,i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j=0$, then there is no surjection from $X_i\oplus X_j$ onto $X_i\fois X_j$.
For each $i\eps\gimel2$, let us denote by $X_i$ the image of $\gimel_i\kappa_+$ by the injection from $\gimel\kappa_+$ into ${\mathbb{R}}$, given by theorem \[gk+R\].\
i) The fact that $X_i$ is infinite for $i\ne0$ is a consequence of theorem \[GEinfini\].\
If $i=1$, $X_i$ is uncountable by (vi). If $i\ne0,1$ and $X_i$ is countable, then $X_{1-i}$ is infinite and thus, there exists a surjection from $X_{1-i}$ onto $X_i$. This contradicts corollary \[no\_surj\].\
ii) by proposition \[propr\_gimel\_i\](vi), $\gimel_i\kappa_+\fois\gimel_i\kappa_+$ is equipotent with $\gimel_i(\kappa_+^2)$, thus also with $\gimel_i\kappa_+$ by proposition \[EequipE’\].\
iii) If $a\eps\gimel_i\kappa_+$ and $a\eps\gimel_j\kappa_+$, then $ia=a$, and therefore $(i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j)a=ja=a$.\
iv) This is proposition \[propr\_gimel\_i\](v).\
v) Application of theorem \[surj\_2gk\].\
vi), vii), viii) Applications of corollary \[no\_surj\].
Theorem \[gk\_den\] is interesting only if the countable Boolean algebra $\gimel2$ is not trivial. In this case, ${\mathbb{R}}$ cannot be well ordered, by theorems \[kappa+nbo\] and \[gk+R\].
In section \[gkappaden\] below, given an *arbitrary* realizability algebra ${\cal A}$, we build a new algebra ${\cal B}$ such that :\
$\bullet$ ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$ realizes the formula : ($\gimel{\kappa}$ is countable).\
$\bullet$ The (countable) Boolean algebra $\gimel2$ of the model ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$ is elementarily equivalent to the algebra $\gimel2$ of ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$.
In the sequel, we shall consider two interesting cases :\
$\gimel2$ is atomless ; $\gimel2$ has four $\veps$-elements.
Collapsing $\gimel\kappa$ {#gkappaden}
=========================
Extending a realizability algebra {#extending-a-realizability-algebra .unnumbered}
---------------------------------
In the ground model ${\cal M}$, we consider a realizability algebra ${\cal A}$, the elementary combinators of which are denoted by ${\mbox{\sffamily B}},{\mbox{\sffamily C}},{\mbox{\sffamily I}},{\mbox{\sffamily K}},{\mbox{\sffamily W}},\ccc$ and the continuations $\kk_\pi$ for $\pi\in\Pi$.
We define the combinators ${\mbox{\sffamily B}}^*,{\mbox{\sffamily C}}^*,{\mbox{\sffamily I}}^*,{\mbox{\sffamily K}}^*,{\mbox{\sffamily W}}^*,\ccc^*,$ and the continuations $\kk^*_\pi$ as follows : ${\mbox{\sffamily B}}^*=\lbd n\lbd x\lbd y\lbd z(xn)({\mbox{\sffamily C}})yz
={\mbox{\large\bfseries(\hspace{-0.4em}(}}({\mbox{\sffamily C}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}}{\mbox{\sffamily C}})({\mbox{\sffamily C}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}){\mbox{\sffamily B}}{\mbox{\large\bfseries)\hspace{-0.4em})}}{\mbox{\sffamily C}}$ ;\
${\mbox{\sffamily C}}^*=\lbd n\lbd x\lbd y\lbd z(x)nzy=({\mbox{\sffamily C}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}}){\mbox{\sffamily C}}$ ;\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}^*=\lbd n\lbd x(x)n={\mbox{\sffamily C}}\,{\mbox{\sffamily I}}$ ;\
${\mbox{\sffamily K}}^*=\lbd n\lbd x\lbd y(x)n=({\mbox{\sffamily C}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}}){\mbox{\sffamily K}}$ ;\
${\mbox{\sffamily W}}^*=\lbd n\lbd x\lbd y(x)nyy=({\mbox{\sffamily C}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}}){\mbox{\sffamily W}}$ ;\
$\kk^*_\pi=\lbd n\lbd x(\kk_\pi)(x)n=({\mbox{\sffamily C}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}})\kk_\pi$ ;\
$\ccc^*=\lbd n\lbd x(\ccc)\lbd k(xn)\lbd n\lbd x(k)(x)n\\
={\mbox{\Large\bfseries(\hspace{-0.4em}(}}({\mbox{\sffamily C}}){\mbox{\Large\bfseries(\hspace{-0.4em}(}}({\mbox{\sffamily C}}){\mbox{\large\bfseries(\hspace{-0.4em}(}}({\mbox{\sffamily B}}){\mbox{\bfseries(\hspace{-0.4em}(}}({\mbox{\sffamily B}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}}){\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\bfseries)\hspace{-0.4em})}}{\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\large\bfseries)\hspace{-0.4em})}}({\mbox{\sffamily C}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}})
{\mbox{\large\bfseries(\hspace{-0.4em}(}}({\mbox{\sffamily B}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}}){\mbox{\bfseries(\hspace{-0.4em}(}}({\mbox{\sffamily B}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}})\ccc{\mbox{\bfseries)\hspace{-0.4em})}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}{\mbox{\large\bfseries)\hspace{-0.4em})}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}{\mbox{\Large\bfseries)\hspace{-0.4em})}}{\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\Large\bfseries)\hspace{-0.4em})}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}$.
Therefore, we have :
${\mbox{\sffamily B}}^*\star\nu\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\nu\ps{\mbox{\sffamily C}}\eta\zeta\ps\pi$ ;\
${\mbox{\sffamily C}}^*\star\nu\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\nu\ps\zeta\ps\eta\ps\pi$ ;\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}^*\star\nu\ps\xi\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\nu\ps\pi$ ;\
${\mbox{\sffamily K}}^*\star\nu\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\nu\ps\pi$ ;\
${\mbox{\sffamily W}}^*\star\nu\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\nu\ps\eta\ps\eta\ps\pi$ ;\
$\kk^*_\pi\star\nu\ps\xi\ps\varpi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\nu\ps\pi$ ;\
$\ccc^*\star\nu\ps\xi\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\nu\ps\kk^*_\pi\ps\pi$.
(reminder : the notation $\xi\star\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi'\star\pi'$ means $\xi\star\pi\notin\bbot\Fl\xi'\star\pi'\notin\bbot$).
Let $\kappa$ be an infinite cardinal of ${\cal M}$, $\kappa\ge$ card$(\Lbd\cup\Pi)$ ; we consider the tree (usually called $\kappa^{<\omega}$) of functions, the domain of which is an integer, with values in $\kappa$.\
Let $P$ be the ordered set obtained by adding a least element ${\mathbb{O}}$ to this tree.\
$P$ is an inf-semi-lattice, the greatest element $\1$ of which is the function $\vide$.\
The greatest lower bound of $p,q\in P$, denoted by $pq$, is $p$ (resp. $q$) if $p,q\ne{\mathbb{O}}$ and $q\subset p$ (resp. $p\subset q$). It is ${\mathbb{O}}$ in every other case.
[ $P\setminus\{{\mathbb{O}}\}=\kappa^{<\omega}$ is the ordered set used, in the method of forcing, to *collapse* (i.e. make countable) the cardinal $\kappa$.]{}
We define a new realizability algebra ${\cal B}$ by setting :\
$\LLbd=\Lbd\fois P\;;\;\PPi=\Pi\fois P\;;\;\LLbd\star\PPi=(\Lbd\star\Pi)\fois P$ ;\
$(\xi,p)\ps(\pi,q)=(\xi\ps\pi,pq)$ ; $(\xi,p)\star(\pi,q)=(\xi\star\pi,pq)$ ; $(\xi,p)(\eta,q)=({\mbox{\sffamily C}}\xi\eta,pq)$.\
[**B**]{} $=({\mbox{\sffamily B}}^*,\1)$ ; [**C**]{} $=({\mbox{\sffamily C}}^*,\1)$ ; [**I**]{} $=({\mbox{\sffamily I}}^*,\1)$ ; [**K**]{} $=({\mbox{\sffamily K}}^*,\1)$ ; [**W**]{} $=({\mbox{\sffamily W}}^*,\1)$ ;\
${\mbox{\bf\sffamily cc}}=(\ccc^*,\1)$ ; ${\mbox{\bf\sffamily k}}_{(\pi,p)}=(\kk^*_\pi,p)$.
We define, in ${\cal M}$, a function symbol from $P\fois{\mathbb{N}}$ into $\{0,1\}$, denoted by $(p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)$, by setting :\
$(p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$ $\Dbfl$ $p\ne{\mathbb{O}}$ and the domain of $p$ is an integer $\le n$.
We define $\bbot_{\cal B}$, that we shall denote also by $\bbbot$, as follows :
$(\xi\star\pi,p)\in\bbbot$ $\Dbfl$ $(\pt n\in{\mathbb{N}})((p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1\Fl\xi\star\ul{n}\ps\pi\in\bbot)$ for $p\in P\,,\,\xi\in\Lbd$ and $\pi\in\Pi$.\
In particular, we have $(\xi\star\pi,{\mathbb{O}})\in\bbbot$ for any $\xi\in\Lbd,\pi\in\Pi$.
We check now that ${\cal B}$ is a realizability algebra.
$\bullet$ $(\xi,p)(\eta,q)\star(\pi,r)\notin\bbbot\Fl(\xi,p)\star(\eta,q)\ps(\pi,r)\notin\bbbot$ :\
Suppose that $(\xi\star\eta\ps\pi,pqr)\in\bbbot$ ; we must show $({\mbox{\sffamily C}}\xi\eta\star\pi,pqr)\in\bbbot$ i.e. ${\mbox{\sffamily C}}\xi\eta\star\ul{n}\ps\pi\in\bbot$ for $(pqr{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$. Now, we have ${\mbox{\sffamily C}}\xi\eta\star\ul{n}\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\ul{n}\ps\eta\ps\pi$ which is in $\bbot$ by hypothesis.
$\bullet$ $({\mbox{\sffamily B}}^*,\1)\star(\xi,p)\ps(\eta,q)\ps(\zeta,r)\ps(\pi,s)\notin\bbbot$ $\Fl$ $(\xi,p)\star(\eta,q)(\zeta,r)\ps(\pi,s)\notin\bbbot$ :\
Suppose that $(\xi,p)\star(\eta,q)(\zeta,r)\ps(\pi,s)\in\bbbot$ i.e. $(\xi\star{\mbox{\sffamily C}}\eta\zeta\ps\pi,pqrs)\in\bbbot$.\
We must show :\
$({\mbox{\sffamily B}}^*\star\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi,pqrs)\in\bbbot$ i.e. ${\mbox{\sffamily B}}^*\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi\in\bbot$ for $(pqrs{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$.\
Now, we have ${\mbox{\sffamily B}}^*\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\ul{n}\ps{\mbox{\sffamily C}}\eta\zeta\ps\pi$ which is in $\bbot$ by hypothesis.
$\bullet$ $({\mbox{\sffamily C}}^*,\1)\star(\xi,p)\ps(\eta,q)\ps(\zeta,r)\ps(\pi,s)\notin\bbbot$ $\Fl$ $(\xi,p)\star(\zeta,r)\ps(\eta,q)\ps(\pi,s)\notin\bbbot$ :\
Suppose that $(\xi\star\zeta\ps\eta\ps\pi,pqrs)\in\bbbot$ ; we must show :\
$({\mbox{\sffamily C}}^*\star\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi,pqrs)\in\bbbot$ i.e. ${\mbox{\sffamily C}}^*\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi\in\bbot$ for $(pqrs{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$.\
Now, we have ${\mbox{\sffamily C}}^*\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\ul{n}\ps\zeta\ps\eta\ps\pi$ which is in $\bbot$ by hypothesis.
$\bullet$ $({\mbox{\sffamily I}}^*,\1)\star(\xi,p)\ps(\pi,q)\notin\bbbot$ $\Fl$ $(\xi,p)\star(\pi,q)\notin\bbbot$ :\
Suppose that $(\xi\star\pi,pq)\in\bbbot$ ; we must show :\
$({\mbox{\sffamily I}}^*\star\xi\ps\pi,pq)\in\bbbot$ i.e. ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}^*\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\pi\in\bbot$ for $(pq{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$. Now, we have :\
${\mbox{\sffamily I}}^*\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\ul{n}\ps\pi$ which is in $\bbot$ by hypothesis.
$\bullet$ $({\mbox{\sffamily K}}^*,\1)\star(\xi,p)\ps(\eta,q)\ps(\pi,r)\notin\bbbot$ $\Fl$ $(\xi,p)\star(\pi,r)\notin\bbbot$ :\
Suppose that $(\xi\star\pi,pr)\in\bbbot$ ; we must show :\
$({\mbox{\sffamily K}}^*\star\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi,pqr)\in\bbbot$ i.e. ${\mbox{\sffamily K}}^*\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi\in\bbot$ for $(pqr{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$. Now, we have :\
${\mbox{\sffamily K}}^*\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\ul{n}\ps\pi$ which is in $\bbot$ by hypothesis.
$\bullet$ $({\mbox{\sffamily W}}^*,\1)\star(\xi,p)\ps(\eta,q)\ps(\pi,r)\notin\bbbot$ $\Fl$ $(\xi,p)\star(\eta,q)\ps(\eta,q)\ps(\pi,r)\notin\bbbot$ :\
Suppose that $(\xi\star\eta\ps\eta\ps\pi,pqr)\in\bbbot$ ; we must show :\
$({\mbox{\sffamily W}}^*\star\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi,pqr)\in\bbbot$ i.e. ${\mbox{\sffamily W}}^*\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi\in\bbot$ for $(pqr{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$. Now, we have :\
${\mbox{\sffamily W}}^*\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\ul{n}\ps\eta\ps\eta\ps\pi$ which is in $\bbot$ by hypothesis.
$\bullet$ $(\ccc^*,\1)\star(\xi,p)\ps(\pi,q)\notin\bbbot$ $\Fl$ $(\xi,p)\star(\kk^*_\pi,q)\ps(\pi,q)\notin\bbbot$ :\
Suppose that $(\xi\star\kk^*_\pi\ps\pi,pq)\in\bbbot$ ; we must show :\
$(\ccc^*\star\xi\ps\pi,pq)\in\bbbot$ i.e. $\ccc^*\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\pi\in\bbot$ for $(pq{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$.\
Now, we have $\ccc^*\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\ul{n}\ps\kk^*_\pi\ps\pi$ which is in $\bbot$ by hypothesis.
$\bullet$ $(\kk_\pi^*,p)\star(\xi,q)\ps(\varpi,r)\notin\bbbot$ $\Fl$ $(\xi,q)\star(\pi,p)\notin\bbbot$ :\
Suppose that $(\xi\star\pi,pq)\in\bbbot$ ; we must show :\
$(\kk^*_\pi\star\xi\ps\varpi,pqr)\in\bbbot$ i.e. $\kk^*_\pi\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\varpi\in\bbot$ for $(pqr{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$.\
Now, we have $\kk^*_\pi\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\varpi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\xi\star\ul{n}\ps\pi$ which is in $\bbot$ by hypothesis.
For each closed $\cc$-term $\tau$ (built with the elementary combinators and the application), we define $\tau^*$ by recurrence, as follows :\
if $\tau$ is an elementary combinator, $\tau^*$ is already defined ;\
we set $(tu)^*={\mbox{\sffamily C}}t^*u^*$.
In the algebra ${\cal B}$, the value of the combinator $\tau$ is $\tau_{\cal B}=(\tau^*_{\cal A},\1)$.\
In particular, the integer $n$ of the algebra ${\cal B}$ is $\ul{n}_{\cal B}=(\ul{n}^*,\1)$.\
We have $\ul{0}_{\cal B}=(\ul{0}^*,\1)=({\mbox{\sffamily K}}^*,\1)({\mbox{\sffamily I}}^*,\1)$ ; therefore : $\ul{0}^*={\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily K}}^*{\mbox{\sffamily I}}^*$.\
We have $(\ul{n+1})_{\cal B}=((\ul{n+1})^*,\1)=(\sig^*,\1)(\ul{n}^*,\1)$ ; therefore : $(\ul{n+1})^*=\C\sig^*\ul{n}^*$.
Thus, we have, for every $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ :$\ul{n}^*=(\C\sig^*)^n\ul{0}^*$.
We define the proof-like terms of the algebra ${\cal B}$ as terms of the form $(\theta,\1)$ where $\theta$ is a proof-like term of the algebra ${\cal A}$. The condition of coherence for ${\cal B}$ is therefore :\
If $\theta$ is a proof-like term of ${\cal A}$, there exist $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $\pi\in\Pi$ such that $\theta\star\ul{n}\ps\pi\notin\bbot$.\
*If ${\cal A}$ is coherent, then so is ${\cal B}$* : indeed, if $\theta$ is a proof-like term of ${\cal A}$, then so is $\theta\ul{0}$ ; this gives a stack $\pi$ such that $\theta\ul{0}\star\pi\notin\bbot$.
[**Notations.**]{}\
The realizability models associated with the algebras ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$ are denoted respectively by ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$ and ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$.\
The truth value of a formula $F$ in the realizability model ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$ will be denoted by $\|F\|_{\cal B}$ or also ${|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}F{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}$.\
We write $(\xi,p){\;\|\!\!\!-\,}_{\cal B}F$ or $(\xi,p){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}F$ to say that $(\xi,p)$ realizes the formula $F$ in the realizability model ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$.
The collapsing function {#the-collapsing-function .unnumbered}
-----------------------
We now define ${\cal G}\in{\cal M}$ in the following way :\
${\cal G}=\{\left((m,\alpha),(\pi,p)\right);\;m\in{\mathbb{N}},\,\alpha\in\kappa,\,\pi\in\Pi,\,
p\in P\setminus\{{\mathbb{O}}\},\,p(m)$ is defined and $p(m)=\alpha\}$.
\[bij\_ent\_ind\] \
The formula $(\cal G$ is a surjection from ${\mathbb{N}}$ onto $\gimel\kappa)$ is realized in the model ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$.\
More precisely, we have :\
i) $(\theta_0,\1){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}\pt x\pt y\pt y'
\left((x,y)\eps{\cal G},y\ne y'\to(x,y')\neps{\cal G}\right)$ with $\theta_0=\lbd n\lbd k\lbd x(x)n$ ;\
ii) $(\theta_1,\1){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}\pt y^{\gimel\kappa}[\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((x,y)\neps{\cal G})\to\bot]$ with $\theta_1=\lbd n\lbd x((((n)({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}})({\mbox{\sffamily C}})\sig^*)({\mbox{\sffamily C}})x)\ul{0}^*)(\sig)n$,\
and $\sig=({\mbox{\sffamily B}}{\mbox{\sffamily W}})({\mbox{\sffamily B}}){\mbox{\sffamily B}}$ (successor).
i\) Let $m\in{\mathbb{N}},\alpha,\alpha'\in\kappa$, $(\pi,p)\in{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}(m,\alpha)\neps{\cal G}{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}$, $(\pi',p')\in{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}(m,\alpha')\neps{\cal G}{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}$\
and $(\xi,q){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}\alpha\ne\alpha'$.\
Thus, we have $m\in$ dom$(p),m\in$ dom$(p'),p(m)=\alpha$ and $p'(m)=\alpha'$.\
By lemma \[nAtoB\], we can replace the formula $(m,\alpha)\eps{\cal G}$, which is $\neg((m,\alpha)\neps{\cal G})$, with the set of terms $^{\neg}((m,\alpha)\neps{\cal G})$ which is $\{\kk_{(\pi,p)}\;;\;(\pi,p)\in{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}(m,\alpha)\neps{\cal G}{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}\}$.\
Therefore, we have to show that :\
$(\theta_0,\1)\star\kk_{(\pi,p)}\ps(\xi,q)\ps(\pi',p')\in\bbbot$ that is $(\theta_0\star\kk^*_\pi\ps\xi\ps\pi',pp'q)\in\bbbot$.\
This is obvious if $pp'q={\mathbb{O}}$. Otherwise, $p$ and $p'$ are compatible, thus $\alpha=\alpha'$.\
Let $n$ be such that $(pp'q{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$ ; we must show that $\theta_0\star\ul{n}\ps\kk^*_\pi\ps\xi\ps\pi'\in\bbot$ i.e. $\xi\star\ul{n}\ps\pi'\in\bbot$.\
Now, we have $(\xi,q){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}\bot$ by hypothesis on $(\xi,q)$, thus $(\xi,q)\star(\pi',\1)\in\bbbot$.\
Since $(q{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$, it follows that $\xi\star\ul{n}\ps\pi'\in\bbot$.
ii\) Let us first show that $\theta_1\star\ul{n}\ps\eta\ps\varpi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\eta\star\ul{n+1}\ps\ul{n}^*\ps\varpi$ for each $n\in{\mathbb{N}},\eta\in\Lbd$ and $\varpi\in\Pi$. We have $\theta_1\star\ul{n}\ps\eta\ps\varpi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\ul{n}\star({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}})({\mbox{\sffamily C}})\sig^*\ps{\mbox{\sffamily C}}\eta\ps\ul{0}^*\ps\ul{n+1}\ps\varpi$.\
By lemma \[phi\^n-alpha\](ii), in which we set $\zeta={\mbox{\sffamily C}}\eta,\phi={\mbox{\sffamily C}}\sig^*,\alpha=\ul{0}^*,\vsig=\sig,O=\ul{0}$ and $\pi=\ul{n+1}\ps\varpi$, we obtain : $\theta_1\star\,\ul{n}\ps\eta\ps\varpi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}{\mbox{\sffamily C}}\eta\star\ul{n}^*\ps\ul{n+1}\ps\varpi$ (since $\ul{n}^*=({\mbox{\sffamily C}}\sig^*)^n\ul{0}^*$) ${\succ\!\!\!\succ}\eta\,\star\,\ul{n+1}\ps\ul{n}^*\ps\varpi$.
We prove now that $(\theta_1,\1){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}\pt y^{\gimel\kappa}[\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((x,y)\neps{\cal G})\to\bot]$.\
Let $\alpha\in\kappa$, $(\eta,p_0){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}\pt x{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((x,\alpha)\neps{\cal G})$ and $(\varpi,q_0)\in\Pi\fois P$ ;\
we show that $(\theta_1,\1)\star(\eta,p_0)\ps(\varpi,q_0)\in\bbbot$.\
This is trivial if $p_0q_0={\mathbb{O}}$ ; otherwise, let $n\in\ennl$ be such that $(p_0q_0{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$.\
We must show that $\theta_1\star\ul{n}\ps\eta\ps\varpi\in\bbot$, that is $\eta\star\ul{n+1}\ps\ul{n}^*\ps\varpi\in\bbot$.\
But we have $(\eta,p_0){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}\{(\ul{n}^*,\1)\}\to(n,\alpha)\neps{\cal G}$ by hypothesis on $\eta$.\
Since $(p_0q_0{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$, we can define $q\in P$ with domain $n+1$ such that $q\supset p_0q_0$ and $q(n)=\alpha$. Then, we have $(\varpi,q)\in{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}(n,\alpha)\neps{\cal G}{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}$ by definition of ${\cal G}$.\
We have thus $(\eta,p_0)\star(\ul{n}^*,\1)\ps(\varpi,q)\in\bbbot$ that is $(\eta\star\ul{n}^*\ps\varpi,p_0q)\in\bbbot$.\
But we have $p_0q=q$, and therefore $(\eta\star\ul{n}^*\ps\varpi,q)\in\bbbot$.\
Since $(q{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n+1)=1$, it follows that $\eta\star\ul{n+1}\ps\ul{n}^*\ps\varpi\in\bbot$.
${\cal N}_{\cal B}$ realizes the non extensional axiom of choice and thus also DC.
Indeed, by theorem \[bij\_ent\_ind\], the model ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$ realizes the formula : ($\gimel\kappa$ is countable).\
But we have $\kappa=$ card$(\LLbd\cup\PPi\cup{\mathbb{N}})$, since $\kappa\ge$ card$(\Lbd\cup\Pi\cup{\mathbb{N}})$ and $\kappa=$ card$(P)$.\
Therefore ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$ realizes NEAC, by theorem \[gimel\_k\_DC\].
[ Intuitively, the model ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$ is an extension of the model ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$ obtained by forcing, by collapsing $\gimel\kappa$. We cannot apply directly the usual theory of forcing, because $\gimel\kappa$ is not defined in ZF.]{}
Elementary formulas {#elementary-formulas .unnumbered}
-------------------
Elementary formulas are defined as follows, where $t,u$ are $\ell$-terms, i.e. terms built with variables, individuals, and function symbols defined in ${\cal M}$:
$\bullet$ $\top,\bot$ are elementary formulas ;\
$\bullet$ if $U$ is an elementary formula, then $t=u{\hookrightarrow}U$ and $\pt x\,U$ are too ;\
$\bullet$ if $U,V$ are elementary formulas, then $U\to V$ too ;\
$\bullet$ if $U$ is an elementary formula, then $\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}U$ too.
[ $t\ne u$ is an elementary formula, and also $t\neps\gimel u$ (which can be written $f(t,u)\ne1$ where $f$ is the function symbol defined in ${\cal M}$ by : $f(a,b)=1$ iff $a\in b$).\
If $U$ is an elementary formula, then $\pt x^{\gimel t}U$ is too : indeed, it is written $\pt x(f(x,t)=1{\hookrightarrow}U)$.]{}
For each elementary formula $U$, we define two formulas $\,U_p$ and $U^p$, with one additional free variable $p$, by the conditions below.\
Condition 1 defines $U^p$ by means of $U_p$ ; conditions 2 to 5 define $U_p$ by recurrence :
1. $U^p\equiv\pt q^{\gimel P}\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((pq{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1{\hookrightarrow}U_q)$ ;
2. $\bot_p\equiv\bot$ and $\top_p\equiv\top$ ;
3. $(t=u{\hookrightarrow}U)_p\equiv(t=u{\hookrightarrow}U_p)$ ; $(\pt x\,U[x])_p\equiv\pt x\,U_p[x]$ ;
4. $(U\to V)_p\equiv\pt q^{\gimel P}\pt r^{\gimel P}
\left(p=qr{\hookrightarrow}(U^q\to V_r)\right)$ ;
5. $(\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}U[n])_p\equiv\pt n^{\gimel{\mathbb{N}}}(\{\ul{n}^*\}\to U_p[n])$, in other words :\
$\|(\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}U[n])_p\|=\{\ul{n}^*\ps\pi\;;\;n\in{\mathbb{N}},\pi\in\|U_p[n]\|\}$.
\[(xi,p)fforceU\] For each closed elementary formula $U$, we have :\
$(\pi,p)\in{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}U{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}\Dbfl\pi\in\|U_p\|$ ; $(\xi,p){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}U\Dbfl\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}U^p$.
Proof by recurrence on the length of the formula $U$.
1. We have $(\xi,p){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}U$ $\Dbfl$ $(\xi,p)\star(\pi,q)\in\bbbot$ for $(\pi,q)\in{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}U{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}$, that is :\
$(\xi\star\pi,pq)\in\bbbot$ for every $\pi\in\|U_q\|$, by the recurrence hypothesis, or also :\
$(\pt q\in P)(\pt\pi\in\|U_q\|)(\pt n\in{\mathbb{N}})((pq{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1\Fl\xi\star\ul{n}\ps\pi\in\bbot$) which is equivalent to :\
$\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt q^{\gimel P}\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((pq{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1{\hookrightarrow}U_q)$ that is $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}U^p$.
2 and 3. Obvious.
4. Any element of ${|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}U\to V{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}$ has the form $(\xi,q)\ps(\pi,r)$, i.e. $(\xi\ps\pi,p)$, with $p=qr$, $(\xi,q){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}U$ and $(\pi,r)\in{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}V{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}$ ;\
by the recurrence hypothesis, this is equivalent to $\xi\ps\pi\in\|U^q\to V_r\|$.
5. We have ${|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}U[n]{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}={|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}\pt n^{\gimel{\mathbb{N}}}(\{(\ul{n}^*,\1)\}\to U[n]){|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}$\
$=\{(\ul{n}^*,\1)\ps(\pi,p)\;;\;n\in{\mathbb{N}},(\pi,p)\in{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}U[n]{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}\}
=\{(\ul{n}^*\!\ps\pi,p)\;;\;n\in{\mathbb{N}},(\pi,p)\in{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}U[n]{|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|}\}$.\
Thus, by the recurrence hypothesis, it is $\{(\ul{n}^*\!\ps\pi,p)\;;\;n\in{\mathbb{N}},\pi\in\|U_p[n]\|\}$.
\[theta\_U\^0\] \
For each elementary formula $U$, there exist two proof-like terms $\theta^0_U,\theta^1_U$, such that :\
i)$\theta^0_U{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt p^{\gimel P}\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1{\hookrightarrow}(U\to U_p))$ ;\
ii)$\theta^1_U{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt p^{\gimel P}\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1{\hookrightarrow}(U_p\to U))$ ;\
iii)$\tau^0_U{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt p^{\gimel P}\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1{\hookrightarrow}(U\to U^p))$ ;\
iv)$\tau^1_U{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt p^{\gimel P}\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1{\hookrightarrow}(U^p\to U))$ ;\
with $\tau^0_U=\lbd n\lbd x\lbd m(\theta^0_U)mx$ and $\tau^1_U=\lbd n\lbd x(\theta^1_Un)(x)n$.
We first show (iii) and (iv) from (i) and (ii).
(i)$ \Fl $(iii)\
Let $p\in P$ and $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ be such that $(p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$ ; let $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}U$ and $\pi\in\|U^p\|$.\
We have to show : $\lbd n\lbd x\lbd m(\theta^0_U)mx\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\pi\in\bbot$.\
Now, by the definition (1) of $U^p$, there exist $q\in P$, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $\varpi\in\|U_q\|$ such that $(pq{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}m)=1$ and $\pi=\ul{m}\ps\varpi$. Therefore, we have $(q{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}m)=1$ and, by (i) :\
$\theta^0_U\star\ul{m}\ps\xi\ps\varpi\in\bbot$, hence $\lbd n\lbd x\lbd m(\theta^0_U)mx\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\ul{m}\ps\varpi\in\bbot$.
(ii)$ \Fl $(iv)\
Let $p\in P$, $n\in{\mathbb{N}},\xi\in\Lbd$ and $\pi\in\|U\|$ such that $(p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$ and $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}U^p$.\
We have to show : $\lbd n\lbd x(\theta^1_Un)(x)n\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ps\pi\in\bbot$ i.e. $\theta^1_U\star\ul{n}\ps\xi\ul{n}\ps\pi\in\bbot$.\
But, by the definition (1) of $U^p$, in which we set $q=p$, we have $\xi\ul{n}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}U_p$ ; therefore, the desired result follows from (ii).
We now show (i) and (ii) by recurrence on the length of $U$.
$\bullet$ If $U$ is $\bot$ or $\top$, we take $\theta^0_U=\theta^1_U=\lbd n\lbd x\,x$.
$\bullet$ If $U\equiv(t=u{\hookrightarrow}V)$ or $U\equiv\pt x\,V$, then $\theta^0_U=\theta^0_V$ and $\theta^1_U=\theta^1_V$ by (3).
$\bullet$ If $U\equiv V\to W$, let $q,r\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $p=qr$ ; let $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $(p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$. We have :\
$\tau^0_V\ul{n}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}V\to V^q$ ; $\tau^1_V\ul{n}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}V^q\to V$ ; $\theta^0_W\ul{n}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}W\to W_r$ ; $\theta^1_W\ul{n}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}W_r\to W$.
Let $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}V\to W$ ; then, by the recurrence hypothesis, we have :\
$(\theta^0_W\ul{n})\comp\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}V\to W_r$ and $(\theta^0_W\ul{n})\comp\xi\comp(\tau^1_V\ul{n}){\;\|\!\!\!-\,}V^q\to W_r$.
Thus, by (4), we obtain $\theta^0_U=\lbd n\lbd x\lbd y(\theta^0_Wn)(x)(\tau^1_Vn)y$.
Now, let $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}V^q\to W_r$ ; then, by the recurrence hypothesis, we have :\
$(\theta^1_W\ul{n})\comp\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}V^q\to W$ and $(\theta^1_W\ul{n})\comp\xi\comp(\tau^0_V\ul{n}){\;\|\!\!\!-\,}V\to W$.
Thus, by (4), we obtain $\theta^1_U=\lbd n\lbd x\lbd y(\theta^1_Wn)(x)(\tau^0_Vn)y$.
$\bullet$ If $U\equiv\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[n]$, we first prove :
\[n\_n\*\] \
There exist two proof-like terms $T_0,T_1$ such that, for every closed formula $F$ of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{} :\
i) $T_0{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt n^{\gimel{\mathbb{N}}}((\{\ul{n}^*\}\to F)\to(\{\ul{n}\}\to F))$.\
ii) $T_1{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt n^{\gimel{\mathbb{N}}}((\{\ul{n}\}\to F)\to(\{\ul{n}^*\}\to F))$.\
iii) For every elementary formula $V[n]$, we have :\
$T_0{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[n])_p\to\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V_p[n]$ and $T_1{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V_p[n]\to(\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[n])_p$.
i) We apply lemma \[phi\^n-alpha\](ii) to the realizability algebra ${\cal A}$, with :\
$\vsig=\sig,\,O=\ul{0},\,\phi={\mbox{\sffamily C}}\sig^*$ and $\,\alpha=\ul{0}^*$. For every $n\in{\mathbb{N}},\zeta\in\Lbd$ and $\pi\in\Pi$, we obtain :
$\ul{n}\star({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}})({\mbox{\sffamily C}})\sig^*\ps\zeta\ps\ul{0}^*\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\zeta\star\ul{n}^*\ps\pi$, since $\ul{n}^*=(\C\sig^*)^n\ul{0}^*$.
Therefore, if we set $T_0=\lbd f\lbd n((n)({\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}})({\mbox{\sffamily C}})\sig^*)f\ul{0}^*$, we have $T_0\star\zeta\ps\ul{n}\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\zeta\star\ul{n}^*\ps\pi$.
Thus, we have $T_0{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt n^{\gimel{\mathbb{N}}}((\{\ul{n}^*\}\to F)\to(\{\ul{n}\}\to F))$.
ii) We apply now lemma \[phi\^n-alpha\](i) to the realizability algebra ${\cal B}$, with :\
$\vsig=\sig_{\cal B},\,O=\ul{0}_{\cal B},\,\phi=({\mbox{\sffamily C}}\Sigma,\1)\,\alpha=(\Omega,\1)$ and $\Omega=\lbd d\lbd f\lbd a\,a$ ; $\Sigma=\lbd n\lbd d\lbd f\lbd a(ndf)(f)a$.
Since $\ul{n}_{\cal B}=(\sig_{\cal B})^n\ul{0}_{\cal B}=(\ul{n}^*,\1)$, we get, by setting $\Sigma_2=({\mbox{\sffamily C}})^2\Sigma$ :\
$(\ul{n}^*,\1)\star({\mbox{\sffamily C}}\Sigma,\1)\ps(\Omega,\1)\ps(\varpi,\1){\succ\!\!\!\succ}((\Sigma_2)^n\Omega,\1)\star(\varpi,\1)$\
because $(({\mbox{\sffamily C}}\Sigma,\1))^n(\Omega,\1)=((\Sigma_2)^n\Omega,\1)$. We write this as :\
$(\ul{n}^*\star{\mbox{\sffamily C}}\Sigma\ps\Omega\ps\varpi,\1){\succ\!\!\!\succ}((\Sigma_2)^n\Omega\star\varpi,\1)$.\
It follows that $\ul{n}^*\star\ul{0}\ps{\mbox{\sffamily C}}\Sigma\ps\Omega\ps\varpi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}(\Sigma_2)^n\Omega\star\ul{d}\ps\varpi$ for some $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$.\
Let us take $\varpi={\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\sig\ps\zeta\ps\ul{0}\ps\pi$. We obtain :\
$\ul{n}^*\star\ul{0}\ps{\mbox{\sffamily C}}\Sigma\ps\Omega\ps{\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\sig\ps\zeta\ps\ul{0}\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}(\Sigma_2)^n\Omega\star\ul{d}\ps{\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\sig\ps\zeta\ps\ul{0}\ps\pi$.\
Now, we apply lemma \[phi\^n-alpha-delta\](ii), with $\phi=\sig$ and $\alpha=\ul{0}$ (note that $\Sigma_2=({\mbox{\sffamily C}})^2\Sigma$ satisfies the hypothesis of lemma \[phi\^n-alpha-delta\]).\
We obtain $(\Sigma_2)^n\Omega\star\ul{d}\ps{\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\sig\ps\zeta\ps\ul{0}\ps\pi\succ
\zeta\star(\sig)^n\ul{0}\ps\pi$ and therefore :\
$\ul{n}^*\star\ul{0}\ps{\mbox{\sffamily C}}\Sigma\ps\Omega\ps{\mbox{\sffamily C}}{\mbox{\sffamily B}}\sig\ps\zeta\ps\ul{0}\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\zeta\star\ul{n}\ps\pi$.\
Finally, if we set $T_1=\lbd f\lbd n((((n\ul{0})({\mbox{\sffamily C}})\Sigma)\Omega)({\mbox{\sffamily C}}){\mbox{\sffamily B}}\sig)f\ul{0}$, we have :\
$T_1\star\zeta\ps\ul{n}^*\ps\pi{\succ\!\!\!\succ}\zeta\star\ul{n}\ps\pi$ and therefore $T_1{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt n^{\gimel{\mathbb{N}}}((\{\ul{n}\}\to F)\to(\{\ul{n}^*\}\to F))$.
iii) This follows immediately from (i) and (ii), by definition of $(\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[n])_p$.
We can now finish the proof of lemma \[theta\_U\^0\], considering the last case which is :\
$\bullet$ $U\equiv\pt m{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[m]$.
We show that $\theta^0_U=\lbd n\lbd x(T_1)\lbd m(\theta^0_Vn)(x)m$.\
By the recurrence hypothesis, we have $\theta^0_V{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt p^{\gimel P}\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1{\hookrightarrow}(V[m]\to V_p[m]))$.\
Let $p\in P,n\in{\mathbb{N}},\xi\in\Lbd$ be such that $(p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$ and $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt m{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[m]$.\
Then, for every $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we have $\xi\ul{m}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}V[m]$ ; thus $(\theta^0_V\ul{n})(\xi)m{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}V_p[m]$ and therefore $\lbd m(\theta^0_V\ul{n})(\xi)m{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt m{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V_p[m]$. By lemma \[n\_n\*\](iii), we get $(T_1)\lbd m(\theta^0_V\ul{n})(\xi)m{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(\pt m{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[m])_p$ and therefore : $\lbd x(T_1)\lbd m(\theta^0_V\ul{n})(x)m{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt m{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[m]\to(\pt m{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[m])_p$. Finally :\
$\lbd n\lbd x(T_1)\lbd m(\theta^0_Vn)(x)m{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt p^{\gimel P}\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1{\hookrightarrow}(\pt m{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[m]\to(\pt m{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[m])_p))$.
We show now that $\theta^1_U=\lbd n\lbd x\lbd m(\theta^1_Vn)(T_0)xm$.\
By the recurrence hypothesis, we have $\theta^1_V{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt p^{\gimel P}\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1{\hookrightarrow}(V_p[m]\to V[m]))$ ;\
Let $p\in P,n\in{\mathbb{N}},\xi\in\Lbd$ be such that $(p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$ and $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(\pt m{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[m])_p$.\
By lemma \[n\_n\*\](iii), we have $T_0\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt m{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V_p[m]$, thus $T_0\xi\ul{m}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}V_p[m]$.\
Therefore $(\theta^1_V\ul{n})(T_0)\xi\ul{m}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}V[m]$, and $\lbd m(\theta^1_V\ul{n})(T_0)\xi m{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt m{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}V[m]$, hence the result.
\[elementaire\] \
The same closed elementary formulas, with parameters in ${\cal M}$, are realized in the models ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$ and ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$.
Let $U$ be a closed elementary formula, which is realized in ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$ and let $\theta$ be a proof-like term such that $\theta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}U$. Then, we have $(\tau^0_U)\ul{n}\theta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}U^p$ for $(p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1$, by lemma \[theta\_U\^0\](iii) ;\
therefore, setting $p=\vide=\1$, we have $((\tau^0_U)\ul{0}\theta,\1){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}U$ by lemma \[(xi,p)fforceU\].\
Therefore, the formula $U$ is also realized in the model ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$.\
Conversely, if $(\theta,\1){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}U$ with $\theta\in$ QP, we have $\theta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}U^{\1}$, by lemma \[(xi,p)fforceU\]. Thus $\tau^1_U\ul{0}\,\theta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}U$ by lemma \[theta\_U\^0\](iv).
[ For instance :\
$\bullet$ If the Boolean algebra $\gimel2$ has four $\veps$-elements or if it is atomless, in the model ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$, the same goes for the model ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$.\
$\bullet$ Arithmetical formulas are elementary. Therefore, by theorem \[elementaire\], the models ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$ and ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$ realize the same arithmetical formulas. In fact, this was already known, because they are the same as the arithmetical formulas which are true in ${\cal M}$ [@krivine3; @krivine4]. ]{}
Arithmetical formulas and dependent choice {#arithmetical-formulas-and-dependent-choice .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------
In this section, we obtain, by means of the previous results, a technique to transform into a program, a given proof, in ZF + DC, of an arithmetical formula $F$.\
We notice that this program is a closed $\cc$-term, written with the elementary combinators ${\mbox{\sffamily B}},{\mbox{\sffamily C}},{\mbox{\sffamily I}},{\mbox{\sffamily K}},{\mbox{\sffamily W}},\ccc$ *without any other instruction*.
Thus, let us consider a proof of [ZF$_\varepsilon$]{} $\vdash\mbox{ NEAC }\to F$. It gives us a closed $\cc$-term $\Phi_0$ such that $\Phi_0{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\mbox{NEAC }\to F$, in every realizability algebra.\
We now describe a rewriting on closed $\cc$-terms, which will transform $\Phi_0$ into a closed $\cc$-term $\Phi$ such that $\Phi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F$ in every realizability algebra ${\cal A}$.
By theorem \[gimel\_k\_DC\], we have $\Phi_1{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(\gimel\kappa\mbox{ is countable})\to F$ with $\Phi_1=\lbd x(\Phi_0)({\mbox{\sffamily H}})x$.\
We apply this result in the algebra ${\cal B}$, which gives :\
$(\Phi_1^*,\1){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}(\gimel\kappa\mbox{ is countable})\to F$.\
Now, theorem \[bij\_ent\_ind\] gives a closed $\cc$-term $\Delta$ such that $(\Delta,\1){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}(\gimel\kappa\mbox{ is countable})$.\
It follows that $(\Phi_1^*,\1)(\Delta,\1){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}F$, i.e. $(\Psi,\1){\;|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.1em}|\hspace{-0.45em}-\,}F$, with $\Psi={\mbox{\sffamily C}}\Phi_1^*\Delta$.\
Since $F$ is an arithmetical formula, it is an elementary formula.\
Therefore, by lemma \[(xi,p)fforceU\], we have $\Psi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F^{\1}$. Now, by lemma \[theta\_U\^0\](iv), we have :\
$\tau^1_F{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt p^{\gimel P}\pt n{^{\mbox{\footnotesize int}}}((p{\,{\scriptstyle\ll}\,}n)=1{\hookrightarrow}(F^p\to F))$.\
We set $p=\1$ and $n=0$, and we obtain $\tau^1_F\ul{0}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F^{\1}\to F$.
Finally, by setting $\Phi=(\tau^1_F)\ul{0}\Psi$, we have $\Phi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}F$.
A relative consistency result {#a-relative-consistency-result .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
In [@krivine6], we have defined a countable realizability algebra ${\cal A}$ such that the characteristic Boolean algebra $\gimel2$ of the model ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$ is atomless (in this example, we have $\kappa={\mathbb{N}}$).\
If we apply the technique of section \[gkappaden\], in order to collapse $\gimel\kappa$, we obtain a realizability algebra ${\cal B}$ and a model ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$, the characteristic Boolean algebra of which is also atomless. Indeed, the property : $(\gimel2\mbox{ is atomless})$ is expressed by an elementary formula.\
But now $\gimel2$ is *the countable atomless Boolean algebra* (they are all isomorphic). Therefore, by applying theorems \[gimel\_k\_DC\] and \[gk\_den\], we obtain the relative consistency result (i) announced in the introduction.
[ We note that this method applies to every realizability algebra such that we have :\
${\;\|\!\!\!-\,}(\gimel2$ is an atomless Boolean algebra).]{}
A two threads model ($\gimel2$ with four elements)
==================================================
In this section, we suppose that ${\cal A}$ is a *standard realisability algebra* [@krivine6].\
This means, by definition, that the terms and the stacks are finite sequences, built with :
the alphabet ${\mbox{\sffamily B}}$, ${\mbox{\sffamily C}}$, ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}$, ${\mbox{\sffamily K}}$, ${\mbox{\sffamily W}}$, $\ccc$, $\kk$, $\ps$, $($, $)$, $[$, $]$\
a countable set of *term constants* (also called *instructions*),\
a countable set of *stack constants*
and that they are defined by the following rules :
${\mbox{\sffamily B}}$, ${\mbox{\sffamily C}}$, ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}$, ${\mbox{\sffamily K}}$, ${\mbox{\sffamily W}}$, $\ccc$ and all the term constants are terms ;\
if $t,u$ are terms, the sequence $(t)u$ is a term ;\
if $\pi$ is a stack, the sequence $\kk[\pi]$ is a term (denoted by $\kk_\pi$) ;\
each stack constant is a stack ;\
if $t$ is a term and $\pi$ is a stack, then $t\ps\pi$ is a stack.
If $t$ is a term and $\pi$ is a stack, then the ordered pair $(t,\pi)$ is a *process*, denoted by $t\star\pi$.
A proof-like term of ${\cal A}$ is a term which does not contain the symbol $\kk$ ; or, which is the same, a term which does not contain any stack constant.
We now build a realizability model in which $\gimel2$ has exactly 4 elements.
We suppose that there are exactly two stack constants $\pi^0$, $\pi^1$ and one term constant ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}$.\
For $i\in\{0,1\}$, let $\Lbd^i$ (resp. $\Pi^i$) be the set of terms (resp. stacks)\
which contain the only stack constant $\pi^i$.\
For $i,j\in\{0,1\}$, define $\bbot^i_j$ as the least set $P\subset\Lbd^i\star\Pi^i$ of processes such that :\
1. ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{j}\ps\pi\in P$ for every $\pi\in\Pi^i$.
2. $\xi\star\pi\in\Lbd^i\star\Pi^i$, $\xi'\star\pi'\in P$, $\xi\star\pi\succ\xi'\star\pi'\,$ $\Fl$ $\xi\star\pi\in P$
3. If at least two out of three processes $\xi\star\pi,\,\eta\star\pi,\,\zeta\star\pi$ are in $P$, then ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi\in P$.
\
The preorder $\succ$ on $\Lbd\star\Pi$ was defined at the beginning of section \[general\].\
We express condition 2 by saying that *$P$ is saturated in $\Lbd^i\star\Pi^i$*.\
Following this definition of $\succ$, the constant ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}$ is a *halting instruction*. Indeed, we have :\
${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\pi\succ\xi\star\varpi$ $\Dbfl$ $\xi\star\varpi={\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\pi$.
We define $\bbot$ by :\
In other words, a process is in $\bbot$ if and only if\
either it is in $\bbot^0_0\cup\bbot^1_1$ or it contains both stack constants $\pi^0,\pi^1$.
\[bbot\_ij\_red\] If $\xi\star\pi\in\bbot^i_j$ and $\xi\star\pi\succ\xi'\star\pi'$ then $\xi'\star\pi'\in\bbot^i_j$ (closure by reduction).
Suppose that $\xi_0\star\pi_0\succ\xi'_0\star\pi'_0$ , $\xi_0\star\pi_0\in\bbot^i_j$ and $\xi'_0\star\pi'_0\notin\bbot^i_j$. We may suppose that :
$(*)$$\xi_0\star\pi_0\succ\xi'_0\star\pi'_0$ in exactly one step of reduction.
Let us show that $\bbot^i_j\setminus\{\xi_0\star\pi_0\}$ has properties 1,2,3 defining $\bbot_j^i$, which will contradict the definition of $\bbot_j^i$ :\
1. If $\xi_0\star\pi_0={\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{j}\ps\pi$, with $\pi\in\Pi^i$, then ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{j}\ps\pi\succ\xi'_0\star\pi'_0$, thus $\xi'_0\star\pi'_0={\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{j}\ps\pi$.\
Therefore $\xi'_0\star\pi'_0\in\bbot^i_j$, which is false.
2. Suppose $\xi\star\pi\in\Lbd^i\star\Pi^i$, $\xi\star\pi\succ\xi'\star\pi'\in\bbot^i_j$, $\xi'\star\pi'\ne\xi_0\star\pi_0$. Then $\xi\star\pi\in\bbot^i_j$, by (2).\
If $\xi\star\pi=\xi_0\star\pi_0$, then $\xi_0\star\pi_0\succ\xi'\star\pi'$ ; since $\xi'\star\pi'\ne\xi_0\star\pi_0$, it follows from $(*)$ that $\xi'_0\star\pi'_0\succ\xi'\star\pi'$ and therefore $\xi'_0\star\pi'_0\in\bbot^i_j$, which is false.
3. Suppose that two out of the processes $\xi\star\pi,\,\eta\star\pi,\,\zeta\star\pi$ are in $\bbot^i_j\setminus\{\xi_0\star\pi_0\}$, but ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi$ is not. From (3), it follows that ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi=\xi_0\star\pi_0$.\
Thus, ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi\succ\xi'_0\star\pi'_0$, and therefore $\xi'_0\star\pi'_0={\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi$.
Therefore $\xi'_0\star\pi'_0\in\bbot^i_j$, which is false.
\[bbot\^i\_0\_1\] $\bbot^i_0\cap\bbot^i_1=\vide$.
We prove that $(\Lbd^i\star\Pi^i\setminus\bbot^i_1)\supset\bbot^i_0$ by showing that $\Lbd^i\star\Pi^i\setminus\bbot^i_1$ has properties 1, 2, 3 which define $\bbot^i_0$.
1\. ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{0}\ps\pi\notin\bbot^i_1$ because $\bbot^i_1\setminus\{{\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{0}\ps\pi\}$ has properties 1, 2, 3 defining $\bbot^i_1$.\
2. Follows from lemma \[bbot\_ij\_red\].\
3. Suppose $\xi_0\star\pi_0,\,\eta_0\star\pi_0\notin\bbot_1^i$ ; we show that ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi_0\ps\eta_0\ps\zeta_0\ps\pi_0\notin\bbot^i_1$ by showing\
that $\bbot^i_1\setminus\{{\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi_0\ps\eta_0\ps\zeta_0\ps\pi_0\}$ has properties 1, 2, 3 defining $\bbot^i_1$.
1. Clearly, ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{1}\ps\pi'\in
(\bbot^i_1\setminus\{{\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi_0\ps\eta_0\ps\zeta_0\ps\pi_0\})$ for every $\pi'\in\Pi^i$.
2. Suppose that $\xi\star\pi\in\Lbd^i\star\Pi^i$, $\xi\star\pi\succ\xi'\star\pi'\in\bbot^i_1$, $\xi'\star\pi'\ne{\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi_0\ps\eta_0\ps\zeta_0\ps\pi_0$ and\
that $\xi\star\pi\notin(\bbot^i_1\setminus\{{\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi_0\ps\eta_0\ps\zeta_0\ps\pi_0\})$.\
From (2), it follows that $\xi\star\pi={\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi_0\ps\eta_0\ps\zeta_0\ps\pi_0$ which contradicts $\xi\star\pi\succ\xi'\star\pi'$.
3. Suppose that two out of the processes $\xi\star\pi,\,\eta\star\pi,\,
\zeta\star\pi$ are in $\bbot^i_1\setminus\{{\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi_0\ps\eta_0\ps\zeta_0\ps\pi_0\}$\
but that ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi$ is not.\
It follows from (3) that ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi={\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi_0\ps\eta_0\ps\zeta_0\ps\pi_0$, i.e.\
$\xi=\xi_0,\eta=\eta_0,\zeta=\zeta_0$ and $\pi=\pi_0$. But this contradicts the hypothesis :\
$\xi_0\star\pi_0,\,\eta_0\star\pi_0\notin\bbot_1^i$.
This realizability algebra is coherent.
Let $\theta\in$ QP be such that $\theta\star\pi^0\in\bbot_0^0$ and $\theta\star\pi^1\in\bbot_1^1$. Then $\theta\star\pi^0\in\bbot_0^0\cap\bbot_1^0$ which contradicts lemma \[bbot\^i\_0\_1\].
${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\,\ul{2}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\;$(the boolean algebra $\gimel2$ has at most four $\veps$-elements).
We show that ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\,\ul{2}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x^{\gimel2}\pt y^{\gimel2}(x\ne0,y\ne1,x\ne y\to x{{\scriptstyle\land}}y\ne x)$.\
Let $i,j\in\{0,1\}$, $\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}i\ne0,\eta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}j\ne1,\zeta{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}i\ne j$ and $\pi\in\|i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j\ne i\|$.\
Since $\|i{{\scriptstyle\land}}j\ne i\|\ne\vide$, we have $i\le j$. Thus, there are three possibilities for $(i,j)$ :\
$i=j=0$ ; $i=j=1$ ; $i=0,j=1$.\
In each case, two out of the terms $\xi,\eta,\zeta$ realize $\bot$. Thus, we have ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\star\ul{2}\ps\xi\ps\eta\ps\zeta\ps\pi\in\bbot$.
[. If $\pi\in\Pi\setminus(\Pi^0\cup\Pi^1)$, then $\xi\star\pi\in\bbot$ for every term $\xi$. Thus, we can remove these stacks and consider only $\Pi^0\cup\Pi^1$.]{}
We define two individuals in this realizability model :\
[$\gamma_0=(\{0\}\times\Pi^0)\cup(\{1\}\times\Pi^1)$ ; $\gamma_1=(\{1\}\times\Pi^0)\cup(\{0\}\times\Pi^1)$]{}.\
Obviously, $\gamma_0,\gamma_1\subset\gimel2=\{0,1\}\fois\Pi$. Now we have :\
$\|\pt x^{\gimel2}(x\neps\gamma_0)\|=\Pi^0\cup\Pi^1=\|\bot\|$ and therefore ${\mbox{\sffamily I}}\,{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\neg\pt x^{\gimel2}(x\neps\gamma_0)$.\
${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\ul{0}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}0\neps\gamma_0$ and ${\mbox{\sffamily d}}\ul{1}{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}1\neps\gamma_0$.\
It follows that $\gamma_0,\gamma_1$ are not $\veps$-empty and that every $\veps$-element of $\gamma_0,\gamma_1$ is $\ne0,1$.\
Therefore :
[*The Boolean algebra $\gimel2$ has exactly four $\veps$-elements.*]{}
We have [$\xi{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x^{\gimel2}(x\eps\gamma_0,x\eps\gamma_1\to\bot)$]{} for [*every*]{} term $\xi$ :\
Indeed, let $i,j\in\{0,1\}$ ; using lemma \[nAtoB\], we replace the formula $i\eps\gamma_j$, i.e. $\neg(i\neps\gamma_j)$, with $^{\neg}(i\neps\gamma_j)$ which is $\{\kk_\pi\;;\;\pi\in\Pi^{i+j}\}$. Therefore, we have to check :\
$\rho_0\in\Pi^0,\rho_1\in\Pi^1\Fl\xi\star\kk_{\rho_0}\ps\kk_{\rho_1}\ps\pi\in\bbot$ which is clear.
In the same way, we get :\
$\lbd x\lbd y\lbd z\,z{\;\|\!\!\!-\,}\pt x\pt y(x\eps\gamma_i,y\eps\gamma_i,x\ne y\to\bot)$.\
It follows that $\gamma_0,\gamma_1$ are singletons and that their $\veps$-elements are the two atoms of $\gimel2$.
$\gimel2$ has four $\veps$-elements and $\gimel\kappa$ is countable {#gimel2-has-four-veps-elements-and-gimelkappa-is-countable .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We now apply to the algebra ${\cal A}$ the technique expounded in section \[gkappaden\], in order to make $\gimel\kappa$ countable ; this gives a realizability algebra ${\cal B}$.\
In this case, we have $\kappa={\mathbb{N}}$, and therefore $\kappa_+={\cal P}(\kappa)={\mathbb{R}}$.
Now, there is an elementary formula which express that the Boolean algebra $\gimel2$ has four $\veps$-elements, for instance : $\ex x^{\gimel2}\{x\ne0,x\ne1\}\land\pt x^{\gimel2}\pt y^{\gimel2}(x\ne1,y\ne1,x\ne y\to xy=0)$.\
Therefore, the realizability model ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$ realizes the following two formulas :
($\gimel2$ has four $\veps$-elements) ; ($\gimel\kappa$ is countable) ;\
and therefore also NEAC by theorem \[gimel\_k\_DC\].
Let us denote by $i_0,i_1$ the two atoms of $\gimel2$ ; thus, we have $i_1=1-i_0$.
We suppose that ${\cal M}{\;|\!\!\!=\,}V=L$ ; thus, there exists on $\kappa_+={\cal P}({\mathbb{N}})={\mathbb{R}}$ a strict well ordering ${\triangleleft}$ of type $\aleph_1$. This gives a function from ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ into $\{0,1\}$, denoted by $(x{\triangleleft}y)$, which is defined as follows : $(x{\triangleleft}y)=1$ $\Dbfl$ $x{\triangleleft}y$.\
We can extend it to ${\cal N}_{\cal A}$ and ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$, which gives a function from $(\gimel{\mathbb{R}})^2$ into $\gimel2$.\
From lemmas \[k+iprod\] and \[k+ibf\], we get :
For $i=i_0$ or $i_1$, the relation $(x{\triangleleft}y)=i$ is a strict total ordering on $\gimel_i{\mathbb{R}}$ and one of these two relations is a well ordering ;\
in order to fix the ideas, we shall suppose that it is for $i=i_0$.\
The relation $(x{\triangleleft}y)=1$ is a strict order relation on $\gimel{\mathbb{R}}$, which is well founded.\
The application $x\mapsto(i_0x,i_1x)$ from $\gimel{\mathbb{R}}$ onto ${\gimel_{i_0}{\mathbb{R}}\fois\gimel_{i_1}{\mathbb{R}}}$ is an isomorphism of strictly ordered sets.
It follows from theorem \[GEinfini\], that each of the sets $\gimel_{i_0}{\mathbb{R}}$, $\gimel_{i_1}{\mathbb{R}}$ contain a countable subset.\
By corollary \[no\_surj\], there is no surjection from each one of the sets $\gimel_{i_0}{\mathbb{R}},\gimel_{i_1}{\mathbb{R}}$ onto the other. Thus, there is no surjection from ${\mathbb{N}}$ onto $\gimel_{i_0}{\mathbb{R}}$ or onto $\gimel_{i_1}{\mathbb{R}}$.\
Therefore, the well ordering on $\gimel_{i_0}{\mathbb{R}}$ has, at least, the order type $\aleph_1$ in ${\cal N}_{\cal B}$.
Now, by theorem \[segdentrgl\], every subset of $\gimel{\mathbb{R}}$, which is bounded from above for the ordering ${\triangleleft}$, is countable ; thus, the same goes for the proper initial segments of $\gimel_{i_0}{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\gimel_{i_1}{\mathbb{R}}$, since these sets are totally ordered and $\gimel{\mathbb{R}}$ is isomorphic to ${\gimel_{i_0}{\mathbb{R}}\fois\gimel_{i_1}{\mathbb{R}}}$.
It follows that the well ordering on $\gimel_{i_0}{\mathbb{R}}$ is at most $\aleph_1$, and therefore exactly $\aleph_1$.\
Moreover, *there exists, on $\gimel_{i_1}{\mathbb{R}}$, a total ordering, every proper initial segment of which is countable*.
Then, we can apply theorem \[gk\_den\], to the sets $X_{i_0},X_{i_1}$ which are the images of $\gimel_{i_0}{\mathbb{R}},\gimel_{i_1}{\mathbb{R}}$ by the injection from $\gimel\kappa_+$ into ${\mathbb{R}}$, which is given by theorem \[gk+R\]. By setting $X=X_{i_1}$, we obtain exactly the result (ii) of relative consistency announced in the introduction.
[99]{} S. Berardi, M. Bezem, T. Coquand. [*On the computational content of the axiom of choice.*]{} J. Symb. Log. 63 (1998), p. 600-622.
H.B. Curry, R. Feys. [*Combinatory Logic.*]{} North-Holland (1958).
W. Easton. [*Powers of regular cardinals.*]{} Ann. Math. Logic 1 (1970), p. 139-178.
H. Friedman. [*The consistency of classical set theory relative to a set theory with intuitionistic logic.*]{} Journal of Symb. Logic, 38 (2) (1973) p. 315-319.
H. Friedman. [*Classically and intuitionistically provably recursive functions.*]{}\
In: Higher set theory. Springer Lect. Notes in Math. 669 (1977) p. 21-27.
J.-Y. Girard. [*Une extension de l’interprétation fonctionnelle de Gödel à l’analyse.*]{}\
Proc. 2nd Scand. Log. Symp. (North-Holland) (1971) p. 63-92.
T. Griffin. [*A formulæ-as-type notion of control.*]{}\
Conf. record 17th A.C.M. Symp. on Principles of Progr. Languages (1990).
S. Grigorieff. [*Combinatorics on ideals and forcing.*]{}\
Ann. Math. Logic 3(4) (1971), p. 363-394.
W. Howard. [*The formulas–as–types notion of construction.*]{}\
Essays on combinatory logic, $\lbd$-calculus, and formalism, J.P. Seldin and J.R. Hindley ed., Acad. Press (1980) p. 479–490.
J. M. E. Hyland. [*The effective topos.*]{}\
The L.E.J. Brouwer Centenary Symposium (Noordwijkerhout, 1981), 165–216,\
Stud. Logic Foundations Math., 110, North-Holland, Amsterdam-New York, 1982.
G. Kreisel. [*On the interpretation of non-finitist proofs I.*]{}\
J. Symb. Log. 16 (1951) p. 248-26.
G. Kreisel. [*On the interpretation of non-finitist proofs II.*]{}\
J. Symb. Log. 17 (1952) p. 43-58.
J.-L. Krivine. [*Typed lambda-calculus in classical Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.*]{}\
Arch. Math. Log. 40, 3 (2001) p. 189-205.\
http://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/`~`krivine/articles/zf\_epsi.pdf
J.-L. Krivine. [*Dependent choice, ‘quote’ and the clock.*]{}\
Th. Comp. Sc. 308 (2003) p. 259-276.\
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00154478\
Updated version at :\
http://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/`~`krivine/articles/quote.pdf
J.-L. Krivine. [*Realizability in classical logic.*]{}\
In [*Interactive models of computation and program behaviour.*]{}\
Panoramas et synthèses, Société Mathématique de France 27 (2009) p. 197-229.\
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00154500\
Updated version at :\
http://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/`~`krivine/articles/Luminy04.pdf
J.-L. Krivine. [*Realizability : a machine for Analysis and set theory.*]{}\
Geocal’06 (febr. 2006 - Marseille); Mathlogaps’07 (june 2007 - Aussois).\
http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00154509\
Updated version at :\
http://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/`~`krivine/articles/Mathlog07.pdf
J.-L. Krivine. [*Realizability algebras : a program to well order $\mathbb{R}$.*]{}\
Logical Methods in Computer Science vol. 7, 3:02 (2011) p. 1-47.
J.-L. Krivine. [*Realizability algebras II : new models of ZF + DC.*]{}\
Logical Methods in Computer Science, vol. 8, 1:10 (2012) p. 1-28.
A. Miquel. [*Forcing as a program transformation.*]{}\
Logic in Computer Science (LICS’11) (2011) p. 197-206.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Max-product ‘belief propagation’ (BP) is a popular distributed heuristic for finding the Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) assignment in a joint probability distribution represented by a Graphical Model (GM). It was recently shown that BP converges to the correct MAP assignment for a class of loopy GMs with the following common feature: the Linear Programming (LP) relaxation to the MAP problem is tight (has no integrality gap). Unfortunately, tightness of the LP relaxation does not, in general, guarantee convergence and correctness of the BP algorithm. The failure of BP in such cases motivates reverse engineering a solution – namely, given a tight LP, can we design a ‘good’ BP algorithm.
In this paper, we design a BP algorithm for the Maximum Weight Matching (MWM) problem over general graphs. We prove that the algorithm converges to the correct optimum if the respective LP relaxation, which may include inequalities associated with non-intersecting odd-sized cycles, is tight. The most significant part of our approach is the introduction of a novel graph transformation designed to force convergence of BP. Our theoretical result suggests an efficient BP-based heuristic for the MWM problem, which consists of making sequential, “cutting plane”, modifications to the underlying GM. Our experiments show that this heuristic performs as well as traditional cutting-plane algorithms using LP solvers on MWM problems.
author:
- 'Jinwoo Shin[^1]'
- 'Andrew E. Gelfand[^2]'
- 'Michael Chertkov[^3]'
title: |
A Graphical Transformation for Belief Propagation:\
Maximum Weight Matchings and Odd-Sized Cycles
---
Introduction
============
Graphical Models (GMs) provide a useful representation for reasoning in a range of scientific fields [@05YFW; @08RU; @09MM; @08WJ]. Such models use a graph structure to encode the joint probability distribution, where vertices correspond to random variables and edges (or lack of thereof) specify conditional dependencies. An important inference task in many applications involving GMs is to find the most likely assignment to the variables in a GM - the maximum a posteriori (MAP) configuration. Belief Propagation (BP) is a popular algorithm for approximately solving the MAP inference problem. BP is an iterative, message passing algorithm that is exact on tree structured GMs. However, BP often shows remarkably strong heuristic performance beyond trees, i.e. on GMs with loops. Distributed implementation, associated ease of programming and strong parallelization potential are the main reasons for the growing popularity of the BP algorithm.
The convergence and correctness of BP was recently established for a certain class of loopy GM formulations of several classic combinatorial optimization problems, including matchings [@08BSS; @11SMW; @07HJ], perfect matchings [@11BBCZ], independent sets [@07SSW] and network flows [@10GSY]. The important common feature of these instances is that BP converges to a correct MAP assignment when the Linear Programming (LP) relaxation of the MAP inference problem is tight, i.e., it shows no integrality gap. While this demonstrates that LP tightness is necessary for the convergence and correctness of BP, it is unfortunately not sufficient in general. In other words, BP may not work even when the corresponding LP relaxation to the MAP inference problem is tight. This motivates a quest for improving the BP approach so that it works, at least, when the LP is tight.
In this paper, we study if BP can be used as an iterative, message passing-based LP solver in cases when a LP (relaxation) is tight. We do so by considering a specific class of GMs corresponding to the Maximum Weight Matching (MWM) problem. It was recently shown [@12CLS] that a MWM can be found in polynomial time by solving a carefully chosen sequence of LP relaxations, where the sequence of LPs are formed by adding and removing sets of so-called “blossom” inequalities [@65Edm] to the base LP relaxation. Utilizing successive LP relaxations to solve the MWM problem is an example of the popular cutting plane method for solving combinatorial optimization problems [@54DFJ]. While the approach in [@12CLS] is remarkable in that one needs only a polynomial number of “cut” inequalities, it unfortunately requires solving an emerging sequence of LPs via traditional, centralized methods (e.g., ellipsoid, interior-point or simplex) that may not be practical for large-scale problems. This motivates our search for an efficient and distributed BP-based LP solver for this class of problems.
Our work builds upon that of Sanghavi, Malioutov and Willsky [@11SMW], who studied BP for the GM formulation of the MWM problem on an arbitrary graph. The authors showed that the max-product BP converges to the correct, MAP solution if the base LP relaxation with no blossom - referred to herein as MWM-LP - is tight. Unfortunately, the tightness is not guaranteed in general, and the convergence and correctness for the max-product BP do not readily extend to a GM formulation with blossom constraints.
To resolve this issue, we propose a novel GM formulation of the MWM problem and show that the max-product BP on this new GM converges to the MWM assignment as long as the MWM-LP relaxation with blossom constraints is tight. The only restriction placed on our GM construction is that the set of blossom constraints added to the base MWM-LP be non-intersecting (in edges). Our GM construction is motivated by the so-called ‘degree-two’ (DT) condition, which simply means that every variable in a GM is associated to at most two (simple) factor functions. The DT condition is necessary for analysis of BP using the computational tree technique, developed and advanced in [@08BSS; @11SMW; @10GSY; @63G; @00FK; @01WF] – the technique is one of the most powerful tools for analyzing BP algorithms. Note, that the DT condition is not satisfied by the standard MWM GM, and hence, we design a new GM satisfying the DT condition via a certain graphical transformation - collapsing odd cycles into new vertices and defining new weights on the contracted graph. Importantly, the MAP assignments of two GMs are in one-to-one correspondence. This clever graphical transformation allows us to use the computational tree techniques to prove the convergence and correctness of BP on the new GM.
Our theoretical result naturally guides a cutting-plane method suggesting a sequential and adaptive design of GMs using respective BPs. We use the output of BP to identify odd-sized cycle constraints - “cuts” - to add to the MWM-LP, construct a new GM using our graphical transformation, run BP and repeat. We evaluate this heuristic approach empirically and show that its performance is close to the traditional cutting-plane approach employing LP solvers rather than BP, i.e., BP is as powerful as an LP solver. Finally, we note that the DT condition may neither be sufficient nor necessary for BP to work. It was necessary, however, to provide theoretical guarantees for the special class of GMs considered. We believe that our success in crafting a graphical transformation will offer useful insight into the design and analysis of BP algorithms on a wider class of MAP inference problems.
[**Organization.**]{} In Section \[sec:pre\], we introduce a standard GM formulation of the MWM problem as well as the corresponding BP and LP. In Section \[sec:gtBP\], we introduce our new GM and describe performance guarantees of the respective BP algorithm. In Section \[sec:cutting\], we describe a cutting-plane(-like) method using BP for the MWM problem and show its empirical performance for random MWM instances.
Preliminaries {#sec:pre}
=============
Graphical Model for Maximum Weight Matchings
--------------------------------------------
A joint distribution of $n$ (discrete) random variables $Z=[Z_i]\in \Omega^n$ is called a Graphical Model (GM) if it factorizes as follows: for $z=[z_i]\in \Omega^n$, $$\Pr[Z=z]~\propto~\prod_{\alpha\in F} \psi_{\alpha} (z_\alpha),\label{eq:generic_gm}$$ where $F$ is a collection of subsets of $\Omega$, $z_\alpha=[z_i:i\in \alpha \subset \Omega]$ is a subset of variables, and $\psi_{\alpha}$ is some (given) non-negative function. The function $\psi_\alpha$ is called a factor (variable) function if $|\alpha|\geq 2$ ($|\alpha|=1$). For variable functions $\psi_\alpha$ with $\alpha=\{i\}$, we simply write $\psi_\alpha = \psi_i$. One calls $z$ a valid assignment if $\Pr[Z=z]>0$. The MAP assignment $z^*$ is defined as $$z^*~=~\arg\max_{z\in \Omega^{n}} \Pr[Z=z].$$
Let us introduce the Maximum Weight Matching (MWM) problem and its related GM. Suppose we are given an undirected graph $G=(V,E)$ with weights $ \{w_e:e\in E\}$ assigned to its edges. A *matching* is a set of edges without common vertices. The weight of a matching is the sum of corresponding edge weights. The MWM problem consists of finding a matching of maximum weight. Associate a binary random variable with each edge $X=[X_e]\in \{0,1\}^{|E|}$ and consider the probability distribution: for $x=[x_e]\in \{0,1\}^{|E|}$, $$\Pr[X=x] ~\propto~ \prod_{e\in E}e^{w_ex_e} \prod_{i\in V} \psi_i(x) \prod_{C\in\mathcal C} \psi_C(x),\label{eq:matching_gm}$$ where $$\psi_i(x)=\begin{cases}
1 &\mbox{if}~\sum_{e\in \delta(i)} x_e \leq 1\\
0&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad \psi_C(x)=
\begin{cases}
1 &\mbox{if}~\sum_{e\in E(C)} x_e\leq \frac{|C|-1}2 \\
0 &\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}.$$ Here $\mathcal{C}$ is a set of odd-sized cycles $\mathcal C\subset 2^V$, $\delta(i)=\{(i,j)\in E\}$ and $E(C)=\{(i,j)\in E:i,j\in C\}$. Throughout the manuscript, we assume that cycles are non-intersecting in edges, i.e., $E(C_1)\cap E(C_2)=\emptyset$ for all $C_1,C_2\in \mathcal C.$ It is easy to see that a MAP assignment $x^*$ for the GM induces a MWM in $G$. We also assume that the MAP assignment is unique.
This can be formulated as the following Integer Programming. $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{IP}:\qquad&\max~ \sum_{e\in E} w_e x_e\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad&\sum_{e\in \delta(i)} x_e\leq 1,\quad\forall i\in V \\
\qquad\qquad&\sum_{e\in E(S)} x_e\leq \frac{|S|-1}2,\quad\forall S\in\mathcal S\\
\qquad\qquad &x_e\in\{0,1\}\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding Linear Programming relaxation is $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{LP}:\qquad&\max~ \sum_{e\in E} w_e x_e\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad&\sum_{e\in \delta(i)} x_e\leq 1,\quad\forall i\in V \\
\qquad\qquad&\sum_{e\in E(S)} x_e\leq \frac{|S|-1}2,\quad\forall S\in\mathcal S\\
\qquad\qquad &x_e\in[0,1]\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that IP $\leq$ LP, while IP $\geq$ LP is not true in general.
Belief Propagation and Linear Programming for Maximum Weight Matchings {#sec:bp}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we introduce max-product Belief Propagation (BP) and the Linear Programming (LP) relaxation to computing the MAP assignment in . We first describe the BP algorithm for the general GM , then tailor the algorithm to the MWM GM . The BP algorithm updates the set of $2|\Omega|$ messages $\{m^{t}_{\alpha\rightarrow i}(z_i),m^{t}_{i\rightarrow\alpha}(z_i):z_i\in\Omega\}$ between every variable $i$ and its associated factors $\alpha\in F_i=\{\alpha\in F:i\in \alpha, |\alpha|\geq 2\}$ using the following update rules: [$$m^{t+1}_{\alpha\rightarrow i}(z_i) ~=~ \sum_{z^\prime:z^\prime_i=z_i} \psi_\alpha (z^\prime) \prod_{j\in \alpha\setminus i} m_{j\rightarrow \alpha}^t (z^\prime_j)
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
m^{t+1}_{i\rightarrow\alpha}(z_i) ~=~ \psi_i(z_i)\prod_{\alpha^{\prime}\in F_i\setminus \alpha} m_{\alpha^{\prime} \rightarrow i}^t (z_i).$$ ]{} Here $t$ denotes time and initially $m^0_{\alpha\to i}(\cdot)=m^0_{i\to\alpha}(\cdot)=1$. Given a set of messages $\{m_{i\to\alpha}(\cdot),m_{\alpha\to i}(\cdot))\}$, the BP (max-marginal) beliefs $\{n_i(z_i)\}$ are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
n_i(z_i)~=~\psi_i(z_i)\prod_{\alpha\in F_i} m_{\alpha\to i}(z_i).$$ For the GM , we let $n^t_{e}(\cdot)$ to denote the BP belief on edge $e\in E$ at time $t$. The algorithm outputs the MAP estimate at time $t$, $x^{\mbox{\scriptsize BP}}(t)=[x^{\mbox{\scriptsize BP}}_e(t)]\in \left[0,?,1\right]^{|E|}$, using the using the beliefs and the rule: $$x^{\mbox{\scriptsize BP}}_e(t)=\begin{cases}
1&\mbox{if}~n^t_{e}(0)<n^t_{e}(1)\\
?&\mbox{if}~n^t_{ij}(0)=n^t_{e}(1)\\
0&\mbox{if}~n^t_{e}(0)>n^t_{e}(1)
\end{cases}.$$
The LP relaxation to the MAP problem for the GM (\[eq:matching\_gm\]) is: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{C-LP}:\qquad&\max~ \sum_{e\in E} w_e x_e\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad&\sum_{e\in \delta(i)} x_e\leq 1,\quad\forall i\in V, \qquad\sum_{e\in E(C)} x_e\leq \frac{|C|-1}2,\quad\forall C\in\mathcal C, \qquad x_e\in[0,1].\end{aligned}$$ Observe that if the solution $x^{\mbox{\scriptsize C-LP}}$ to C-LP is integral, i.e., $x^{\mbox{\scriptsize C-LP}}\in \{0,1\}^{|E|}$, then it is a MAP assignment, i.e., $x^{\mbox{\scriptsize C-LP}} = x^*$. Sanghavi, Malioutov and Willsky [@11SMW] proved the following theorem connecting the performance of BP and C-LP in a special case:
\[thm:sujay\] If $\mathcal C=\emptyset$ and the solution of C-LP is integral and unique, then $x^{\mbox{\scriptsize BP}}(t)$ under the GM converges to the MWM assignment $x^*$.
Adding small random component to every weight guarantees the uniqueness condition required by Theorem \[thm:sujay\]. A natural hope is that the Theorem \[thm:sujay\] extends to a non-empty $\mathcal C$ since adding more cycles can help to reduce the integrality gap of C-LP. However, the theorem does not hold when $\mathcal C\neq \emptyset$. For example, BP does not converge for a triangle graph with edge weights $\{2,1,1\}$ and $\mathcal C$ consisting of the only cycle. This is true even though the solution of the corresponding C-LP is unique and integral.
BP is a message-passing algorithm, and we let $\left\{m_{(i,j)\to i}^{t}(\cdot),m_{(i,j)\to S}^{t}(\cdot), m_{i\to (i,j)}^{t}(\cdot), m_{S\to (i,j)}^{t}(\cdot)\right\}$ denote the messages at time $t$, and initially they are set to $1$. The message updating rule of BP for the graphical model can described as follows: for each $x_{ij}\in\{0,1\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
m_{(i,j)\to i}^{t+1} (x_{ij}) &\leftarrow& e^{w_{ij}x_{ij}}m_{j\to (i,j)}^t(x_{ij}) \prod_{S:(i,j)\in E(S)}m_{S\to (i,j)}^t(x_{ij})\\
m_{(i,j)\to S}^{t+1} (x_{ij}) &\leftarrow&
e^{w_{ij}x_{ij}}m_{i\to (i,j)}^t(x_{ij})m_{j\to (i,j)}^t(x_{ij}) \prod_{S^{\prime}\neq S:(i,j)\in E(S^{\prime})}
m_{S^{\prime}\to (i,j)}^t(x_{ij})\\
m_{i\to (i,j)}^{t+1} (x_{ij}) &\leftarrow&\max_{x^{\prime}:x^{\prime}_{ij}=x_{ij}}
\psi_i(x^{\prime})\prod_{e\in \delta(i)\setminus (i,j)} m^t_{e\to i}(x^{\prime}_{ij})\\
m_{S\to (i,j)}^{t+1} (x_{ij}) &\leftarrow&\max_{x^{\prime}:x^{\prime}_{ij}=x_{ij}}
\psi_S(x^{\prime})\prod_{e\in E(S)\setminus (i,j)} m^t_{e\to S}(x^{\prime}_{ij}).\end{aligned}$$ Now, the BP belief $n^t_{e}(\cdot)$ at edge $e=(i,j)$ at time $t$ is defined as $$n^t_{ij}(x_{ij})~\propto~ e^{w_{ij}x_{ij}}
m_{i\to (i,j)}^{2t}(x_{ij})m_{j\to (i,j)}^{2t}(x_{ij})\prod_{S:(i,j)\in E(S)} m_{S\to (i,j)}^{2t}(x_{ij}).$$ Using the beliefs, the algorithm outputs $x^*_{BP}(t)\in \left[0,\frac12,1\right]^{|E|}$ for the MAP estimation at time $t$ as follows: $$x^*_{BP}(t)=\begin{cases}
1&\mbox{if}~n^t_{ij}(0)<n^t_{ij}(1)\\
\frac12&\mbox{if}~n^t_{ij}(0)=n^t_{ij}(1)\\
0&\mbox{if}~n^t_{ij}(0)>n^t_{ij}(1)
\end{cases}.$$ In the following sections, we will study when the BP-MAP estimation $x^*_{BP}(t)$ is equal to the actual MAP assignment $x^*$.
Convergent Belief Propagation Solves the LP Relaxation
======================================================
In this section, we characterize performance of BP via the following Linear Programming (LP) relaxation of the MWM: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{LP}:\qquad&\max~ \sum_{e\in E} w_e x_e\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad&\sum_{e\in \delta(i)} x_e\leq 1,\quad\forall i\in V \\
\qquad\qquad&\sum_{e\in E(C)} x_e\leq \frac{|C|-1}2,\quad\forall C\in\mathcal C\\
\qquad\qquad &x_e\in[0,1].\end{aligned}$$ Without loss of generality (and following similar discussion above), assume that solution $x^{LP}$ of the LP is unique. It is easy to verify that if the solution $x^{LP}$ is integral in $\{0,1\}^{|E|}$, i.e., the LP relaxation is tight, then it is the MAP assignment, i.e., $x^{LP} = x^*$. Now we are ready to state the following theorem
\[thm1\] If the BP-MAP estimation $x^{\mbox{\scriptsize BP}}(t)$ converges to $x^{\mbox{\scriptsize BP}}$ as $t\to\infty$, then $$x^{\mbox{\scriptsize BP}} = x^{LP}.$$
The above theorem implies that, if converging, the BP is as powerful as LP for solving the MWM problem. Notice, however, that designing a failing to converge example is rather straightforward.
Proof of Theorem \[thm1\]
-------------------------
Graphical Transformation for Convergent and Correct Belief Propagation {#sec:gtBP}
======================================================================
The loss of convergence and correctness of BP when the MWM LP is tight (and unique) but $\mathcal C\neq \emptyset$ motivates the work in this section. We resolve the issue by designing a new GM, equivalent to the original GM, such that when BP is run on this new GM it converges to the MAP/MWM assignment whenever the LP relaxation is tight and unique - even if $\mathcal{C}\neq\emptyset$. The new GM is defined on an auxiliary graph $G^{\prime} = (V^{\prime}, E^{\prime})$ with new weights $\{w^{\prime}_e:e\in E^{\prime}\}$, as follows $$\begin{aligned}
V^{\prime} &= V\cup \{i_C:C\in \mathcal C\},\qquad
E^{\prime} = E\cup\{(i_C,j):j\in V(C), C\in \mathcal C\}\setminus \{e:e\in \cup_{C\in \mathcal C}E(C)\}\\
w_e^{\prime} &=
\begin{cases}
\frac12\sum_{e^{\prime}\in E(C)} (-1)^{d_C(j,e^{\prime})} w_{e^\prime} &\mbox{if}~e=(i_C,j)\quad\mbox{for some}~C\in \mathcal C\\
\qquad\qquad w_e&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $d_C(j,e)$ is the graph distance of $j$ and $e$ in cycle $C=(j_1,j_2,\dots,j_k)$, e.g., if $e=(j_2,j_3)$, then $d_C(j_1,e)=1$. a new variable $y_{i,C}$ for each $i\in V(C), C\in \mathcal C$ so that $$y_{i,C} = \sum_{e\in E(C) \cap \delta(i)} x_e.$$ Let $A$ be the $|C|$ by $|C|$ matrix corresponding to the above linear transformation, i.e., $y = A x$ where $y=[y_i:i\in V(C)]$ and $x=[x_e:e\in E(C)]$. Then, we have the following equivalent LP formulation, which is basically a linear transformation of the above LP by $A$.
![Example of original graph $G$ (left) and new graph $G^{\prime}$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:graph_transformation"}](graph_transformation){width="40.00000%"}
Then, we consider the following LP on the new graph and weights. $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{C-LP}^{\prime}:\qquad&\max~ \sum_{e\in E^{\prime}} w_e^{\prime} y_e\notag\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad&\sum_{e\in \delta(i)} y_e\leq 1,\quad\forall i\in V \label{eq1:clp'}\\
\qquad\qquad &\sum_{e\in \delta(i_C)} y_e \leq {|C|-1},\quad\forall C\in \mathcal C\label{eq2:clp'}\\
\qquad\qquad &\sum_{j\in V(C)} (-1)^{d_C(j,e)} y_{i_C,j}\in[0,2],\quad\forall e\in E(C).\label{eq4:clp'}\\
\qquad\qquad &y_e\in[0,1],\quad\forall e\in E^{\prime}\label{eq3:clp'}\end{aligned}$$
Now consider the following one-to-one linear mapping between $x=[x_e:e\in E]$ and $y=[y_e:e\in E^{\prime}]$: $$y_e =
\begin{cases}
\sum_{e^{\prime}\in E(C) \cap \delta(i)} x_{e^{\prime}}&\mbox{if}~e=(i,i_C)\\
\qquad\quad x_e&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
x_e =
\begin{cases}
\frac12\sum_{j\in V(C)} (-1)^{d_C(j,e)} y_{i_C,j}&\mbox{if}~e\in C\in\mathcal C\\
\qquad\quad y_e&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}.$$ The matrix $A$ is defined to describe the above linear mapping, i.e., $$y = A x\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
x = A^{-1} y.$$ Under the mapping, one can check the followings:
- LP = LP$^{\prime}$
- If the solution of LP is unique and integral, LP$^{\prime}$ is as well.
Associate a binary variable with each new edge and consider the new probability distribution on $y=[y_e:e\in E^{\prime}]\in \{0,1\}^{|E^{\prime}|}$: $$\label{eq:newMRF}
\Pr[Y=y] ~\propto~ \prod_{e\in E^{\prime}}e^{w_e^{\prime}y_e}\prod_{i\in V} \psi_i(y)\prod_{C\in \mathcal C} \psi_C(y),$$ where [$$\psi_i(y)=\begin{cases}
1 &\mbox{if}~\sum\limits_{e\in \delta(i)} y_e \leq 1\\
0&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\quad\psi_C(y)=
\begin{cases}
0 &\mbox{if}~\sum\limits_{e\in\delta(i_C)} y_e >|C|-1 \\
0 &\mbox{if}~\sum\limits_{j\in V(C)} (-1)^{d_C(j,e)} y_{i_C,j} \notin \{0,2\}~\mbox{for some}~e\in E(C) \\
1 &\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}.$$ ]{} In above, one can observe that the first case in the description of $\psi_C$ is redundant, i.e., $$\psi_C(y)=
\begin{cases}
0 &\mbox{if}~\sum_{j\in V(C)} (-1)^{d_C(j,e)} y_{i_C,j} \notin \{0,2\}~\mbox{for some}~e\in E(C) \\
1 &\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}.$$
It is not hard to check that the number of operations required to update messages at each round of BP under the above GM is $O(|V||E|)$, since the number of non-intersecting cycles is at most $|E|$ and messages updates involving the factor $\psi_C$ can be efficiently done using the dynamic programming. We are now ready to state the main result of this paper.
\[thm:main\] If the solution of C-LP is integral and unique, then the BP-MAP estimate $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize BP}}(t)$ under the GM converges to the corresponding MAP assignment $y^*$. Furthermore, the MWM assignment $x^*$ is reconstructible from $y^*$ as: $$\label{eq:mainthm}
x_e^* =
\begin{cases}
\frac12\sum_{j\in V(C)} (-1)^{d_C(j,e)} y_{i_C,j}^*&\mbox{if}~~e\in \bigcup_{C\in\mathcal C} E(C)\\
\qquad\quad y_e^*&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}.$$
The proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] is provided in the following sections. We also establish the convergence time of the BP algorithm under the GM (see Lemma \[thm3\]). We stress that the new GM is designed so that each variable is associated to at most two factor nodes. We call this condition, which did not hold for the original GM , the ‘degree-two’ (DT) condition. The DT condition will play a critical role in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. We further remark that even under the DT condition and given tightness/uniqueness of the LP, proving correctness and convergence of BP is still highly non trivial. In our case, it requires careful study of the computation tree induced by BP with appropriate truncations at its leaves.
Main Lemma for Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]
--------------------------------------------
Let us introduce the following auxiliary LP over the new graph and weights. $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{C-LP}^{\prime}:\quad&\max~ \sum_{e\in E^{\prime}} w_e^{\prime} y_e\notag\\
\mbox{s.t.}\quad&\sum_{e\in \delta(i)} y_e\leq 1,\quad\forall i\in V, \quad y_e\in[0,1],\quad\forall e\in E^{\prime},
\label{eq1:clp'}\\
\quad\quad &\sum_{j\in V(C)} (-1)^{d_C(j,e)} y_{i_C,j}\in[0,2],\quad\forall e\in E(C),
\quad\sum_{e\in \delta(i_C)} y_e \leq {|C|-1},\quad\forall C\in \mathcal C.\label{eq2:clp'}
$$
Consider the following one-to-one linear mapping between $x=[x_e:e\in E]$ and $y=[y_e:e\in E^{\prime}]$: [$$y_e =
\begin{cases}
\sum_{e^{\prime}\in E(C) \cap \delta(i)} x_{e^{\prime}}&\mbox{if}~e=(i,i_C)\\
\;\quad x_e&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}\qquadx_e =
\begin{cases}
\frac12\sum_{j\in V(C)} (-1)^{d_C(j,e)} y_{i_C,j}&\mbox{if}~e\in \bigcup_{C\in\mathcal C}E(C)\\
\qquad\quad y_e&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}.$$ ]{} Under the mapping, one can check that C-LP = C-LP$^{\prime}$ and if the solution $x^{\mbox{\scriptsize C-LP}}$ of C-LP is unique and integral, the solution $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize C-LP}^{\prime}}$ of C-LP$^{\prime}$ is as well, i.e., $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize C-LP}^{\prime}}=y^*$. Hence, in Theorem \[thm:main\] follows. Furthermore, since the solution $y^*=[y^*_e]$ to C-LP$^{\prime}$ is unique and integral, there exists $c>0$ such that $$c=\inf_{y\neq y^*: \mbox{\scriptsize $y$ is feasible to C-LP}^{\prime}}\frac{w^{\prime}\cdot(y^*-y)}{|y^*-y|},$$ where $w^{\prime}=[w^{\prime}_e]$. Using this notation, we establish the following lemma characterizing performance of the max-product BP over the new GM . Theorem \[thm:main\] follows from this lemma directly.
\[thm3\] If the solution $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize C-LP}^{\prime}}$ of C-LP$^{\prime}$ is integral and unique, i.e., $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize C-LP}^{\prime}}=y^*$, then
- If $y^*_e=1$, $n^t_e[1]>n^t_e[0]~$ for all $t>\frac{6w^{\prime}_{\max}}{c}+6$,
- If $y^*_e=0$, $n^t_e[1]<n^t_e[0]~$ for all $t>\frac{6w^{\prime}_{\max}}{c}+6$,
where $n^t_e[\cdot]$ denotes the BP belief of edge $e$ at time $t$ under the GM and $w_{\max}^{\prime}=\max_{e\in E^{\prime}} \left|w^{\prime}_e\right|$.
Proof of Lemma \[thm3\]
-----------------------
This section provides the complete proof of Lemma \[thm3\]. We focus here on the case of $y_e^{*}=1$, while translation of the result to the opposite case of $y_e^*=0$ is straightforward. To derive a contradiction, assume that $n^t_e[1]\leq n^t_e[0]$ and construct a tree-structured GM $T_e(t)$ of depth $t+1$, also known as the computational tree, using the following scheme
- Add a copy of $Y_e\in\{0,1\}$ as the (root) variable (with variable function $e^{w_e^{\prime} Y_e}$).
- Repeat the following $t$ times for each leaf variable $Y_e$ on the current tree-structured GM.
- For each $i\in V$ such that $e\in \delta(i)$ and $\psi_i$ is not associated to $Y_e$ of the current model, add $\psi_i$ as a factor (function) with copies of $\{Y_{e^{\prime}}\in\{0,1\}:e^{\prime}\in \delta(i)\setminus e\}$ as child variables (with corresponding variable functions, i.e., $\{e^{w_{e^{\prime}}^{\prime} Y_{e^{\prime}}}\}$).
- For each $C\in \mathcal C$ such that $e\in \delta(i_C)$ and $\psi_C$ is not associated to $Y_e$ of the current model, add $\psi_C$ as a factor (function) with copies of $\{Y_{e^{\prime}}\in\{0,1\}:e^{\prime}\in \delta(i_C)\setminus e\}$ as child variables (with corresponding variable functions, i.e., $\{e^{w_{e^{\prime}}^{\prime} Y_{e^{\prime}}}\}$).
It is known from [@97W] that there exists a MAP configuration $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize TMAP}}$ on $T_e(t)$ with $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize TMAP}}_e=0$ at the root variable. Now we construct a new assignment $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ on the computational tree $T_e(t)$ as follows.
1. Initially, set $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}} \leftarrow y^{\mbox{\scriptsize TMAP}}$ and $e$ is the root of the tree.
2. $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}} \leftarrow {\tt FLIP}_e(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}})$.
3. For each child factor $\psi$, which is equal to $\psi_i$ (i.e., $e\in \delta(i)$) or $\psi_C$ (i.e., $e\in \delta(i_C)$), associated with $e$,
1. If $\psi$ is satisfied by $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ and ${\tt FLIP}_e(y^{*})$ (i.e., $\psi(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}})=\psi({\tt FLIP}_e(y^{*}))=1$), then do nothing.
2. Else if there exists a $e$’s child $e^{\prime}$ through factor $\psi$ such that $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}_{e^{\prime}}\neq y^*_{e^{\prime}}$ and $\psi$ is satisfied by ${\tt FLIP}_{e^{\prime}}(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}})$ and ${\tt FLIP}_{e^{\prime}}({\tt FLIP}_{e}(y^{*}))$, then go to the step 2 with $e\leftarrow e^{\prime}$.
3. Otherwise, report ERROR.
In the construction, ${\tt FLIP}_e(y)$ is the 0-1 vector made by flipping (i.e., changing from $0$ to $1$ or $1$ to $0$) the $e$’s position in $y$. We note that there exists exactly one child factor $\psi$ in step 3 and we only choose one child $e^{\prime}$ in step (b) (even though there are many possible candidates). Due to this reason, flip operations induce a path structure $P$ in tree $T_e(t)$.[^4]
![Example of $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize TMAP}}$ (left) and $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ (right), where $y^*_{1,i_C}=0$, $y^*_{2,i_C}=0$, $y^*_{3,i_C}=0$, $y^*_{4,i_C}=0$, $y^*_{5,i_C}=0$, $y^*_{3,5}=1$ and $y^*_{2,4}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:computation_tree"}](computation_tree){width="100.00000%"}
Now we state the following key lemma for the above construction of $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$.
\[lem:valid\] [*ERROR*]{} is never reported in the construction described above.
The case when $\psi=\psi_i$ at the step 3 is easy, and we only provide the proof for the case when $\psi=\psi_C$. We also assume that $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}_e$ is flipped as $1\to 0$ (i.e., $y_e^*=0$), where the proof for the case $0\to 1$ follows in a similar manner. First, one can observe that $y$ satisfies $\psi_C$ if and only if $y$ is the 0-1 indicator vector of a union of disjoint even paths in the cycle $C$. Since $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}_e$ is flipped as $1\to 0$, the even path including $e$ is broken into an even (possibly, empty) path and an odd (always, non-empty) path. We consider two cases: (a) there exists $e^{\prime}$ within the odd path (i.e., $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}_{e^{\prime}}=1$) such that $y_{e^{\prime}}^{*}=0$ and flipping $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}_{e^{\prime}}$ as $1\to0$ broke the odd path into two even (disjoint) paths; (b) there exists no such $e^{\prime}$ within the odd path.
For the first case (a), it is easy to see that we can maintain the structure of disjoint even paths in $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ after flipping $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}_{e^{\prime}}$ as $1\to 0$, i.e., $\psi$ is satisfied by ${\tt FLIP}_{e^{\prime}}(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}})$. For the second case (b), we choose $e^{\prime}$ as a neighbor of the farthest end point (from $e$) in the odd path, i.e., $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}_{e^{\prime}}=0$ (before flipping). Then, $y_{e^{\prime}}^{*}=1$ since $y^*$ satisfies factor $\psi_C$ and induces a union of disjoint even paths in the cycle $C$. Therefore, if we flip $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}_{e^{\prime}}$ as $0\to 1$, then we can still maintain the structure of disjoint even paths in $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$, $\psi$ is satisfied by ${\tt FLIP}_{e^{\prime}}(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}})$. The proof for the case of the $\psi$ satisfied by ${\tt FLIP}_{e^{\prime}}({\tt FLIP}_{e}(y^{*}))$ is similar. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem:valid\].
Due to how it is constructed $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ is a valid configuration, i.e., it satisfies all the factor functions in $T_e(t)$. Hence, it suffices to prove that $w^{\prime}(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}) > w^{\prime}(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize TMAP}})$, which contradicts to the assumption that $y^{MAP}$ is a MAP configuration on $T_e(t)$. To this end, for $(i,j)\in E^{\prime}$, let $n_{ij}^{0\to 1}$ and $n_{ij}^{1\to 0}$ be the number of flip operations $0\to 1$ and $1\to 0$ for copies of $(i,j)$ in the step 2 of the construction of $T_e(t)$. Then, one derives $$w^{\prime}(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}) =w^{\prime}(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize TMAP}}) +w^{\prime} \cdot n^{0\to 1} - w^{\prime} \cdot n^{1\to 0},$$ where $n^{0\to 1}=[n_{ij}^{0\to 1}]$ and $n^{1\to 0}=[n_{ij}^{1\to 0}]$. We consider two cases: (i) the path $P$ does not arrive at a leave variable of $T_e(t)$, and (ii) otherwise. Note that the case (i) is possible only when the condition in the step (a) holds during the construction of $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$.
#### Case (i).
In this case, we define $y^{\dagger}_{ij}:=y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (n_{ij}^{1\to 0}-n_{ij}^{0\to 1}),$ and establish the following lemma.
\[lem:feasible-1\] $y^{\dagger}$ is feasible to C-LP$^{\prime}$ for small enough $\varepsilon >0$.
We have to show that $y^{\dagger}$ satisfies and . Here, we prove that $y^{\dagger}$ satisfies for small enough $\varepsilon>0$, and the proof for can be argued in a similar manner. To this end, for given $C\in \mathcal C$, we consider the following polytope $\mathcal P_C$ : $$\sum_{j\in V(C)} y_{i_C,j} \leq |C|-1,\quad y_{i_C,j}\in[0,1],\quad\forall j\in C,\quad\sum_{j\in V(C)} (-1)^{d_C(j,e)} y_{i_C,j}\in [0,2],\quad\forall e\in E(C).$$ We have to show that $y^{\dagger}_C=[y_e:e\in\delta(i_C)]$ is within the polytope. It is easy to see that the condition of the step (a) never holds if $\psi=\psi_C$ in the step 3. For the $i$-th copy of $\psi_C$ in $P \cap T_e(t)$, we set $y^*_C(i) = {\tt FLIP}_{e^{\prime}}({\tt FLIP}_{e}(y^{*}_C))$ in the step (b), where $y^*_C(i)\in \mathcal P_C$. Since the path $P$ does not hit a leave variable of $T_e(t)$, we have $$\frac1N \sum_{i=1}^N y^*_C(i) = y^*_C + \frac1N \left(n_{C}^{1\to 0}-n_{C}^{0\to 1}\right),$$ where $N$ is the number of copies of $\psi_C$ in $P \cap T_e(t)$. Furthermore, $\frac1N \sum_{i=1}^N y^*_C(i)\in \mathcal P_C$ due to $y^*_C(i)\in \mathcal P_C$. Therefore, $y^{\dagger}_C\in \mathcal P_C$ if $\varepsilon \leq 1/N$. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem:feasible-1\].
The above lemma with $w^{\prime}(y^*)> w^{\prime}(y^{\dagger})$ (due to the uniqueness of $y^*$) implies that $w^{\prime} \cdot n^{0\to 1} > w^{\prime} \cdot n^{1\to 0}$, which leads to $w^{\prime}(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}) > w^{\prime}(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize TMAP}})$.
#### Case (ii).
We consider the case when only one end of $P$ hits a leave variable $Y_e$ of $T_e(t)$, where the proof of the other case follows in a similar manner. In this case, we define $y^{\ddagger}_{ij}:=y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (m_{ij}^{1\to 0}-m_{ij}^{0\to 1}),$ where $m^{1\to 0}=[m_{ij}^{1\to 0}]$ and $m^{0\to 1}=[m_{ij}^{0\to 1}]$ is constructed as follows:
- Initially, set $m^{1\to 0}, m^{0\to 1}$ by $n^{1\to 0}, n^{0\to 1}$.
- If $y_e^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ is flipped as $1\to 0$ and it is associated to a cycle parent factor $\psi_C$ for some $C\in \mathcal C$, then decrease $m^{1\to 0}_e$ by 1 and
- If the parent $y_{e^{\prime}}^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ is flipped from $1\to 0$, then decrease $m_{e^{\prime}}^{1\to0}$ by 1.
- Else if there exists a ‘brother’ edge $e^{\prime\prime}\in \delta(i_C)$ of $e$ such that $y^*_{e^{\prime\prime}}=1$ and $\psi_C$ is satisfied by ${\tt FLIP}_{e^{\prime\prime}}({\tt FLIP}_{e^{\prime}}(y^{*}))$, then increase $m_{e^{\prime\prime}}^{0\to 1}$ by 1.
- Otherwise, report ERROR.
- If $y_e^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ is flipped as $1\to 0$ and it is associated to a vertex parent factor $\psi_i$ for some $i\in V$, then decrease $m^{1\to 0}_e$ by 1.
- If $y_e^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ is flipped as $0\to 1$ and it is associated to a vertex parent factor $\psi_i$ for some $i\in V$, then decrease $m^{0\to 1}_e,m^{1\to 0}_{e^{\prime}}$ by 1, where $e^{\prime}\in \delta(i)$ is the ‘parent’ edge of $e$, and
- If the parent $y_{e^{\prime}}^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ is associated to a cycle parent factor $\psi_C$,
- If the grad-parent $y_{e^{\prime\prime}}^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ is flipped from $1\to 0$, then decrease $m_{e^{\prime\prime}}^{1\to0}$ by 1.
- Else if there exists a ‘brother’ edge $e^{\prime\prime\prime}\in \delta(i_C)$ of $e^{\prime}$ such that $y^*_{e^{\prime\prime\prime}}=1$ and $\psi_C$ is satisfied by ${\tt FLIP}_{e^{\prime\prime\prime}}({\tt FLIP}_{e^{\prime\prime}}(y^{*}))$, then increase $m_{e^{\prime\prime\prime}}^{0\to 1}$ by 1.
- Otherwise, report ERROR.
- Otherwise, do nothing.
<!-- -->
- If the parent $y_{e^{\prime}}^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ on the path $P$ is associated to a vertex parent factor, then $$y^{\ddagger}_{ij}~:=~\begin{cases}
y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (n_{ij}^{1\to 0}-n_{ij}^{0\to 1}+1)&\mbox{if}~(i,j)= e\\
y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (n_{ij}^{1\to 0}-n_{ij}^{0\to 1}-1)&\mbox{if}~(i,j)= e^{\prime}\\
y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (n_{ij}^{1\to 0}-n_{ij}^{0\to 1})&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}.$$
- Else if the grad-parent $y_{e^{\prime\prime}}^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}$ on the path $P$ is flipped from $1\to 0$ then $$y^{\ddagger}_{ij}~:=~\begin{cases}
y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (n_{ij}^{1\to 0}-n_{ij}^{0\to 1}+1)&\mbox{if}~(i,j)= e\\
y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (n_{ij}^{1\to 0}-n_{ij}^{0\to 1}-1)&\mbox{if}~(i,j)= e^{\prime}\\
y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (n_{ij}^{1\to 0}-n_{ij}^{0\to 1}-1)&\mbox{if}~(i,j)= e^{\prime\prime}\\
y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (n_{ij}^{1\to 0}-n_{ij}^{0\to 1})&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}.$$
- Otherwise, find a ‘brother’ edge $e^{\prime\prime\prime}$ of $e^{\prime}$ with $y^*_{e^{\prime\prime\prime}}=1$ and $$y^{\ddagger}_{ij}~:=~\begin{cases}
y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (n_{ij}^{1\to 0}-n_{ij}^{0\to 1}+1)&\mbox{if}~(i,j)= e\\
y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (n_{ij}^{1\to 0}-n_{ij}^{0\to 1}-1)&\mbox{if}~(i,j)= e^{\prime}\\
y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (n_{ij}^{1\to 0}-n_{ij}^{0\to 1}+1)&\mbox{if}~(i,j)= e^{\prime\prime\prime}\\
y^*_{ij} +\varepsilon (n_{ij}^{1\to 0}-n_{ij}^{0\to 1})&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}.$$
We establish the following lemmas.
\[lem:valid-2\] [*ERROR*]{} is never reported in the above construction.
\[lem:feasible-2\] $y^{\ddagger}$ is feasible to C-LP$^{\prime}$ for small enough $\varepsilon >0$.
Proofs of Lemma \[lem:valid-2\] and Lemma \[lem:feasible-2\] are analogous to those of Lemma \[lem:valid\] and Lemma \[lem:feasible-1\], respectively. From Lemma \[lem:feasible-2\], we have $$c~\leq ~\frac{w^{\prime}\cdot(y^*-y^{\ddagger})}{|y^*-y^{\ddagger}|}~\leq~
\frac{\varepsilon \left(w^{\prime}(m^{0\to 1}-m^{1\to 0})\right)}{\varepsilon (t-3)}
~\leq~\frac{\varepsilon \left(w^{\prime}(n^{0\to 1}-n^{1\to 0})+3w^{\prime}_{\max}\right)}{\varepsilon (t-3)},$$ where $|y^*-y^{\ddagger}|\geq \varepsilon(t-3)$ follows from the fact that $P$ hits a leave variable of $T_e(t)$ and there are at most three increases or decreases in $m^{0\to 1}$ and $m^{1\to 0}$ in the above construction. Hence, $$w^{\prime}(n^{0\to 1}-n^{1\to 0})\geq c(t-3) - 3w^{\prime}_{\max} >0\qquad\mbox{if}\quad t>\frac{3w^{\prime}_{\max}}{c}+3,$$ which implies $w^{\prime}(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}) > w^{\prime}(y^{\mbox{\scriptsize TMAP}})$. If both ends of $P$ hit leave variables of $T_e(t)$, we need $t>\frac{6w^{\prime}_{\max}}{c}+6$. This completes the proof of Lemma \[thm3\].
Cutting-plane Algorithm using Belief Propagation {#sec:cutting}
================================================
In the previous section we established that BP on a carefully designed GM using appropriate odd cycles solves the MWM problem as long as the corresponding MWM-LP relaxation is tight. However, finding a collection of odd-sized cycles to ensure tightness of the MWM-LP is a challenging task. In this section, we provide a heuristic algorithm which we call CP-BP (cutting-plane method using BP) for this task. It consists of making sequential, “cutting plane”, modifications to the underlying GM using the output of the BP algorithm in the previous step. CP-BP is defined as follows:
- Initialize $\mathcal{C} = \emptyset$.
- Run BP on the GM for $T$ iterations
- For each edge $e\in E$, set $y_e=\begin{cases}1&\mbox{if}~n^T_e[1]>n^T_e[0]~\mbox{and}~n^{T-1}_e[1]>n^{T-1}_e[0]\\
0&\mbox{if}~n^T_e[1]<n^T_e[0]~\mbox{and}~n^{T-1}_e[1]<n^{T-1}_e[0]\\
1/2&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}.$
- Compute $x=[x_e]$ using $y=[y_e]$ as per , and terminate if $x\notin \{0,1/2,1\}^{|E|}$.
- If there is no edge $e$ with $x_e=1/2$, return $x$. Otherwise, add a non-intersecting odd cycle (if exists) of edges $\{e:x_e=1/2\}$ to $\mathcal C$ and go to step $2$.
In the above procedure, BP can be replaced by an LP solver to directly obtain $x$ in step 4. This results in a traditional cutting-plane LP (CP-LP) method for the MWM problem [@GH85]. The primary reason why we design CP-BP to terminate when $x\notin \{0,1/2,1\}^{|E|}$ is because the solution $x$ of C-LP is always half integral [^5]. Note that $x\notin \{0,1/2,1\}^{|E|}$ occurs in CP-BP when BP does not find the solution of C-LP.
We compare CP-BP and CP-LP in order to gauge the effectiveness of BP as an LP solver for MWM problems - i.e., to test if BP is as powerful as an LP solver on this class of problems. We consider a set of random sparse graph instances. We construct a set of $100$ complete graphs on $|V|=\{50,100\}$ nodes and “sparsify” each graph instance by eliminating edges with probability $p=\{0.5,0.9\}$. We assign integral weights, drawn uniformly in $[1, 2^{20}]$, to the remaining edges.
The results are summarized in Table \[table:complete\_sparse\] and show that: 1) CP-BP is almost as good as CP-LP for solving the MWM problem; and 2) our graphical transformation allows BP to solve significantly more MWM problems than are solvable by BP run on the ‘bare’ LP without odd-sized cycles.
[0.925]{}[|l||c|c|c||l||c|c|c|]{} &\
& & & & & & &\
& & & & & & &\
& & & & & & &\
The description of CP-BP is presented in Algorithm \[alg:CuttingPlaneBP\]. In every CP-BP iteration, BP is run on the GM with a current set of cycles (initially, it starts with the empty set) for a fixed number of BP iterations, and add a cycle using BP outputs for the next CP-BP iteration. Note that the BP algorithm on the GM outputs its MAP estimation $y^{\tt BP}\in\{1,?,0\}$.
At that point, we decode edge beliefs as in Eqn. \[eq:mainthm\]. If BP converged and the resulting set of edge beliefs $\{x_e\}$ constitute a matching (i.e. $\{x_e\} \in \{0,1\}$) then we return the matching $M = \{E : x_e = 1\}$. If BP fails to converge, or the set of edge beliefs do not constitute a matching then we must find a cut constraint $C$ to add to the LP relaxation.
The routine [**[FindOddCycle]{}**]{} should return a cycle $C$ for which $\sum\limits_{e \in E(C)} x_e > \frac{|C|-1}{2}$, as such a cycle is cleary a cutting plane. However, finding such a cycle requires solving the separation problem - a related LP that at present cannot be solved using BP. As a result, we implement [**[FindOddCycle]{}**]{} using the following heuristic from [@GH85]. First, we construct a new graph $\tilde{G}$ comprised of the set of edges $\tilde{E} = \{E : x_e > 0 \}$. We then search the graph $\tilde{G}$ for odd-sized cycles that do not edge-intersect any of the cycles in $\mathcal{C}$. In other words, our heuristic does not check if the added constraint is actually violated by the current LP relaxation.
Initialize: $\mathcal{C} = \emptyset$, $M = \emptyset$, $t\leftarrow 0$
Experimental Results
--------------------
We conducted a set of experiments to evaluate how reliably our Cutting Plane BP method can be used to uncover Maximum Weight Matchings (MWMs). We conducted experiments on two types of MWM problems: 1) Sparsified complete graph instances; and 2)Triangulation instances. The sparsified complete graph instances were generated by taking a complete graph on $N$ nodes and eliminating edges with probability $p = \{0.5, 0.9\}$. Edge weights were assigned an integral weight drawn from a discrete uniform distribution in $[1, 2^{20}]$. The triangulation instances were generated by randomly placing points in the $2^{20} \times2^{20}$ square and computing a Delaunay triangulation on this set of points. The edge weights were set to the Euclidean distance between two points, rounded to the nearest integer. While certainly not exhaustive, this set of problems encompass an interesting range of graph types.
Since we are using a heuristic to identify non-intersecting cycle constraints (rather than solving the separation problem to find violated cut constraints) we compare our Cutting-Plane with BP algorithm to a cutting-plane method that uses an off-the-shelf LP solver to find edge beliefs. This setup allows us to compare how well BP works as a distributed LP solver on MWM problem instances.
The results from running the Cutting-Plane BP algorithm on the sparse complete graph instances are shown in Table \[table:complete\_sparse\].
[0.745]{}[|l||c|c||l||c|c|]{} &\
& & & & &\
& & & & &\
& & & & &\
& & & & &\
[0.48]{}[|l|l||c|c||c|c|]{}
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
[1]{}
J. Yedidia, W. Freeman, and Y. Weiss, “Constructing free-energy approximations and generalized belief propagation algorithms,” *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 2282 – 2312, 2005.
T. J. Richardson and R. L. Urbanke, *Modern Coding Theory.*1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCambridge University Press, 2008.
M. Mezard and A. Montanari, *Information, physics, and computation*, ser. Oxford Graduate Texts.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emOxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009.
M. J. Wainwright and M. I. Jordan, “Graphical models, exponential families, and variational inference,” *Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning*, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–305, 2008.
M. Bayati, D. Shah, and M. Sharma, “Max-product for maximum weight matching: Convergence, correctness, and lp duality,” *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1241 –1251, 2008.
S. Sanghavi, D. Malioutov, and A. Willsky, “Linear Programming Analysis of Loopy Belief Propagation for Weighted Matching,” in *Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2007
B. Huang, and T. Jebara, “Loopy belief propagation for bipartite maximum weight b-matching,” in *Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS)*, 2007.
M. Bayati, C. Borgs, J. Chayes, R. Zecchina, “Belief-Propagation for Weighted b-Matchings on Arbitrary Graphs and its Relation to Linear Programs with Integer Solutions,” *SIAM Journal in Discrete Math*, vol. 25, pp. 989–1011, 2011.
S. Sanghavi, D. Shah, and A. Willsky, “Message-passing for max-weight independent set,” in *Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2007.
D. Gamarnik, D. Shah, and Y. Wei, “Belief propagation for min-cost network flow: convergence & correctness,” in *SODA*, pp. 279–292, 2010.
J. Edmonds, “Paths, trees, and flowers", *Canadian Journal of Mathematics*, vol. 3, pp. 449–467, 1965.
G. Dantzig, R. Fulkerson, and S. Johnson, “Solution of a large-scale traveling-salesman problem,” *Operations Research*, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 393–410, 1954.
K. Chandrasekaran, L. A. Vegh, and S. Vempala. “The cutting plane method is polynomial for perfect matchings,” in *Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)*, 2012
R. G. Gallager, “Low Density Parity Check Codes,” *MIT Press*, Cambridge, MA, 1963.
Y. Weiss, “Belief propagation and revision in networks with loops,” *MIT AI Laboratory*, Technical Report 1616, 1997.
B. J. Frey, and R. Koetter, “Exact inference using the attenuated max-product algorithm,” *Advanced Mean Field Methods: Theory and Practice, ed. Manfred Opper and David Saad, MIT Press*, 2000.
Y. Weiss, and W. T. Freeman, “On the Optimality of Solutions of the Max–Product Belief–Propagation Algorithm in Arbitrary Graphs,” *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 736–744. 2001.
M. Grotschel, and O. Holland, “Solving matching problems with linear programming,” *Mathematical Programming*, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 243–259. 1985.
Proof for Half Integrality of C-LP
==================================
In this section, we show that there always exists a half-integral solution to C-LP. To this end, it suffices to show that every vertex in the constraint polyope of C-LP is half integral. Let $x$ be a feasible point in the constraint polyope of C-LP, and define the following notation. $$\begin{aligned}
E_x& =& \left\{ e\in E: x_e\in (0,1) \right\}\\
V_x &=& \big\{v\in V: \sum_{e\in\delta(v)} x_e=1\big\}\\
\mathcal C_x &=& \bigg\{C\in \mathcal C : \sum_{e\in E(C)} x_e=\frac{|C|-1}2\bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ Our goal is to show that $x$ is either a non-vertex or a half-integral feasible point. To this end, one can assume $E_x\neq \emptyset$ (otherwise, we are done since $x$ is integral) and and $E_x$ does not contain a cycle consisting of half integral edges $\{e: x_e=1/2\}$ (otherwise, one can redefine a new $x$ by making $x_e\rightarrow 0$ for every edge $e$ in the cycle to argue that the original $x$ is either a non-vertex or a half-integral feasible point). Under these assumptions, we will show that $x$ is not a vertex.
First it is easy to check that each $C\in \mathcal C_x$ is one of the following types:
- $E(C)\subset E_x$ and there exist at least two vertices $v_1,v_2\in V(C)$ such that for $i=1,2$, $$\sum_{e\in \delta(v_i)\in E(C)} x_e<1.\label{eq:T1}$$
- $E(C)\cap E_x$ is a disjoint union of $\delta(v_i)\cap E(C)$ for some $v_1,\dots,v_k\in V(C)$, and $$\sum_{e\in \delta(v_i)\in E(C)} x_e=1.\label{eq:T2}$$
Now pick an arbitrary edge $e =(u,v)\in E_x$. We build a path in $E_x$ starting from $e$, expanding in both directions under the following rule:
- When we have multiple choices of edges in the expansion procedure, we always prefer edges not in $\bigcup_{\tiny C\in \mathcal C_x}E(C)$.
In the first step of the expansion procedure, one can check one of the following cases occur:
- There exists an edge $e^{\prime} = (v,w) \neq e\in E_x$;
- $v\notin V_x$ and $e\notin \cup_{C\in C_x} E(C)$.
Therefore, the expansion procedure terminates in one of the following cases:
- Case C2 occurs at both ends of the current path, i.e, impossible to expand further.
- A cycle $\mathcal T$ in $E_x$ is found, i.e., the path self-intersects.
#### Case (a).
In this case, we will show that $x$ is not a vertex. Suppose the expansion procedure ends in a path $\mathcal P$, and consider a walk along the path. We observe that
- Once the walk enters an edge of cycle of Type T1, it goes out before traversing all edges of the cycle due to Rule R1 and .
- Once the walk enters an edge of cycle of Type T2, it goes out after traversing even number of edges of the cycle due to .
Hence, when the walk enters and goes out a cycle of Type T1, we can possibly remove traversed edges from $\mathcal P$ and add remaining non-traversed edges to $\mathcal P$ so that the walk in the modified $\mathcal P$ always traverses (before going out) even number of edges of the cycle once it enters. By modifying $\mathcal P$ in this way, we can make path $\mathcal P = e_1\to e_2 \cdots \to e_k$ traverse even number of edges of cycles of Type T1 and T2 once it enters. Note that $\mathcal P$ may contain a same edge more than once. Finally, we construct two different points $y=[y_e],z=[z_e]$ with $x = (y+z)/2$ by starting from $x=[x_e]$ and alternatively adding/substracting some constant $\varepsilon>0$ following path $\mathcal P$: $y_e=z_e=x_e$ for $e\notin \mathcal P$ and $$\begin{aligned}
y_{e_1}\leftarrow x_{e_1} +\varepsilon,\quad y_{e_2}\leftarrow x_{e_2} -\varepsilon,\quad y_{e_3}\leftarrow x_{e_3} +\varepsilon,\cdots\\
z_{e_1}\leftarrow x_{e_1} -\varepsilon,\quad z_{e_2}\leftarrow x_{e_2} +\varepsilon,\quad z_{e_3}\leftarrow x_{e_3} -\varepsilon,\cdots\end{aligned}$$ We provide an example of $\{x,y,z\}$ in Figure \[fig:case\_a\]. For small enough $\varepsilon>0$, one can show that $y,z$ are feasible points to the constraint polytope of C-LP using the following facts:
- $\mathcal P$ always traverses even number of edges of cycles of Type T1 and T2 once it enters;
- Both ends of $\mathcal P$ belong to Case C2.
This implies that $x$ is not a vertex.
![Example of $x$ (left), $y$ (middle) and $z$ (right) for Case (a), where $\mathcal P = e\to a\to b \to c \to d$ and $\{a,b,c\}$ forms a cycle of Type T1. Once $\mathcal P$ enters the cycle, it goes out after traversing even number of edges, $(a,b)$ and $(b,c)$.[]{data-label="fig:case_a"}](case_a){width="100.00000%"}
#### Case (b).
Similarly as we did for Case (a), we can modify/make cycle $\mathcal T$ so that it always traverse even number of edges of cycles of Type T1 and T2 once it enters.[^6] If the length of $\mathcal T$ is even, one can construct two different feasible points $y=[y_e],z=[z_e]$ with $x = (y+z)/2$ by starting from $x=[x_e]$ and alternatively adding/substracting some small constant $\varepsilon>0$ following path $\mathcal T$, similarly as we did for Case (a). Hence, we assume that $\mathcal T$ is of odd length.
Now consider the cases:
- There exists a vertex $v \in \mathcal T$ such that $v\notin V_x$.
- Else, $V(\mathcal T) \subset V_x$ (every vertex $v \in \mathcal T$ is in $V_x$) and $V(\mathcal T)$ forms a disjoint component in $E_x $.
- Else, $V(\mathcal T) \subset V_x$ and there exists $e\in E_x$ connecting between $V(\mathcal T)$ and $V\setminus V(\mathcal T)$.
For the first case, one can construct again two different feasible points $y=[y_e],z=[z_e]$ with $x = (y+z)/2$ by alternatively adding/substracting some small constant $\varepsilon>0$ to $x$ following path $\mathcal T$ with the staring point $v$. Hence, $x$ is not a vertex in the first case. For the second case, one can show that every $x_e$ for $e\in \mathcal T$ is half integral, which contradicts to our assumption that $E_x$ does not contain a cycle consisting of half integral edges $\{e: x_e=1/2\}$. In the third case, one can construct a new path $\mathcal P^{\prime}$ starting from $e$ until it finds a cycle $\mathcal T^{\prime}$ in $E_x$ as we did previously. But, now we expand a path in one direction, while we did in both directions previously. Of course, the expansion procedure may terminate before finding a cycle in $E_x$, which belongs to Case (a) and hence we are done, i.e., $x$ is not a vertex. By using the previous arguments for $\mathcal T^{\prime}$ in place of $\mathcal T$, we can also assume that
- $\mathcal T^{\prime}$ always traverses even number of edges of cycles of Type T1 and T2 once it enters.
- The length of $\mathcal T^{\prime}$ is odd.
Now the union of $\mathcal P^{\prime}$ and $\mathcal T$ form two cycles $\mathcal T, \mathcal T^{\prime}$ connected by (possibly, empty) bridge edges $\mathcal B$, where we can assume that $\mathcal B$ also traverses even number of edges of cycles of Type T1 and T2 once it enters. Finally, using these properties, one can construct two different feasible points $y=[y_e],z=[z_e]$ with $x = (y+z)/2$ by starting from $x=[x_e]$ and
- Alternatively adding/substracting $\varepsilon$ following cycles $\mathcal T$ and $\mathcal T^{\prime}$;
- Alternatively adding/substracting $2\varepsilon$ following the bridge edges $\mathcal B$,
where $\varepsilon>0$ is small enough. We provide an example of $\{x,y,z\}$ in Figure \[fig:case\_b\].
![Example of $x$ (left), $y$ (middle) and $z$ (right) for Case (b), where $\mathcal T = a\to b \to c\to a$, $\mathcal B=c\to d$ and $\mathcal T^{\prime}
= e\to d\to f\to e$.[]{data-label="fig:case_b"}](case_b){width="100.00000%"}
This implies that $x$ is not a vertex in the third case, and complete the proof of the half integrality of C-LP.
To this end, one can remove some redundant inequalities in both C-LP and C-LP$^{\prime}$ as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{C-LP}:\qquad&\max~ \sum_{e\in E} w_e x_e\notag\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad&\sum_{e\in \delta(i)} x_e\leq 1,\quad\forall i\in V \label{eq1:clp-1}\\
\qquad\qquad &\sum_{e\in E(C)} x_e \leq \frac{|C|-1}2,\quad\forall C\in \mathcal C\label{eq2:clp-1}\\
\qquad\qquad &x_e\geq 0.\qquad\forall e\in E\label{eq3:clp-1}\\\notag\\
\mbox{C-LP}^{\prime}:\qquad&\max~ \sum_{e\in E^{\prime}} w_e^{\prime} y_e\notag\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad&\sum_{e\in \delta(i)} y_e\leq 1,\quad\forall i\in V \label{eq1:clp'-1}\\
\qquad\qquad &\frac12\sum_{e\in \delta(i_C)} y_e \leq \frac{|C|-1}2,\quad\forall C\in \mathcal C\label{eq2:clp'-1}\\
\qquad\qquad &\sum_{j\in V(C)} (-1)^{d_C(j,e)} y_{i_C,j}\geq 0,\quad\forall e\in E(C), \forall C\in\mathcal C\label{eq4:clp'-1}\\
\qquad\qquad & y_e \geq 0,\qquad\forall e\notin\cup_{C\in\mathcal C} E(C)\label{eq3:clp'-1}\end{aligned}$$
In above, , and corresponds to , and {, }, respectively. Suppose $y$ is a vertex (i.e. extreme point) of the C-LP$^{\prime}$ polytope which consists of inequalities , , and . Then, $y$ can be expressed as the unique solution of $B y =c$ for some matrix $B$, where each row equation (i.e. ‘$\sum_i B_{ie} y_e = c_i$’) corresponds to one of , , and via making inequalities to equalities. Similarly, if we consider $A^{-1}B y =A^{-1}c$, then each row equation corresponds to one of , and . To be continue ...
[^1]: Mathematical Sciences Department at IBM T. J. Watson Research, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA. Email: `[email protected]`
[^2]: Department of Computer Science at University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. The author is also with Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA. Email: `[email protected]`
[^3]: Theoretical Division & Center for Nonlinear Studies of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA. Email: `[email protected]`
[^4]: $P$ may not have an alternating structure since both $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}_e$ and its child $y^{\mbox{\scriptsize NEW}}_{e^{\prime}}$ can be flipped in a same way.
[^5]: A proof of $\frac{1}{2}$-integrality, which we did not find in the literature, is presented in the appendix.
[^6]: We note again that the modified cycle $\mathcal T$ may contain a same edge more than once.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We define a nondegenerate Monge-Ampère structure on a $6$-dimensional manifold as a pair $(\Omega,\omega)$, such that $\Omega$ is a symplectic form and $\omega$ is a $3$-differential form which satisfies $\omega\wedge\Omega=0$ and which is nondegenerate in the sense of Hitchin. We associate with such a pair a generalized almost (pseudo) Calabi-Yau structure and we study its integrability from the point of view of Monge-Ampère operators theory. The result we prove appears as an analogue of Lychagin and Roubtsov theorem on integrability of the almost complex or almost product structure associated with an elliptic or hyperbolic Monge-Ampère equation in the dimension $4$. We study from this point of view the example of the Stenzel metric on $T^*S^3$.
*Key words*: Calabi-Yau manifolds, special lagrangian submanifolds, Monge-Ampère equations, Symplectic forms
*AMS classification*: 34A26, 58A10, 53D05, 32Q60, 14J32
address: |
Bertrand Banos\
Département de Mathématiques\
Université d’Angers\
2 bd Lavoisier, 49045 Angers, France
author:
- Bertrand BANOS
title: 'Nondegenerate Monge-Ampère structures in dimension 6'
---
Introduction
============
A Monge-Ampère equation is a differential equation which is nonlinear in a very specific way: its nonlinearity is the determinant one. In the dimension $2$, such an equation can be written as $${\label{EMA}}
A\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial q_1^2}+2B\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial
q_1\partial q_2}+ C\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial q_2^2}+
D\Big(\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial q_1^2}\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial
q_2^2}-(\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial q_1\partial q_2})^2\Big)+E=0,$$ where $A,B,C,D$ and $E$ are smooth functions on the jet space $J^1\mathbb{R}^2$. This equation is said to be symplectic if these coefficients are actually functions on the quotient bundle $J^1\mathbb{R}^2/J^0\mathbb{R}^2$, which can be identified with the cotangent bundle $T^*\mathbb{R}^2$.
The Monge-Ampère operators theory proposed by Lychagin ([@L]) associates to each symplectic Monge-Ampère equation on an $n$-dimensional manifold $M$ a pair of differential forms $(\Omega,\omega)$ on the cotangent bundle $T^*M$ , where $\Omega$ is the canonical symplectic form and $\omega\in \Omega^n(T^*M)$ is an $\Omega$-effective form, i.e. $\omega\wedge\Omega=0$. To be more precise, the symplectic Monge-Ampère equation associated with such a pair $(\Omega,\omega)$ is the differential equation $${\label{MAO}}
(df)^*(\omega)=0,$$ where $df:M\rightarrow T^*M$ is the natural section defined by a smooth function $f$ on $M$. For instance, is associated with the symplectic form on $T^*\mathbb{R}^2$ $$\Omega= dq_1\wedge dp_1+dq_2\wedge dp_2,$$ and the differential form $$\begin{aligned}
\omega&=A dp_1\wedge dq_2 + B(dq_1\wedge dp_1-dq_2\wedge dp_2)+C
dq_1\wedge dp_2\\
&+D dp_1\wedge dp_2+ E dq_1\wedge dq_2.\\
\end{aligned}$$
A generalized solution of the differential equation is a lagrangian submanifold $L$ of $(T^*M,\Omega)$ on which $\omega$ vanishes. $L$ is locally the graph of a section $df:M\rightarrow T^*M$ with $f$ solution of $\eqref{MAO}$ if and only if the projection $L\rightarrow M$ is locally a diffeomorphism.
Generalizing this notion, we define a symplectic Monge-Ampère structure on a $2n$-dimensional $X$ as a pair of differential forms $(\Omega,\omega)$, $\Omega\in \Omega^2(X)$ being symplectic and $\omega\in \Omega^n(X)$ being $\Omega$-effective. In the dimension $n=2$, if $\omega$ is nondegenerate (i.e. the pfaffian $\operatorname{pf}(\omega)=\frac{\omega\wedge\omega}{\Omega\wedge\Omega}$ is non zero), the equality $$\frac{\omega}{\sqrt{|\operatorname{pf}(\omega)|}}=\Omega(A_\omega .,.)$$ defines a section $A_\omega: X\rightarrow TX\otimes T^*X$ which is either an almost complex structure ($A_\omega^2=-Id$) or an almost product structure ($A_\omega^2=Id$) on $X$. Lychagin and Roubtsov gave in [@LR1] a necessary and sufficient condition for $A_\omega$ to be integrable:
[\[int2\]]{} $A_\omega$ is integrable if and only if $$d\Big(\frac{\omega}{\sqrt{|\operatorname{pf}(\omega)|}}\Big)=0.$$
From the point of view of differential equation (i.e. the local point of view), this result can be formulated as follows:
[\[class2\]]{} A symplectic Monge-Ampère equation $\Delta_\omega=0$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$ is symplectically equivalent to one of these two equations $$\begin{cases}
\Delta f=0,&(\operatorname{pf}(\omega)>0)\\
\square f=0,&(\operatorname{pf}(\omega)<0)\\
\end{cases}$$ if and only if $$d\Big(\frac{\omega}{\sqrt{|\operatorname{pf}(\omega)|}}\Big)=0.$$
To classify the symplectic Monge-Ampère equations with constant coefficients in the dimension $3$, Lychagin and Roubsov introduced a quadratic invariant $q_\omega$ associated with each effective $3$-form $\omega$ ([@LR3]). Hitchin has defined a linear invariant $K_\omega$ associated with each $3$-form $\omega$ ([@Hi]) in order to study the geometry of $3$-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds. We show that these two invariants coincide in the effective case (proposition \[compatibilite\]) . This remark allows us to combine Lychagin, Roubtsov and Hitchin works to demonstrate a result analogous to \[int2\] and \[class2\] in the dimension $3$. Let us introduce some notations to state this result. We suppose that our $3$-form $\omega\in \Omega^3(X^6)$ is nondegenerate in the Hitchin sense. The Hitchin pfaffian $\lambda(\omega)$ is then nonzero and $\omega$ can be decomposed in an unique way as a sum of two complex decomposable $3$-forms: $\omega=\alpha+\beta$. Following Hitchin, we denote by $\hat{\omega}$ the dual form associated with $\omega$. We associate to the pair $(\Omega,\omega)\in \Omega^2(X^6)\times\Omega^3(X^6)$ a geometric structure on $X$ which we call *generalized almost Calabi-Yau structure*. This structure is essentially composed of a (pseudo) metric $q_\omega$, an almost complex structure or almost product structure $K_\omega$ which is compatible with $q_\omega$ and $\Omega$ and two decomposable $3$-forms whose associated distributions are distributions of $K_\omega$ eigenvectors. We extend Hitchin’s results to demonstrate the analogous of \[int2\]:
[\[int3\]]{} The generalized almost Calabi-Yau structure $$(q_\omega,K_\omega,\Omega,\alpha,\beta)$$ is “integrable” if and only if $$\begin{cases}
d\Big( \frac{\omega}{\sqrt[4]{|\lambda(\omega)|}}\Big)=0,&\\
d\Big( \frac{\hat{\omega}}{\sqrt[4]{|\lambda(\omega)|}}\Big)=0.&\\
\end{cases}$$
We demonstrate then the local version of this proposition:
[\[theo\]]{} A symplectic Monge-Ampère equation in the dimension $3$ associated with a nondegenerate Monge-Ampère structure $(\Omega,\omega)$ is symplectically equivalent to one of these three equations $$\begin{cases}
\operatorname{hess}(f)=1,&\\
\Delta f-\operatorname{hess}(f)=0,&\\
\square f +\operatorname{hess}(f)=0,&\\
\end{cases}$$ if and only if $$\begin{cases}
d\Big( \frac{\omega}{\sqrt[4]{|\lambda(\omega)|}}\Big)=0,&\\
d\Big( \frac{\hat{\omega}}{\sqrt[4]{|\lambda(\omega)|}}\Big)=0,&\\
q_\omega\text{ is flat}.&\\
\end{cases}$$
Our motivation is to generalize the notion of “special lagrangian submanifolds” in the dimension $3$. These were first introduced by Harvey and Lawson in their famous paper *Calibrated Geometries* ([@HL]) as examples of minimal submanifolds. Recall that a $p$-calibration on a riemannian manifold $(Y,g)$ is a closed differential $p$-form $\phi\in \Omega^p(Y)$ such that for any point $y\in Y$ and any oriented $p$-plane $V$ of $T_yY$, the following inequality $$\phi_y|_V\leq vol_V$$ holds. Here $vol_V$ is the volume exterior form on $V$ defined by the metric $g$ and the orientation on $V$. An oriented $p$-dimensional submanifold $L$ is said to be $\phi$-calibrated if for any $y\in L$ $$\phi_y|_{T_yL}=vol_{T_yL}.$$ Calibrated submanifolds are volume-minimizing in their homology classes. The real form $Re(\alpha)$ with $\alpha=dz_1\wedge\ldots\wedge
dz_n$ is an example of $n$-calibration on $\mathbb{C}^n$ and $Re(\alpha)$-calibrated submanifolds are said to be special lagrangian. This notion of special lagrangian calibration can be generalized on Calabi-Yau manifolds, i.e. Kähler manifolds endowed with an holomorphic volume form $\alpha\in
\Omega^{n,0}(Y)$ such that $$\frac{\alpha\wedge\overline{\alpha}}{\Omega^n}\text{ is constant},$$ $\Omega$ being the Kähler form. These special lagrangian submanifolds attracted a lot of attention of many mathematicians in the last few years after Strominger, Yau and Zaslow proposed a geometric construction of mirror manifolds based on the conjecture of existence of toric special lagrangian fibration ([@SYZ]).
Gromov noted in a discussion with Roubtsov that the Monge-Ampère structures can be seen as an analogue of the calibrations. Effective forms correspond to calibrations and lagrangian submanifolds correspond to calibrated submanifolds. Moreover, special lagrangian submanifolds are in the intersection of these two approach. Harvey and Lawson have shown that special lagrangian submanifolds of $(\mathbb{C}^n,Re(\alpha))$ are actually the generalized solutions of the differential equation associated with the Monge-Ampère structure $(\Omega,Im(\alpha))$ with $$\Omega=\frac{i}{2}(dz_1\wedge
d\overline{z_1}+\ldots+dz_n\wedge d\overline{z_n}).$$ In the dimension $3$ this equation is $${\label{slag}}
\Delta f-\operatorname{hess}(f)=0.$$
Our aim is to show that the problem of local equivalence of Monge-Ampère equations in the dimension $3$ is the local expression of the problem of integrability of some geometrical structures that generalize in a very natural way the Calabi-Yau structure. This approach gives a different description of Calabi-Yau manifolds, seeing them more as symplectic manifolds than as complex manifolds.
In the first section we recall the Lychagin’s approach to Monge-Ampère equations. We study as an example Chynoweth-Sewell’s equations which come from the “semi-geostrophic” model of athmosphere dynamics. We remark that they are all equivalent to the classic Monge-Ampère equation $\operatorname{hess}(f)=1$. In the second section we adapt Hitchin’s works on $3$-forms to the effective case. In the last section, we define the notion of generalized almost Calabi-Yau structure and demonstrate the theorem \[theo\]. We study as an example the Stenzel metric on $T^*S^3$.
This article constitutes a part of the author’s PhD thesis being prepared at Angers University. I would like to thank my advisor Volodya Roubtsov for suggesting the problem and helpfull discussions. I would like also to thank Oleg Lisovyy for all his help. I am very grateful to professor Benjamin Enriquez for his valuable remarks and suggestions. I would like finally to thank Michèle Audin for the lecture she gave in Barcelona summer school ([@A]) which helped me to understand the geometry of lagrangian and special lagrangian submanifolds.
Effective forms and Monge-Ampère operators
==========================================
Let $(V,\Omega)$ be a symplectic $2n$-dimensional vector space over $\mathbb{R}$ and $\Lambda^*(V^*)$ the space of exteriors forms on $V$. Let $\Gamma:V\rightarrow V^*$ be the isomorphism determined by $\Omega$ and let $X_\Omega\in\Lambda^2(V)$ be the unique bivector such that $\Gamma^*(X_\Omega)= \Omega$.
Following Lychagin (see [@L]), we introduce the operators $\top:
\Lambda^k(V^*)\rightarrow \Lambda^{k+2}(V^*)$, $\omega\mapsto
\omega\wedge \Omega$ and $\bot:\Lambda^k(V^*)\rightarrow
\Lambda^{k-2}(V^*)$, $\omega\mapsto i_{X_\Omega}(\omega)$. They have the followings properties: $$\begin{cases}
[\bot,\top](\omega)=(n-k)\omega \;\text{, $\forall \omega\in
\Lambda^k(V^*)$};&\\
\bot: \Lambda^k(V^*)\rightarrow \Lambda^{k-2}(V^*)\text{ is into for }
k\geq n+1;&\\
\top: \Lambda^k(V^*)\rightarrow \Lambda^{k+2}(V^*)\text{ is into for }
k\leq n-1.&\\
\end{cases}$$ We will say that a $k$-form $\omega$ is effective if $\bot\omega=0$ and we will denote by $\Lambda^{k}_\varepsilon(V^*)$ the vector space of effective $k$-forms on $V$. When $k=n$, $\omega$ is effective if and only if $\omega\wedge \Omega=0$.
The next theorem explains the fundamental role played by the effective forms in the theory of Monge-Ampère operators (see [@L]):
[\[hodge\]]{}
1. Every form $\omega\in \Lambda^k(V^*)$ can be uniquely decomposed into the finite sum $$\omega= \omega_0+\top \omega_1+\top^2\omega_2+\ldots,$$ where all $\omega_i$ are effective forms.
2. If two effective $k$-forms vanish on the same $k$-dimensional isotropic vector subspaces in $(V,\Omega)$, they are proportional.
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional smooth manifold. Denote by $J^1M$ the space of $1$-jets of smooth functions on $M$ and by $j^1(f):
M\rightarrow J^1M$, $x\mapsto [f]_{x}^1$ the natural section associated with a smooth function $f$ on $M$. The Monge-Ampère operator $$\Delta_\omega: C^\infty(M)\rightarrow \Omega^n(M)$$ associated with a differential $n$-form $\omega\in \Omega^n(J^1M)$ is the differential operator $$\Delta_\omega(f)=j_1(f)^*(\omega).$$
Let $U$ be the contact $1$-form on $J^1M$ and $X_1$ be the Reeb’s vector field. Denote by $C(x)$ the kernel of $U_x$ for $x\in
J^1M$. $(C(x),dU_x)$ is a $2n$-dimensional symplectic vector space and $$T_xJ^1M= C(x)\oplus \mathbb{R}X_{1x}.$$ A generalized solution of the equation $\Delta_\omega=0$ is a legendrian submanifold $L^{n}$ of $(J^1M,U)$ such that $\omega|_L=0$. Note that $T_xL$ is a lagrangian subspace of $(C(x),dU_x)$ in each point $x\in L$, and that $L$ is locally the graph of a section $j^1(f)$, where $f$ is a regular solution of the equation $\Delta_\omega(f)=0$, if and only if the projection $\pi:J^1M\rightarrow M$ is a local diffeomorphism on $L$.
We will denote by $\Omega^*(C^*)$ the space of differential forms vanishing on $X_1$. In each point $x$, $(\Omega^k(C^*))_x$ can be naturally identified with $\Lambda^k(C(x)^*)$. Let $\Omega_\varepsilon^*(C^*)$ be the space of forms which are effective on $(C(x), dU_x)$ in each point $x\in J^1M$. The first part of the theorem \[hodge\] means that $$\Omega^*_\varepsilon(C^*)=\Omega^*(J^1M)/I_C,$$ where $I_C$ is the Cartan ideal generated by $U$ and $dU$. The second part means that two differential $n$-forms $\omega$ and $\theta$ on $J^1M$ determine the same Monge-Ampère operator if and only if $\omega-\theta\in I_C$.
$Ct(M)$, the pseudo-group of contact diffeomorphisms on $J^1M$, naturally acts on the set of Monge-Ampère operators in the following way $$F(\Delta_\omega)= \Delta_{F^*(\omega)},$$ and the corresponding infinitesimal action is $$X(\Delta_\omega) = \Delta_{L_X(\omega)}.$$ We are interested in a more restrictive class of operators, the class of symplectic operators. These operators satisfy $$X_1(\Delta_\omega) = \Delta_{L_{X_1}(\omega)}=0.$$ Let $T^*M$ be the cotangent space and $\Omega$ be the canonical symplectic form on it. Let us consider the projection $\beta:
J^1M\rightarrow T^*M$, defined by the following commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{
\mathbb{R}&&J^1M\ar[ll]_\alpha\ar[rr]^\beta&&T^*M\\
&&&&\\
&&M\ar[lluu]^f\ar[uu]_{j^1(f)}\ar[rruu]_{df}&&\\
}$$
We can naturally identify the space $\{\omega\in
\Omega^*_\varepsilon(C^*): L_{X_1}\omega=0\}$ with the space of effective forms on $(T^*M,\Omega)$ using this projection $\beta$. Then, the group acting on these forms is the group of symplectomorphisms of $T^*M$.
A Monge-Ampère structure on a $2n$-dimensional manifold $X$ is a pair of differential form $(\Omega,\omega)\in
\Omega^2(X)\times\Omega^n(X)$ such that $\Omega$ is symplectic and $\omega$ is $\Omega$-effective i.e. $\Omega\wedge\omega=0$.
When we locally identify the symplectic manifold $(X,\Omega)$ with $(T^*\mathbb{R}^n,\Omega_0)$, we can then associate to the pair $(\Omega,\omega)$ a symplectic Monge-Ampère equation $\Delta_\omega=0$. Conversely, any symplectic Monge-Ampere equation $\Delta_\omega=0$ on a manifold $M$ is associated with Monge-Ampère structure $(\Omega,\omega)$ on $T^*M$.
The Chynoweth-Sewell’s equations are an example of Monge-Ampère equations with constant coefficients. They come from the “semi-geostrophic model” of Atmosphere Dynamics ([@CS]): $${\label{chy-sew}}
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x^2}\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial
y^2}-(\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x\partial y})^2+\frac{\partial^2
f}{\partial z^2}=\gamma, \;\; \gamma\in \mathbb{R}$$ Note that $F(x,y)-\frac{1}{2}z^2$ is a solution of $\eqref{chy-sew}$ for the particular case $\gamma=0$ when $F$ is a solution of $\operatorname{hess}(F)=1$. For instance, $$\frac{1}{3}\sqrt{(x^2+2y)^3}-\frac{1}{2}z^2$$ is a solution of $\eqref{chy-sew}$ when $\gamma=0$.
The effective form associated with $\eqref{chy-sew}$ is $$\omega= dp\wedge dq\wedge dz+dx\wedge dy\wedge dh-\gamma dx\wedge
dy\wedge dz,$$ where $(x,y,z,p,q,h)$ is the canonical coordinates system of $T^*\mathbb{R}^3$. This form is clearly the sum of two decomposable $3$-forms: $$\omega=dp\wedge dq\wedge dz+dx\wedge dy\wedge(dh-\gamma dz).$$ Then $\phi^*(\omega)=dp\wedge dq\wedge dh -dx\wedge dy \wedge dz$ where $\phi$ is the symplectomorphism $$\phi(x,y,z,p,q,h)=(x,y,h,p,q,\gamma h- z).$$ In other words, Chynoweth-Sewell’s equations are symplectically equivalent to the equation $${\label{hess}}
\operatorname{hess}(f)=1.$$ It is easy to check that $$f(x,y,z)=\int_{a}^{\sqrt{xy+yz+zx}} (b+4\xi^3)^{1/3}d\xi$$ is a regular solution of $\eqref{hess}$. Therefore, $$L=\Big\{(x,y,(x+y)\alpha,(y+z)\alpha,(z+x)\alpha,\gamma(x+y)\alpha-z)\Big\}$$ is an example of generalized solution of $\eqref{chy-sew}$ with $$\alpha=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{b}{(xy+yz+zx)^{\frac{3}{2}}}+4)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
The geometry of effective $3$-forms in the dimension $6$
========================================================
The action of $SL(6,\mathbb{R})$ on $\Lambda^3(\mathbb{R}^6)$
-------------------------------------------------------------
We recall first Hitchin’s results on the geometry of $3$-forms. Let $V$ be a $6$-dimensional real vector space. We denote by $A:\Lambda^5(V^*)\rightarrow V\otimes \Lambda^6(V^*)$ the isomorphism induced by the exterior product and we fix a volume form $\theta$ on $V$. The linear map $K_\omega^\theta: V\rightarrow V$ associated with $\omega\in\Lambda^3(V^*)$ is defined by $$K_\omega^\theta(X)\theta = A(i_X(\omega)\wedge\omega).$$
The Hitchin pfaffian of a $3$-form $\omega\in\Lambda^3(V^*)$ is $$\lambda_\theta(\omega)=\frac{1}{6}\operatorname{Tr}(K_\omega^\theta\circ
K_\omega^\theta).$$ If $\lambda_\theta(\omega)$ is nonzero then $\omega$ is said to be nondegenerate.
Let $\omega\in \Lambda^3(V^*)$ be nondegenerate. Then,
1. $K_\omega^\theta\circ
K_\omega^\theta=\lambda_\theta(\omega)Id$.
2. $\lambda_\theta(\omega)>0$ if and only if $\omega=\alpha+\beta$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are real decomposable $3$-forms on $V$. Moreover, if we impose $\frac{\alpha\wedge\beta}{\theta}>0$ then $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are unique: $$\begin{cases}
2\alpha=\omega+
|\lambda_\theta(\omega)|^{-\frac{3}{2}}(K_\omega^\theta)^*(\omega)&\\
2\beta=\omega-
|\lambda_\theta(\omega)|^{-\frac{3}{2}}(K_\omega^\theta)^*(\omega)&\\
\end{cases}$$
3. $\lambda_\theta(\omega)<0$ if and only if $\omega=\alpha+\overline{\alpha}$ where $\alpha$ is a complexe decomposable $3$-form on $V$. Moreover, if we impose $\frac{\alpha\wedge\overline{\alpha}}{i\theta}>0$ then $\alpha$ is unique: $$\alpha=
\omega+i|\lambda_\theta(\omega)|^{-\frac{3}{2}}K_\omega^*(\omega).$$
Let $(e_1,\ldots,e_6)$ be a basis of $V$ and fix $\theta=e_1^*\wedge\ldots \wedge e_6^*$.
1. $\lambda_\theta(\omega)>0$ if and only if $\omega$ is in the $GL(6)$-orbit of $$e_1^*\wedge e_2^*\wedge e_3^*+ e_4^*\wedge e_5^*\wedge e_6^*.$$
2. $\lambda_\theta(\omega)<0$ if and only if $\omega$ is in the $GL(6)$-orbit of $$(e_1^*+ie_4^*)\wedge (e_2^*+ie_5^*)\wedge
(e_3^*+ie_6^*)+(e_1^*-ie_4^*)\wedge (e_2^*-ie_5^*)\wedge (e_3^*-ie_6^*).$$
Therefore, the action of $GL(6)$ on $\Lambda^3(V^*)$ has two open orbits separated by the quartic hypersurface $\lambda_\theta=0$. This explains this notion of nondegenerate $3$-form.
Let $\omega$ be a nondegenerate $3$-form on $V$. The dual form $\hat{\omega}$ is
1. $\hat{\omega}=\alpha-\beta$ if $\omega=\alpha+\beta$,
2. $\hat{\omega}=i(\overline{\alpha}-\alpha)$ if $\omega=\alpha+\overline{\alpha}$.
To conclude we remark that the exterior product defines a symplectic form on $\Lambda^3(V^*)$ $$\Theta_\theta(\omega,\omega')=\frac{\omega\wedge\omega'}{\theta}$$ and that the action of $SL(6)$ is hamiltonian:
The action of $SL(6)$ on $(\Lambda^3(V^*),\Theta_\theta)$ is hamiltonian with moment map $K^\theta: \Lambda^3(V^*)\rightarrow sl(6)$.
This invariant $K$ can be used to construct some almost complex or almost product structures on $6$-dimensional manifolds. We study in this example the restriction of the famous associative $3$-form to the sphere $S^6$. Let $(\mathbb{O},<,>)$ be the octonions normed algebra and denote by $E_7$ the $7$-dimensional subspace of imaginary octonions. The associative form $\phi\in \Lambda^3(E_7^*)$ is defined by $$\phi(x,y,z)=<x,yz>.$$ (see for instance for instance [@HL]). Let us see the sphere $S^6$ as a submanifold of $E_7$ and let us consider the form $\omega\in
\Omega^3(S^6)$ defined by $$\omega=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \phi|_{S^6}.$$ Let $\theta$ be the volume form defined by the metric induced on $S^6$. A straightforward computation shows that $$\lambda_\theta(\omega)=-1.$$ Therefore $K_\omega^\theta$ is an almost complex structure on $S^6$. This almost complex structure is in fact already known. It actually coincides with the almost complex structure $$I_x(Y)=x.Y,$$ with $x\in S^6$ and $Y\in T_xS^6=\big\{Y\in E_7: <x,Y>=0\big\}$. This almost complex structure is not integrable ([@HC]).
The action of $SP(3)$ on $\Lambda^3_\varepsilon(V^*)$
-----------------------------------------------------
We assume now that $V$ is a $6$-dimensional symplectic vector space. We fix $\theta=-\frac{1}{6}\Omega^3$ with $\Omega$ the symplectic form on $V$. We denote $\lambda=\lambda_\theta$, $K=K^\theta$ and $\Theta=\Theta_\theta$. $\omega\in \Lambda^3(V^*)$ is said to be effective if $\Omega\wedge\omega=0$. We denote by $\Lambda^3_\varepsilon(V^*)$ the space of effective $3$-forms. $(\Lambda_\varepsilon^3(V^*),\Theta)$ is a symplectic subspace of $(\Lambda^3(V^*),\Theta)$ since, according to the Hodge-Lepage-Lychagin theorem, any $3$-form $\omega$ admits the decomposition $$\omega=\omega_0+\Omega\wedge\omega_1,$$ with $\omega_0$ effective.
Denote by $sp(3)$ the Lie algebra of $SP(3)=SP(\Omega)$. A straightforward comuptation shows the following lemma.
Let $\omega$ be a $3$-form on $V$. $\omega$ is effective if and only if $K(\omega)\in sp(3)$.
The action of $SP(3)$ on $(\Lambda_\varepsilon^3(V^*),\Theta)$ is hamiltonian with moment map $K:
\Lambda_\varepsilon^3(V^*)\rightarrow sp(3)$.
Lychagin and Roubtsov have defined an other invariant $q_\omega\in S^2(V^*)$ associated with one effective $3$-form $\omega$ ([@LR3]). It is natural to ask what is the link between these two invariants. The quadratic form $q_\omega$ is defined by $$q_\omega(X)=-\frac{1}{4}\bot^2(i_X\omega\wedge i_X\omega).$$ In fact, this invariant gives us the roots of the characteristic polynom of $i_X\omega$: $$(i_X\omega -\xi\Omega)^3=
-\xi(\xi-\sqrt{q_\omega(X)})(\xi+\sqrt{q_\omega(X)})\Omega^3.$$ Using this invariant, Lychagin and Roubtsov have listed the different orbits of the action of $SP(3)$ on $\Lambda^3_\varepsilon(V^*)$. This list has been completed by the author in [@Ba1] and is summed up in table \[table1\].
Computing $q_\omega$ and $K_\omega$ for each normal form and using their invariant properties, we can check the following:
[\[compatibilite\]]{} Let $\omega$ be an effective $3$-form on $V$. Then $$q_\omega(X)=\Omega(K_\omega X,X),$$ for all $X\in V$.
The Lie algebra $(sp(3),[\;,\;])$ can be naturally identified with the Lie algebra $(S^2(V^*),\{\;,\;\})$ where $\{\;,\;\}$ is the Poisson bracket associated with $\Omega$. $q:
\Lambda^3_\varepsilon(V^*)\rightarrow S^2(V^*)$ is then the moment map of the hamiltonian action of $SP(3)$ on $(\Lambda^3_\varepsilon(V^*),\Theta)$.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Delta_\omega=0$ $\omega$ $\varepsilon(q_\omega)$ $\lambda(\omega)$
--- ----------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------
1 $\operatorname{hess}(f)=1$ $dq_{1}\wedge dq_{2}\wedge dq_{3}+ \gamma $(3,3)$ $\gamma^4$
dp_{1}\wedge dp_{2}\wedge dp_{3}$
2 $\Delta f- \operatorname{hess}(f)=0$ $dp_{1}\wedge dq_{2}\wedge dq_{3}- dp_{2}\wedge $(0,6)$ $-\gamma^4$
dq_{1}\wedge
dq_{3}$
$+ dp_{3}\wedge dq_{1}\wedge dq_{2}- \nu^2 dp_{1}\wedge
dp_{2}\wedge dp_{3}$
3 $\square f +\operatorname{hess}(f)=0$ $dp_{1}\wedge dq_{2}\wedge dq_{3}+ dp_{2}\wedge $(4,2)$ $-\gamma^4$
dq_{1}\wedge
dq_{3}$
$+ dp_{3}\wedge dq_{1}\wedge dq_{2}+ \nu^2 dp_{1}\wedge
dp_{2}\wedge dp_{3}$
4 $\Delta f=0$ $dp_{1}\wedge dq_{2}\wedge dq_{3}- dp_{2}\wedge $(0,3)$ $0$
dq_{1}\wedge dq_{3}+ dp_{3}\wedge dq_{1}\wedge dq_{2}$
5 $\square f=0$ $dp_{1}\wedge dq_{2}\wedge dq_{3}+ dp_{2}\wedge $(2,1)$ $0$
dq_{1}\wedge dq_{3}+ dp_{3}\wedge dq_{1}\wedge dq_{2}$
6 $\Delta_{q_2,q_3} f=0$ $dp_{3}\wedge dq_{1}\wedge dq_{2}- dp_{2}\wedge $(0,1)$ $0$
dq_{1}\wedge
dq_{3}$
7 $\square_{q_1,q_2} f=0$ $dp_{3}\wedge dq_{1}\wedge dq_{2}+ dp_{2}\wedge $(1,0)$ $0$
dq_{1}\wedge
dq_{3}$
8 $\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial q_1^2}=0$ $dp_{1}\wedge dq_{2}\wedge dq_{3}$ $(0,0)$ $0$
9 $0$ $(0,0)$ $0$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Classification of effective $3$-forms in the dimension $6$[]{data-label="table1"}
Geometrical structures associated with nondegenerate Monge-Ampère equations
===========================================================================
A Monge-Ampère structure $(\Omega,\omega)$ on a $6$-dimensional manifold $X$ is called
1. nondegenerate if $\lambda(\omega)$ never vanishes,
2. elliptic if $\lambda(\omega)<0$ everywhere,
3. hyperbolic if $\lambda(\omega)>0$ everywhere.
A nondegenerate Monge-Ampère structure $(\Omega,\omega)$ is said to be
1. closed if $$\begin{cases}
d\Big( \frac{\omega}{\sqrt[4]{|\lambda(\omega)|}}\Big)=0,&\\
d\Big( \frac{\hat{\omega}}{\sqrt[4]{|\lambda(\omega)|}}\Big)=0.&\\
\end{cases}$$
2. locally constant if there exists a Darboux coordinates system of $(X,\Omega)$ in which $\omega$ has constant coefficients.
Generalized Calabi-Yau structures
---------------------------------
A generalized almost Calabi-Yau structure on a $6$-dimensional manifold $X$ is a $5$-uple $(g,\Omega,K,\alpha,\beta)$ where
1. $g$ is a (pseudo) metric on $X$,
2. $\Omega$ is a symplectic on $X$,
3. $K$ is a smooth section $X\rightarrow TX\otimes T^*X$ such that $K^2=\pm Id$ and such that $$g(U,V)=\Omega(KU,V)$$ for all tangent vectors $U,V$,
4. $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are (eventually complex) decomposable $3$-forms whose associated distributions are the distributions of $K$ eigenvectors and such that $$\frac{\alpha\wedge\beta}{\Omega^3}\text{ is constant}.$$
A generalized Calabi-Yau structure $(g,\Omega,K,\alpha,\beta)$ is said to be integrable if $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are closed.
Note that a generalized Calabi-Yau structure is a Calabi-Yau structure if and only if the metric is definite positive and $K$ is a complex structure.
The condition $d\alpha=d\beta=0$ implies the integrability (in the Frobenius sense) of the distributions defined by the almost complex structure or almost product structure $K$. Therefore, according to the Newlander-Nirenberg theorem, it implies its integrability. For instance, when $K$ is an almost complex structure and $g$ is definite positive , the almost Calabi-Yau structure $(g,\Omega,K,\alpha,\overline{\alpha})$ is integrable if and only if $K$ is a complex structure and $\alpha$ is holomorphic.
Each nondegenerate Monge-Ampère structure $(\Omega,\omega_0)$ defines the generalized almost Calabi-Yau structure $(q_\omega,\Omega,K_\omega,\alpha,\beta)$ with $$\omega=\frac{\omega_0}{\sqrt[4]{|\lambda(\omega_0)|}}.$$
For instance, on $\mathbb{R}^6$, the generalized Calabi-Yau structure associated with the equation $$\Delta(f)-\operatorname{hess}(f)=0$$ is the canonical Calabi-Yau structure of $\mathbb{C}^3$ $$\begin{cases}
g= -\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{\sum}} dx_j.dx_j+ dy_j.dy_j&\\
K=\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{\sum}} \frac{\partial}{\partial
y_j}\otimes dx_j-\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\otimes dy_j&\\
\Omega=\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{\sum}} dx_j\wedge dy_j&\\
\alpha=dz_1\wedge dz_2\wedge dz_3&\\
\beta=\overline{\alpha}
\end{cases}$$ The generalized Calabi-Yau associated with the equation $$\square(f)+\operatorname{hess}(f)=0$$ is the pseudo Calabi-Yau structure $$\begin{cases}
q=dx_1.dx_1-dx_2.dx_2+dx_3.dx_3 +dy_1.dy_1-dy_2.dy_2+dx_3.dx_3&\\
K=\frac{\partial}{\partial
x_1}\otimes dy_1 -\frac{\partial}{\partial y_1}\otimes dx_1+
\frac{\partial}{\partial y_2}\otimes dx_2-\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}\otimes
dy_2-\frac{\partial}{\partial y_3}\otimes
dx_3+\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}\otimes dy_3&\\
\Omega=\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{\sum}} dx_j\wedge dy_j&\\
\alpha=dz_1\wedge dz_2\wedge dz_3&\\
\beta=\overline{\alpha}
\end{cases}$$ The generalized Calabi-Yau structure associated with the equation $$\operatorname{hess}(f)=1$$ is the “real” Calabi-Yau structure $$\begin{cases}
g=\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{\sum}} dx_j.dy_j&\\
K= \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{\sum}} \frac{\partial}{\partial
x_j}\otimes dx_j-\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j}\otimes dy_j&\\
\Omega=\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{\sum}} dx_j\wedge dy_j&\\
\alpha=dx_1\wedge dx_2\wedge dx_3&\\
\beta= dy_1\wedge dy_2\wedge dy_3&\\
\end{cases}$$ A manifold endowed with a “real” Calabi-Yau structure is the analogue of a “Monge-Ampère manifold” in the Kontsevich and Soibelman sense ([@KS]). A Monge-Ampere manifold is an affine riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ such that locally $$g=\sum_{i,j} \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial x_i\partial x_j} dx_i.dx_j,$$ $F$ being a smooth function satisfying $$\operatorname{det}\Big(\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}\Big)=\text{
constant}.$$ In the “real” Calabi-Yau case we have such a potential $F$: $$g=\sum_{i,j}\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial x_i\partial y_j}dx_i.dy_j,$$ and $\operatorname{det}\Big(\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial x_i\partial
y_j}\Big)=f(x)g(y)$ (see [@Ba2] for more details).
Let $(\Omega,\omega)$ be a Monge-Ampère structure with $\lambda(\omega)=\pm 1$. Since $d\omega=d\hat{\omega}=0$ if and only if $d\alpha=d\beta=0$, we have the obvious proposition:
A generalized almost Calabi-Yau structure associated with a nondegenerate Monge-Ampere structure is integrable if and only this Monge-Ampère structure is closed.
Nondegenerate Monge-Ampère equations
------------------------------------
Let us come back now to the differential equation associated with a nondegenerate Monge-Ampère structure $(\Omega,\omega)$ on a $6$-dimensional manifold $X$. It is natural to ask if this equation is locally symplectically equivalent to one of these: $$\begin{cases}
\operatorname{hess}(f)=1&\\
\Delta(f)-\operatorname{hess}(f)=0&\\
\square(f)+\operatorname{hess}(f)=0&\\
\end{cases}$$
According to table \[table1\], it will be the case if and only if $(\Omega,\omega)$ is locally constant. The following theorem gives a criterion using the generalized Calabi-Yau structure associated.
[\[theo2\]]{} A Monge-Ampère equation associated with a nondegenerate Monge-Ampère structure can be reduced by a symplectic change of coordinates to one of the following equations $$\begin{cases}
\operatorname{hess}(f)=1&\\
\Delta(f)-\operatorname{hess}(f)=0&\\
\square(f)+\operatorname{hess}(f)=0&\\
\end{cases}$$ if and only if the generalized Calabi-Yau structure associated is integrable and flat.
We refer to [@Ba2] for the proof. The idea is that the integrability condition implies the existence of a “generalized” Kähler potential and the flat condition allows us to choose a Darboux coordinates system in which this potential has a nice expression.
Lychagin and Roubtsov have proved an equivalent theorem in [@LR3] using technics of formal integrability. Theorem \[theo2\] is more restrictive since it only concerns nondegenerate Monge-Ampère equations but it is worth mentioning that its statement and its proof are much more simple and that it has a nice geometric meaning.
We sum up in table \[table2\] the correspondance between (pseudo) Calabi-Yau structures and ellipic Monge-Ampère structures.
almost (pseudo) CY elliptic MA
-------------------- ------------------------------
(pseudo) CY closed elliptic MA
flat (pseudo) CY locally constant elliptic MA
: (pseudo) Calabi-Yau and elliptic Monge-Ampère structures
[\[table2\]]{}
There are very few explicit examples of Calabi-Yau metrics. One of these is the Stenzel metric on $T^*S^n$ (see for instance [@A],[@St]). This metric is not flat, therefore the special lagrangian equation associated with is not the classical one.
$T^*S^n=\Big\{(u,v)\in \mathbb{R}^{n+1}\times \mathbb{R}^{n+1}: \|u\|=1,
<u,v>=0\Big\}$ can be seen as the complex manifold $Q^n=\Big\{z\in
C^{n+1}: z_1^2+\ldots + z_{n+1}^2=1\Big\}$ using the isomorphism $$\xi(x+iy)= (\frac{x}{\sqrt{1+\|y\|^2}},y).$$ The holomorphic form is then $$\alpha_z(Z_1,\ldots,Z_n)=det_{\mathbb{C}}(z,Z_1,\ldots,Z_n).$$ and the Kähler form is $\Omega= i\partial \bar{\partial} \phi$ with $\phi=f(\tau)$ where $\tau$ is the restriction to $Q^n$ of $|z_1|^2+
\ldots + |z_{n}^2$ and $f$ is a solution of the ordinary differential equation $$x(f')^n+ f''(f')^{n-1}(x^2-1)=c>0.$$ To write the special lagrangian equation we have to find some Darboux coordinates. Using the relations $$\begin{cases}
\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{\sum}} u_kdu_k+v_kdv_k=0&\\
\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{\sum}} u_kdv_k+v_kdu_k=0&\\
\end{cases}$$ on $T^*S^3$, we see that on the chart $u_4\neq 0$, $$\Omega=\sum_{k=1}^3 dw_k\wedge du_k$$ with $$w_k =2\frac{f'(2+2\|v\|^2)\sqrt{1+\|v\|^2}}{u_4}(u_kv_4-v_ku_4).$$ Denote by $\psi$ the map $(u,w)\mapsto (x+iy)$. The special lagrangian equation on $T^*S^3$ is then $$(\psi\circ df)^*(Im(\alpha))=0.$$ Note that it is difficult to explicit this equation and it doesn’t seem possible to write it in a simple way.
To resume, we have defined the generalized Calabi-Yau structures in order to study an equivalence problem for Monge-Ampère equations. The author hopes that their construction is enough “natural” to have a physical meaning. It is actually natural to ask if the generalized Calabi-Yau manifolds have also mirror partners and if this mirror conjecture can be formulated in terms of Monge-Ampère equations.
[99]{} M. Audin: *Lagrangian Submanifold*\
http://irmasrv1.u-strasbg.fr/ maudin/publications.html B. Banos: *On symplectic classification of effective 3 forms and Monge-Ampère equations*, to appear in Differential Gemometry and its Applications B. Banos: *Structures de Monge-Ampère symplectiques non dégénérées en dimension $6$*, arXiv:math.DG/0205240 S. Chynoweth, M.J. Sewell:*Dual variables in semi-geostrophic theory*, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., A 424, p. 155-186 (1989) R. Harvey, H.B. Lawson: *Calibrated geometries*, Acta. Math. 148 (1982), p. 47-157 C.C Hsiung: *Almost complex and complex structures*, Series in Pure Mathematics, vol 20 (1995), World Scientific Publishing. N. Hitchin: *The geometry of three-forms in six and seven dimensions*, Journal of Differential Geometry, 56 (2001) M. Kontsevich, Y. Soibelman: *Homological mirror symmetry and torus fibrations*, Proceedings of KIAS conference in Symplectic geometry and Strings (2001) V.V. Lychagin: *Non linear differential equations and contact geometry*, Uspèkhi Mat. Nauk, vol 34 (1979), p.137-165 (in Russian); english transl. in Russian Math. Surveys, vol 34 (1979) V.V Lychagin, V. Roubtsov: *On Sophus Lie Theorems for Monge-Ampère equations*, Doklady Bielorrussian Academy of Science, vol. 27, 5 (1983), p. 396-398 (in Russian) V.V. Lychagin, V. Roubtsov: *Local classifications of Monge-Ampère equations*, Soviet. Math. Dokl, vol 28,2 (1983), p 396-398 V.V Lychagin, V. Roubtsov and I.V. Chekalov: *A classification of Monge-Ampère equations*, Ann. scient. Ec. Norm. Sup, 4 ème série, t.26 (1993), p.281-308 M. Stenzel: *Ricci-flat metrics on the complexification of a compact rank one symmetric space*, Manuscripta. Math. 80 (1993), p. 151-163 A. Strominger, S.T. Yau and E. Zaslow: *Mirror symmetrie is T-duality*, Nuclear Phys., B 479 (1996), p. 243-259
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper introduces GIMP-ML, a set of Python plugins for the widely popular GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP). It enables the use of recent advances in computer vision to the conventional image editing pipeline. Applications from deep learning such as monocular depth estimation, semantic segmentation, mask generative adversarial networks, image super-resolution, de-noising and coloring have been incorporated with GIMP through Python-based plugins. Additionally, operations on images such as edge detection and color clustering have also been added. GIMP-ML relies on standard Python packages such as `numpy, scikit-image, pillow, pytorch, open-cv, scipy.` Apart from these, several image manipulation techniques using these plugins have been compiled and demonstrated in the YouTube playlist (<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLo9r5wFmpD5dLWTyo6NOiD6BJjhfEOM5t>) with the objective of demonstrating the use-cases for machine learning based image modification. In addition, GIMP-ML also aims to bring the benefits of using deep learning networks used for computer vision tasks to routine image processing workflows. The code and installation procedure for configuring these plugins is available at <https://github.com/kritiksoman/GIMP-ML>.'
author:
- |
Kritik Soman\
Department of Electrical Engineering,\
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur,\
India\
`[email protected], [email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'GIMP-ML: Python Plugins for using Computer Vision Models in GIMP'
---
Introduction
============
Image editing has conventionally been performed manually by users or graphics designers using various image processing tools or software. A plethora of image editing and transformation functions are provided in such tools, which are available in open-source, commercial or proprietary license-based modes. Image processing workflows have varying levels of complexity and sometimes even require significant effort from the user even for simple modifications to images.
GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) is a popular free and open source image editing software that has been widely used on Linux-based platforms, as well as on other operating systems. It provides several features for image editing and manipulation and has a simple user interface to work with. It also supports the development of plugins which can be developed independently and integrated with the local GIMP installation on a computer. Using plugins, one can realize custom workflows or set of operations that can be applied to an image.
Recently, machine learning techniques have completely changed the landscape of image understanding and many applications which were previously not possible have now become the new baseline. This has significantly been facilitated by recent advances in deep learning and the applications of resultant models to tasks in the computer vision domain. However, these deep learning models have been made available to users using independent deep learning frameworks such as Keras, TensorFlow, PyTorch, among others. It may also be noted here that since these networks have a *“large”* architecture, their training is done on compute-intensive platforms (using GPUs) and the resultant models have a high memory footprint. Since the use of these models requires the user to code, graphics designers and users involved in conventional image editing workflows using image processing tools have not often been able to directly leverage the benefits from the deep learning models. As such, developing a framework that would enable the use of deep learning models in image editing tasks through commonly available image processing tools would potentially benefit both the deep learning / computer vision community as well as graphics designers and common users of such software.
The motivation for this paper is to bridge the gap between cutting edge research in deep learning (computer vision) and manual image editing, specifically for the case of GIMP. A pilot implementation of plugins for GIMP, collectively termed as “GIMP-ML” (GIMP - Machine Learning), have been presented for various tasks such as background blurring, image coloring, face parsing, generative portrait modification, monocular depth based relighting, motion blurring and generating super-resolution images. It is expected that the image editing process would become highly automated in the upcoming future as the semantic understanding of images improves, which would be facilitated by advances in artificial intelligence.
![GIMP-ML Plugins Menu[]{data-label="fig:screenshot"}](pics/screenshot.png){width="100.00000%"}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:dependencies\] presents they key dependencies for GIMP-ML. This is followed by implementation details in Section \[sec:implementation\]. Various applications of GIMP-ML have been illustrated in Section \[sec:applications\], which also includes links to demonstration videos on YouTube. Finally, conclusions and future work are presented in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Dependencies \[sec:dependencies\]
=================================
The Python package dependencies involved in the development of GIMP-ML are as follows:
1. NumPy: The base N-dimensional array package, `numpy` [@walt2011numpy], has been used for converting GIMP layer to a tensor for use in Pytorch.
2. SciPy: The fundamental library for scientific computing, `scipy` [@jones2001scipy], has been used for performing basic computing operations.
3. Scikit-image: The `scikit-image` [@van2014scikit] package has been used for realizing basic image processing operations for the plugins.
4. OpenCV: The `opencv-python`[@mordvintsev2014opencv] package provides OpenCV libraries in Python. It has been used for edge detection.
5. Pre-Trained Models: The `pretrainedmodels` includes a set of pre-trained models for PyTorch [@paszke2019pytorch], of which the `InceptionResNetV2` has been used for the applications presented in this paper.
6. Torch & Torchvision: The `torch` [@paszke2019pytorch] and `torchvision` [@marcel2010torchvision] packages have been used to incorporate the deep learning framework through Pytorch.
Implementation Details \[sec:implementation\]
=============================================
The GIMP-ML plugins have been developed in Python 2.7 which is supported in GIMP 2.10. A virtual environment has been separately created and added to the `gimp-python` path. This contains all the python packages used by the plugins. The plugins use CPU by default and switch to GPU for prediction when available. Currently, for all plugins assume that the input layer should not have alpha channels. The plugins take advantage of layers in GIMP for various workflows. As a consequence, image manipulation in the following applications is also non-destructive in nature.
Applications \[sec:applications\]
=================================
This section describes applications of GIMP-ML, which include background blurring, image coloring, face parsing, generative portrait modification, monocular depth based relighting, motion blurring and generating super-resolution images. Demo videos of all the applications are available in the YouTube playlist:\
<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLo9r5wFmpD5dLWTyo6NOiD6BJjhfEOM5t>.
Background Blurring
-------------------
We used the Pytorch Deeplabv3 [@chen2017rethinking] model trained on the Pascal VOC dataset [@everingham2010pascal]. It has 20 classes, namely, person, bird, cat, cow, dog, horse, sheep, aeroplane, bicycle, boat, bus, car, motorbike, train, bottle, chair, dining table, potted plant, sofa, and tv/monitor. These objects can be directly segmented in images. The segmentation map can then be used to selectively perform operations on regions of the image, such as blurring, hue/saturation change etc. A demonstration video for background blurring has been shown in <https://youtu.be/U1CieWi--gc>
Image Coloring
--------------
Conversion of grayscale images to RGB [@johnson2016perceptual] using deep learning [^1] has also been included in GIMP-ML. The input image should be in grayscale model. This can be done from the menu Image->Mode->Grayscale. The demo for image coloring has been shown in <https://youtu.be/HVwISLRow_0>
Face Parsing
------------
For segmenting portrait images, we used BiSeNet [@yu2018bisenet] trained on the CelebAMask-HQ dataset [^2]. It can segment 19 classes such as such as skin, nose, eyes, eyebrows, ears, mouth, lip, hair, hat, eyeglass, earring, necklace, neck, and cloth. The segmentation map can then be used to selectively manipulate various facial features. Hair color manipulation has been demonstrated in the video demo using this network. The demo for hair color manipulation using this plugin can be viewed at <https://youtu.be/thS8VqPvuhE>
Generative Portrait Modification
--------------------------------
With the `facegen` plugin, facial features in portrait photo can be segmented, modified and then newly generated. Trained on the CelebAMask-HQ dataset [@lee2019maskgan], this model [^3] relies on facial segmentation map generated in the previous sub-section. The mask can be duplicated into another layer and it can be manipulated using Color Picker Tool and Paintbrush Tool. The input image, original mask and modified mask can then be fed into Mask-GAN to generate the desired image (as shown in Fig.\[fig:facegen\]). A drawback of such a model is that it does not preserve unmodified facial features. This can, however, be taken care of by manually erasing unwanted facial feature changes from the generated layer thereby exposing the original image in the layer underneath. This is a valuable workflow since professional image editors spend a large amount of time in making portrait shots perfect and would retain original image facial features. The demo has generative portrait modification has been shown in <https://youtu.be/kXYsWvOB4uk>
![Menu for Generative Portrait Modification[]{data-label="fig:facegen"}](pics/facegen.png){width="40.00000%"}
Monocular Depth based Relighting
--------------------------------
Disparity maps can be generated from images using deep learning methods and depth from stereo images. Recently, self supervised monocular depth estimation has been proposed in [@godard2019digging]. This [^4] has been ported for GIMP-ML using the model that was trained on the KITTI dataset [@geiger2012we].
Using this model, the disparity map of street images can be desaturated, inverted and colorized to created a layer representing light falling from the sky. In the demo video (<https://youtu.be/q9Ny5XqIUKk>), a day time image of a street has been converted to night time using this approach.
Motion Deblurring
-----------------
GAN based motion deblurring from [@kupyn2019deblurgan] was also ported [^5]. The video demo has been shown in <https://youtu.be/adgHtu4chyU>.
Image Super resolution
----------------------
The model in [@ledig2017photo] for image super resolution [^6] was also implemented. Using this plugin the input image layer can be upscaled to upto 4x its original size. Demo has been shown in <https://youtu.be/HeBgWcXFQpI>.
Conclusions and Future Work \[sec:conclusions\]
===============================================
This paper presented GIMP-ML, a set of Python plugins that enabled the use of deep learning models in GIMP via Pytorch for various applications. It has been shown that several manual and time-consuming image processing tasks can be simplified by the use of deep learning models, which makes it convenient for the users of image processing software to perform such tasks. GIMP 2.10 currently relies on Python 2.7 which been deprecated as on 1 January 2020. The next version of GIMP would use Python 3 and GIMP-ML codebase would be updated to support this. Further, deep learning models suffer from the data bias problem and only work well when the test image is from the same distribution as the data on which the model was trained. In future, the framework would be enhanced to handle such scenarios.
[^1]: <https://github.com/richzhang/colorization>
[^2]: <https://github.com/zllrunning/face-parsing.PyTorch>
[^3]: <https://github.com/switchablenorms/CelebAMask-HQ>
[^4]: <https://github.com/nianticlabs/monodepth2>
[^5]: <https://github.com/TAMU-VITA/DeblurGANv2>
[^6]: <https://github.com/twtygqyy/pytorch-SRResNet>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Malicious URL, a.k.a. malicious website, is a common and serious threat to cybersecurity. Malicious URLs host unsolicited content (spam, phishing, drive-by exploits, etc.) and lure unsuspecting users to become victims of scams (monetary loss, theft of private information, and malware installation), and cause losses of billions of dollars every year. It is imperative to detect and act on such threats in a timely manner. Traditionally, this detection is done mostly through the usage of blacklists. However, blacklists cannot be exhaustive, and lack the ability to detect newly generated malicious URLs. To improve the generality of malicious URL detectors, machine learning techniques have been explored with increasing attention in recent years. This article aims to provide a comprehensive survey and a structural understanding of Malicious URL Detection techniques using machine learning. We present the formal formulation of Malicious URL Detection as a machine learning task, and categorize and review the contributions of literature studies that addresses different dimensions of this problem (feature representation, algorithm design, etc.). Further, this article provides a timely and comprehensive survey for a range of different audiences, not only for machine learning researchers and engineers in academia, but also for professionals and practitioners in cybersecurity industry, to help them understand the state of the art and facilitate their own research and practical applications. We also discuss practical issues in system design, open research challenges, and point out some important directions for future research.'
author:
- 'Doyen Sahoo[^1], Chenghao Liu[^2], and Steven C.H. Hoi [^3] [^4]'
bibliography:
- 'mud\_bib.bib'
title: 'Malicious URL Detection using Machine Learning: A Survey'
---
[Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for IEEE Journals]{}
Malicious URL Detection, Machine Learning, Online Learning, Internet security, Cybersecurity
Introduction
============
The advent of new communication technologies has had tremendous impact in the growth and promotion of businesses spanning across many applications including online-banking, e-commerce, and social networking. In fact, in today’s age it is almost mandatory to have an online presence to run a successful venture. As a result, the importance of the World Wide Web has continuously been increasing. Unfortunately, the technological advancements come coupled with new sophisticated techniques to attack and scam users. Such attacks include rogue websites that sell counterfeit goods, financial fraud by tricking users into revealing sensitive information which eventually lead to theft of money or identity, or even installing malware in the user’s system. There are a wide variety of techniques to implement such attacks, such as explicit hacking attempts, drive-by exploits, social engineering, phishing, watering hole, man-in-the middle, SQL injections, loss/theft of devices, denial of service, distributed denial of service, and many others. Considering the variety of attacks, potentially new attack types, and the innumerable contexts in which such attacks can appear, it is hard to design robust systems to detect cyber-security breaches. The limitations of traditional security management technologies are becoming more and more serious given this exponential growth of new security threats, rapid changes of new IT technologies, and significant shortage of security professionals. Most of these attacking techniques are realized through spreading compromised URLs (or the spreading of such URLs forms a critical part of the attacking operation) [@hong2012state].
URL is the abbreviation of Uniform Resource Locator, which is the global address of documents and other resources on the World Wide Web. A URL has two main components : (i) protocol identifier, it indicates what protocol to use, (ii) resource name, it specifies the IP address or the domain name where the resource is located. The protocol identifier and the resource name are separated by a colon and two forward slashes. An example is shown in Figure \[fig:url\].
{width="120mm"}
Compromised URLs that are used for cyber attacks are termed as *malicious URLs*. In fact, it was noted that close to one-third of all websites are potentially malicious in nature [@liang2009malicious], demonstrating rampant use of malicious URLs to perpetrate cyber-crimes. A Malicious URL or a malicious web site hosts a variety of unsolicited content in the form of spam, phishing, or drive-by-exploits in order to launch attacks. Unsuspecting users visit such web sites and become victims of various types of scams, including monetary loss, theft of private information (identity, credit-cards, etc.), and malware installation. Popular types of attacks using malicious URLs include: Drive-by Download, Phishing and Social Engineering, and Spam [@patil2015survey]. Drive-by-download [@cova2010detection] refers to the (unintentional) download of malware upon just visiting a URL. Such attacks are usually carried out by exploiting vulnerabilities in plugins or inserting malicious code through JavaScript. Phishing and Social Engineering attacks [@heartfield2015taxonomy] trick the users into revealing private or sensitive information by pretending to be genuine web pages. Spam is the usage of unsolicited messages for the purpose of advertising or phishing. These types of attacks occur in large numbers and have caused billions of dollars worth of damage every year. Effective systems to detect such malicious URLs in a timely manner can greatly help to counter large number of and a variety of cyber-security threats. Consequently, researchers and practitioners have worked to design effective solutions for Malicious URL Detection.
The most common method to detect malicious URLs deployed by many antivirus groups is the black-list method. Black-lists are essentially a database of URLs that have been confirmed to be malicious in the past. This database is compiled over time (often through crowd-sourcing solutions, e.g. PhishTank [@opendns2016phishtank]), as and when it becomes known that a URL is malicious. Such a technique is extremely fast due to a simple query overhead, and hence is very easy to implement. Additionally, such a technique would (intuitively) have a very low false-positive rate (although, it was reported that often blacklisting suffered from non-trivial false-positive rates [@sinha2008shades]). However, it is almost impossible to maintain an exhaustive list of malicious URLs, especially since new URLs are generated everyday. Attackers use creative techniques to evade blacklists and fool users by modifying the URL to “appear" legitimate via obfuscation. Garera et. al. [@garera2007framework] identified four types of obfuscation: Obfuscating the Host with an IP, Obfuscating the Host with another domain, Obfuscating the host with large host names, and misspelling. All of these try to hide the malicious intentions of the website by masking the malicious URL. Recently, with the increasing popularity of URL shortening services, it has become a new and widespread obfuscation technique (hiding the malicious URL behind a short URL) [@chhabra2011phi; @alshboul2015detecting]. Once the URLs appear legitimate, and user’s visit them, an attack can be launched. This is often done by malicious code embedded into the JavaScript. Often the attackers will also try to obfuscate the code so as to prevent signature based tools from detecting them. Attackers use many other simple techniques to evade blacklists including: fast-flux, in which proxies are automatically generated to host the web-page; algorithmic generation of new URLs; etc. Additionally, attackers can often simultaneously launch more than one attack, which alters the attack-signature, making it undetectable by tools that focus on specific signatures. Blacklisting methods, thus have severe limitations, and it appears almost trivial to bypass them, especially due to the fact that blacklists are useless for making predictions on new URLs.
To overcome these issues, in the last decade, researchers have applied machine learning techniques for Malicious URL Detection [@garera2007framework; @mcgrath2008behind; @ma2009beyond; @ma2011learning; @purkait2012phishing; @khonji2013phishing; @patil2015survey; @nepali2016you; @kuyama2016method]. Machine Learning approaches, use a set of URLs as training data, and based on the statistical properties, learn a prediction function to classify a URL as malicious or benign. This gives them the ability to generalize to new URLs unlike blacklisting methods. The primary requirement for training a machine learning model is the presence of training data. In the context of malicious URL detection, this would correspond to a set of large number of URLs. Machine learning can broadly be classified into supervised, unsupervised, and semi-supervised, which correspond to having the labels for the training data, not having the labels, and having labels for limited fraction of training data. Labels correspond to the knowledge that a URL is malicious or benign.
After the training data is collected, the next step is to extract informative features such that they sufficiently describe the URL and at the same time, they can be interpreted mathematically by machine learning models. For example, simply using the URL string directly may not allow us to learn a good prediction model (which in some extreme cases may reduce the prediction model to a blacklist method). Thus, one would need to extract suitable features based on some principles or heuristics to obtain a good feature representation of the URL. This may include lexical features (statistical properties of the URL string, bag of words, n-gram, etc.), host-based features (WHOIS info, geo-location properties of the host, etc.), etc. These features after being extracted have to be processed into a suitable format (e.g. a numerical vector), such that they can be plugged into an off-the-shelf machine learning method for model training. The ability of these features to provide relevant information is critical to subsequent machine learning, as the underlying assumption of machine learning (classification) models is that the feature representations of the malicious and benign URLs have different distributions. Therefore, the quality of feature representation of the URLs is critical to the quality of the resulting malicious URL predictive model learned by machine learning.
Finally, using the training data with the appropriate feature representation, the next step in building the prediction model is the actual training of the model. There are plenty of classification algorithms can be directly used over the training data (Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression, etc.). However, there are certain properties of the URL data that may make the training difficult (both in terms of scalability and learning the appropriate concept). For example, the number of URLs available for training can be in the order of millions (or even billions). As a result, the training time for traditional models may be too high to be practical. Consequently, Online Learning [@hoi2014libol], a family of scalable learning techniques have been heavily applied for this task. Similarly, for this task, URLs are represented using the bag-of-words (BoW) features. These features basically indicate whether a particular word (or string) appears in a URL or not - as a result every possible type of word that may appear in any URL becomes a feature. This representation may result in millions of features which would be very sparse (most features are absent most of the time, as a URL will usually have very few of the millions of possible words present in it). Accordingly, a learning method should exploit this sparsity property to improve learning efficiency and efficacy. Despite the promising generalizing ability of machine learning approaches, one potential shortcoming of these approaches for malicious URL detection may be their resource intensive nature (especially while extracting features that are non-trivial and expensive to compute), reducing their practical value when requiring real-time security assurance compared to blacklisting methods.
In this survey, we review the state-of-the-art machine learning techniques for malicious URL detection in literature. We specifically focus on the contributions made for feature representation and learning algorithm development in this domain. We systematically categorize the various types of feature representation used for creating the training data for this task, and also categorize various learning algorithms used to learn a good prediction model. We also discuss the open research problems and identify directions for future research. In the rest of the survey, we first discuss the broad categories of strategies used for detecting malicious URLs - Blacklists, Heuristic and Machine Learning. We formalize the setting as a machine learning problem, where the primary requirement is good feature representation and the learning algorithm used. We then comprehensively present various types of feature representation used for this problem. This is followed by presenting various algorithms that have been used to solve this task, and have been developed based on the properties of URL data. Finally we discuss the newly emerging concept of Malicious URL Detection as a service and the principles to be used while designing such a system. We end the survey by discussing the practical issues and open problems in this domain.
{width="140mm"}
Malicious URL Detection
=======================
In this section, we first present the key principles used by researchers and practitioner to solve the problem of Malicious URL detection, followed by formalizing it as a machine learning task.
Principles of Detecting Malicious URLs: An Overview
---------------------------------------------------
A variety of approaches have been attempted to tackle the problem of Malicious URL Detection. According to the fundamental principles, these approaches can be broadly grouped into two major categories: (i) Blacklisting or Heuristics, and (ii) Machine Learning approaches [@canali2011prophiler; @eshete2013binspect]. Below we briefly describe the key principles of each category.
### Blacklisting or Heuristic Approaches
*Blacklisting* approaches are a common and classical technique for detecting malicious URLs, which often maintains a list of URLs that are known to be malicious. Whenever a new URL is visited, a database lookup is performed. If the URL is present in the blacklist, it is considered to be malicious and then a warning will be generated; else it is assumed to be benign. Blacklisting suffers from the inability to maintain an exhaustive list of all possible malicious URLs, as new URLs can be easily generated daily, thus making it impossible for them to detect new threats [@sheng2009empirical]. This is particularly of critical concern when the attackers generate new URLs algorithmically, and can thus bypass all blacklists. Despite several problems faced by blacklisting [@sinha2008shades], due to their simplicity and efficiency, they continue to be one of the most commonly used techniques by many anti-virus systems today.
*Heuristic* approaches [@seifert2008identification] are some kind of extensions of Blacklist based methods, wherein the idea is to create a “blacklist of signatures". Common attacks are identified, and based on their behaviors, a signature is assigned to this attack type. Intrusion Detection Systems can scan the web pages for such signatures, and raise a flag if some suspicious behavior is found. These methods have better generalization capabilities than blacklisting, as they have the ability to detect threats in new URLs as well. However, such methods can be designed for only a limited number of common threats, and can not generalize to all types of (novel) attacks. Moreover, using obfuscation techniques, it is not difficult to bypass them. A more specific version of heuristic approaches is through analysis of execution dynamics of the webpage (e.g. [@moshchuk2007spyproxy; @rieck2010cujo; @qassrawi2011detecting; @kim2011suspicious; @kolbitsch2012rozzle] etc.). Here also, the idea is to look for a signature of malicious activity such as unusual process creation, repeated redirection, etc. These methods necessarily require visiting the webpage and thus the URLs actually can make an attack. As a result, such techniques are often implemented in controlled environment like a disposable virtual machine. Such techniques are very resource intensive, and require all execution of the code (including the rich client sided code). Another drawback is that websites may not launch an attack immediately after being visited, and thus may go undetected.
### Machine Learning
These approaches try to analyze the information of a URL and its corresponding websites or webpages, by extracting good feature representations of URLs, and training a prediction model on training data of both malicious and benign URLs. There are two-types of features that can be used - *static* features, and *dynamic* features. In static analysis, we perform the analysis of a webpage based on information available without executing the URL (i.e., executing JavaScript, or other code) [@ma2011learning; @ma2009beyond; @ma2009identifying; @eshete2013binspect]. The features extracted include lexical features from the URL string, information about the host, and sometimes even HTML and JavaScript content. Since no execution is required, these methods are safer than the Dynamic approaches. The underlying assumption is that the distribution of these features is different for malicious and benign URLs. Using this distribution information, a prediction model can be built, which can make predictions on new URLs. Due to the relatively safer environment to extracting important information, and the ability to generalize to all types of threats (not just common ones which have to be defined by a signature), static analysis techniques have been extensively explored by applying machine learning techniques. In this survey, we focus primarily on the static analysis techniques where machine learning has found tremendous success. Dynamic analysis techniques include monitoring the behavior of the systems which are potential victims, to look for any anomaly. These include [@canfora2014detection] which monitor the system call sequences for abnormal behavior, and [@tao2014suspicious] which mine internet access log data for suspicious activity. Dynamic analysis techniques have inherent risks, and are difficult to implement and generalize.
In the following, we formalize the problem of malicious URL detection as a machine learning task which allows us to generalize most of the existing work in literature. Alternate problem settings will also be discussed in Section \[sec:ml\].
Problem Formulation
-------------------
We formulate the problem of malicious URL detection as a binary classification task for two-class prediction: “malicious" versus “benign". Specifically, given a data set with $T$ URLs $\{(\u_1, y_1), \dots, (\u_T, y_T)\}$, where $\u_t $ for $t = 1,\dots, T$ represents a URL from the training data, and $y_t \in \{1, -1\}$ is the corresponding label where $y_t = 1$ represents a malicious URL and $y_t=-1$ represents a benign URL. The crux to automated malicious URL detection is two-fold:
1. *Feature Representation*: Extracting the appropriate feature representation: $\u_t \rightarrow \x_t$ where $\x_t \in \R^d$ is a $d$-dimensional feature vector representing the URL; and
2. *Machine Learning*: Learning a prediction function $\f: \R^d \rightarrow \R$ which predicts the class assignment for any URL instance $\x$ using proper feature presentations.
Consider a binary classification task, the goal of machine learning for malicious URL detection is to maximize the predictive accuracy. Both of the folds above are important to achieve this goal. While the first part of feature representation is often based on domain knowledge and heuristics, the second part focuses on training the classification model via a data driven optimization approach. Fig. \[fig:framework\] illustrates a general architecture of solving Malicious URL Detection using machine learning.
The first key step is to convert a URL $\u$ into a feature vector $\x$, where several types of information can be considered and different techniques can be used. Unlike learning the prediction model, this part cannot be directly computed by a mathematical function (not for most of it). Using domain knowledge and related expertise, a feature representation is constructed by crawling all relevant information about the URL. These range from lexical information (length of URL, the words used in the URL, etc.) to host-based information (WHOIS info, IP address, location, etc.). Once the information is gathered, it is processed to be stored in a feature vector $\x$. Numerical features can be stored in $\x$ as is, and identity related information or lexical features are usually stored through a binarization or bag-of-words (BoW) approach. Based on the type of information used, $\x \in \R^d$ generated from a URL is a $d$-dimensional vector where $d$ can be less than $100$ or can be in the order of millions. A unique challenge that affects this problem setting is that the number of features may not be fixed or known in advance. For example, using a BoW approach one can track the occurrence for every type of word that may have occurred in a URL in our training data. A model can be trained on this data, but while predicting, new URLs may have words that did not occur in the training data. It is thus a challenging task to design a good feature representation that is robust to unseen data.
After obtaining the feature vector $\x$ for the training data, to learn the prediction function $\f: \R^d \rightarrow \R$, it is usually formulated as an optimization problem such that the detection accuracy is maximized (or alternately, a loss function is minimized). The function $\f$ is (usually) parameterized by a $d-$ dimensional weight vector $\w$, such that $\f(\x) = (\w^\top\x)$. Let $\hat{y_t} = \sign (\f(\x_t))$ denote the class label prediction made by the function $\f$. The number of mistakes made by the prediction model on the entire training data is given by: $\sum_{t=1}^T\I_{\hat{y_t} = y_t}$ where $\I$ is an indicator which evaluates to $1$ if the condition is true, and $0$ otherwise. Since the indicator function is not convex, the optimization can be difficult to solve. As a result, a convex loss function is often defined, and is denoted by $\ell(\f(\x), y)$ and the entire optimization can be formulated as: $$\begin{aligned}
\min_\w \sum_{t=1}^T \ell(\f(\x_t), y_t)
\end{aligned}$$
Several types of loss functions can be used, including the popular hinge-loss $\ell(\f(\x), y) = \frac{1}{2} \max(1 - y\f(\x), 0)$, or the squared-loss $\ell(\f(\x), y) = \frac{1}{2} (\f(\x) - y)^2$. Sometimes, a regularization term is often added to prevent over-fitting or to learn sparse models, or the loss function can be modified based on cost-sensitive nature of the data (e.g., class imbalanced distribution, different costs for diverse threats).
In the following, we will discuss the existing studies on feature representation for malicious URL detection and appropriate machine learning algorithms design in detail.
{width="100mm"}
Feature Representation
======================
As stated earlier, the success of a machine learning model critically depends on the quality of the training data, which hinges on the quality of feature representation. Given a URL $\u \in \mathbb{U}$, where $\mathbb{U}$ denotes a domain of any valid URL strings, the goal of feature representation is to find a mapping $g:\mathbb{U}\rightarrow\R^d$, such that $g(\u) \rightarrow \x$ where $\x \in \R^d$ is a $d$-dimensional feature vector, that can be fed into machine learning models. The process of feature representation can be further broken down into two steps:
1. *Feature Collection*: This phase is engineering oriented, which aims to collect most if not all relevant information about the URL. This includes information such as presence of the URLs in a blacklist, the direct features of the URL such as the URL String and information about the host, the content of the web-site such as HTML and JavaScript, popularity information, etc. Figure \[fig:feature\] gives an example to demonstrate various types various types of information that can be collected from a URL to obtain the feature representation.
2. *Feature Preprocessing*: In this phase, the unstructured information about the URL (e.g. textual description) is appropriately formatted, and converted to a numerical vector so that it can be fed into machine learning algorithms. For example, the numerical information can be used as is, and the BoW is used for representing textual or lexical content. Besides, some data normalization (e.g., Z-score normalization) may often be used to handle the scaling issue.
For malicious URL detection, researchers have proposed several types of features that can be used to provide useful information. We categorize these features into: Blacklist Features, URL-based Lexical Features, Host-based features, Content-based Features, and Others (Context, Popularity, etc.). All have their benefits and short-comings - while some are very informative, obtaining these features can be very expensive. Similarly, different features have different preprocessing challenges and security concerns. Next, we will discuss each of these feature categories in detail, followed by comparing their pros and cons.
BlackList Features
------------------
As mentioned before, a trivial technique to identify malicious URLs is to use blacklists. An existing URL as having been identified as malicious (either through extensive analysis or crowd sourcing) makes its way into the list. However, it has been noted that blacklisting, despite its simplicity and ease of implementation, suffers from nontrivial high false negatives [@sinha2008shades] due to the difficulty in maintaining exhaustive up-to-date lists. Consequently, instead of using blacklist presence alone as a decision maker, it can be used as a powerful feature. In particular, [@ma2009beyond] used the presence in a blacklist as a feature, from 6 different blacklist service providers. They also analyzed the effectiveness of these features compared to other features, and observed that blacklist features alone did not have as good a performance as other features, but when used in conjunction with other features, the overall performance of the prediction model improved.
[@prakash2010phishnet] observed that to evade detection via blacklisting, many attackers made minor modifications to the original URL. They proposed to extend the blacklist by deriving new URLs based on five heuristics including: Replacing Top-Level Domain (TLDs), IP Address Equivalence, Directory Structure Similarity, Query String substitution, and brand name equivalence. Since, even a minor mismatch from the blacklist database can cause a malicious URL to go undetected, they also devised an approximate matching solution. Similar heuristics potentially could be used when deriving blacklist features for machine learning approaches. A similar methodology was adopted for automated URL blacklist generation by [@sun2015autoblg; @bo2016automating]. [@felegyhazi2010potential] developed a method to proactively perform domain blacklisting.
Lexical Features
----------------
Lexical features are features obtained based on the properties of the URL name (or the URL string). The motivation is that based on how the URL “looks” it should be possible to identify malicious nature of a URL. For example, many obfuscation methods try to “look” like benign URLs by mimicking their names and adding a minor variation to it. In practice, these lexical features are used in conjunction with several other features (e.g. host-based features) to improve model performance. However, using the original URL name directly is not feasible from a machine learning perspective. Instead, the URL string has to be processed to extract useful features. Next we review some of the lexical features used for malicious URL detection.
*Traditional Lexical Features*: The most commonly used lexical features include statistical properties of the URL string, like the length of the URL, length of each of the components of the URL (Hostname, Top Level Domain, Primary domain, etc.), the number of special characters, etc. [@kolari2006svms] were one of the first to suggest extracting words from the URL string. The string was processed such that each segment delimited by a special character (e.g. “/”, “.”, “?”, “=”, etc.) comprised a word. Based on all the different types of words in all the URLs, a dictionary was constructed, i.e., each word became a feature. If the word was present in the URL, the value of the feature would be $1$, and $0$ otherwise. This is also known as the bag-of-words model.
Directly using the bag-of-words model, causes a loss of information about the order in which the words occurred in the URL. [@ma2009beyond; @ma2009identifying] also used similar lexical features, but they made the distinction between the tokens belonging to the hostname, the path, the top-level domain and the primary domain name. This was done by having a separate dictionary for each of these segments. The distinction would allow for preserving some of the order in which the words occurred. For example, it allows us to distinguish between the presence of “com” in the top-level domain vs other parts of the URL. [@blum2010lexical] try to enhance the lexical features by considering the usage of bi-gram features, i.e., they construct a dictionary, where in addition to single-words the presence of a set of 2-words in the same URL is considered a feature. In addition, they record the position of sensitive tokens and bigrams to exploit the token context sensitivity.
The entire bag-of-word features approach can be viewed as a form of machine learning compatible fuzzy blacklist approach. Instead of focussing on the entire URL string, it assigns scores to the URL based on smaller components of the URL string. While this approach offers us an extensive number of features, it can become problematic while running sophisticated algorithms on them. For example, [@ma2009identifying] collected a dataset of 2 million URLs, having almost as many lexical features. This number may grow even larger if bi-gram features were considered. [@kolari2006svms] considered $n$-gram features (same as bi-gram, but $n$ can be $> 2$), and devised a feature selection scheme based on relative entropy to reduce the dimensionality. A similar feature extraction method was used by [@zhang2011malicious], where the feature weights were computed based on the ratio of their presence in one class of URLs against their presence in both classes of URLs.
In order to avoid being caught by blacklists, hackers can generate malicious URLs algorithmically. Using bag-of-words feature for such URLs is likely to give a poor performance, as algorithmically generated URLs may produce never before seen words (hence never before seen features). To detect such algorithmically generated malicious URLs, [@yadav2010detecting] analyzed character level strings to obtain the features. They argued that algorithmically generated domain names and those generated by humans would have a substantially different alpha-numeric distribution. Further, since the number of characters is small, the number of features obtained would also be small. They performed their analysis based on KL-divergence, Jaccard Coefficient, and Edit-distance using unigram and bigram distributions of characters.
*Advanced Lexical Features*: Traditional lexical features were directly obtained from the URL string without significant domain knowledge or computation. Researchers have proposed several advanced lexical features that exploit properties of URL strings, to get more informative features.
[@le2011phishdef] derive new lexical features using heuristics with the objective of being obfuscation resistant. Based on the obfuscation types identified by [@garera2007framework], five categories of features are proposed: URL-related features (keywords, length, etc.), Domain features (length of domain name, whether IP address is used as domain name, etc.), Directory related features (length of directory, number of subdirectory tokens, etc.), File name features (length of filename, number of delimiters, etc.), and Argument Features(length of the argument, number of variables, etc.).
Another feature is based on the *Kolmogorov Complexity* [@pao2012malicious]. Kolmogorov Complexity is a measure of complexity of a string $s$. Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity is the measure of the complexity of a string $s$ given another string for free. This means that the presence of the free string does not add to the complexity of the original input string $s$. Based on this, for a given URL, we compute the URL’s Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity with respect to the set of Benign URLs and the set of Malicious URLs. Combining these measures we get a sense of whether the given URL is more similar to the Malicious URL database or the Benign URL database. This feature, though useful, may not be easy to scale up to very large number of URLs. [@marchal2014phishscore; @marchal2014phishstorm] define a new concept of intra-URL relatedness which is a measure to quantify the relations between different words that comprise the URL with specific focus on relationship between the registered domain and the rest of the URL. [@chu2013protect] propose new distance based metrics, called *domain brand name distance* and *path brand name distance*. These are essentially types of edit distance between strings aimed at detecting those malicious URLs which try to mimic popular brands or websites.
Host-based Features
-------------------
Host-based features are obtained from the host-name properties of the URL [@ma2009identifying]. They allow us to know the location of malicious hosts, the identity of the malicious hosts, and the management style and properties of these hosts.
[@mcgrath2008behind] studied the impact of a few host-based features on the maliciousness of URLs. Some of the key observations were that phishers exploited Short URL services; the time-to-live from registration of the domain was almost immediate for the malicious URLs; and many used botnets to host themselves on multiple machines across several countries. Consequently, host-based features became an important element in detecting malicious URLs.
[@ma2009beyond; @ma2009identifying] borrowed ideas from [@mcgrath2008behind] and proposed the usage of several host-based features including: *IP Address properties*, *WHOIS information*, *Location*, *Domain Name Properties*, and *Connection Speed*. The IP Address properties comprise features obtained from IP address prefix and autonomous system (AS) number. This included whether the IPs of A, MX or NS records are in the same ASes or prefixes as one another. The WHOIS information comprises domain name registration dates, registrars and registrants. The Location information comprises the physical Geographic Location - e.g. country/city to which the IP address belongs. The Domain Name properties comprise time-to-live values, presence of certain keywords like “client” and “server”, if the IP address is in the host name or not and does the PTR record resolve one of the host’s IP addresses. Since many of the features are identity related information, a bag-of-words like approach is required to store them in a numerical vector, where each word corresponds to a specific identity. Like the lexical features, adopting such an approach leads to a large number of features. For the 2 million URLs, [@ma2009identifying] obtained over a million host-based features. Exclusive usage of IP Address Features has also been considered [@chiba2012detecting]. IP Address Features are arguably more stable, as it is difficult to obtain new IP Addresses for malicious URLs continuously. Due to this stability, they serve as important features in malicious URL detection. However, it is cumbersome to use IP Address directly. Instead, it is proposed to extract IP Address features based on a binarization or categorization approach through which octet-based, extended-octet based and bit-string based features are generated.
DNS Fluxiness features were proposed to look for malicious URLs that would hide their identity by using proxy networks and quickly changing their host [@holz2008detection; @choi2011detecting]. [@chu2013protect] define *domain age* and *domain confidence* (dependent on similarity with a white-list) level which help determine the fluxiness nature of the URL (e.g. malicious URLs using fast flux will have a small domain age). [@sorio2013detection] propose new features to detect malicious URLs that are hidden within trusted sites. They extract *header* features from HTTP response headers. They also use the *age* obtained from the time stamp value of the last modified header. [@xu2013cross] propose *Application Layer* features and *Network Layer* features to devise a cross-layer mechanism to detect malicious URLs. [@chiba2016domainprofiler] suggest the usage of *temporal variation patterns* based on active analysis of DNS logs, to help discover domain names that could be abused in the future.
Content-based Features
----------------------
Content-based features are those obtained upon downloading the entire web-page. As compared to URL-based features, these are “heavy-weight”, as a lot of information needs to be extracted, and at the same time, safety concerns may arise. However, with more information available about a particular web-page, it is natural to assume that it would lead to a better prediction model. Further, if the URL-based features fail to detect a malicious URL, a more thorough analysis of the content-based features may help in early detection of threats [@canali2011prophiler]. The content-based features of a web-page can be drawn primarily from its HTML content, and the usage of JavaScript. [@hou2010malicious] categorize the content based features of a web-page into 5 broad segments: Lexical features, HTML Document Level Features, JavaScript features, ActiveX Objects and feature relationships. [@zhang2007cantina; @xiang2011cantina+] proposed CANTINA and its variants for detecting phishing websites using a comprehensive feature-based machine learning approach, by exploiting various features from the HTML Document Object Model (DOM), search engines and third party services. In the following we discuss some of these categories, primarily focusing on the HTML Document Level Features and JavaScript Features.
### HTML Features
[@hou2010malicious] proposed the usage of lexical features from the HTML of the web-page. These are relatively easy to extract and preprocess. At the next level of complexity, the HTML document level features can be used. The document level features correspond to the statistical properties of the HTML document, and the usage of specific types of functionality. [@hou2010malicious] propose the usage of features like: length of the document, average length of the words, word count, distinct word count, word count in a line, the number of NULL characters, usage of string concatenation, unsymmetrical HTML tags, the link to remote source of scripts, and invisible objects. Often malicious code is encrypted in the HTML, which is linked to a large word length, or heavy usage of string concatenation, and thus these features can help in detecting malicious activity.
Similar features with minor variations were used by many of the subsequent researchers including [@choi2011detecting] (number of iframes, number of zero size iframes, number of lines, number of hyperlinks, etc.). [@canali2011prophiler] also used similar features, and additionally proposed to use several more descriptive features which were aimed at minor statistical properties of the page. These include features such as number of elements with a small area, number of elements with suspicious content (suspiciousness was determined by the length of the content between the start and end tag), number of out of place elements, presence of double documents, etc. [@borgolte2013delta] developed a *delta* method, where *delta* represented the change in different versions of the website. They analyzed whether the change was malicious or benign.
### JavaScript Features
[@hou2010malicious] argue that several JavaScript functions are commonly used by hackers to encrypt malicious code, or to execute unwanted routines without the client’s permission. For example extensive usage of function *eval()* and *unescape()* may indicate execution of encrypted code within the HTML. They aim to use the count of 154 native JavaScript functions as features to identify malicious URLs. [@choi2011detecting] identify a subset (seven) of these native JavaScript functions that are often in Cross-site scripting and Web-based malware distribution. These include: escape(), eval(), link(), unescape(), exec(), and search() functions. [@canali2011prophiler] propose additional heuristic JavaScript features including: keywords-to-words ratio, number of long strings, presence of decoding routines, shell code presence probability, number of direct string assignments, number of DOM-modifying functions, number of event attachments, number of suspicious object names, number of suspicious strings, number of “iframe” strings and number of suspicious string tags. In [@choi2010automatic], the authors try to detect JavaScript Obfuscation by analyzing the JavaScript codes using n-gram, Entropy and Word Size. n-gram and word size are commonly used to look for character/word distribution and presence for long strings. For Entropy of the strings, they observe that obfuscated strings tend to have a lower entropy. More recently, [@wang2016deep] applied deep learning techniques to learn feature representations from JavaScript code.
### Visual Features
There have also been attempts made at using images of the webpages to identify the malicious nature of the URL. Most of these focus on computing visual similarity with *protected pages*, where the protected pages refer to genuine websites. Finding a high level of visual similarity of a suspected malicious URL could be indicative of an attempt at phishing. One of the earliest attempts at using visual features for this task was by computing the Earth Mover’s Distance between 2 images [@fu2006detecting]. [@wenyin2005detection; @liu2006antiphishing] addressed the same problem and developed a system to extract visual features of web pages based on text-block features and image-block features (using information such as block size, color, etc.). More advanced computer vision technologies were adapted for this task. Contrast Context Histogram (CCH) features were suggested [@chen2009fighting], and so were Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) features [@afroz2011phishzoo]. Another approach using visual feature was developed by [@dunlop2010goldphish], where an OCR was used to read the text in the image of the webpage. [@zhang2011textual] combine both textual and visual features for measuring similarity. With recent advances in Deep Learning for Image Recognition [@krizhevsky2012imagenet; @he2015deep], it may be possible to extract more powerful and effective visual features.
### Other Content-based Features
[@hou2010malicious] argued that due to the powerful functionality of ActiveX objects, they can be used to create malicious DHTML pages. Thus, they tried to compute frequency for each of eight ActiveX objects. Examples include: “Scripting.FileSystemObject" which can be used for file system I/O operations, “WScript.Shell" which can execute shell scripts on the client’s computer, and “Adodb.Stream" which can download files from the Internet. [@xiang2009hybrid] try to find the identity and keywords in the DOM text and evaluate the consistency between the identity observed and the identity it is potentially trying to mimic which is found by searching. [@soska2014automatically] used the directory structure of the websites to obtain insights.
Other Features
--------------
Recent years have seen the growth of Short URL service providers, which provide the original URL to be represented by a shorter string. This enables sharing of the URLs in on social media platforms like twitter, where the originally long URLs would not fit within the 140 character limit of a tweet. Unfortunately, this has also become a popular obfuscation technique for the malicious URLs. While the Short URL service providers try their best to not generate short URLs for the malicious ones, they struggle to do an effective job as they also rely primarily on blacklists [@maggi2013two; @gupta2014bit]. As a result, a recently emerging research direction has become active where *context-features* of the URL are obtained, i.e., the features of the background information where the URL has been shared. [@lee2012warningbird] use context information derived from the tweets where the URL was shared. [@wang2013click] used click traffic data to classify short URLs as malicious or not. [@cao2014detection] propose forwarding based features to combat forwarding-based malicious URLs. [@cao2015detecting] propose another direction of features to identify malicious URLs - they also focus on URLs shared on social media, and aim to identify the malicious nature of a URL by performing behavioral analysis of the users who shared them, and the users who clicked on them. These features are formally called “Posting-based” features and “Click-based” features. [@alshboul2015detecting] approach this problem with a systematic categorization of context features which include content-related features (lexical and statistical properties of the tweet), context of the tweet features (time, relevance, and user mentions) and social features (following, followers, location, tweets, retweets and favorite count).
Some other features used were designed heuristics to measure the *popularity* of the URL. One of the earliest approaches to applying statistical techniques to detect malicious URLs [@garera2007framework] aimed at probabilistically identifying the importance of specific hand-designed features. These include Page-based features (Page rank, quality, etc.), Domain-based features (presence in *white domain table*), Type-based features (obfuscation types) and Word-based features(presence of keywords such as “confirm”, “banking”, etc.). [@thomas2011design] use both the URL-based and content based features, and additionally record the initial URL, the landing URL and the redirect chain. Further they record the number of popups and the behavior of plugins, which have been commonly used by spammers. [@choi2011detecting] proposed the usage of new categories of features: Link Popularity and Network Features. Link Popularity is scored on the basis of incoming links from other webpages. This information was obtained from different search engines. In order to make the usage of these features robust to manipulation, they also propose the usage of certain metrics that validate the quality of the links. They also use a metric to detect spam-to-spam URL links. For their work, they use these features in conjunction with lexical features content-based feature, and host-based features. [@eshete2013binspect] used social reputation features of URLs by tracking their public share count on Facebook and Twitter. [@stringhini2013shady] incorporated information on redirection chains into redirection graphs, which provided insight into detecting malicious URLs. [@marchal2014phishstorm] use search engine query data to mine for word relatedness measurement.
Summary of Feature Representations
----------------------------------
There is a wide variety of information that can be obtained for a URL. Crawling the information and transforming the unstructured information to a machine learning compatible feature vector can be very resource intensive. While extra information can improve predictive models (subject to appropriate regularization), it is often not practical to obtain a lot of features. For example, several host-based features may take a few seconds to be obtained, and that itself makes using them in real world setting impractical. Another example is the Kolmogorov Complexity - which requires comparing a URL to several malicious and benign URLs in a database, which is infeasible for comparing with billions of URLs. Accordingly, care must be taken while designing a Malicious URL Detection System to tradeoff the usefulness of a feature and the difficulty in retrieving it. We present a subjective evaluation of different features used in literature. Specifically, we evaluate them on the basis of Collection Difficulty, Associated Security Risks, need for an external dependency to acquire information, the associated time cost with regard to feature collection and feature preprocessing, and the dimensionality of the features obtained.
Collection difficulty is refers to the engineering effort required to obtain specific information about the features. Blacklist, context and popularity features require additional dependencies and thus have a higher collection overhead, whereas the other features are directly obtained from the URL itself. This also implies, that for a live-system (i.e. real-time Malicious URL Detection), obtaining features with a high collection time may be infeasible. In terms of associated security risks, the content-features have the highest risk, as potential malware may be explicitly downloaded while trying to obtain these features, while other features do not suffer from these issues. The collection time of the blacklist features can be high if the external dependency has to be queried during runtime, however, if the the entire blacklist can be stored locally, the collection overhead is very small. Collection of the lexical features is very efficient, as they are basically direct derivatives of the URL string. Host-based features are relatively time-consuming to obtain. Content-features usually require downloading the web-page which would affect the feature collection time. For preprocessing, once the data has been collected, deriving the features in most cases is computationally very fast. For dimensionality size, the lexical features have a very high-dimensionality (and so do unstructured Host-features and content features). This is largely because they are all stored as Bag-of-Words features. This feature size consequently affects the training and test-time. These properties are summarized in Table \[tab:featureComparison\]. We also categorize the representative references according to the feature representation used, in Table \[tab:features\].
---------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------------
**Category**
**Collection** **** **External** **Collection** **Processing** **Feature**
**Difficulty** **Risk** **Dependency** **Time** **Time** **Size**
**Blacklist** Moderate Low Yes Moderate Low Low
\[0\][\*]{}[**Lexical**]{} **Traditional** Easy Low No Low Low Very High
**Advanced** Easy Low No Low High Low
\[0\][\*]{}[**Host**]{} **Unstructured** Easy Low No High Low Very High
**Structured** Easy Low No High Low Low
\[0\][\*]{}[**Content**]{} **HTML** Easy High No Depends Low High
**JavaScript** Easy High No Depends Low Moderate
**Visual** Easy High No Depends High High
**Other** Easy High No Depends Low Low
\[0\][\*]{}[**Others**]{} **Context** Difficult Low Yes High Low Low
**Popularity** Difficult Low Yes High Low Low
---------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------------
\[tab:featureComparison\]
**Feature** **Sub Category** **Representative References**
---------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Blacklist** Blacklist [@garera2007framework; @ma2009beyond; @prakash2010phishnet; @felegyhazi2010potential; @sun2015autoblg; @bo2016automating]
**Lexical** Lexical [@kolari2006svms; @garera2007framework; @ma2009beyond; @ma2009identifying; @he2010mining; @blum2010lexical; @ma2010exploiting; @whittaker2010large; @yadav2010detecting; @gastellier2011decisive; @zhang2011textual; @bannur2011judging; @bilge2011exposure; @canali2011prophiler; @choi2011detecting; @ma2011learning; @zhang2011malicious; @le2011phishdef; @thomas2011design; @huang2012svm; @pao2012malicious; @maurer2012sophisticated; @chu2013protect; @eshete2013binspect; @eshete2013einspect; @eshete2013effective; @lin2013malicious; @ranganayakulu2013detecting; @su2013suspicious; @xu2013cross; @huang2014malicious; @marchal2014phishscore; @wang2015breaking; @marchal2014phishstorm; @marchal2015know; @sato2016]
**Host** Host-based [@mcgrath2008behind; @ma2009beyond; @ma2009identifying; @ma2010exploiting; @whittaker2010large; @bilge2011exposure; @canali2011prophiler; @choi2011detecting; @ma2011learning; @thomas2011design; @chiba2012detecting; @holz2008detection; @choi2011detecting; @sorio2013detection; @lin2013malicious; @xu2013cross; @kuyama2016method]
\[0\][\*]{}[**Content**]{} HTML [@pan2006anomaly; @seifert2008identification; @liang2009malicious; @hou2010malicious; @bannur2011judging; @he2011efficient; @gastellier2011decisive; @choi2011detecting; @canali2011prophiler; @thomas2011design; @eshete2013binspect; @eshete2013einspect; @eshete2013effective; @xu2013cross; @yoo2014two; @marchal2015know; @canfora2016set]
**** JavaScript [@liang2009malicious; @hou2010malicious; @choi2010automatic; @cova2010detection; @canali2011prophiler; @kim2011suspicious; @thomas2011design; @eshete2013binspect; @eshete2013einspect; @eshete2013effective; @xu2013cross; @yoo2014two; @wang2016deep]
**** Visual [@fu2006detecting; @wenyin2005detection; @liu2006antiphishing; @chen2009fighting; @zhang2011textual; @bannur2011judging; @afroz2011phishzoo; @dunlop2010goldphish; @hara2009visual]
**** Others [@xiang2009hybrid; @hou2010malicious; @yoo2014two; @soska2014automatically]
\[0\][\*]{}[**Others**]{} Context-based [@lee2012warningbird; @aggarwal2012phishari; @wang2013click; @cao2014detection; @cao2015detecting; @alshboul2015detecting; @nepali2016you]
Popularity-based [@garera2007framework; @whittaker2010large; @wenyin2010discovering; @thomas2011design; @choi2011detecting; @huh2011phishing; @sunil2012pagerank; @eshete2013binspect; @eshete2013einspect; @eshete2013effective; @marchal2014phishstorm; @gugelmann2015automated; @hu2016identifying]
\[tab:features\]
Machine Learning Algorithms for\
Malicious URL Detection {#sec:ml}
================================
There is a rich family of machine learning algorithms in literature, which can be applied for solving malicious URL detection. After converting URLs into feature vectors, many of these learning algorithms can be generally applied to train a predictive model in a fairly straightforward manner. However, to effectively solve the problem, some efforts have also been explored in devising specific learning algorithms that either exploit the properties exhibited by the training data of Malicious URLs, or address some specific challenges which the application faces. In this section, we categorize and review the learning algorithms that have been applied for this task, and also suggest suitable machine learning technologies that can be used to solve specific challenges encountered. We categorize the learning algorithms into: Batch Learning Algorithms, Online Algorithms, Representation Learning, and Others. Batch Learning algorithms work under the assumption that the entire training data is available prior to the training task. Online Learning algorithms treat the data as a stream of instances, and learn a prediction model by sequentially making predictions and updates. This makes them extremely scalable compared to batch algorithms. Next, we discuss representation learning methods, which in the context of Malicious URL Detection are largely concentrated towards feature selection techniques. Lastly, we discuss other learning algorithms, in challenges specific to Malicious URL Detection are addressed, including cost-sensitive learning, active learning, similarity learning, unsupervised learning and string pattern matching.
Batch Learning
--------------
Following the previous problem setting, consider a URL data set with $T$ URLs $\{(\u_1, y_1), \dots, (\u_T, y_T)\}$, where $\u_t\in\mathbb{U}$ for $t\in 1,\dots, T$ represents a URL from the training data, and $y_t \in \{1, -1\}$ is its class label where $y = 1$ indicates a malicious URL and $y=-1$ indicates a benign URL. Using an appropriate feature representation scheme ($g:\mathbb{U}\mapsto\mathbb{R}^d$) as discussed in the previous section, one can map a URL instance into a $d$-dimensional feature vector, i.e., $g(\u_i)\rightarrow\x_i$. As a result, one can apply any existing learning algorithm that can work with vector space data to train a predictive model for malicious URL detection tasks. In this section we review the most common popular batch learning algorithms that have been applied for Malicious URL Detection.
A popular family of batch learning algorithms can be categorized under a discriminative learning framework using regularized loss minimization as: $$\begin{aligned}
\min_\f \sum_{t=1}^T \ell(\f(\x_t), y_t) + \lambda\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{w})
\end{aligned}$$ where $\f(\x_t)$ can be either a linear model, e.g., $\f(\x_t)=\w\cdot\x_t + b$, or some nonlinear models (kernel-based or neural networks), $\ell(\f(\x_t), y_t)$ is some loss function to measure the difference between the model’s prediction $\f(\x_t)$ and the true class label $y$, $\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{w})$ is a regularization term to prevent overfitting, and $\lambda$ is a regularization parameter to trade-off model complexity and simplicity. In the following, we discuss two popular learning algorithms under this framework: Support Vector Machines and Logistic Regression.
### Support Vector Machine
(SVM) is one of most popular supervised learning methods. It exploits the structural risk minimization principle using a maximum margin learning approach, which essentially can be viewed as a special instance of the regularized loss minimization framework. Specifically, by choosing the hinge loss as the loss function and maximizing the margin, SVM can be formulated into the following optimization: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
(\w, b) \leftarrow \underset{\w, b}{\text{arg min}} \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \max(0, 1 - y_t (\w \cdot \x_t + b)) + \lambda \|\w\|_2^2
\end{aligned}$$ In addition, SVM can learn nonlinear classifiers using kernels [@Smola1998]. SVMs are probably one of the most commonly used classifiers for Malicious URL Detection in literature [@kolari2006svms; @pan2006anomaly; @ma2009beyond; @hou2010malicious; @bannur2011judging; @he2011efficient; @huang2012svm; @lee2012warningbird; @pao2012malicious; @chu2013protect; @sorio2013detection; @wang2013click; @xu2013cross; @marchal2014phishscore; @marchal2014phishstorm; @alshboul2015detecting].
### Logistic Regression
is another well-known discriminative model which computes the conditional probability for a feature vector $\x$ to be classified as a class $y=1$ by $$\begin{aligned}
P(y=1 | \x; \w, b) = \sigma(\w \cdot \x + b) = \frac{1}{1+e^{-(\mathbf{w}\cdot\mathbf{x}+b)}}
\end{aligned}$$ Based on the maximum-likelihood estimation (equivalently defining the loss function as the negative log likelihood), the optimization of logistic regression can be formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
(\w, b) \leftarrow \underset{\w, b}{\text{arg min}}\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T -\log P(y_t | \x_t; \w,b) + \lambda \mathcal{R}(\w)
\end{aligned}$$ where the regularization term can be either L2-norm $\mathcal{R}(\w) = ||\w||_2$ or L1-norm $\mathcal{R}(\w) = ||\w||_1$ for achieving a sparse model for high-dimensional data. Logistic Regression has been a popular learning method for Malicious URL Detection [@garera2007framework; @ma2009beyond; @hou2010malicious; @bannur2011judging; @canali2011prophiler; @wang2013click; @xu2013cross].
Other commonly used supervised learning algorithms focus on feature-wise analysis to obtain the prediction model. These include the Naive Bayes Classifier which computes the posterior probability of the class label assuming feature independence, and Decision Tree which adopts a greedy approach to constructing if-else rules based on the features offering the best splitting criteria.
### Naive Bayes
is a generative model for classification, which is “naive" in the sense that this model assumes all features of $\x$ are independent of each other. Specifically, let $P(\x|y)$ denote the conditional probability of the feature vector given a class, the independence assumption implies that $P(\x | y) = \Pi_{i=1}^d P(x_i | y)$, where $d$ is the number of features. By applying the Bayes Theorem, one can compute the posterior probability that a feature vector $\x$ is a malicious URL by $$\begin{aligned}
P(y=1 | \x) = \frac{P(\x|y = 1)}{P(\x | y = 1) + P(\x | y = -1)}
\end{aligned}$$ Naive Bayes has been used for Malicious URL Detection by [@hou2010malicious; @canali2011prophiler; @zhang2011textual; @aggarwal2012phishari; @xu2013cross; @cao2014detection].
### Decision Trees
is one of most popular methods for inductive inference and has a major advantage of its highly interpretable decision tree classification models which can also been converted into a rule set for human readability. Decision Trees have been used for malicious URL/web classification by [@seifert2008identification; @ma2009beyond; @bilge2011exposure; @canali2011prophiler; @aggarwal2012phishari; @chiba2012detecting; @wang2013click; @xu2013cross; @cao2014detection; @marchal2014phishscore; @marchal2014phishstorm; @alshboul2015detecting]. A closely related approach which gives us rules in the form of If-then was applied in using Associative Classification mining by [@abdelhamid2014phishing].
### Others and Ensembles
In addition to the above, other recently proposed approaches include applying Extreme Learning Machines (ELM) for classifying the phishing web sites using ELM by combining hybrid features in [@zhang2016two], and the spherical classification approach that allows batch learning models to be suitable for a large number of instances [@astorino2016malicious]. Beyond the binary classification approaches, [@choi2011detecting] formulated the problem of malicious URL detection as a *multi-label classification* task. The argument for the need of multi-label classification is that different attacks have varying degrees of threats. For example, a spam URL is not as deadly as a malware infection. They proposed a two-step method: first using SVM for classifying a URL as malicious or benign; and second, performing multi-label classification on the malicious URLs using some popular multi-label learning methods (e.g., RAkEL and ML-kNN).
In addition, there are quite a few malicious ULR detection approaches using ensemble learning methods. For example, [@ramanathan2012phishing] applied Adaboost for detecting phishing websites using a content-based approaching together with Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) for topic modeling. [@eshete2013binspect] employed an ensemble of multiple classifiers to make a weighted prediction. They independently train Decision Trees, Random Forests, Bayesian classifiers, Support Vector Machines and Logistic Regression, and design a confidence weighted majority voting scheme to make the final prediction. [@su2013suspicious] adopt a multi-view analysis where a logistic regression model is trained on different portions of the URL lexical features, and their optimal combination is learnt. [@eshete2013einspect; @eshete2013effective] adopt an evolutionary optimization method to search for the best combination of features and models to obtain the final ensemble. In practice, ensemble learning is a common and very successful learning strategy when there is a need for boosting the predictive performance.
Although batch learning algorithms are popular and easy to use, they can suffer from several major limitations when dealing with real-world malicious URL detection tasks. For example, batch learning methods often suffer from expensive retraining cost when the new training data may arrive frequently. Moreover, due to expensive retraining cost, batch learning algorithms often do not update the model frequently, making them difficult to capture some emerging threats in a timely way. Last but not least, batch learning methods may poorly adapt to the concept drift due to their nature of batch training. To address these limitations, online learning algorithms have been emerging as a promising direction for resolving the Malicious URL Detection tasks.
Online Learning
---------------
Online Learning represents a family of efficient and scalable learning algorithms that learn from data sequentially [@Cesa-Bianchi2006; @hoi2014libol]. Consider malicious URL detection, given a sequence of $T$ labeled instances, denoted by $\D = \{(\x_1, y_1), \dots, (\x_T, y_T)\}$, where $\x_t \in \R^d$ denotes the URL’s feature representation, and $y_t \in \{-1, +1\}$ is the class label. $y=+1$ denotes a malicious URL, and $y_t = -1$ denotes a benign URL. At each iteration $t$, the algorithm makes a prediction $\f(\x_t) = sgn(\w\cdot\x_t)$ where $\w$ is a $d$-dimensional weight vector initialized to $\mathbf{0}$ at $t=0$. After the prediction, the true class label $y_t$ is revealed to the learner, and based on the loss suffered, the learner makes an update of the model in order to improve predictions in the future. The general framework of an online learning algorithm is outlined in Algorithm \[alg:online\].
Initialize the prediction function as $\w_1 = \mathbf{0}$; Receive instance: $\x_t\in \R^d$; Predict $\hat{y_t}= \f_t(\x_t) ( = \sign(\w_t^\top\x_t)$ for binary classification); Receive correct label: $y_t\in\{-1,+1\}$; Suffer loss: $\ell_t(\w_t)$, which depends on the difference between $\w_t^\top\x_t$ and $y_t$; Update the prediction function $\w_t$ to $\w_{t+1}$;
Online learning algorithms are often much more scalable than traditional batch learning algorithms. Both the learning (model updates) and forecasting are computationally very efficient, making it especially suitable for malicious URL detection tasks with increasingly large amounts of training data (often with millions of instances and millions of features), where batch learning algorithms may suffer due to their expensive re-training and the high memory and computational constraints. Online learning algorithms are often developed with strong theoretical guarantees such that they are able to asymptotically learn the prediction models as good as the batch algorithms under mild assumptions.
Online learning has been actively explored and applied to resolve the malicious URL Detection tasks [@ma2009identifying]. In the following, we categorize the existing online learning algorithms roughly into two major categories: (i) First-order online algorithms, and (ii) Second-order online algorithms, and highlight some important concerns for their applications to malicious URL detection.
### First Order Online Learning
First-order algorithms learn by updating the weight vector $\w$ for classification sequentially by utilizing only the first-order information with training data. We briefly describe some popular first-order online algorithms applied to Malicious URL Detection.
*Perceptron* [@Rosenblatt1958] is the earliest online learning algorithm. In each iteration, whenever a mistake is made by the prediction model, Perceptron makes an update as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\w_{t+1} \leftarrow \w_t + y_t\x_t
\end{aligned}$$
*Online Gradient Descent* (OGD) [@Zinkevich2003] updates the weight vector $\w$ by applying the (Stochastic) Gradient Descent principle only to a single training instance arriving sequentially. Specifically, OGD makes an online update iteratively as: $$\begin{aligned}
\w_{t+1} \leftarrow \w_t - \eta \nabla\ell(\w_t, \x_t; y_t)
\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is a step size parameter, and $\ell(\w_t, \x_t; y_t)$ is some predefined loss function, e.g., Hinge-Loss, Negative Log-Likelihood, Squared Loss, etc.
*Passive-Aggressive* learning (PA) [@Crammer2006] is an online learning method that trades off two concerns: (i) passiveness: to avoid the new model deviating too much from the existing one, and (ii) aggressiveness: to update the model by correcting the prediction mistake as much as possible. The optimization of PA learning can be cast as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\w_{t+1} \leftarrow \underset{\w}{\text{argmin}} \frac{1}{2}||\w_t - \w||^2 \text{\quad subject to } y_t (\w \cdot \x_t ) \ge 1
\end{aligned}$$ The closed-form solution to the above can be derived as the following update rule: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&\w_{t+1} \leftarrow \w_t + \tau_t y_t \x_t \\
\text{\quad where \quad} & \tau_t = \max\big(\frac{1 - y_t (\w_t \cdot \x_t)}{||\x_t||^2},0\big)
\end{aligned}$$ The above model assumes a hard margin exists, that is, data can be linearly separable, which may not be always true, especially when data is noisy. To overcome this limitation, soft-margin PA variants, such as PA-I and PA-II, are often commonly used, which also have closed-form solutions [@Crammer2006].
The above first-order online learning algorithms have been widely applied for malicious URL detection tasks in literature [@ma2009identifying; @ma2011learning; @thomas2011design; @zhang2011malicious; @feroz2014examination], which are efficient, scalable, simple to understand, and easy to implement.
### Second Order Online Learning
Unlike the first order online learning, second order online learning aims to boost the learning efficacy by exploiting second-order information, e.g., the second order statistics of underlying distributions. For example, they usually assume the weight vector $\w$ follows a Gaussian distribution $\w \sim \N(\boldsymbol{\mu}, \Sigma)$ with mean vector $\boldsymbol\mu \in \R^d$ and covariance matrix $\Sigma \in \R^{d \times d}$. This is particularly useful for malicious URL Detection where data is sparse and high dimensional (due to the bag-of-words or alike representations of lexical features). Below we briefly describe some popular second-order algorithms applied to Malicious URL Detection.
*Confidence-Weighted* learning (CW) [@dredze2008confidence] is similar to the PA learning algorithms in terms of passiveness and aggressiveness tradeoff, except that CW exploits the second-order information. In particular, CW learning maintains a different confidence measure for each individual feature, such that weights of lower confidence will be updated more aggressively than those of higher confidence. Specifically, by modeling the weight vector as a Gaussian distribution, CW trades off between (i) passiveness: to avoid the new distribution of the model from deviating too much from the existing one; and (ii) aggressiveness: to update the model by not only correcting the prediction mistake if any, but also improving the classification confidence. More specifically, the CW learning can be cast into the following optimization: $$\begin{aligned}
(\boldsymbol\mu_{t+1}, \Sigma_{t+1}) \leftarrow \underset{\boldsymbol\mu,\Sigma}{\text{argmin }} D_{KL}(\N(\boldsymbol\mu, \Sigma)||\N(\boldsymbol\mu_t, \Sigma_t))\\
\text{subject to } y_t(\boldsymbol\mu, \x_t) \ge \phi^{-1}(\eta)\sqrt{\x_t^\top\Sigma\x_t}
\end{aligned}$$
Like the PA algorithms, the closed-form solutions for the CW optimization can be derived. CW algorithms have been applied for detecting malicious URLs by [@ma2009identifying; @blum2010lexical].
CW online learning and its variants have been explored for malicious URL detection in literature. For example, [@ma2010exploiting] applied the CW learning for malicious URL detection by improving the efficiency when exploiting the full covariance matrix for high-dimensional features, which uses an approximation technique to accelerate the covariance computation (although it may be still quite slow for very high-dimensional data). Further, Adaptive Regularization of Weights (AROW) [@crammer2009adaptive], an improved CW learning algorithm, for learning with non-separable data, was also used for Malicious URL Detection in [@le2011phishdef]. [@lin2013malicious] adopted a hybrid online learning technique by combining both CW and PA algorithms. Specifically, CW is used for learning from purely lexical features (e.g., bag of words), and PA is used for learning from descriptive features (e.g., statistical properties of the lexical features). They assume lexical features are more effective at detecting maliciousness, while they could change frequently (short-lived), whereas descriptive properties are more stable and static.
Besides, there are many other kinds of online learning algorithms (both first-order and second-order) in literature [@hoi2014libol], which may also be applicable to Malicious URL Detection, but yet to be extensively studied.
### Cost-Sensitive Online Learning
Unlike a regular binary classification task, Malicious URL Detection often faces the challenges of imbalanced label distribution (i.e., different number of malicious and benign URLs), and also a differential misclassification cost (malware installation is much more sever than a simple spam). Accordingly, the designed learning algorithms have to account for this differential misclassification rate in the optimization problem. There have been several algorithms in literature (for both batch and online settings) which address this issue. An example is Cost-Sensitive Online Learning [@WZH14; @zhao2013cost; @sdm-zhao2013cost; @zhao2015cost; @sahoo2016cost; @maurya2016online]. While traditional online learning algorithms simply optimize the classification accuracy or mistake rate (which could be misleading for an extremely imbalanced data set since a trivial algorithm that declares every URL as benign may achieve a very high accuracy), cost-sensitive online learning aims to optimize either one of two cost-sensitive measures: *sum* and *cost*, where *sum* is a weighted combination of specificity and sensitivity, and *cost* is the weighted summation of misclassification costs on positive and negative instances. By defining cost-sensitive loss functions, cost-sensitive online learning algorithms can be derived by applying the similar techniques (e.g., online gradient descent).
### Online Active Learning
Traditional supervised learning (either batch or online) methods often assume labels of training data can always be obtained by the learners at no cost. This is not realistic in real systems since labeling data can be quite expensive and time-consuming. Online Active Learning aims to develop an online learning algorithm for training a model that queries the label of an incoming unlabeled URL instance only if there is a need (e.g., according to some uncertainty measure)[@lu2016online; @icdm2016soal; @sculley2007online]. Typically, an active learner works in an online learning manner for a real system. For example, [@zhao2013cost; @lu2016online] proposed a cost-sensitive online active learning (CSOAL) approach for Malicious URL detection, where the online learner decides to query the label on the fly for an incoming unlabeled URL instance, such that the label will be queried only when the classification confidence of the URL instance is low or equivalently there is a high uncertainty for making a correct prediction.
Representation Learning
-----------------------
There are a large number and variety of features used for Malicious URL Detection. In particular, the usage of Bag of Words features for many of the feature categories results in millions of features. Moreover, as the number of URLs to be processed increases (which is the case in the real world setting), the number of features keeps growing as well. Learning prediction models using so many features suffers from two main drawbacks:
- [Computationally Expensive]{}: Training and test time become significantly high, not only because of the many mathematical operations to be performed, but also because of collecting and preprocessing so many features. In many cases (e.g. using bi-gram and tri-gram features), we obtain so many features that it is practically infeasible to perform any optimization.
- [Noisy Models]{}: Malicious URL Detection often exhibits number of features being larger than the number of instances available for training. Optimizing such models may result in overfitting.
To overcome these problems, researchers in both machine learning and cyber-security have proposed representation learning techniques, which in the context of Malicious URL Detection are mostly concentrated in the domain of feature selection techniques, i.e., the optimal subset of the given representation needs to be learnt. Here we discuss two categories of representation learning: feature selection, where the features are evaluated and selected based on their performance, and sparsity regularization, where the feature selection is implicitly done by incorporating it into the objective function.
### Feature Selection
There are two categories of feature selection where the features are scored on the basis of their performance and accordingly selection. These are *Filter Methods and Wrapper Methods* [@guyon2003introduction; @zuhair2016feature].
Filter methods usually use a statistical measure to evaluate the suitability of a particular feature. Based on this score, a set of features can be selected (and the poor features are filtered out). In most cases, this evaluation is done independently (i.e., independent of other features). Some popular approaches include the Chi squared test ($\chi^2$) [@pan2006anomaly; @zhang2014domain] and information gain scores [@kolari2006svms; @ma2009detecting; @toolan2010feature].
Wrapper methods try to select the best subset of features, by modeling the feature selection as a search problem. Different subsets of features are used to learn a prediction model, and are evaluated based on their performance [@khonji2011study; @basnet2012feature]. [@zhang2016application] use Genetic Algorithms to perform feature selection and divides the features into critical and non-critical. The critical features are used as is, while projection of the non-critical features are used to provide supplementary information, instead of being discarded. [@zuhair2016feature] adopt a maximum relevance and minimum redundancy criterion to select a robust subset of features.
### Sparsity Regularization
Due to a large number of features that are collected, in particular, lexical features, feature selection needs to be performed over millions of features. Applying filter and wrapper methods may not be very practical. Feature selection can be induced by appropriately modifying the objective function, i.e., (also called *Embedded methods*) to embed the feature selection into the optimization. Consider the generic optimization problem discussed before: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\min_\f \sum_{t=1}^T \ell(\f(\x_t), y_t) + \lambda\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{w})
\end{aligned}$$
where the first term aims to optimize the model performance, and the second term is the regularizer. $\lambda$ is the tradeoff parameter to regulate the effect of regularization. A common technique to induce feature selection (or alternately learn sparse models), is to use the L1-norm regularizer: () = || ||\_1 Unlike other popular regularizers (like L2-norm), which try to reduce model complexity, L1-regularization encourages zero values in the weight vector $\w$, which results in the corresponding features to not be selected for the final prediction model. This approach has been commonly used in conjunction with SVM and Logistic Regression models [@thomas2011design] in the batch setting. From the perspective of Online Setting, [Sparse Online Learning]{} [@wang2014high; @wu2016sol] has been developed to learn sparse models for high-dimensional sparse data (as exhibited in URL features that are very sparse and in the order of millions). [@hoi2012online; @wang2014online] proposed *Online Feature Selection* as a principled way for feature selection in an online learning manner, which aims to bound the number of selected features based on some given budget based on the first order online learning approaches. There is also a second-order Online Feature Selection approach [@wu2014massive].
Other Learning Methods
----------------------
While most of the algorithms used for Malicious URL Detection take the form of binary classification, other problem settings have also been studied. Some of these settings are designed for problems specifically arising in Malicious URL Detection. These include application of unsupervised learning to improve detection, learning similarity functions for detecting URLs, and learning interpretable models by string pattern mining for matching URLs. In the following we briefly discuss these problem settings for application to Malicious URL Detection.
### Unsupervised Learning
Unsupervised learning is the scenario where the true label of the data is not available during the training phase. These approaches rely on anomaly detection techniques where the anomaly is defined as an abnormal behavior. There are several algorithms in literature that can be used for anomaly detection (e.g. clustering, 1-class SVMs, etc.). Unfortunately, due to the extremely diverse set of URLs, it is hard to determine what is “normal” behavior and what is an anomaly. As a result, such techniques have not become very popular for malicious URL detection. However, some techniques have tried to use unsupervised techniques in conjunction with supervised techniques to improve performance. For example, [@yoo2014two] integrate supervised and unsupervised learning in two stages. In the first stage, the supervised prediction model predicts malicious URLs. For those that are classified as benign, a 1-class SVM is used to look for anomalies. [@feroz2015phishing] follow another style of integration of supervised and unsupervised where first k-means clustering is performed, and the cluster ID is used as a feature to train a classifier. [@popescu2015study] proposed the usage of an unsupervised hash-based clustering system, wherein specific clusters were labeled as malicious or benign (based on majority of the training data).
### Similarity Learning
Similarity learning aims to learn how similar two instances are (or in our case, how similar 2 URLs are). This field helps us identify which specific legitimate URLs are being mimicked by the attackers. For this setting, there is a set of protected URLs, and a set of suspicious URLs which are potentially trying to mimic the protected URLs. The aim is to measure the similarity of the suspicions URLs with the protected URLs, and if the similarity is above a specific threshold, we are able to spot a malicious URL. This setting has been largely addressed by extracting visual features [@liu2006antiphishing; @wenyin2005detection; @liu2006antiphishing; @chen2009fighting; @afroz2011phishzoo], and computing the similarity between the images of the suspicious and the protected URLs.
Another closely related area is learning using kernel functions (which are essentially notions of similarity, and also allow models to learn nonlinear classifiers [@Smola1998]. The prediction function takes the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\f_t(\x_t) = \sum_{i=1}^{t-1}\alpha_i\kappa(\x_i, \x_t)
\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_i$ is the coefficient for each instance learnt by some learning algorithm, and $\kappa$ denotes a kernel function (e.g., a polynomial or Gaussian kernel) which measures the similarity between the two instances. Whenever $\alpha_i\neq 0$, the training instance is often known as a support vector. There has been abundant literature on using kernels both in batch and online settings. The batch setting requires a lot of memory and computational resources, which is often intractable in the real world. Online Learning with kernels [@kivinen2004online] follows similar approaches as most other online learning techniques except that the pool of support vectors often will increasingly expand whenever there is a mistake in the online learning process. This will result in a very undesired drawback, i.e., the unbounded support vector size, which not only increases the computational cost but also the need for huge memory space for storing all the support vectors in online learning systems. To address this problem, budget online kernel learning has been extensively studied in online learning. Examples include Randomized Budget Perceptron [@cavallanti2007tracking], Forgetron [@Dekel2008], Projectron [@Orabona2008], and Bounded Online Gradient Descent [@zhao2012fast]. Some of these techniques were empirically studied by [@ma2009identifying] for malicious URL detection, but they did not manage to get satisfactory performance. This is not a surprising result, as any small budget size that would enable scalable computation would miss out on most of the instances to be stored as URLs, and will give a very poor kernel approximation. With the recent development of efficient functional approximation techniques for large-scale online learning with kernels [@wang2013large; @lu2016large], it may be possible to obtain competitive performance. Further, Online Multiple Kernel Learning [@hoi2013online; @sahoo2014online] approaches allow for learning with multi-modality, wherein different feature sets correspond to different modalities.
### String Pattern Matching
As discussed in the previous sections, lexical features are often obtained in the form of bag-of-words representation, which is often abnormally of high dimensionality and could grow over time. Using such predefined features may not be practical for real-world deployment, and such an approach may cause hindrance to interpreting particular common types of attacks. Further, such techniques cannot identify signatures in the form of substrings. To address these issues, [@huang2014malicious] proposed a dynamic string pattern mining approach which borrowed the ideas from efficient searching and substring matching. A similar approach based on Trigrams was also developed by [@xiong2015mird]. [@prakash2010phishnet; @sun2015autoblg; @bo2016automating] also designed an approximate string matching strategy to improve over the exact match required by blacklists. While these methods performed string pattern analysis on the URL string, [@choi2010automatic] performed string pattern analysis on JavaScript features.
Summary of Machine Learning Algorithms
--------------------------------------
There are a a wide variety of machine learning algorithms in literature that can be directly used in the context of Malicious URL Detection. Due to potentially a tremendous size of training data (millions of instances and features), there was a need for scalable algorithms, and that is why Online Learning methods have found a lot of success in this domain. Efforts have also been made to exploit the sparsity of the data to improve the algorithmic performance. Lastly, there have been efforts in modifying the problem from a typical binary classification algorithm to address class imbalance and multi-class problems. Using these technologies to build live systems is another challenging task. In the following we discuss real systems to demonstrate how Malicious URL Detection can be used as a service. We categorize the representative references according to the machine learning methods applied in Table \[tab:ml\].
[**Methodology**]{} **Sub Category** [**Representative References**]{}
-------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[0\][\*]{}[**Batch Learning**]{} SVM [@kolari2006svms; @pan2006anomaly; @ma2009beyond; @hou2010malicious; @bannur2011judging; @he2011efficient; @huang2012svm; @lee2012warningbird; @pao2012malicious; @chu2013protect; @sorio2013detection; @wang2013click; @xu2013cross; @marchal2014phishscore; @marchal2014phishstorm; @alshboul2015detecting]
Logistic Regression [@garera2007framework; @ma2009beyond; @hou2010malicious; @bannur2011judging; @canali2011prophiler; @zhang2011textual; @wang2013click; @xu2013cross]
Naïve Bayes [@hou2010malicious; @canali2011prophiler; @aggarwal2012phishari; @xu2013cross; @cao2014detection]
Decision Trees [@seifert2008identification; @ma2009beyond; @bilge2011exposure; @canali2011prophiler; @aggarwal2012phishari; @chiba2012detecting; @wang2013click; @xu2013cross; @cao2014detection; @marchal2014phishscore; @marchal2014phishstorm; @alshboul2015detecting]
Ensembles and others [@astorino2016malicious; @choi2011detecting; @eshete2013binspect; @su2013suspicious; @eshete2013einspect; @eshete2013effective]
\[0\][\*]{}[**Online Learning**]{} First-order algorithms [@Rosenblatt1958; @Zinkevich2003; @Crammer2006; @ma2009identifying; @ma2011learning; @thomas2011design; @zhang2011malicious]
Second-order algorithms [@dredze2008confidence; @ma2009identifying; @blum2010lexical; @ma2010exploiting; @crammer2009adaptive; @le2011phishdef; @lin2013malicious]
Cost-Sensitive Online Learning [@WZH14; @zhao2013cost]
Online Active learning [@sculley2007online; @zhao2013cost; @lu2016online]
\[0\][\*]{}[**Representation Learning**]{} Feature Selection [@guyon2003introduction; @zuhair2016feature; @pan2006anomaly; @zhang2014domain; @kolari2006svms; @ma2009detecting; @toolan2010feature; @khonji2011study; @basnet2012feature; @zhang2016application]
Sparsity Regularization [@thomas2011design; @wang2014high; @wu2016sol; @hoi2012online; @wang2014online; @wu2014massive]
\[0\][\*]{}[**Other Learning**]{} Similarity Learning [@liu2006antiphishing; @wenyin2005detection; @liu2006antiphishing; @chen2009fighting; @afroz2011phishzoo]
Unsupervised Learning [@yoo2014two; @feroz2015phishing; @popescu2015study]
String Pattern Matching [@wardman2009identifying; @huang2014malicious; @xiong2015mird; @prakash2010phishnet; @sun2015autoblg; @bo2016automating; @choi2010automatic]
\[tab:ml\]
Malicious URL Detection as a Service
====================================
Malicious URL detection using machine learning can have immense real-world applications. However, it is nontrivial to make it work in practice. Several researchers have proposed architectures for building end-to-end malicious URL Detection systems and deployed them for real-world utilities. Many have focused on providing services to Online Social Networks like Twitter, where users share plenty of URLs ([@thomas2011design; @lee2012warningbird; @cao2015detecting; @alshboul2015detecting] etc.)
Design Principles
-----------------
When designing and building a real-world malicious URL detection system using machine learning techniques, we aim to achieve the following desired characteristics and goals: (i) *High Accuracy*: This is often one of the most important goals to be achieved for any malicious URL detection. Ideally, we want to maximize the detection of all the threats of malicious URLs (“true positives") while minimizing the wrong detection of classifying benign URLs into malicious (“false positives"). Since no system is able to guarantee a perfect detection accuracy, a practical malicious URL detection system often has to trade off between the ratios of false positives and false negatives by setting different levels of detection thresholds according to the application needs.
\(ii) *Fast Detection*: The detection speed is another important concern for a practical malicious URL detection system, particularly for online systems or cybersecurity applications. For example, when deploying the malicious URL detection service in online social networks like Twitter, whenever a user posts any new URL, an ideal system should be able to detect the malicious URL immediately and then block the URL and its related tweets in real time to prevent any threats and harms to public. For some cybersecurity applications, the requirement of detection speed could be more severe, which sometimes needs the detection to be done in milliseconds such that a malicious URL request can be blocked immediately in real time whenever a user clicks on any URLs.
\(iii) *High Scalability*: Consider the increasing huge amount of URLs, a real-world malicious URL detection system must be able to scale up for training the models with millions or even billions of training data. In order to achieve the high scalability desire, there are two major kinds of efforts and solutions. The first is to explore more efficient and scalable learning algorithms, e.g., online learning or efficient stochastic optimization algorithms. The second is to build scalable learning systems in distributed computing environments, e.g., using emerging distributed learning frameworks (such as Apache Hadoop or Spark) on the clusters.
\(iv) *Strong Adaptation*: A real-world malicious URL detection system has to deal with a variety of practical complexity, including adversarial patterns such as concept drifting where the distribution of malicious URLs may change over time or even change in adversarial way to bypass the detection system, missing values (e.g., features that are unavailable or too expensive to compute in required time cost), increasing number of new features, etc. A real-world malicious URL detection system must have a strong adaptation ability to work effectively and robustly under most circumstances.
\(v) *Good Flexibility*: Given the high complexity of malicious URL detection, a real-world malicious URL detection system with machine learning should be designed with good flexibility for easy improvements and extensions. These include the quick update of the predictive models with respect to new training data, being easy to replace the training algorithm and models whenever there is a need, being flexible to be extended for training models to deal with a variety of new attacks and threats, and finally being able to interact with human beings whenever there is a need, e.g., active learning or crowdsourcing for enhancing performance.
Design Frameworks
-----------------
In the following, we discuss some real-world implementations, heuristics and systems that have attempted to make Malicious URL Detection as a service in reality.
[@thomas2011design] designed a framework called *Monarch*, and the idea of providing Malicious URL Detection as a service was floated. Monarch would crawl web-services in real-time and determine whether the URL would be malicious or benign. Differences in malicious URL distribution between Twitter and Spam Emails were observed, and accordingly different models were built for both. Monarch, at the time of development, could process 15-million URLs a day for less than \$800 per day. The implementation of this system comprises a URL aggregator which collects URLs from some data streams (e.g., Twitter or Emails). From these URLs, features are collected, which are then processed and converted into sparse features in the feature extractor. Finally, a classifier is trained on the processed data to detect malicious URLs. The collected features include both URL-based features and content-based features. In addition, initial URLs, landing URLs, and Redirects are also extracted. For fast classification training from the perspective of efficiency in memory and algorithmic updates, a linear classifier based on logistic regression with the L1-regularizer (for inducing sparse models) is trained on a distributed computing architecture [@singer2009efficient; @mcdonald2010distributed]. They are able to process an entire URL in 5.5 seconds on average, most of which is spent on extracting the features. The prediction is relatively very efficient.
[@whittaker2010large] applied machine learning techniques to predict malicious URLs, and subsequently attempted to maintain a blacklist of malicious URLs using these predictions. *Prophiler* [@canali2011prophiler] is another system, where it recommends that the URL classification to be performed in a two-stage process. The first stage would be by analyzing the light-weight URL features, and quickly filtering out URLs for which the classifier has a high confidence. For the low confidence predictions, a more intensive content based analysis can be performed. *WarningBird* [@lee2012warningbird] is similar to Monarch in that the primary aim is to detect suspicious URLs in a Twitter streams except that it uses heuristics to obtain new features, and the classifier used was an SVM model using LIBLINEAR [@fan2008liblinear] and not trained on a distributed architecture. BINSPECT [@eshete2013binspect] is another system that was developed to take advantage of ensemble classification, where the final prediction was made on the basis of confidence weighted majority voting.
Practical Issues and Open Problems
==================================
Despite many exciting advances over last decade for malicious URL detection using machine learning techniques, there are still many open problems and challenges which are critical and imperative, including but not limited to the following.
\(i) *High volume and high velocity*: The real-world URL data is obviously a form of big data with high volume and high velocity. In August 2012 [@sullivan2012google] disclosed that Google’s search engine found more than 30 trillion unique URLs on the Web, and crawls 20 billion sites a day. It is almost impossible to train a malicious URL detection model on all the world’s URL data using machine learning. A clever way of sampling effective URL training data (including both malicious and benign ones) and training them using efficient and scalable machine learning algorithms will be always an open question for researchers in both machine learning and cybersecurity communities.
\(ii) *Difficulty in acquiring labels*: Most existing malicious URL detection approaches by machine learning are based on supervised learning techniques, which require labeled training data including both benign and malicious URL data. The labeled data can be obtained by either asking human experts to label or acquiring from blacklists/whitelists (which were often also labeled manually). Unfortunately the scale of such labeled data is tiny as compared to the size of all available URLs on the web. For example, one of the largest public available malicious URL training data sets in academia [@ma2009identifying] has only 2.4 million URLs. Thus, there is a large room for open research in resolving the difficulty of acquiring labeled data or learning with limited amount of labeled data. One possible direction is to go beyond purely supervised learning by exploring unsupervised learning or semi-supervised learning, such as active learning in some recent studies [@zhao2013cost]. Another possible direction is to explore crowdsourcing techniques [@hu2011poster; @doan2011crowdsourcing] by facilitating organizations and individuals to label and share malicious URLs, which however is nothing trivial given the practical concerns of cost, privacy and security threats of sharing malicious URLs. More innovations could be explored in the future.
\(iii) *Difficulty in collecting features*: As mentioned in the previous section, collecting features for representing a URL is crucial for applying machine learning techniques. However, it is often not a trivial task for collecting many kinds of features for a URL. In particular, some features could be costly (in terms of time) to collect, e.g., host-based features. Some features might be missing, or noisy, or can not be obtained due to a variety of reasons (e.g., IP/DNS addresses of a URL may vary time to time). In addition, real-world URLs may not always be alive. For example, as observed by [@mcgrath2008behind], many malicious URLs may be short lived, and thus accessing its features (e.g., IP address) may not be possible when it is not alive. Besides, some previous benign URLs may be stopped for services, and then were replaced by some malicious URL (or vice versa). All these challenges post a lot of research and development difficulties for collecting features.
\(iv) *Feature Representation*: In addition to high volume and high velocity of URL data, another key challenge is the very high-dimensional features (often in millions or even billion scale). This poses a huge challenge in practice when training a classification model with such very high-dimensional data. Some commonly used learning techniques, such as feature selection, dimension reduction and sparse learning, have been explored, but they are far from solving the challenge effectively. Besides the high dimensionality issue, another more severe challenge is the evolving high dimensional feature space, where the feature space often grows over time when new URLs and new features are added into the training data. This again poses a great challenge for a clever design of new machine learning algorithms which can adapt to the dynamically changing feature spaces. Recently [@saxe2017expose] proposed the usage of a character level Convolutional Neural Network methodology to learn a URL embedding. Using similar deep learning approaches to learn a URL embedding appears to be a promising direction.
\(v) *Concept drifting and new emerging challenges*: Another challenge is the concept drifting where the distribution of malicious URLs may change over time due to the evolving behaviours of new threats and attacks. This requires machine learning techniques to be able to deal with concept drifting whenever it appears. Besides, another recent challenge is due to the popularity of URL shortening services, which take a long URL as input and produce a short URL as an output. Such URL shortening services potentially offer an excellent way for malicious hackers and criminals to hide their malicious URLs and thus creates a new challenge for automated malicious URL detection systems. Last but not least, it is almost for sure that there will always new types of challenges for malicious URL detection since sophisticated malicious hackers and criminals will always find ways to bypass the cyber security systems. How to make effective learning systems which can quickly detect and adapt themselves for resolving new challenges will be a long term research challenge. An additional issue is to identify vulnerable websites which may become malicious in the future [@soska2014automatically]. This is important, as URLs deemed to be benign in the past may get compromised and become malicious in the future. This would also help the site administrators to take steps to address such vulnerabilities.
Related Surveys
===============
Recent years have witnessed innovative applications of machine learning in cyber security [@singh2013survey; @dua2016data; @buczak2016survey]. They discuss a variety of other cyber threats, and do not focus on Malicious URL Detection. For example, [@buczak2016survey] present a survey on the usage of machine learning and data mining techniques for Cyber Security intrusion detection. While there are surveys on Malicious URL Detection using Machine Learning, most are either limited in scope or outdated. For example [@abu2007comparison] did an empirical analysis of different machine learning techniques for Malicious URL Detection in 2007, at a time when neither features nor machine learning models for this task had been extensively explored. [@khonji2013phishing; @patil2015survey] gave a broad overview of Phishing and its problems, but do not extensively survey the feature representation or the learning algorithms aspect. [@zuhair2016feature] focused on primarily feature selection for Malicious URL Detection.
Malicious URL Detection is closely related to other areas of research such as Spam Detection. [@spirin2012survey] conducted a comprehensive survey in 2012, wherein they identified different types of spam(Content Spam, Link Spam, Cloaking and Redirection, and Click Spam), and the techniques used to counter them. They categorized the Spam Detection techniques into Content-based Spam Detection (using lexical features such as Bag of Words and Natural Language Processing techniques), Link-based spam detection (utilizing the information regarding the connectivity of different URLs) and other miscellaneous techniques. Spam Detection is heavily reliant on processing the text in an email and utilizing natural language processing for analysis. These techniques are not directly useful for Malicious URL Detection, unless they are used to draw inference about the context in which the URL has appeared. Despite some overlap between the techniques used for spam detection and malicious URL detection, spam detection techniques largely qualify as techniques that use context-based features for detecting malicious URLs. Other recent learning based spam detection surveys include [@blanzieri2008survey; @crawford2015survey; @heydari2015detection], many of which focus on spam appearing in online reviews.
Another closely related area is Web Page Classification. [@qi2009web] conducted a survey on the features and algorithms deployed for web-page classification. The most common types of features used are the content features (text and HTML tags on the page), and Features of Neighbors (classification based on the the class label of similar web pages). After the feature construction, standard classification techniques are applied, often with focus on multi-class classification and hierarchical classification. Like Spam detection, web-page classification also benefits significantly from text classification techniques.
Spam Detection, Web Page Classification, and Malicious URL Detection, all use a few similar types of features and techniques to solve the problem. In practice, these methods and feature can complement each other to improve the performance of the machine learning models. In general, the features used for Spam Detection and Web-page classification are a subset of those features that are commonly used for Malicious URL Detection.
Concluding Remarks and Future Directions
========================================
Malicious URL detection plays a critical role for many cybersecurity applications, and clearly machine learning approaches are a promising direction. In this article, we conducted a comprehensive and systematic survey on Malicious URL Detection using machine learning techniques. In particular, we offered a systematic formulation of Malicious URL detection from a machine learning perspective, and then detailed the discussions of existing studies for malicious URL detection, particularly in the forms of developing new feature representations, and designing new learning algorithms for resolving the malicious URL detection tasks. In this survey, we categorized most, if not all, the existing contributions for malicious URL detection in literature, and also identified the requirements and challenges for developing Malicious URL Detection as a service for real-world cybersecurity applications.
Finally, we highlighted some practical issues for the application domain and indicated some important open problems for further research investigation. In particular, despite the extensive studies and the tremendous progress achieved in the past few years, automated detection of malicious URLs using machine learning remains a very challenging open problem. Future directions include more effective feature extraction and representation learning (e.g., via deep learning approaches), more effective machine learning algorithms for training the predictive models particularly for dealing with concept drifts (e.g., more effective online learning) and other emerging challenges (e.g., domain adaption when applying a model to a new domain), and finally a smart design of closed-loop system of acquiring labeled data and user feedback (e.g., integrating an online active learning approach in a real system).
0
This work was supported by Singapore MINDEF-SMU-DIRP Research Grant (9015101283).
0
Machine Learning Algorithms
===========================
Here we organize the main references based on the types of machine learning algorithms that researchers have used for Malicious URL Detection.
**Algorithm Category** **Algorithm Sub-Category** **Representative References**
------------------------ ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Batch Learning** Supervised [@kolari2006svms; @pan2006anomaly; @garera2007framework]
[@seifert2008identification; @ma2009beyond; @hou2010malicious]
[@yadav2010detecting; @bilge2011exposure; @canali2011prophiler]
[@choi2011detecting; @chiba2012detecting; @lee2012warningbird]
[@pao2012malicious; @chu2013protect; @sorio2013detection]
[@wang2013click; @xu2013cross; @cao2014detection]
[@marchal2014phishscore; @marchal2014phishstorm; @alshboul2015detecting]
Unsupervised & Hybrid [@yoo2014two; @feroz2015phishing]
**Online Learning** First Order [@ma2009identifying; @ma2011learning; @thomas2011design]
[@zhang2011malicious; @lin2013malicious]
**** Second-Order [@ma2009identifying; @blum2010lexical; @ma2010exploiting]
[@le2011phishdef; @ma2011learning; @zhang2011malicious]
[@lin2013malicious]
**** Others [@hoi2012online; @zhao2013cost; @wang2014high]
[@wang2014online; @WZH14; @wu2014massive]
**Other Algorithms** Active Learning [@zhao2013cost; @lu2016online]
**** String Pattern Mining [@choi2010automatic; @prakash2010phishnet; @huang2014malicious]
**** Ensemble Learning [@eshete2013binspect; @eshete2013einspect; @eshete2013effective; @su2013suspicious]
\[tab:algorithms\]
[Doyen Sahoo]{} Doyen Sahoo is a PhD Candidate in School of Information Systems, Singapore Management University. He is supervised by Dr. Steven Hoi. His primary research topic is Online Learning with nonlinear models. He works on theoretical aspects of machine learning with focus on Online Learning, Deep Learning and Multiple Kernel Learning. He also works on applications of machine learning to portfolio optimization, and cyber-security. Prior to starting PhD, Doyen completed his B.Eng. in Computer Science from Nanyang Technological University.
[Chenghao Liu]{} Chenghao Liu received his B.Sc. degree from Computer Science and Technology College, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China in 2011. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree from the College of Computer Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. His current research interests include machine learning and data mining.
[Steven C.H. Hoi]{} Dr. Steven Hoi is an Associate Professor in the School of Information Systems (SIS), Singapore Management University (SMU), Singapore. Prior to joining SMU, he was a tenured Associate Professor at the School of Computer Engineering of the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. He received his Bachelor degree from Tsinghua University, and his Master and Ph.D degrees from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research interests include large-scale machine learning (online learning and deep learning) with application to tackling big data analytics challenges across a wide range of real-world applications, including multimedia retrieval, social media, web search and information retrieval, computer vision and pattern recognition, computational finance, cyber security, mobile and software data mining, etc. He has published over 150 papers in premier conferences and journals, and served as an organizer, area chair, senior PC, TPC member, editors, and referee for many top conferences and premier journals. He is the recipient of the Lee Kong Chian Fellowship Award due to his research excellence. Currently he is the Editor in Chief of Neurocomputing journal.
[^1]: Doyen Sahoo is with the School of Information Systems, Singapore Management University, Singapore, email: [email protected]
[^2]: Chenghao Liu was with the School of Information Systems, Singapore Management University, Singapore, email: [email protected]
[^3]: Corresponding author: Steven C.H. Hoi is with the School of Information Systems, Singapore Management University, Singapore, email: [email protected]
[^4]: This work has been submitted to the IEEE for possible publication. Copyright may be transferred without notice, after which this version may no longer be accessible.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We start by introducing a new class of structured matrix polynomials, namely, the class of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomials, to provide a common framework for many classes of structured matrix polynomials that are important in applications: the classes of (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic, and alternating matrix polynomials. Then, we introduce the families of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencils and of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencils, which are particular examples of block minimal bases pencils recently introduced by Dopico, Lawrence, Pérez and Van Dooren, and show that any $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured odd-degree matrix polynomial can be strongly linearized via an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencil. Finally, for the classes of (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic, and alternating odd-degree matrix polynomials, the $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured framework allows us to perform a global and structured backward stability analysis of complete structured polynomial eigenproblems, regular or singular, solved by applying to a $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencil a structurally backward stable algorithm that computes its complete eigenstructure, like the palindromic-QR algorithm or the structured versions of the staircase algorithm. This analysis allows us to identify those $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencils that yield a computed complete eigenstructure which is the exact one of a slightly perturbed structured matrix polynomial. These pencils include (modulo permutations) the well-known block-tridiagonal and block-antitridiagonal structure-preserving linearizations. Our analysis incorporates structure to the recent (unstructured) backward error analysis performed for block Kronecker linearizations by Dopico, Lawrence, Pérez and Van Dooren, and share with it its key features, namely, it is a rigorous analysis valid for finite perturbations, i.e., it is not a first order analysis, it provides precise bounds, and it is valid simultaneously for a large class of structure-preserving strong linearizations.'
author:
- 'Froilán M. Dopico, Javier Pérez, and Paul Van Dooren'
title: Structured backward error analysis of linearized structured polynomial eigenvalue problems
---
structured backward error analysis, complete polynomial eigenproblems, structured matrix polynomials, structure-preserving linearizations, Möbius transformations, matrix perturbation theory, dual minimal bases
65F15, 15A18, 14A21, 15A22, 15A54, 93B18
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Matrix polynomials with special algebraic structures occur in numerous applications in engineering, mechanics, control, linear systems theory, and computer-aided graphic design. Some of the most common of these algebraic structures that appear in applications are the (skew-)symmetric [@symmetric; @Skew], (anti-)palindromic [@GoodVibrations; @Palindromic], and alternating structures [@GoodVibrations; @Alternating]. Palindromic matrix polynomials appear, to name a few applications, in the study of resonance phenomena of rail tracks under high frequency excitation forces [@Jacobi; @rail1; @rail2], in the numerical simulation of the behavior of periodic surface acoustic wave filters [@SAW1; @SAW2], in passivity tests of a linear dynamical system [@passivity], and in discrete-time linear-quadratic optimal control problems [@optimal_control]. Symmetric (or Hermitian) matrix polynomials arise in the classical problem of vibration analysis [@Hermitian1; @Lancaster_book; @Lancaster_book2; @quadratic], and alternating matrix polynomials find applications, for instance, in the study of corner singularities in anisotropic elastic materials [@corner1; @corner2; @corner3], in the study of gyroscopic systems [@giro1; @Lancaster_book2; @Lancaster_paper], and in continuous-time linear-quadratic optimal control problems [@optimal_control]. Further details of different applications of (structured and unstructured) matrix polynomials can be found in the classical references [@Lancaster_book; @Kailath; @Rosenbrock], the modern surveys [@Volker_book Chapter 12] and [@NEV; @quadratic], and the references therein, and in the reference [@GoodVibrations].
Structured matrix polynomials present rich symmetries in their spectra, which are discussed in detail, for example, in [@spectral_equivalence; @Alternating; @Palindromic; @Skew]. Since the algebraic structures of matrix polynomials stem usually from the physical symmetries underlying problems arising from applications, these spectral symmetries reflect specific physical properties, and it is very desirable to preserve them in computed solutions. However, general unstructured polynomial eigensolvers may destroy these spectral symmetries due to rounding errors. As a consequence, the development and investigation of polynomial eigensolvers that are able to exploit and preserve the structure that the matrix polynomials might possess, have been the focus of an intense research during the last decade (see, for example [@Volker_book Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 12], and the references therein).
Square regular matrix polynomials are usually related to [*polynomial eigenvalue problems*]{} (PEPs), while singular matrix polynomials are related to [*complete polynomial eigenvalue problems*]{} (CPEs), since in the singular case the so called minimal indices have to be considered in addition to the eigenvalues. When the spectral symmetries of structured matrix polynomials are taken into account (i.e., they have to be preserved in the computed solution), those problems receive the names of [*structured polynomial eigenvalue problems*]{} (SPEPs) and [*structured complete polynomial eigenvalue problems*]{} (SCPEs), respectively. The standard approach to solve a PEP or a CPE (or a SPEP or a SCPE) associated with a matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ is to linearize $P(\lambda)$ into a matrix pencil (i.e., a matrix polynomial of degree 1). Linearization transforms the original polynomial eigenvalue problem into an equivalent generalized eigenvalue problem, which can be solved by using mature and well-understood generalized eigensolvers such as the QZ algorithm or the staircase algorithm [@QZ; @staircase; @VanDooren83] or their structured counterparts [@skew-staircase; @Implicit_palQR; @MMMM_pal; @Schroder_thesis; @palQR]. For this reason, one of the preferred approaches to develop structured numerical methods for solving SPEPs and SCPEs associated with structured matrix polynomials starts by devising structure-preserving linearizations [@Greeks2; @FPR1; @FiedlerHermitian; @FPR2; @FPR3; @VectorSpaces; @PalindromicFiedler; @PartI; @PartII; @PartIII; @symmetric; @definite; @ChebyshevPencils; @GoodVibrations; @ChebyFiedler; @Leo2016].
The theory of linearizing structured matrix polynomials in a structure preserving way is already well-understood [@spectral_equivalence; @Alternating; @Palindromic; @Skew]. It is well-known that any odd-degree structured matrix polynomial in the classes listed in the first paragraph of this section can be linearized in a structure-preserving way, regardless of whether the matrix polynomial is regular or singular. However, some even-degree structured matrix polynomials in these classes do not have any linearization with the same structure due to some spectral subtle obstructions [@spectral_equivalence Section 7.2]. This phenomenon suggests that for even-degree structured matrix polynomials linearizations should sometimes be replaced by other low degree matrix polynomials in numerical computations [@pal_quadratification]. Due to this even-degree/odd-degree dichotomy for the existence of classes of structure-preserving linearizations, we only consider in this work numerical methods based on structure-preserving linearizations for solving SPEPs or SCPEs associated with odd-degree matrix polynomials.
One interesting recent advance in the theory of linearizations of matrix polynomials has been the introduction of the family of (strong) block minimal bases pencils [@minimal_pencils], since many of the linearizations that have appeared previously in the literature are included in this family of pencils [@Maribel] and, in addition, allow a simple, concise, and unified theory [@minimal_pencils]. A particular but very important subfamily of strong block minimal bases pencils is the family of block Kronecker pencils [@minimal_pencils]. Block Kronecker pencils include (modulo permutations) all Fiedler linearizations [@Fiedler_pencils; @minimal_pencils], but infinitely many more linearizations are also included in this family. All the linearizations belonging to the family of block Kronecker pencils have the following properties that are very desirable in numerical applications:
- they are strong linearizations, regardless whether the matrix polynomial is regular or singular;
- they are easily constructible from the coefficients of the matrix polynomials;
- eigenvector of regular matrix polynomials are easily recovered from those of the linearizations;
- minimal bases of singular matrix polynomials are easily recovered from those of the linearizations;
- there exists a simple shift relation between the minimal indices of singular matrix polynomials and the minimal indices of the linearizations, and such relation is robust under perturbations;
- they guarantee global backward stability of polynomial eigenvalue problems solved via block Kronecker linearizations.
Additionally, block Kronecker pencils have been generalized to allow one to construct strong linearizations for matrix polynomials that are expressed in some non-monomial polynomial bases [@ChebyshevPencils; @Leo2016].
Another key advantage of the family of strong block minimal bases pencils is that one can find easily in it structure-preserving strong linearizations for odd-degree structured matrix polynomials in relevant structured classes [@Leo2016 Section 5]. This observation has led to the introduction of the family of structured block Kronecker pencils [@PartI; @PartII; @PartIII]. Linearizations based on structured block Kronecker pencils share with block Kronecker linearizations properties (i)–(vi), listed above, together with the property that they preserve a number of important structures that an odd-degree matrix polynomial might possess.
Once a structured matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ is linearized via a structure-preserving strong linearization $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$, a structured method (i.e., a method preserving the spectral symmetries of the spectrum of the polynomial) can be applied on the pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ to solve the SPEP or SCPE associated with $P(\lambda)$. There are many available structure-preserving methods for computing the eigenstructure of certain structured matrix pencils. For example, for regular palindromic or anti-palindromic matrix pencils we have a URV-like method [@URV], a Jacobi-like method [@Jacobi], the palindromic-QR algorithm [@Implicit_palQR; @palQR], doubling methods [@doubling], or the QZ algorithm with the Laub trick [@MMMM_pal]. For singular palindromic or anti-palindromic matrix pencils there is a structured version of the GUPTRI algorithm (a structured staircase form), that deflates the singular part of palindromic pencils [@Schroder_thesis]. All these methods can also be applied to alternating matrix pencils as well, since any alternating pencil can be transformed into a palindromic or anti-palindromic pencil via a Cayley transformation [@GoodVibrations]. Methods for other structures can be found in [@Jacobi_Hermitian; @Krylov_symmetric], for example.
Some of the structured methods for structured pencils mentioned in the paragraph above are *structurally global backward stable*[^1] [@Implicit_palQR; @Schroder_thesis], and others behave in practice in a structurally global backward stable way. This means that if the complete eigenstructure of a structured matrix polynomial is computed as the complete eigenstructure of a structure-preserving linearization of the matrix polynomial, then the computed complete eigenstructure is the exact one of a nearby matrix pencil with the same structure as the given matrix polynomial. However, it has been an open problem to determine whether or not these methods compute the exact complete eigenstructure of a structured nearby matrix polynomial. We only know one reference where this problem is addressed in the case of skew-symmetric matrix polynomials [@Skew-symmetric_Andrii]. Nonetheless, the analysis in [@Skew-symmetric_Andrii] is only valid for infinitesimal perturbations and it does not provide precise bounds. Only precise “local” structured backward error analyses valid for each particular computed eigenvalue or eigenpair have been developed so far. See, for example, [@Ahmad2011; @Bora2014; @Bora_her; @Bora_pal], or [@Adhikari; @Rafikul2011] for the case of the structured linearizations in the vector spaces $\mathbb{L}_1(P)$, $\mathbb{L}_2(P)$ and $\mathbb{DL}(P)$, introduced in [@MMMM_vector_space; @GoodVibrations] and [@symmetric].
The main goal of this work is to perform for the first time a rigorous structured global backward error analysis of SPEPs or SCPEs associated with odd-degree structured matrix polynomials of certain important classes solved by applying a structured algorithm to a structured block Kronecker linearization. The backward error analysis that we present here takes its inspiration from the (unstructured) global backward error analysis of PEPs and CPEs solved via block Kronecker linearizations performed in [@minimal_pencils Section 6]. As a consequence, our error analysis shares with the analysis in [@minimal_pencils Section 6] its novel properties with respect to previous global backward error analyses: (1) it is valid for perturbations with finite norms, (2) it delivers precise bounds, (3) it is valid simultaneously for a very large class of structure-preserving linearizations. As a corollary of our results, we solve the open problem of proving that the famous block-tridiagonal and block-antitridiagonal structure preserving strong linearizations presented in [@Greeks2; @PalindromicFiedler; @Alternating; @Palindromic; @Skew] yield computed complete eigenstructures of structured matrix polynomials that enjoy perfect structured backward stability from the polynomial point of view.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:basics\], we review some basic concepts and results, and summarize the notation used through the paper. In Section \[sec:Mobius\], we recall Möbius transformations of matrix polynomials and their relation with structured matrix polynomials. The concept of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial is also introduced in this section with the aim of providing a common framework for the classes of (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic and alternating matrix polynomials of odd degree. In Section \[sec:minimal\_bases\_pencils\], we recall the family of (strong) block minimal bases pencils, and state some of its most important properties. We also introduce the new family of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block minimal bases pencils, which is a subfamily of strong block minimal bases pencils, and use this family to show that any odd-degree $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial can be strongly linearized in a structure-preserving way. In Section \[sec:classical\_structures\], we introduce the family of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencils, review the family of structured block Kronecker pencils, and review how structure-preserving strong linearizations for odd-degree (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic or alternating matrix polynomials can be easily constructed from structured block Kronecker pencils. Finally, in Section \[sec:analysis\], we perform a rigorous structured and global backward error analysis of SPEPs or SCPEs solved by means of structured block Kronecker pencils. Our conclusions are presented in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Basic concepts, auxiliary results and notation {#sec:basics}
==============================================
Throughout the paper we use the following notation. By $\mathbb{F}$ we denote either the field of complex numbers $\mathbb{C}$ or the field of real numbers $\mathbb{R}$. We also consider the involution $a\rightarrow \overline{a}$, that is, the identity map when $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{R}$, or, when $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{C}$, the bijection that maps any complex number to its complex conjugate. By $\mathbb{F}(\lambda)$ and $\mathbb{F}[\lambda]$ we denote, respectively, the field of rational functions and the ring of polynomials with coefficients in $\mathbb{F}$. The set of $m\times n$ matrices with entries in $\mathbb{F}[\lambda]$ is denoted by $\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{m\times n}$. Usually, we refer to this set as the set of $m\times n$ *matrix polynomials*, and any $P(\lambda)\in \mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{m\times n}$ is called an $m\times n$ matrix polynomial. Row and column *vector polynomials* refer to matrix polynomials with $m=1$ or $n=1$, respectively. The set of $m\times n$ matrices with entries in $\mathbb{F}(\lambda)$ is denoted by $\mathbb{F}(\lambda)^{m\times n}$. The algebraic closure of the field $\mathbb{F}$ is denoted by $\overline{\mathbb{F}}$.
A matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)\in \mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{m\times n}$ is said to have *grade* $g$ if it is written as $$\label{eq:poly}
P(\lambda) = P_g\lambda^g + P_{g-1}\lambda^{g-1} + \cdots + P_1\lambda + P_0, \quad \mbox{with }P_g,\hdots,P_0\in\mathbb{F}^{m\times n},$$ where any of the coefficient matrices $P_i$, including the leading coefficient $P_g$, may be the zero matrix. The *degree* of the matrix polynomial is denoted by $\deg(P(\lambda))$, and it refers to the maximum integer $d$ such that $P_d$ is a nonzero matrix. Notice that a polynomial of degree $d$ can be considered as a polynomial of grade $g\geq d$. In this work, when the grade of a polynomial is not explicitly stated, we consider its grade as the degree of the polynomial.
For any $g\geq \deg(P(\lambda))$, the *$g$-reversal matrix polynomial* of $P(\lambda)$ is the matrix polynomial $${\ensuremath\mathrm{rev}}_g P(\lambda):= \lambda^g P(\lambda^{-1}).$$ Notice that the $g$-reversal operation maps matrix polynomials of grade $g$ to matrix polynomials with the same grade. However, the degree of ${\ensuremath\mathrm{rev}}_g P(\lambda)$ may be different to the degree of $P(\lambda)$.
The *normal rank* of a matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{m\times n}$ is defined as the rank of $P(\lambda)$ over the field $\mathbb{F}(\lambda)$, and it is denoted by $\rank (P)$. In other words, the normal rank of $P(\lambda)$ is the size of the largest non-identical zero minor of $P(\lambda)$ (see [@Gantmacher], for example). By $\rank(P(\lambda_0))$ we refer to the rank of the constant matrix $P(\lambda_0)$ obtained by evaluating the matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ at $\lambda_0$. We say that $P(\lambda_0)$ has full row (resp. column) rank if $\rank (P(\lambda_0))=m$ (resp. $\rank (P(\lambda_0))=n$).
The operator $(\cdot)^\star$ denotes either the transpose when $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{R}$ or the conjugate transpose when $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{C}$. Given a matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ as in , the matrix polynomials $P(\lambda)^\star$ and $\overline{P}(\lambda)$ are defined as $P(\lambda)^\star := P_g^\star\lambda^g+\cdots + P_1^\star \lambda + P_0^\star$ and $\overline{P}(\lambda) = \overline{P}_g \lambda^g+\cdots+\overline{P}_1\lambda+\overline{P_0}$, respectively, where the conjugate of a matrix should be understood entrywise.
We focus in this work mainly on square matrix polynomials (that is, $m=n$) with one of the following algebraic structures:
- *$\star$-symmetric*: $P(\lambda)^\star = P(\lambda)$,
- *$\star$-skew-symmetric*: $P(\lambda)^\star =-P(\lambda)$,
- *$\star$-palindromic*: $P(\lambda)^\star = {\ensuremath\mathrm{rev}}_g P(\lambda)$,
- *$\star$-anti-palindromic*: $P(\lambda)^\star = -{\ensuremath\mathrm{rev}}_g P(\lambda)$,
- *$\star$-even*: $P(\lambda)^\star = P(-\lambda)$,
- *$\star$-odd*: $P(\lambda)^\star = -P(-\lambda)$,
where $g$ denotes the grade of $P(\lambda)$. A matrix polynomial is said to be *$\star$-alternating* if it is either $\star$-even or $\star$-odd. When $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{C}$, a $\star$-(skew-)symmetric matrix polynomial is usually called a (skew-)Hermitian matrix polynomial [@Hermitian]. However, we do not employ that terminology in this paper. Also, most of the times we drop the “$\star$-” in the notation, and just say (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic or alternating matrix polynomials. Additionally, we denote by $\mathscr{S}(P)\in\{$symmetric, skew-symmetric, palindromic, anti-palindromic, even, odd$\}$ the structure that the structured matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ posses.
An important distinction in the theory of matrix polynomials is between regular and singular matrix polynomials. A matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ is said to be *regular* if it is square and the scalar polynomial $\det P(\lambda)$ is not identically equal to the zero polynomial. Otherwise, the matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ is said to be *singular*. The *complete eigenstructure* of a regular matrix polynomial consists of its elementary divisors (spectral structure), both finite and infinite, while for a singular matrix polynomial it consists of its elementary divisors together with its right and left minimal indices (spectral structure+singular structure). The singular structure of matrix polynomials will be briefly reviewed later in the paper. For more detailed definitions of the spectral structure of matrix polynomials, we refer the reader to [@spectral_equivalence Section 2].
An important feature of structured matrix polynomials are the special symmetry properties of their spectral [@symmetric; @GoodVibrations; @Alternating; @Palindromic; @Skew] and singular structures [@singular]. As we mentioned in the introduction, the problem of computing the complete eigenstructure of a structured matrix polynomial using an algorithm that preserves its spectral and singular structure symmetries in the computed solution is called in this work the *structured polynomial eigenvalue problem (SPEP)*, for regular matrix polynomials, or the *structured complete polynomial eigenvalue problem (SCPE)*, for singular matrix polynomials.
Minimal bases and minimal indices play a relevant role in this work, so they are reviewed in the following. When a matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{m\times n}$ is singular, it has nontrivial left and/or right *rational null spaces* $$\label{eq:nullspaces}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{N}_\ell(P) & := \{y(\lambda)^T\in\mathbb{F}(\lambda)^{1\times m} \quad \mbox{such that} \quad y(\lambda)^TP(\lambda) = 0\},\\
\mathcal{N}_r(P) & := \{x(\lambda)\in\mathbb{F}(\lambda)^{n \times 1} \quad \mbox{such that} \quad P(\lambda)x(\lambda) = 0\}.
\end{split}$$ These two spaces are particular instances of a *rational* subspace [@Forney]. Any rational subspace $\mathcal{V}$ has always bases consisting entirely of vector polynomials. The *order* of a vector polynomial basis of $\mathcal{V}$ is defined as the sum of the degrees of its vectors [@Forney Definition 2]. The *minimal bases* of $\mathcal{V}$ are those polynomial bases of $\mathcal{V}$ with least order [@Forney Definition 3]. Although minimal bases are not unique, the ordered list of degrees of the vector polynomials in any minimal basis of $\mathcal{V}$ is always the same [@Forney Remark 4, p. 497]. This list of degrees is called the list of [*minimal indices*]{} of $\mathcal{V}$. Then, the *left (resp. right) minimal indices and bases of a matrix polynomial* $P(\lambda)$ are defined as those of the rational subspace $\mathcal{N}_\ell(P)$ (resp. $\mathcal{N}_r(P)$).
To work in practice with minimal bases the following definition will be useful, where by the *$i$th row degree* of a matrix polynomial $Q(\lambda)$ we denote the degree of the $i$th row of $Q(\lambda)$.
[[@zigzag Definition 2.3]]{} \[def:rowreduced\] Let $Q(\lambda)\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{m\times n}$ be a matrix polynomial with row degrees $d_1,d_2,\hdots,d_m$. The [*highest row degree coefficient matrix*]{} of $Q(\lambda)$, denoted by $Q_h$, is the $m \times n$ constant matrix whose $j$th row is the coefficient of $\lambda^{d_j}$ in the $j$th row of $Q(\lambda)$, for $j=1,2,\hdots,m$. The matrix polynomial $Q(\lambda)$ is called [*row reduced*]{} if $Q_h$ has full row rank.
Theorem \[thm:minimal\_basis\] is a useful characterization of minimal bases. This theorem can be found in, for example, [@Forney Main Theorem-Part 2, p. 495]. However, for convenience, we present here the version in less abstract terms in [@FFP2015 Theorem 2.14].
\[thm:minimal\_basis\] The rows of a matrix polynomial $Q(\lambda)\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{m\times n}$ are a minimal basis of the rational subspace they span if and only if $Q(\lambda_0) \in \overline{\mathbb{F}}^{m \times n}$ has full row rank for all $\lambda_0 \in \overline{\mathbb{F}}$ and $Q(\lambda)$ is row reduced.
Since all of the minimal bases that appear in this work are arranged as the rows of a matrix, with a slight abuse of notation, we say that an $m\times n$ matrix polynomial (with $m < n$) is a minimal basis if its rows form a minimal basis of the rational subspace they span.
Another fundamental concept in this paper is the concept of *dual minimal bases*, which is introduced in Definition \[def:dualminimalbases\].
[(see [@Kailath] or [@zigzag Definition 2.10])]{} \[def:dualminimalbases\] Two matrix polynomials $K(\lambda)\in{{\mathbb F}}[\lambda]^{m_1\times n}$ and $N(\lambda)\in{{\mathbb F}}[\lambda]^{m_2\times n}$ are called *dual minimal bases* if $K(\lambda)$ and $N(\lambda)$ are both minimal bases and they satisfy $m_1+m_2 = n$ and $K(\lambda)N(\lambda)^T = 0$.
Following the convention in [@minimal_pencils], we will sometimes say “$N(\lambda)$ is a minimal basis dual to $K(\lambda)$”, or vice versa, to refer to matrix polynomials $K(\lambda)$ and $N(\lambda)$ as those in Definition \[def:dualminimalbases\].
We illustrate in Example \[ex-L-Lamb\] the concept of dual minimal bases with a simple example that plays a key role in this paper (this example can be also found in [@minimal_pencils Example 2.6]). Here and throughout the paper we occasionally omit some, or all, of the zero entries of a matrix.
\[ex-L-Lamb\] Consider the following matrix polynomials: $$\label{eq:Lk}
L_k(\lambda):=\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & \lambda \\
& -1 & \lambda \\
& & \ddots & \ddots \\
& & & -1 & \lambda \\
\end{bmatrix}\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{k\times(k+1)},$$ and $$\label{eq:Lambda}
\Lambda_k(\lambda)^T :=
\begin{bmatrix}
\lambda^{k} & \cdots & \lambda & 1
\end{bmatrix} \in {{\mathbb F}}[\lambda]^{1\times (k+1)}.$$ Using Theorem \[thm:minimal\_basis\], it is easily checked that $L_k(\lambda)$ and $\Lambda_k(\lambda)^T$ are both minimal bases. Additionally, $L_k(\lambda)\Lambda_k(\lambda)=0$ holds. Therefore, $L_k(\lambda)$ and $\Lambda_k(\lambda)^T$ are dual minimal bases. Also, from [@minimal_pencils Corollary 2.4] and basic properties of the Kronecker product $\otimes$, we get that $L_k(\lambda) \otimes I_n$ and $\Lambda_k(\lambda)^T \otimes I_n$ are also dual minimal bases.
Notice the following property of the matrix polynomials $L_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n$ and $\Lambda_k(\lambda)^T\otimes I_n$ in Example \[ex-L-Lamb\]. Both are minimal bases whose row degrees are all equal (equal to 1 in the case of $L_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n$, and equal to $k$ in the case of $\Lambda_k(\lambda)^T\otimes I_n$). Those are the minimal bases that we are interested in this work, and, sometimes, we will refer to them as *constant-row-degrees minimal bases*.
In Lemma \[lemma:constant-row-degrees\] we present a simple characterization of constant-row-degrees minimal bases. This result is an immediate corollary of Theorem \[thm:minimal\_basis\], together with the obvious fact that if the leading coefficient of a matrix polynomial has full row rank, then its leading and highest row degree coefficients coincide, so its proof is omitted.
\[lemma:constant-row-degrees\] The matrix polynomial $K(\lambda)=\sum_{i=0}^\ell K_i\lambda^i$ of degree $\ell$ is a constant-row-degrees minimal basis if and only if $K(\lambda_0)$ has full row rank for all $\lambda_0\in\overline{\mathbb{F}}$ and its leading coefficient $K_\ell$ has full row rank.
We now recall the definitions of unimodular matrix polynomials and (strong) linearizations of matrix polynomials. A *unimodular matrix polynomial* $U(\lambda)$ is a matrix polynomial whose determinant $\det U(\lambda)$ is a nonzero constant. A matrix pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is said to be a linearization of a matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ of grade $g$ if for some $s\geq 0$ there exist unimodular matrices $U(\lambda)$ and $V(\lambda)$ such that $$U(\lambda)\mathcal{L}(\lambda)V(\lambda) =
\begin{bmatrix}
I_s & 0 \\
0 & P(\lambda)
\end{bmatrix}.$$ In addition, a linearization $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is called a *strong linearization* of $P(\lambda)$ if ${\ensuremath\mathrm{rev}}_1\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a linearization of ${\ensuremath\mathrm{rev}}_g P(\lambda)$. We recall that the key property of any strong linearization $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ of the matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ is that $P(\lambda)$ and $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ share the same finite and infinite elementary divisors and the same number of left and right minimal indices. However the minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ may take any value [@spectral_equivalence Theorem 4.11]. For this reason, in the case of singular matrix polynomials, the identification of those strong linearizations with the additional property that their minimal indices allow one to recover the minimal indices of the polynomial via some simple rules has been the focus of an intense research [@singular; @Fiedler_pencils; @PalindromicFiedler; @spectral_equivalence; @minimal_pencils].
Given two matrix polynomials $P(\lambda)$ and $Q(\lambda)$ with the same size, we say that $P(\lambda)$ and $Q(\lambda)$ are *strictly equivalent* if $Q(\lambda)=UP(\lambda)V$, for some nonsingular constant matrices $U$ and $V$, and we say that $P(\lambda)$ and $Q(\lambda)$ are *$\star$-congruent* if $Q(\lambda) = XP(\lambda)X^\star$, for some nonsingular constant matrix $X$. Clearly, $\star$-congruence is a particular case of strict equivalence. We recall that strict equivalence preserves both the spectral and singular structures of matrix polynomials [@spectral_equivalence Definition 3.1].
Another simple concept that plays an important role in this work is the concept of coninvolutory matrix [@coninvolutory], which is introduced in Definition \[def:involutory\]
\[def:involutory\] A matrix $A\in\mathbb{F}^{n\times n}$ is said to be *coninvolutory* if $A\cdot \overline{A}=I_n$.
Coninvolutory matrices when $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{R}$ are just known as *involutory* matrices, and any real $n\times n$ involutory matrix $A$ satisfies $A\cdot A = I_n$. In this work, we will make use of $2\times 2$ coninvolutory matrices. When $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{R}$, there is a nice characterization of $2\times 2$ involutory matrices. This is shown in Example \[ex:involutory\].
\[ex:involutory\] Any $2\times 2$ real involutory matrix is of the form $$\begin{bmatrix}
\pm 1 & 0 \\
0 & \pm 1
\end{bmatrix} \quad \mbox{or} \quad
\begin{bmatrix}
\pm \sqrt{1-bc} & b \\ c & \mp \sqrt{1-bc}
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $b,c\in\mathbb{R}$ satisfy $bc\leq 1$.
The backward error analysis in Section \[sec:analysis\] requires the use of norms of matrix polynomials and their submultiplicative-like properties. Following [@minimal_pencils], we choose the simple norm in Definition \[def:norm\].
\[def:norm\] Let $P(\lambda) = \sum_{i=0}^g P_i \lambda^i \in \mathbb{F} [\lambda]^{m\times n}$. Then the Frobenius norm of $P(\lambda)$ is $$\|P(\lambda)\|_F := \sqrt{\sum_{i=0}^g \|P_i\|_F^2} \, .$$ Notice that the value of the norm $\|P(\lambda)\|_F$ does not depend on the grade chosen for $P(\lambda)$. This property allows one to work with $\|P(\lambda)\|_F$ without specifying the grade of the matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$.
As it is pointed out in [@minimal_pencils], the norm $\|\cdot\|_F$ is not submultiplicative, that is, $\|P(\lambda) \, Q(\lambda)\|_F\allowbreak \leq \|P (\lambda)\|_F \, \|Q(\lambda)\|_F$ does not hold in general. However, Lemma \[lemma:normsproducts\] shows that the norm $\|\cdot\|_F$ satisfies some submultiplicative-like properties.
\[lemma:normsproducts\][[@minimal_pencils Lemma 2.16]]{} Let $P(\lambda) = \sum_{i=0}^g P_i \lambda^i$, let $Q(\lambda) = \sum_{i=0}^t Q_i \lambda^i$, and let $\Lambda_k (\lambda)^T$ be the vector polynomial defined in . Then the following inequalities hold:
1. $\displaystyle \|P (\lambda) \, Q(\lambda)\|_F \leq \sqrt{g+1} \cdot \sqrt{\sum_{i=0}^g \|P_i\|_2 ^2} \cdot \|Q(\lambda)\|_F$ ,
2. $\displaystyle \|P(\lambda) \, Q(\lambda)\|_F \leq \sqrt{t+1} \cdot \|P(\lambda)\|_F \cdot \sqrt{\sum_{i=0}^t \|Q_i\|_2 ^2}$ ,
3. $\|P (\lambda) \, Q(\lambda)\|_F \leq \, \min\{\sqrt{g+1} , \sqrt{t+1} \}\, \|P (\lambda)\|_F \, \|Q(\lambda)\|_F$ ,
4. $\|P(\lambda) \, (\Lambda_k (\lambda) \otimes I_p) \|_F \leq \, \min\{\sqrt{g+1}, \sqrt{k+1} \} \, \|P(\lambda) \|_F$,
5. $\|(\Lambda_k (\lambda)^T \otimes I_n) \, Q(\lambda)\|_F \leq \, \min\{\sqrt{t+1}, \sqrt{k+1} \} \, \|Q(\lambda) \|_F$,
where we assume that all the products are defined.
Finally, since in Section \[sec:analysis\] we need to consider pairs of matrices $(C,D)$ where $C$ and $D$ may have different sizes, and, thus, $(C,D)$ cannot be considered as a matrix pencil, we introduce the corresponding Frobenius norm as: $$\label{eq:norm_pair}
\|(C,D)\|_F:=\sqrt{\|C\|_F^2+\|D\|_F^2}.$$
Möbius transformations and structured odd-grade matrix polynomials {#sec:Mobius}
==================================================================
The goal of this section is to introduce a unified framework for the most important classes of structured matrix polynomials of odd grade considered in the literature, namely, (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic and alternating odd-grade matrix polynomials. This requires to introduce the concepts of Möbius tranformation and $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial.
Möbius transformations of matrix polynomials
--------------------------------------------
Möbius transformations of matrix polynomials were formally introduced in [@Mobius] as a broader theory for different transformations that had appeared previously in the literature [@Hermitian; @definite; @MMMM_vector_space; @GoodVibrations; @Alternating; @Palindromic], and since then, they play an increasingly important role as a useful tool in the theory of matrix polynomials.
\[def:Mobius\][[@Mobius Definition 3.4]]{} Let $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$. The *Möbius transformation* of $B(\lambda):= \sum_{i=0}^g B_i\lambda^i$ induced by $A$ is defined by $$\mathbf{M}_A[B](\lambda) := \sum_{i=0}^g B_i(a\lambda +b)^i(c\lambda +d)^{g-i}, \quad \mbox{where} \quad A =\begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{bmatrix}.$$
We recall that Möbius transformations are special cases of rational transformations of matrix polynomials [@rational]. Indeed, a Möbius transformation can be calculated via the rational expression $$\label{eq:Mobius_rational}
\mathbf{M}_A\left[B \right](\lambda) =
(c\lambda+d)^g B\left( \frac{a\lambda + b}{c\lambda + d} \right), \quad \mbox{where} \quad A =\begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{bmatrix}.$$
In Example \[ex:Mobius\_pencil\], we illustrate the effect of Möbius transformation on matrix pencils.
\[ex:Mobius\_pencil\] Let $L(\lambda)=\lambda F+E$ and let $A = \left[\begin{smallmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{smallmatrix}\right]\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$. Then, $\mathbf{M}_A[L](\lambda) = \lambda(aF+cE)+bF+dE$.
The $g$-reversal of a matrix polynomial operation is a well-known example of a Möbius transformation of matrix polynomials. We show in Example \[ex:reversal\] how to formulate this operation as a Möbius transformation.
\[ex:reversal\] Let $P(\lambda)=\sum_{i=0}^g P_i\lambda^i$, and let $
R_2 := \left[\begin{smallmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{smallmatrix}\right].
$ Then, ${\ensuremath\mathrm{rev}}_g P(\lambda) = \mathbf{M}_{R_2}[P](\lambda)$.
Many important properties of Möbius transformations of matrix polynomials follow easily from Definition \[def:Mobius\] or its rational transformation formulation in . In Proposition \[prop:properties\_Mobius\], we state without proofs those that will be relevant in this work. For a thorough study of the properties of Möbius transformations of matrix polynomials we refer the reader to [@Mobius].
\[prop:properties\_Mobius\] For any $A,B\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$ the following statements hold.
- $\mathbf{M}_A[P+Q](\lambda)=\mathbf{M}_A[P](\lambda)+\mathbf{M}_A[Q](\lambda)$, for any $m\times n$ matrix polynomials $P(\lambda)$ and $Q(\lambda)$ both of grade $g$.
- Let $P(\lambda)$ and $Q(\lambda)$ be two matrix polynomials of grades $g_1$ and $g_2$, respectively. If $P(\lambda)Q(\lambda)$ is defined, then $\mathbf{M}_A[PQ](\lambda)=\mathbf{M}_A[P](\lambda)\mathbf{M}_A[Q](\lambda)$, where $P(\lambda)Q(\lambda)$ is considered as a matrix polynomial of grade $g_1+g_2$.
- If $Q(\lambda)=P(\lambda)\otimes I_n$, then $\mathbf{M}_A[Q](\lambda) = \mathbf{M}_A[P](\lambda)\otimes I_n$.
- $\mathbf{M}_A[P^T](\lambda)=\mathbf{M}_A[P](\lambda)^T$.
- If $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{C}$, then $\overline{\mathbf{M}_A[P]}(\lambda) = \mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{P}](\lambda)$ and $\mathbf{M}_A[P](\lambda)^*=\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[P^*](\lambda)$.
- Möbius transformations act block-wise, i.e., $\left[\mathbf{M}_A[P](\lambda)\right]_{\mu\kappa} = \mathbf{M}_A[P_{\mu\kappa}](\lambda)$, for any row and column index sets $\mu$ and $\kappa$, and where $[P(\lambda)]_{\mu\kappa}$ has to be considered as a matrix polynomial with a grade equal to the grade of $P(\lambda)$.
- $\mathbf{M}_B\left[\mathbf{M}_A[P]\right](\lambda) = \mathbf{M}_{AB}[P](\lambda)$.
Möbius transformations play well with the constant-row-degrees dual minimal bases that will be involved in the construction of the strong block minimal bases pencils in Section \[sec:minimal\_bases\_pencils\] (see Definition \[def:minlinearizations\]). More precisely, we have Theorem \[thm:minimal\_basis\_Mobius\]. Some of the results in Theorem \[thm:minimal\_basis\_Mobius\] can be obtained from [@Mobius part (f) of Theorem 7.4], where the effect of Möbius transformations on minimal bases is studied. Nonetheless, for the sake of completeness, we provide a proof of Theorem \[thm:minimal\_basis\_Mobius\] here.
\[thm:minimal\_basis\_Mobius\] Let $A\in{\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$. Then, the following statements hold.
- If $K(\lambda)=\sum_{i=0}^\ell K_i\lambda^i$ is a minimal basis with all its row degrees equal to $\ell$, then $\mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)$ is also a minimal basis with all its row degrees equal to $\ell$.
- If $K(\lambda)$ and $N(\lambda)$ are a pair of dual minimal bases with all the row degrees of $K(\lambda)$ equal to $\ell$ and all the row degrees of $N(\lambda)$ equal to $t$, then $\mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)$ and $\mathbf{M}_A[N](\lambda)$ are also a pair of dual minimal bases with all the row degrees of $\mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)$ equal to $\ell$ and all the row degrees of $\mathbf{M}_A[N](\lambda)$ equal to $t$.
Proof of part (a). In the proof we use the notation $\widehat{K}(\lambda)=\sum_{i=0}^\ell \widehat{K}_i\lambda^i := \mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)$, and denote the entries of $A$ as $A=\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{smallmatrix}\right]$. We first show that $\widehat{K}(\lambda_0)$ has full row rank for all $\lambda_0\in\overline{\mathbb{F}}$. The proof proceeds by contradiction. Assume that $\widehat{K}(\lambda_0)$ is rank deficient for some $\lambda_0$, that is, there exists a vector $x\neq 0$ such that $x^\star\widehat{K}(\lambda_0)=x^\star \sum_{i=0}^\ell K_i (a\lambda_0+b)^i(c\lambda_0+d)^{\ell-i}=0$. We have to distinguish two cases. First, assume that $c\lambda_0+d\neq 0$. In this situation we get $x^\star \widehat{K}(\lambda_0)=(c\lambda_0+d)^\ell x^\star K\left( (a\lambda_0+b)/(c\lambda_0+d) \right)=0$ which implies $x^\star K\left( (a\lambda_0+b)/(c\lambda_0+d) \right)=0$, contradicting that $K(\mu_0)$ has full row rank for all $\mu_0$. Assume, now, that $c\lambda_0+d=0$. Notice that the nonsingularity of $A$ implies $a\lambda_0+b\neq 0$. Then, we get $x^\star \widehat{K}(\lambda_0)=(a\lambda_0+b)^\ell x^\star K_\ell$, which implies $x^\star K_\ell = 0$, contradicting that $K_\ell$ has full row rank. Therefore, $\widehat{K}(\lambda_0)$ has full row rank for all $\lambda_0$.
Next, we proof that $\widehat{K}_\ell$ has full row rank. Notice that the leading coefficient of $\widehat{K}(\lambda)$ can be computed as $\widehat{K}_\ell = {\ensuremath\mathrm{rev}}_{\ell} \left[ \mathbf{M}_A[K] \right](0) = \mathbf{M}_{AR_2}[K](0) = \sum_{i=0}^\ell K_i a^ic^{\ell-i}$, where $
R_2=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right]
$ (recall Example \[ex:reversal\]). The proof proceeds by contradiction. Assume that $\widehat{K}_\ell$ has not full row rank, that is, there exists a vector $x\neq 0$ such that $x^\star \widehat{K}_\ell=x^\star \sum_{i=0}^\ell K_i a^ic^{\ell-i}=0$. Again, we have to distinguish two cases. First, assume that $c\neq 0$. Then, we get $x^\star \widehat{K}_\ell = c^\ell x^\star K(a/c)$, which implies $x^\star K(a/c)=0$, contradicting that $K(\mu_0)$ has full row rank for all $\mu_0$. Assume now that $c=0$. Notice that the nonsingularity of $A$ implies, in this situation, $a\neq 0$. In this case, we get $x^\star \widehat{K}_\ell=a^\ell x^\star K_\ell=0$ which implies $x^\star K_\ell=0$, contradicting that $K_\ell$ has full row rank. Therefore, $\widehat{K}_\ell$ has full row rank.
Since $\mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda_0)$ has full row rank for any $\lambda_0\in\overline{\mathbb{F}}$, and its leading matrix coefficient has full row rank, by Lemma \[lemma:constant-row-degrees\], we conclude that $\mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)$ is a minimal basis with all its row degrees equal to $\ell$.
Proof of part (b). From part (a) we get that $\mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)$ and $\mathbf{M}_A[N](\lambda)$ are minimal bases with all the row degrees of $\mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)$ equal to $\ell$ and all the row degrees of $\mathbf{M}_A[N](\lambda)$ equal to $t$. Then, from $K(\lambda)N(\lambda)^T=0$ together with properties (b) and (d) in Proposition \[prop:properties\_Mobius\], we get $\mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)\mathbf{M}_A[N](\lambda)^T=0$. Therefore, $\mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)$ and $\mathbf{M}_A[N](\lambda)$ are constant-row-degrees dual minimal bases.
$\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomials {#sec:MA-structure}
--------------------------------------------
Möbius transformations of matrix polynomials can be used to introduce a new class of structured matrix polynomials that generalizes most of the classes that have been considered in the literature for odd-grade matrix polynomials. This is done in the following definition, where we introduce the concept of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial.
\[def:Mstructure\] Let $P(\lambda)=\sum_{i=0}^g P_i\lambda^i \in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{n\times n}$ and let $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$. Then, the matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ is said to be *$\mathbf{M}_A$-structured* if $\mathbf{M}_A\left[P\right](\lambda)=P(\lambda)^\star$.
We illustrate in Example \[ex:M\_A\_pencil\] the concept of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomials in the simplest case, that is, for matrix pencils.
\[ex:M\_A\_pencil\] Let $L(\lambda)= \lambda F+E$, and let $A = \left[\begin{smallmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{smallmatrix}\right]\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$. If $$F^\star = aF+cE \quad \mbox{and} \quad E^\star = bF+dE,$$ then $L(\lambda)$ is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix pencil, and vice versa.
The classes of (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic, and alternating structured odd-grade matrix polynomials are particular examples of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomials. In Table \[table:1\] we summarize the values of the entries of the matrix $A$ for these structures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- -- -- --
**[Structure]{} & $\mathbf{a}$ & $\mathbf{b}$ & $\mathbf{c}$ & $\mathbf{d}$\
Symmetric & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1\
Skew-symmetric & -1 & 0 & 0 & -1\
Palindromic & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0\
Anti-palindromic & 0 & -1 & -1 & 0\
Alternating (even) & -1 & 0 & 0 & 1\
Alternating (odd) & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1\
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- -- -- --
: The classical structured matrix polynomials of odd degree as $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomials: entries of the matrix $A=[a \,\,b;\, c \,\,d]$ for the classes of (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic, and alternating matrix polynomials.
\[table:1\]
A key feature of the $\mathbf{M}_A$-structure introduced in Definition \[def:Mstructure\] is that it is preserved under $\star$-congruence, as it is stated in the following proposition. The proof of this result is straightforward, so it is omitted.
\[prop:congruence\] Let $P(\lambda)\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{n\times n}$, let $A\in{\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$, and let $X\in\mathbb{F}^{n\times n}$ be a constant nonsingular matrix. Then, the matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ is $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured if and only if the matrix polynomial $X^\star P(\lambda)X$ is $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured.
We establish in Theorem \[thm:singular\_structure\_Mobius\] relationships between right and left minimal indices and bases of singular $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomials. In particular, we show that the sets of right and left minimal indices of a singular $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial are equal. This theorem is a generalization of [@singular Theorems 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6] for $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomials. In the proof of Theorem \[thm:singular\_structure\_Mobius\], we will use the following notation. For any set of polynomial vectors $\mathcal{B}=\{x_1(\lambda),\hdots,x_p(\lambda) \}$ and any $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$, we denote by $\mathbf{M}_A[\mathcal{B}]$ the set $\{\mathbf{M}_A[x_1](\lambda),\hdots,\mathbf{M}_A[x_p](\lambda) \}$, where each Möbius transformation $\mathbf{M}_A[x_i](\lambda)$ is taken with respect to the degree of $x_i(\lambda)$, and by $\mathcal{\overline{B}}$ the set $\{ \overline{x}_1(\lambda),\hdots, \overline{x}_p(\lambda)\}$.
\[thm:singular\_structure\_Mobius\] Let $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$ and let $P(\lambda)\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{n\times n}$ be a singular $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial. Then, the sets of right and left minimal indices of $P(\lambda)$ are equal. Furthermore, if $\{x_1(\lambda),\hdots,x_p(\lambda)\}$ is a minimal basis for $\mathcal{N}_r(P)$, then $\{\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{x}_1](\lambda),\hdots,\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{x}_p](\lambda) \}$ is a minimal basis for $\mathcal{N}_\ell(P)$ (modulo transposition).
Recall that left minimal indices and bases of $P(\lambda)$ can be computed as right minimal indices and bases of $P(\lambda)^T$. Then, notice that the $\mathbf{M}_A$ structure of $P(\lambda)$ implies $P(\lambda)^T = \mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{P}](\lambda)$, that is, the left minimal indices of $P(\lambda)$ are equal to the right minimal indices of $\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{P}](\lambda)$, and any left minimal basis of $P(\lambda)$ can be obtained as a right minimal basis of $\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{P}](\lambda)$. Clearly, the right minimal indices of $P(\lambda)$ and $\overline{P}(\lambda)$ coincide, and if $\mathcal{B}$ is a right minimal basis for $\mathcal{N}_r(P)$, then $\mathcal{\overline{B}}$ is a right minimal basis for $\mathcal{N}_r(\overline{P})$. Finally, from [@Mobius Theorem 7.5] together with the previous argument, we obtain that the sets of right minimal indices of $P(\lambda)$, $\overline{P}(\lambda)$ and $\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{P}](\lambda)$ are equal, and that if $\mathcal{B}$ is a minimal basis for $\mathcal{N}_r(P)$, then $\mathcal{\overline{B}}$ is a basis for the right null space of $\overline{P}(\lambda)$, and, therefore, $\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\mathcal{\overline{B}}]$ is a basis for the right null space of $\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{P}](\lambda)$.
Notice that the matrices in Table \[table:1\] are coninvolutory (recall Definition \[def:involutory\]). For this class of matrices, we consider in the following two sections the problem of linearizing an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial of odd degree in a structure-preserving way. To achieve this task, we need to introduce the concept of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil, which is an important example of the recently introduced class of strong block minimal bases pencils [@minimal_pencils].
Strong block minimal bases pencils and $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencils {#sec:minimal_bases_pencils}
===================================================================================================
In this section, we start reviewing the family of strong block minimal bases pencils introduced in [@minimal_pencils] and, then, introduce the subfamily of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencils.
[[@minimal_pencils Definition 3.1]]{} \[def:minlinearizations\] A matrix pencil $$\label{eq:minbaspencil}
\mathcal{L}(\lambda) = \begin{bmatrix} M(\lambda) & K_2 (\lambda)^T \\ K_1 (\lambda) & 0\end{bmatrix}$$ is called a [*block minimal bases pencil*]{} if $K_1 (\lambda)$ and $K_2(\lambda)$ are both minimal bases. If, in addition, the row degrees of $K_1 (\lambda)$ are all equal to $1$, the row degrees of $K_2 (\lambda)$ are all equal to $1$, the row degrees of a minimal basis dual to $K_1 (\lambda)$ are all equal, and the row degrees of a minimal basis dual to $K_2 (\lambda)$ are all equal, then $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is called a [*strong block minimal bases pencil*]{}.
Any (strong) block minimal bases pencil is a (strong) linearization of a certain matrix polynomial that can be expressed in terms of the pencil $M(\lambda)$ and any dual minimal bases of $K_1(\lambda)$ and $K_2(\lambda)$. Moreover, the minimal indices of the strong block minimal bases pencil and the minimal indices of the matrix polynomial for which the pencil is a strong linearization are related by uniform shifts.
[[@minimal_pencils Theorems 3.3 and 3.7]]{}\[thm:blockminlin\] Let $K_1 (\lambda)$ and $N_1 (\lambda)$ be a pair of dual minimal bases, and let $K_2 (\lambda)$ and $N_2 (\lambda)$ be another pair of dual minimal bases. Consider the matrix polynomial $$\label{eq:Qpolinminbaslin}
Q(\lambda) := N_2(\lambda) M(\lambda) N_1(\lambda)^T,$$ and the block minimal bases pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ in . Then:
1. $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a linearization of $Q(\lambda)$.
2. If $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong block minimal bases pencil, then $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong linearization of $Q(\lambda)$, considered as a polynomial with grade $1 + \deg(N_1 (\lambda)) + \deg(N_2 (\lambda))$.
3. If $0 \leq \epsilon_1 \leq \epsilon_2 \leq \cdots \leq \epsilon_p$ are the right minimal indices of $Q(\lambda)$, then $$\epsilon_1 + \deg(N_1(\lambda)) \leq \epsilon_2 + \deg(N_1(\lambda)) \leq \cdots \leq \epsilon_p + \deg(N_1(\lambda))$$ are the right minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$, when $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong block minimal bases pencil.
4. If $0 \leq \eta_1 \leq \eta_2 \leq \cdots \leq \eta_q$ are the left minimal indices of $Q(\lambda)$, then $$\eta_1 + \deg(N_2(\lambda)) \leq \eta_2 + \deg(N_2(\lambda)) \leq \cdots \leq \eta_q + \deg(N_2(\lambda))$$ are the left minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$, when $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong block minimal bases pencil.
For any $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$, part-(b) in Theorem \[thm:minimal\_basis\_Mobius\] suggests that we may take $K_2(\lambda)=\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{K}_1](\lambda)$ and $N_2(\lambda)=\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{N}_1](\lambda)$ as the second pair of dual minimal bases in Definition \[def:minlinearizations\] and Theorem \[thm:blockminlin\]. This motivates the concept of an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil, which is introduced in the following definition.
\[def:structured-minimal-bases-pencil\] Let $K(\lambda),N(\lambda)$ be a pair of dual minimal bases, with all the row degrees of $K(\lambda)$ equal to 1 and with all the row degrees of $N(\lambda)$ equal, and let $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$ be a coninvolutory matrix. Then, an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix pencil of the form $$\label{eq:structured-minimal-bases-pencil}
\mathcal{L}(\lambda)=\begin{bmatrix}
M(\lambda) & \mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)^\star \\
K(\lambda) & 0
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
M(\lambda) & \mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{K}](\lambda)^T \\
K(\lambda) & 0
\end{bmatrix} \,\, \mbox{with} \quad \mathbf{M}_A[M](\lambda)=M(\lambda)^\star,$$ is called a *$\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil*.
Notice that any $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ as in is, indeed, $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured, that is, $\mathbf{M}_A[\mathcal{L}](\lambda)=\mathcal{L}(\lambda)^\star$ holds as a consequence of $A$ being coninvolutory.
An immediate corollary of Theorem \[thm:blockminlin\] is that any $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil is always a strong linearization of a certain odd-grade $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial. Furthermore, the minimal indices of this polynomial and the pencil are related by a uniform shift. These results are stated and proved in the following theorem. We only focus on right minimal indices, since the set of right minimal indices and the set of left minimal indices of an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial are equal (recall Theorem \[thm:singular\_structure\_Mobius\]).
\[thm:structured-minimal-basis-pencil\] Let $K(\lambda),N(\lambda)$ be a pair of dual minimal bases, with all the row degrees of $K(\lambda)$ equal to 1 and with all the row degrees of $N(\lambda)$ equal, let $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$ be a coninvolutory matrix, and let $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ be an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil as in . Then, the pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong linearization of the $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial $$\label{eq:structured-matrix-equation}
Q(\lambda):=\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{N}](\lambda)M(\lambda)N(\lambda)^T,$$ of grade $2\deg(N(\lambda))+1$. Moreover, if $0\leq \epsilon_1\leq \epsilon_2\leq \cdots \leq \epsilon_p$ are the right minimal indices of $Q(\lambda)$, then $$\epsilon_1+\deg(N(\lambda))\leq \epsilon_2+\deg(N(\lambda))\leq \cdots \leq \epsilon_p+\deg(N(\lambda))$$ are the right minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$.
Notice that $K(\lambda)N(\lambda)^T=0$ implies $\overline{K}(\lambda)\overline{N}(\lambda)^T=0$. Since the operation $P(\lambda)\rightarrow \overline{P}(\lambda)$ applied to $K(\lambda)$ and $N(\lambda)$ does not change neither the rank of the polynomial at any $\lambda_0\in\overline{\mathbb{F}}$, nor the degree of any of its entries, we have that $\overline{K}(\lambda)$ and $\overline{N}(\lambda)$ are a pair of dual minimal bases with all the row degrees of $\overline{K}(\lambda)$ equal to 1, and all the row degrees of $\overline{N}(\lambda)$ equal to $\deg(N(\lambda))$. Then, from Theorem \[thm:minimal\_basis\_Mobius\], we obtain that $\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{K}](\lambda)$ and $\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{N}](\lambda)$ are also a pair of dual minimal bases with all the row degrees of $\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{K}](\lambda)$ equal to 1, and all the row degrees of $\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{N}](\lambda)$ equal to $\deg(N(\lambda))$. Therefore, the pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong block minimal bases pencil. From Theorem \[thm:blockminlin\], we immediately obtain that $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong linearization of $Q(\lambda)$ and that the minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ are those of $Q(\lambda)$ shifted by $\deg(N(\lambda))$.
We still have to show that $Q(\lambda)$ is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial. Computing the Möbius transformation of $Q(\lambda)$ associated with the matrix $A$ and using that the matrix $A$ is coninvolutory, together with parts (b), (d), (e) and (g) in Proposition \[prop:properties\_Mobius\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{M}_A[Q](\lambda) =& \mathbf{M}_A\left[\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{N}]MN^T\right](\lambda)\\ =&
\mathbf{M}_A\left[ \mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{N}] \right](\lambda)\,\, \mathbf{M}_A[M](\lambda)\,\, \mathbf{M}_A[N^T](\lambda) \\ =&
\overline{N}(\lambda)M(\lambda)^\star \mathbf{M}_A[N](\lambda)^T =
\left( N(\lambda)^T \right)^\star M(\lambda)^\star \mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{N}](\lambda)^\star = Q(\lambda)^\star.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the matrix polynomial $Q(\lambda)$ is $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured.
Theorem \[thm:structured-minimal-basis-pencil\] tells us that given an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil, this pencil is a strong linearization of a certain odd-grade $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial. We now address the inverse problem, that is, given an odd-grade $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial $Q(\lambda)$, we want to construct an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong linearization for the given matrix polynomial. To achieve this, the polynomial equation has to be solved for an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured pencil $M(\lambda)$. This problem is addressed in Theorem \[thm:solving\_M\]. But, first, we notice that if we do not impose the $\mathbf{M}_A$-structure on the pencil $M(\lambda)$, it is possible to prove that the polynomial equation is always consistent, with infinitely many solutions, as a consequence of the properties of the minimal basis $N(\lambda)$. This result will be proved in [@ell-ifications], in a much more general setting.
\[thm:solving\_M\] Let $K(\lambda),N(\lambda)$ be a pair of dual minimal bases, with all the row degrees of $K(\lambda)$ equal to 1 and with all the row degrees of $N(\lambda)$ equal, let $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$ be a coninvolutory matrix. Let $Q(\lambda)$ be a given $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial with grade equal to $2\deg(N(\lambda))+1$. If $\widehat{M}(\lambda)$ is any solution of the polynomial equation (not necessarily $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured), then the pencil $$M(\lambda) :=\frac{1}{2}\left( \widehat{M}(\lambda)+\mathbf{M}_A[\widehat{M}](\lambda)^\star \right)$$ is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured solution of , and the $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil $$\mathcal{L} (\lambda) :=
\begin{bmatrix}
M(\lambda) & \mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)^\star \\
K(\lambda) & 0
\end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}\left( \widehat{M}(\lambda)+\mathbf{M}_A[\widehat{M}](\lambda)^\star\right) & \mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)^\star \\
K(\lambda) & 0
\end{bmatrix}$$ is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong linearization of $Q(\lambda)$.
By using that $Q(\lambda)$ is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial, that $A$ is coninvolutory, and that $\widehat{M}(\lambda)$ is a solution of , together with parts (b), (d), (e) and (g) in Proposition \[prop:properties\_Mobius\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
Q(\lambda)=&\left(\mathbf{M}_A[Q](\lambda)\right)^\star = \left(\mathbf{M}_A\left[ \mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{N}]\widehat{M}N^T \right](\lambda)\right)^\star \\=&
\left( \overline{N}(\lambda)\mathbf{M}_A[\widehat{M}](\lambda)\mathbf{M}_A[N](\lambda)^T \right)^\star \\=
&\left( \left( N(\lambda)^T \right)^\star \mathbf{M}_A[\widehat{M}](\lambda) \mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{N}](\lambda)^\star \right)^\star \\=
&\mathbf{M}_{\overline{A}}[\overline{N}](\lambda)\, \mathbf{M}_A[\widehat{M}](\lambda)^\star \,N(\lambda)^T.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the matrix pencil $\mathbf{M}_A[\widehat{M}](\lambda)^\star$ is also a solution of . Moreover, since any affine combination of solutions of is also a solution, the $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix pencil $(\widehat{M}(\lambda)+\mathbf{M}_A[\widehat{M}](\lambda)^\star)/2$ satisfies . Therefore, by Theorem \[thm:structured-minimal-basis-pencil\], the $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong linearization of the matrix polynomial $Q(\lambda)$.
Despite its consistency, the polynomial equation might be very difficult to solve for an arbitrary minimal basis $N(\lambda)$ and an arbitrary coninvolutory matrix $A$. However, for some choices of $N(\lambda)$, when the matrix $A$ is any of those in Table \[table:1\], this problem turns out to be particularly simple. This is the subject of the following section.
$\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencils and structure-preserving strong linearizations {#sec:classical_structures}
================================================================================================
We focus in this section on the problem of constructing explicitly structure-preserving strong linearizations for (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic, and alternating matrix polynomials from some subfamilies of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencils. This problem has been addressed in [@PartI] with a lot of detail for (skew-)symmetric matrix polynomials and will be addressed in [@PartII; @PartIII] for (anti-)palindromic and alternating matrix polynomials, so we only review some of the most important results and show some illuminating examples.
We start by introducing the family of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencils, which are particular but important examples of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencils.
\[def:structured-Kron-pencil\] Let $L_k(\lambda)\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{k\times(k+1)}$ be the matrix pencil in , and let $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$ be a coninvolutory matrix. Then, a pencil of the form $$\label{eq:structured-Kron-pencil}
\mathcal{L}(\lambda)=\begin{bmatrix}
M(\lambda) & \mathbf{M}_A[L_k](\lambda)^\star\otimes I_n \\
L_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n & 0
\end{bmatrix} \quad \mbox{with} \quad \mathbf{M}_A[M](\lambda)=M(\lambda)^\star,$$ is called a *$\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencil*. Moreover, the partition of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ into $2\times 2$ blocks in is called the *natural partition* of an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencil.
The name $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencil is motivated, first, by the fact that one of the building blocks of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is the Kronecker product of a singular block of the Kronecker canonical form of pencils with the identity (as for block Kronecker pencils in [@minimal_pencils]), and that the pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured pencil, i.e. , $\mathbf{M}_A[\mathcal{L}](\lambda)=\mathcal{L}(\lambda)^\star$.
As an immediate corollary of Theorem \[thm:structured-minimal-basis-pencil\], we obtain that any $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong linearization of an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial, and that the minimal indices of this polynomial and $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ are related by a uniform shift.
\[thm:structured-block\_Kronecker\_pencils\] Let $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ be an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencil as in . Then, the pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong linearization of the $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial $$\label{eq:structured-matrix-equation-Kron}
P(\lambda):= \left( \mathbf{M}_{A}[\Lambda_k](\lambda)^\star\otimes I_n \right)M(\lambda)
\left( \Lambda_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n \right),$$ of grade $2k+1$, where $\Lambda_k(\lambda)$ is the vector polynomial defined in . Moreover, the left minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ are those of $P(\lambda)$ increased by $k$, and the right minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ are those of $P(\lambda)$ increased also by $k$.
Following the terminology introduced in [@PartI; @PartII; @PartIII], when the matrix $A$ is any of those listed in Table \[table:1\], the corresponding $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencil is called *(skew-)symmetric*, *(anti-)palindromic*, or *alternating block Kronecker pencil*, depending on the case. Moreover, the union of the sets of (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic, and alternating block Kronecker pencils is called the family of *structured block Kronecker pencils*. We list in Table \[table:2\] the minimal bases $\mathbf{M}_A[L_k](\lambda)\otimes I_n$ and the conditions on the pencil $M(\lambda)$ for structured block Kronecker pencils.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
**[structure]{} & condition on $M(\lambda)=\lambda M_1+M_0$ & $\mathbf{M}_A[L_k](\lambda)$\
Symmetric & $\lambda M_1+M_0$ with $M_0^\star=M_0$ and $M_1^\star=M_1$ & $L_k(\lambda)$\
Skew-symmetric & $\lambda M_1+M_0$ with $M_0^\star=-M_0$ and $M_1^\star=-M_1$ & $-L_k(\lambda)$\
Palindromic & $\lambda M_1+M_1^\star$ & ${\ensuremath\mathrm{rev}}L_k(\lambda)$\
Anti-palindromic & $\lambda M_1-M_1^\star$ & $-{\ensuremath\mathrm{rev}}L_k(\lambda)$\
Alternating (even) & $\lambda M_1+M_0$ with $M_0^\star=M_0$ and $M_1^\star=-M_1$ & $L_k(-\lambda)$\
Alternating (odd) & $\lambda M_1+M_0$ with $M_0^\star=-M_0$ and $M_1^\star=M_1$ & $-L_k(-\lambda)$\
**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
: The minimal bases $\mathbf{M}_A[L_k](\lambda)\otimes I_n$ and the conditions on $M(\lambda)=\lambda M_1+M_0$ for structured block Kronecker pencils.
\[table:2\]
We know from Theorem \[thm:solving\_M\] that one can always construct a structure-preserving strong linearization of any $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial with odd grade $g$ via an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencil as in with $k=(g-1)/2$. Furthermore, for the (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic or alternating structures, this construction turns out to be rather simple. In Theorem \[thm:givenP\_findM\], we show what conditions on $M(\lambda)$ are needed for a structured block Kronecker pencil to be a structure-preserving strong linearization of a given odd-grade structured matrix polynomial.
\[thm:givenP\_findM\] Let $P(\lambda)=\sum_{i=0}^g P_i\lambda^i\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{n\times n}$ be an odd-grade structured matrix polynomial, let $\mathscr{S}(P)$ be the structure of $P(\lambda)$, and let $A$ be one of the matrices in Table \[table:1\], depending on $\mathscr{S}(P)$. Additionally, let $M(\lambda)=\lambda M_1+M_0\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{(k+1)n\times (k+1)n}$, with $k=(g-1)/2$, be a matrix pencil, and let us partition the matrices $M_0$ and $M_1$ into $(k+1)\times(k+1)$ blocks each of size $n\times n$ and let us denote these blocks by $[M_1]_{ij},[M_0]_{ij}\in\mathbb{F}^{n\times n}$ for $i,j=1,2,\hdots,k+1$. If the following condition holds, for $\ell=0,1,\hdots,g$, $$\label{eq:condition_sym}
P_\ell = \sum_{i+j=g+2-\ell}[M_1]_{ij}+\sum_{i+j=g+1-\ell}[M_0]_{ij},$$ when $\mathscr{S}(P)\in\{\mbox{symmetric, skew-symmetric}\}$, or $$\label{eq:condition_pal}
P_\ell = \sum_{i-j=\ell-k-1}[M_1]_{ij}+\sum_{i-j=\ell-k}[M_0]_{ij},$$ when $\mathscr{S}(P)\in\{\mbox{palindromic, anti-palindromic}\}$, or $$\label{eq:condition_alt}
P_\ell = \sum_{i+j=g+2-\ell}(-1)^{k-i+1}[M_1]_{ij}+\sum_{i+j=g+1-\ell}(-1)^{k-i+1}[M_0]_{ij},$$ when $\mathscr{S}(P)\in\{\mbox{even, odd}\}$, then the matrix pencil $$\mathcal{L}(\lambda) = \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}(M(\lambda)+\mathbf{M}_A[M](\lambda)^\star) & \mathbf{M}_A[L_k](\lambda)^\star\otimes I_n \\
L_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n & 0
\end{bmatrix}$$ is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencil such that:
1. $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong linearization of $P(\lambda)$,
2. $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ and $P(\lambda)$ share the same structure, i.e., $\mathscr{S}(P)=\mathscr{S}(\mathcal{L})$, and
3. the left minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ are those of $P(\lambda)$ increased by $k$, and the right minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ are those of $P(\lambda)$ increased by $k$.
Clearly, the structured block Kronecker pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ and the matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ share the same structure, that is, part (ii) holds. To prove parts (i) and (iii), we just need to check that holds for $(M(\lambda)+\mathbf{M}_A[M](\lambda)^\star)/2$ (up to a sign), since the desired results would follow from Theorem \[thm:structured-block\_Kronecker\_pencils\], together with the fact that any strong linearization of $-P(\lambda)$ is also a strong linearization of $P(\lambda)$, and the sets of right and left minimal indices of $P(\lambda)$ and $-P(\lambda)$ are the same.
Several cases have to be distinguished. For brevity, we focus only on the case $\mathscr{S}(P)\in\{symmetric,skew-symmetric\}$. The proofs for the other cases are very similar, so we invite the reader to complete the proof. First, assume that $\mathscr{S}(P)\in\{symmetric\}$. Then, we have $\mathbf{M}_A[\Lambda_k](\lambda)\otimes I_n = \Lambda_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n$ and $\mathbf{M}_A[M](\lambda)^\star = M(\lambda)^\star $, so, in this case, the structured block Kronecker pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong linearization of $Q_1(\lambda):=(\Lambda_k(\lambda)^T\otimes I_n)(M(\lambda)+M(\lambda)^\star)(\Lambda_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n)/2$. A direct multiplication, some basic manipulations and the condition yield $P(\lambda)=Q_1(\lambda)$. Therefore, the result is true in this case. Now, assume $\mathscr{S}(P)\in\{skew-symmetric\}$. In this case, we have $\mathbf{M}_A[\Lambda_k](\lambda)\otimes I_n =(-1)^k \Lambda_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n$ and $\mathbf{M}_A[M](\lambda)^\star =- M(\lambda)^\star $. Therefore, $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong linearization of $Q_2(\lambda):=(-1)^k(\Lambda_k(\lambda)^T\otimes I_n)(M(\lambda)-M(\lambda)^\star)(\Lambda_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n)/2$. It is not difficult to check that the condition implies that $Q_2(\lambda)=(-1)^k P(\lambda)$. Thus, the result is also true in this case.
We illustrate Theorem \[thm:givenP\_findM\] in Examples \[ex:1\], \[ex:2\] and \[ex:3\], where we construct structure-preserving strong linearizations for grade-7 symmetric, palindromic and even matrix polynomials, respectively.
\[ex:1\] Let $P(\lambda) = \sum_{i=0}^7P_i\lambda^i\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{n\times n}$ be a symmetric grade-7 matrix polynomial, and consider the following matrix pencil $$M_1(\lambda):=
\begin{bmatrix}
\lambda P_7 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\lambda P_6 +P_5 & P_4 & P_3 &0 \\
0 & 0 & P_2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & P_1 & P_0
\end{bmatrix}.$$ It is easy to check that the pencil $M_1(\lambda)$ satisfies with $g=7$. In this case, we have $A=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]$, so the pencil $(M_1(\lambda)+\mathbf{M}_A[M_1](\lambda)^\star)/2$ is given by $$\frac{1}{2}(M_1(\lambda)+M_1(\lambda)^\star)=
\begin{bmatrix}
\lambda P_7 & (\lambda P_6+P_5)/2 & 0 & 0 \\
(\lambda P_6+P_5)/2 & P_4 & P_3/2 & 0 \\
0 & P_3/2 & P_2 & P_1/2 \\
0 & 0 & P_1/2 & P_0
\end{bmatrix},$$ which is a symmetric pencil. We conclude, by Theorem \[thm:givenP\_findM\], that the symmetric block Kronecker pencil $$\left[\begin{array}{cccc|ccc}
\lambda P_7 & (\lambda P_6+P_5)/2 & 0 & 0 & -I_n & 0 & 0\\
(\lambda P_6+P_5)/2 & P_4 & P_3/2 & 0 & \lambda I_n & -I_n & 0\\
0 & P_3/2 & P_2 & P_1/2 & 0 & \lambda I_n & -I_n \\
0 & 0 & P_1/2 & P_0 & 0 & 0 & \lambda I_n \\ \hline
-I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right]$$ is a symmetric strong linearization of $P(\lambda)$.
\[ex:2\] Let $P(\lambda) = \sum_{i=0}^7P_i\lambda^i\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{n\times n}$ be a palindromic grade-7 matrix polynomial, and consider the following matrix pencil $$M_2(\lambda):=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & P_1 & P_0 \\
0 & P_3 & P_2 & 0 \\
\lambda P_6 & \lambda P_5+P_4 & 0 & 0 \\
\lambda P_7 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.$$ It is easy to check that the pencil $M_2(\lambda)$ satisfies with $g=7$. For the palindromic structure we have $A=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right]$, so the pencil $(M_2(\lambda)+\mathbf{M}_A[M_2](\lambda)^\star)/2$ is given by $$\frac{1}{2}(M_2(\lambda)+{\ensuremath\mathrm{rev}}_1 M_2(\lambda)^\star)=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & P_1 & P_0 \\
0 & (\lambda P_4+P_3)/2 & \lambda P_3/2+P_2 & 0 \\
\lambda P_6 & \lambda P_5+P_4/2 & 0 & 0 \\
\lambda P_7 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix},$$ which is a palindromic pencil. Then, from Theorem \[thm:givenP\_findM\], we obtain that the palindromic block Kronecker pencil $$\left[\begin{array}{cccc|ccc}
0 & 0 & P_1 & P_0 & -\lambda I_n & 0 & 0\\
0 & (\lambda P_4+P_3)/2 & \lambda P_3/2+P_2 & 0 & I_n & -\lambda I_n & 0\\
\lambda P_6 & \lambda P_5+P_4/2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & I_n &-\lambda I_n \\
\lambda P_7 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & I_n \\ \hline
-I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right]$$ is a palindromic strong linearization of $P(\lambda)$.
\[ex:3\] Let $P(\lambda) = \sum_{i=0}^7P_i\lambda^i\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{n\times n}$ be an even grade-7 matrix polynomial, and consider the following matrix pencil $$M_3(\lambda):=
\begin{bmatrix}
-\lambda P_7 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\lambda P_6 & \lambda P_5+P_4 & P_3 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -P_2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \lambda P_1+P_0
\end{bmatrix}.$$ It is easy to check that the pencil $M_3(\lambda)$ satisfies with $g=7$. For even-structured matrix polynomials, we have $A=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]$, so the pencil $(M_3(\lambda)+\mathbf{M}_A[M_3](\lambda)^\star)/2$ is given by $$\frac{1}{2}(M_3(\lambda)+ M_3(-\lambda)^\star)=
\begin{bmatrix}
-\lambda P_7 & -\lambda P_6/2 & 0 & 0 \\
\lambda P_6/2 & \lambda P_5+P_4 & P_3/2 & 0 \\
0 & -P_3/2 & -P_2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \lambda P_1+P_0
\end{bmatrix},$$ which is an even pencil. We conclude, by Theorem \[thm:givenP\_findM\], that the even block Kronecker pencil $$\left[\begin{array}{cccc|ccc}
-\lambda P_7 & -\lambda P_6/2 & 0 & 0 & -I_n & 0 & 0\\
\lambda P_6/2 & \lambda P_5+P_4 & P_3/2 & 0 & -\lambda I_n & -I_n & 0\\
0 & -P_3/2 & -P_2 & 0 & 0 & -\lambda I_n & -I_n \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \lambda P_1+P_0 & 0 & 0 & -\lambda I_n \\ \hline
-I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right]$$ is an even strong linearization of $P(\lambda)$.
We now focus on the famous block-tridiagonal and block-antitridiagonal structure-preserving linearizations introduced in [@Greeks2; @Alternating; @Palindromic; @Skew]. We show in Example \[ex:tridiagonal\], for a small-grade case, that (modulo permutations) they are structured block Kronecker pencils. The extension of this result to any odd-grade matrix polynomial is straightforward.
\[ex:tridiagonal\] Let $\sum_{i=0}^{5}P_i\lambda^i\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{n\times n}$ be a grade-5 structured matrix polynomial, and let $\sigma\in\{-1,1\}$. Consider, first, the block-tridiagonal pencil $$\mathcal{L}_1(\lambda)=\begin{bmatrix}
\lambda P_5+P_4 & -\sigma I_n & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-I_n & 0 & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \sigma \lambda I_n & \lambda P_3+P_2 & -\sigma I_n & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -I_n & 0 & \lambda I_n \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \sigma \lambda I_n & \lambda P_1+P_0
\end{bmatrix}.$$ This pencil is a strong linearization of $P(\lambda)$ that for $\sigma=1$ is symmetric when $P(\lambda)$ is, or for $\sigma=-1$ is skew-symmetric when $P(\lambda)$ is [@Greeks2]. Then, consider the block-antitridiagonal pencil $$\mathcal{L}_2(\lambda)=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & -\sigma \lambda I_n & \lambda P_1+P_0 \\
0 & 0 & -I_n & 0 & \lambda I_n \\
0 & -\sigma \lambda I_n & \lambda P_3+P_2 & \sigma I_n & 0 \\
-I_n & 0 & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 \\
\lambda P_5+P_4 & \sigma I_n & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.$$ The above pencil is a strong linearization of $P(\lambda)$ that for $\sigma=1$ is palindromic when $P(\lambda)$ is, or for $\sigma=-1$ is anti-palindromic when $P(\lambda)$ is [@Palindromic]. Finally, consider the block-tridiagonal pencil $$\mathcal{L}_3(\lambda)=\begin{bmatrix}
\lambda P_5+P_4 & -\sigma I_n & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-I_n & 0 & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -\sigma \lambda I_n & -\lambda P_3-P_2 & -\sigma I_n & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -I_n & 0 & \lambda I_n \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -\sigma \lambda I_n & \lambda P_1+P_0
\end{bmatrix}.$$ This pencil is a strong linearization of $P(\lambda)$ that for $\sigma=1$ is even when $P(\lambda)$ is, or for $\sigma=-1$ is odd when $P(\lambda)$ is [@Alternating]. Moreover, it is not difficult to show that there exist permutation matrices $\Pi_1,\Pi_2,\Pi_3$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pi_1\mathcal{L}_1(\lambda)\Pi_1^\star =
\left[\begin{array}{ccc|cc}
\lambda P_5+P_4 & 0 & 0 & -\sigma I_n & 0 \\
0 & \lambda P_3+P_2 & 0 & \sigma \lambda I_n & -\sigma I_n \\
0 & 0 & \lambda P_1+P_0 & 0 & \sigma \lambda I_n \\ \hline
-I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right], \\
&\Pi_2\mathcal{L}_2(\lambda)]\Pi_2^\star =
\left[\begin{array}{ccc|cc}
0 & 0 & \lambda P_1+P_0 & -\sigma \lambda I_n & 0 \\
0 & \lambda P_3+P_2 & 0 & \sigma I_n & -\sigma \lambda I_n \\
\lambda P_5+P_4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \sigma I_n \\ \hline
-I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right], \quad \mbox{and}\\
&\Pi_3\mathcal{L}_3(\lambda)\Pi_3^\star =
\left[\begin{array}{ccc|cc}
\lambda P_5+P_4 & 0 & 0 & -\sigma I_n & 0 \\
0 & -\lambda P_3-P_2 & 0 & -\sigma \lambda I_n & -\sigma I_n \\
0 & 0 & \lambda P_1+P_0 & 0 & -\sigma \lambda I_n \\ \hline
-I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -I_n & \lambda I_n & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right].
\end{aligned}$$ In other words, the block-tridiagonal and block-antitridiagonal structure-preserving linearizations are (up to a permutation) structured block Kronecker pencils.
The next section is devoted to the backward error analysis when the structured complete polynomial eigenvalue problem is solved via a structure-preserving linearization obtained from a structured block Kronecker pencil, and a structurally global backward stable generalized eigensolver.
Global and structured backward error analysis {#sec:analysis}
=============================================
As we mentioned in the introduction, the structured complete polynomial eigenvalue problem consists of computing all the eigenvalues, finite and infinite, and all the minimal indices, left and right, of a structured matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ using an algorithm that preserves the spectral symmetries of $P(\lambda)$ in a floating point arithmetic environment. For example, for palindromic or alternating matrix polynomials, the structured version of the staircase algorithm for pencils developed in [@Schroder_thesis] can be applied to any structure-preserving strong linearization of the matrix polynomial whose minimal indices are related to those of $P(\lambda)$ via simple rules. When the palindromic matrix polynomial is regular, the problem consists just of computing finite and infinite eigenvalues. In this case, the preferred method is the palindromic-QR algorithm [@Implicit_palQR; @palQR].
Some of the structure-preserving generalized eigensolvers, such as the structured version of the staircase algorithm mentioned above and the palindromic-QR algorithm, are structurally backward stable. This means, that if they are applied to any structure-preserving strong linearization $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ of a structured matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)$ in a computer with unit roundoff $\mathbf{u}$, then the computed complete eigenstructure of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is the exact complete eigenstructure of a matrix pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ such that $$\label{eq:pencil_backward_stable}
\frac{\| \Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda) \|_F}{\|\mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F} = O(\bf{u}) \quad \mbox{and} \quad \mathscr{S}(\Delta \mathcal{L}) = \mathscr{S}(\mathcal{L}),$$ which for the structures considered in this work, that is, (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic and alternating, is equivalent to $\mathscr{S}(\mathcal{L}+\Delta \mathcal{L})= \mathscr{S}(\mathcal{L})$. However, it is not obvious whether or not guarantees that the computed complete eigenstructure of $P(\lambda)$ is the exact complete eigenstructure of a nearby matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)+\Delta P(\lambda)$ of the same grade as $P(\lambda)$ such that $$\label{eq:poly_backward_stable}
\frac{\|\Delta P(\lambda)\|_F}{\|P(\lambda)\|_F} = O(\mathbf{u}) \quad \mbox{and} \quad \mathscr{S}(\Delta P) = \mathscr{S}(P)\left(= \mathscr{S}(\mathcal{L})\right).$$
The goal of this section is to study this question for the family of structured block Kronecker pencils, and its answer can be found in Theorem \[thm:back\_error\_main\_theorem\] and Corollary \[cor:FINperturbation\]. Before proceeding, we remark that our structured backward error analysis follows closely the unstructured analysis in the recent work [@minimal_pencils Section 6]. However, there are some very important differences in our analysis that we will highlight. Also, to help the reader to follow the argument that leads to Theorem \[thm:back\_error\_main\_theorem\], we start by sketching the main ideas and the three steps in which the backward error analysis is split.
[**Initial data**]{}. A structured ((skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic or alternating) matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)=\sum_{i=0}^g P_i\lambda^i\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{n\times n}$ and a structured block Kronecker pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ as in , where $A$ is one of the matrices in Table \[table:1\] and it is chosen to guarantee $\mathscr{S}(P)=\mathscr{S}(\mathcal{L})$, such that $$\label{eq:poly_section6}
P(\lambda) = \left( \mathbf{M}_{A}[\Lambda_k](\lambda)^\star\otimes I_n\right)M(\lambda)\left( \Lambda_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n \right), \quad \mbox{with }2k+1=g,$$ are given. A perturbation $\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ of the pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ with $\mathscr{S}(\Delta \mathcal{L})=\mathscr{S}(\mathcal{L})$ is also given. We will partition the perturbed pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ into blocks conformable to those of the natural partition of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$, that is, $$\label{eq:partition_perturbed_pencil}
\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda) =
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
\lambda M_1+M_0 + \Delta \mathcal{L}_{11}(\lambda) & \mathbf{M}_A[L_k](\lambda)^\star \otimes I_n + \mathbf{M}_A[\Delta \mathcal{L}_{21}](\lambda)^\star \\ \hline
L_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n + \Delta\mathcal{L}_{21}(\lambda) & \Delta\mathcal{L}_{22}(\lambda)
\end{array}
\right],$$ where the relation between the blocks $(1,2)$ and $(2,1)$ of the pencil $\Delta\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is forced by $\mathbf{M}_A[\Delta\mathcal{L}](\lambda)=\Delta\mathcal{L}(\lambda)^\star$ and $\lambda M_1+M_0:=M(\lambda)$.
[**First step**]{}. We establish a bound on $\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F$ that allows us to construct an $\star$-congruence transformation that puts the (2,2)-block of the perturbed pencil back to zero, preserving simultaneously the structure of the pencil (recall Proposition \[prop:congruence\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:back_to_zero}
\begin{split}
&\begin{bmatrix}
I_{(k+1)n} & 0 \\
X & I_{kn}
\end{bmatrix}
\left( \mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda) \right)
\begin{bmatrix}
I_{(k+1)n} & X^\star \\
0 & I_{kn}
\end{bmatrix} \\=
&\left[\begin{array}{c|c}
\lambda M_1+M_0 + \Delta \mathcal{L}_{11}(\lambda) & \mathbf{M}_A[L_k](\lambda)^\star \otimes I_n + \mathbf{M}_A[\Delta\mathcal{\widetilde{L}}_{21}](\lambda)^\star \\ \hline
L_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n + \Delta\mathcal{\widetilde{L}}_{21}(\lambda) & \phantom{\Big{(}} 0 \phantom{\Big{(}}
\end{array}
\right]\\=:
&\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{\widetilde{L}}(\lambda).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
The construction in is equivalent to solving a nonlinear system of $\star$-Sylvester-like equations whose unknown is the matrix $X$. Further, we obtain detailed bounds on $\|X\|_F$ and $\|\Delta \mathcal{\widetilde{L}}_{21}(\lambda)\|_F$ in terms of $\| \Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F$. It is important to remark that the pencils $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ and $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{\widetilde{L}}(\lambda)$ have the same complete eigenstructure, since $\star$-congruence transformations are strict equivalence transformations. We emphasize that the key reason to use an $\star$-congruence transformation, instead of the strict equivalence transformation in [@minimal_pencils Section 6], is that the structure of the pencil is preserved under $\star$-congruence, that is, $\mathscr{S}(\Delta \widetilde{L})=\mathscr{S}(\Delta L)$.
[**Second step**]{}. By using the main results in [@minimal_pencils Section 6.2], we obtain bounds on $\| \Delta \mathcal{\widetilde{L}}_{21}(\lambda) \|_F$ that guarantee that $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{\widetilde{L}}(\lambda)$ in is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil. As the second step in the analysis in [@minimal_pencils Section 6], this requires two sub-steps: (i) to prove that $K(\lambda) = L_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n+\Delta \mathcal{\widetilde{L}}_{21}(\lambda)$ is a minimal basis with all its row degrees equal to 1, and (ii) to show that there exists a minimal basis $$N(\lambda) = \Lambda_k(\lambda)^T\otimes I_n + \Delta R_k(\lambda)^T$$ dual to $K(\lambda)$ with all its row degrees equal to $k$. Notice that the sub-steps (i) and (ii), together with Theorem \[thm:minimal\_basis\_Mobius\], imply that $\mathbf{M}_A[K](\lambda)$ and $\mathbf{M}_A[N](\lambda)$ are dual minimal bases with all its row degrees equal, respectively, to 1 and $k$.
[**Third step**]{}. The results in the first and second steps, together with Theorem \[thm:structured-minimal-basis-pencil\], imply that the $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ in is a strong linearization of the $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomial $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:poly_perturbed}
&P(\lambda) + \Delta P(\lambda) \\ &:=
\nonumber
\left( \mathbf{M}_{A}[\Lambda_k](\lambda)^\star\otimes I_n+\mathbf{M}_{A}[\Delta R_k](\lambda)^\star \right)
( M(\lambda) + \Delta \mathcal{L}_{11}(\lambda) )
\left( \Lambda_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n+\Delta R_k(\lambda) \right),\end{aligned}$$ and that the right and left minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ are those of $P(\lambda)+\Delta P(\lambda)$ shifted by $k$. Then, combining the bounds obtained in the first and second steps, we obtain a bound on $\|\Delta P(\lambda)\|_F/\| P(\lambda)\|_F$ in terms of $\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda) \|_F / \| \mathcal{L}(\lambda) \|_F$. Finally, the consequences of this bound are discussed.
In the following three subsections we develop in detail the three steps that we have outlined above. One final remark before continuing is that, since the matrices in Table \[table:1\] are all real, we will use without saying it explicitly that $\overline{A}=A$ (except in Theorem \[thm:from\_T-Syl\_to\_Syl\], which is true for any coninvolutory matrix).
First step: solving a system of quadratic $\star$-Sylvester-like matrix equations for constructing the $\star$-congruence {#sec:first_step}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here and thereafter, we use a notation similar to the notation introduced in [@minimal_pencils Section 6.1] for the (2,1)-block of a structured block Kronecker pencil , this is, $L_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n =: \lambda F_k\otimes I_n - E_k\otimes I_n =: \lambda F_{kn}-E_{kn}$, where $$\label{eq:bases_definitions}
E_{kn}=
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
I_{k}&0_{k\times 1}
\end{array}
\right]\otimes I_n\>,\quad \mbox{and} \quad
F_{kn}=
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0_{k\times 1}&I_{k}
\end{array}
\right]\otimes I_n\>.$$ In addition, the natural blocks of the perturbation $\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ in are denoted by $$\label{eq:blocksofdeltaL}
\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda) =:
\left[\begin{array}{c|c}
\lambda \Delta B_{11}+\Delta A_{11} & \lambda (a\Delta B_{21}+c\Delta A_{21})^\star+ (b \Delta B_{21}+d\Delta A_{21})^\star \\ \hline
\lambda \Delta B_{21}+\Delta A_{21} & \lambda \Delta B_{22}+\Delta A_{22}
\end{array}\right] \, ,$$ where recall that $A=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} a & b\\ c & d \end{smallmatrix} \right]$ is the matrix defining the Möbius transformation $\mathbf{M}_A$, and we introduce the following two matrices $$\label{eq:EFhat}
\widehat{F}_{kn}:=F_{kn}+\Delta B_{21}, \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\widehat{E}_{kn}:=-E_{kn}+\Delta A_{21}.$$
We start with the simple Lemma \[lem:trivial\], where we show that the construction of the $\star$-congruence in is equivalent to solve a system of nonlinear $\star$-Sylvester-like equations. The proof is a direct algebraic manipulation and is omitted.
\[lem:trivial\] There exists a constant matrix $X\in{{\mathbb F}}^{kn \times (k+1)n}$ satisfying if and only if $$\label{eq:gen_sylv2}
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
X&I_{kn}
\end{array}
\right]
(\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda))
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
X^\star\\
I_{kn}
\end{array}
\right]
=0\>.$$ Moreover, with the notation introduced in , and , the equation is equivalent to the following system of quadratic $\star$-Sylvester-like matrix equations $$\label{eq:gen_T-sylv}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
X (b\widehat{F}_{kn}+d\widehat{E}_{kn} )^\star+\widehat{E}_{kn} X^\star= -\Delta A_{22}-f_{M_0+\Delta A_{11}}(X)\\
X (a\widehat{F}_{kn}+c\widehat{E}_{kn})^\star+\widehat{F}_{kn}X^\star= -\Delta B_{22}-f_{M_1+\Delta B_{11}}(X)
\end{array}\right.,$$ for the unknown matrix $X$, where $f_M(X)$ is the following quadratic matrix function $$\label{eq:f1_f2}
f_M(X):=XMX^\star.$$
Our goal is to establish conditions on $\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F$ that guarantee the existence of a solution $X$ to with $\|X\|_F \lesssim \|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F$. Such a solution will be obtained in Theorem \[thm:gen\_sylvester\_solution\] via the following fixed point iteration: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber &\mbox{Solve for $X_0$ the system of linear $\star$-Sylvester equations:} \\ \label{eq:fixed_point_it_X0}
&\left\{\begin{array}{l}
X_0 (b\widehat{F}_{kn}+d\widehat{E}_{kn} )^\star+\widehat{E}_{kn}X_0^\star= -\Delta A_{22}\\
X_0 (a\widehat{F}_{kn}+c\widehat{E}_{kn})^\star+\widehat{F}_{kn}X_0^\star= -\Delta B_{22}
\end{array}\right. \, .\\
\nonumber &\mbox{For $i\geq 1$, solve for $X_i$ the system of linear $\star$-Sylvester equations:}\\ \label{eq:fixed_point_it}
&\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
X_i (b\widehat{F}_{kn}+d\widehat{E}_{kn} )^\star+\widehat{E}_{kn}X_i^\star= -\Delta A_{22}-f_{M_0+\Delta A_{11}}(X_{i-1})\\
X_i (a\widehat{F}_{kn}+c\widehat{E}_{kn})^\star+\widehat{F}_{kn}X_i^\star= -\Delta B_{22}-f_{M_1+\Delta B_{11}}(X_{i-1})
\end{array}\right.\, .\end{aligned}$$ This fixed point iteration idea, whose origin can be traced back to the work by Stewart [@Stewart], is similar to the one for proving [@minimal_pencils Theorem 6.8]. However, we emphasize that the corresponding matrix equations are rather different.
Notice that at every step of the fixed point iteration - we have to solve a system of linear $\star$-Sylvester equations. To help us to solve those equations we present Theorem \[thm:from\_T-Syl\_to\_Syl\], where we relate the solution of a kind of systems of $\star$-Sylvester equations with the solution of certain systems of Sylvester equations.
\[thm:from\_T-Syl\_to\_Syl\] Let $E,F\in \mathbb{F}^{m\times n}$, let $A=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{smallmatrix}\right]\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$ be a coninvolutory matrix, and let $C(\lambda)=\lambda C_1+C_0\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{m\times m}$ be an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured pencil. Let $T_{(A,E,F)}(X)$ be the linear operator $$\begin{aligned}
T_{(A,E,F)}:\mathbb{F}^{m\times n}&\longrightarrow \mathbb{F}^{2m\times m} \\
X &\longrightarrow \begin{bmatrix}
T_0(X) \\ T_1(X)
\end{bmatrix} := \begin{bmatrix}
X(bF+dE)^\star+EX^\star \\
X(aF+cE)^\star+FX^\star
\end{bmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ and let $S_{(A,E,F)}(Y,Z)$ be the following bilinear operator $$\begin{aligned}
S_{(A,E,F)}:\mathbb{F}^{m\times n}\times \mathbb{F}^{m\times n}&\longrightarrow \mathbb{F}^{2m\times m} \\
(Y,Z) &\longrightarrow \begin{bmatrix}
S_0(Y,Z) \\ S_1(Y,Z)
\end{bmatrix} := \begin{bmatrix}
Y(bF+dE)^\star+EZ^\star \\
Y(aF+cE)^\star+FZ^\star
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ If the pair of matrices $(Y_0,Z_0)$ is a solution of the system of Sylvester equations $S_{(A,E,F)}(Y,Z)=\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} C_0 \\ C_1 \end{smallmatrix} \right]$, then $X_0=(Y_0+Z_0)/2$ is a solution of the system of $\star$-Sylvester equations $T_{(A,E,F)}(X)= \left[ \begin{smallmatrix} C_0 \\ C_1 \end{smallmatrix} \right]$.
Assume that there exist matrices $Y_0,Z_0\in\mathbb{F}^{m\times n}$ satisfying the linear system of matrix equations $S_{(A,E,F)}(Y,Z)=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} C_0 \\ C_1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
&Y_0(bF+dE)^\star+EZ_0^\star = C_0,\label{eq:Sys_eq1} \\
&Y_0(aF+cE)^\star+FZ_0^\star = C_1. \label{eq:Sys_eq2}\end{aligned}$$ Applying the $(\cdot)^\star$ operator on both sides of and , and using that the pencil $\lambda C_1+C_0$ is $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured, we obtain that the pair of matrices $(Y_0,Z_0)$ also satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&Z_0E^\star + (bF+dE)Y_0^\star = bC_1+dC_0,\label{eq:Sys_eq3} \\
&Z_0F^\star + (aF+cE)Y_0^\star = aC_1+cC_0. \label{eq:Sys_eq4}\end{aligned}$$
Let $X_0=(Y_0+Z_0)/2$. To prove the desired result, we have to check that $X_0$ satisfies the equations $T_0(X_0)=C_0$ and $T_1(X_0)=C_1$. For the first equation, using , we obtain $$T_0(X_0)=\frac{(Y_0+Z_0)}{2}(bF+dE)^\star + E\frac{(Y_0+Z_0)^\star}{2} = \frac{1}{2}\left( C_0+\overline{b}Z_0F^\star + \overline{d}Z_0E^\star+EY_0^\star \right).$$ Then, from we get $\overline{b}Z_0F^\star = a\overline{b}C_1+c\overline{b}C_0-a\overline{b}FY_0^\star - c\overline{b}EY_0^\star$, and, from , we get $\overline{d}Z_0E^\star = b\overline{d}C_1+d\overline{d}C_0-b\overline{d}FY_0^\star-d\overline{d}EY_0^\star$. Substituting these expressions for $\overline{b}Z_0F^\star$ and $\overline{d}Z_0E^\star$ in the above equation, we obtain $$T_0(X_0)=\frac{1}{2}\left( C_0+\overline{b}Z_0F^\star + \overline{d}Z_0E^\star+EY_0^\star \right) = C_0,$$ where we have used $a\overline{b}+b\overline{d}=0$ and $c\overline{b}+d\overline{d}=1$, which follows from $A\overline{A}=I_2$. Therefore, the matrix $X_0$ satisfies the first matrix equation $T_0(X_0)=C_0$. Proceeding in a similar way, it is not difficult to show that $$T_1(X_0)=\frac{(Y_0+Z_0)}{2}(aF+cE)^\star + F\frac{(Y_0+Z_0)^\star}{2} = C_1.$$ Thus, we conclude that $T_{(A,E,F)}(X_0)= \left[ \begin{smallmatrix} C_0 \\ C_1 \end{smallmatrix} \right]$, as we wanted to prove.
To apply Theorem \[thm:from\_T-Syl\_to\_Syl\] for obtaining solutions of the systems of $\star$-Sylvester equations and solving, instead, a linear system of Sylvester equations, their right-hand-sides need to be the trailing and leading coefficients of an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured pencil. It is clear that this is the case for the right-hand-side of , since $\lambda \Delta B_{22}+\Delta A_{22}$ is by assumption the $(2,2)$ block of an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured pencil. In Lemma \[lemma:right-hand-side\], we show that this is also true for the right-hand-side of .
\[lemma:right-hand-side\] Let $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$ and $X\in\mathbb{F}^{kn\times (k+1)n}$. If the pencils $\lambda M_1+M_0,\lambda \Delta B_{11}+\Delta A_{11}\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{(k+1)n\times(k+1)n}$, and $\lambda \Delta B_{22}+\Delta A_{22}\in\mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{kn\times kn}$ are $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured pencils, then the pencil $\lambda(\Delta B_{22}+X(M_1+\Delta B_{11})X^\star)+\Delta A_{22}+X(M_0+\Delta A_{11})X^\star$ is also $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured.
Let us introduce the notation $C_1:=\Delta B_{22}+X(M_1+\Delta B_{11})X^\star$ and $C_0:= \Delta A_{22}+X(M_0+\Delta A_{11})X^\star$. The proof is immediate from the fact that the pencil $\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \lambda(M_1+\Delta B_{11})+M_0+\Delta A_{11} & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda \Delta B_{22}+\Delta A_{22} \end{smallmatrix} \right]$ is $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured, and the fact that the pencil $\lambda C_1+C_0$ is the (2,2) block of $$\begin{bmatrix}
I_{(k+1)n} & 0 \\ X & I_{kn}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\lambda(M_1+\Delta B_{11})+M_0+\Delta A_{11} & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda \Delta B_{22}+\Delta A_{22}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
I_{(k+1)n} & X^\star \\ 0 & I_{kn}
\end{bmatrix},$$ which is also $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured by Proposition \[prop:congruence\].
Theorem \[thm:from\_T-Syl\_to\_Syl\], together with Lemma \[lemma:right-hand-side\], allows us to replace the fixed point iteration - for getting a solution of with the new iteration $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber &\mbox{Solve for $(Y_0,Z_0)$ the system of Sylvester equations:} \\ \label{eq:fixed_point_it_Y0ZO}
&\left\{\begin{array}{l}
Y_0 (b\widehat{F}_{kn}+d\widehat{E}_{kn} )^\star+\widehat{E}_{kn}Z_0^\star= -\Delta A_{22}\\
Y_0 (a\widehat{F}_{kn}+c\widehat{E}_{kn})^\star+\widehat{F}_{kn}Z_0^\star= -\Delta B_{22} \end{array}\right. , \\
\nonumber &\mbox{and set }X_0 := (Y_0+Z_0)/2. \\
\nonumber &\mbox{For $i\geq 1$, solve for $(Y_i,Z_i)$ the system of Sylvester equations:} \\ \label{eq:fixed_point_it_YZ}
&\left\{\begin{array}{l}
Y_i (b\widehat{F}_{kn}+d\widehat{E}_{kn} )^\star+\widehat{E}_{kn}Z_i^\star= -\Delta A_{22}-f_{M_0+\Delta A_{11}}(X_{i-1})\\
Y_i (a\widehat{F}_{kn}+c\widehat{E}_{kn})^\star+\widehat{F}_{kn}Z_i^\star= -\Delta B_{22}-f_{M_1+\Delta B_{11}}(X_{i-1}) \end{array}\right. , \\
\nonumber &\mbox{and set } X_i := (Y_i+Z_i)/2.\end{aligned}$$
Observe that the linear systems of Sylvester equations – are underdetermined since the number of entries of the pair $(Y_i,Z_i)$, i.e., the number of scalar unknowns, is $2k(k+1)n^2$ while the number of scalar equations is $2k^2n^2$. Of course, this does not imply that the systems are consistent, so the next step is to obtain conditions on the norm of the perturbation pencil $\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F$ that guarantee that the operator $S_{(A,\widehat{E}_{kn},\widehat{F}_{kn})}(Y,Z)$ introduced in Theorem \[thm:from\_T-Syl\_to\_Syl\] is surjective. With this aim in mind, let us notice that a system of Sylvester matrix equations of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gen_sylv_linear}
\begin{split}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
Y (b(F_{kn}+\Delta B_{21})+d(-E_{kn}+\Delta A_{21}) )^\star+(-E_{kn} + \Delta A_{21})Z^\star= C_0\\
Y (a(F_{kn} + \Delta B_{21})+c(-E_{kn}+\Delta A_{21}))^\star+(F_{kn} + \Delta B_{21})Z^\star= C_1, \end{array}\right.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ can be written, using the Kronecker product $\otimes$ and the $\operatorname{vec}(\cdot)$ operation, as the underdetermined standard linear system $(T_A+\Delta T_A)x = b$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:linear_operator_equation}
&\left(
\underbrace{\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
(bF_{kn}-dE_{kn})\otimes I_{kn} & -I_{kn}\otimes E_{kn} \\ \hline
(aF_{kn}-cE_{kn})\otimes I_{kn}& I_{kn}\otimes F_{kn}
\end{array}
\right]}_{=: T_A}
+ \right. \\ \nonumber
&\left.\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
(b\overline{\Delta B_{21}} +d\overline{\Delta A_{21}})\otimes I_{kn} & I_{kn}\otimes \Delta A_{21}\\\hline \\[-2.2 ex]
(a\overline{\Delta B_{21}}+c\overline{\Delta A_{21}}) \otimes I_{kn}&I_{kn}\otimes \Delta B_{21}
\end{array}
\right]}_{=: \Delta T_A}
\right)
\underbrace{\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{vec}(Y)\\\hline
\mathrm{vec}(Z^\star)
\end{array}
\right]}_{=:x } =
\underbrace{\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{vec}(C_0)\\\hline
\mathrm{vec}(C_1)
\end{array}
\right]}_{=:b}
\>,\end{aligned}$$ where we have also used that all the entries of the matrices $E_{kn}$ and $F_{kn}$ are real. Then, the bilinear operator $S_{(A,\widehat{E}_{kn},\widehat{F}_{kn})}(Y,Z)$ is surjective if and only if the matrix $T_A+\Delta T_A$ has full row rank.
In Lemma \[lemma:min\_singular\_val\] we show that the matrix $T_A$ has full row rank. Additionally, we also provide a formula for its minimal singular value. The proof of Lemma \[lemma:min\_singular\_val\] is rather long, so it is postponed to Appendix \[appendix:proof\].
\[lemma:min\_singular\_val\] Let $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$ be any of the matrices in Table \[table:1\]. Then, the matrix $T_A$ in has full row rank, and its minimal singular value is given by $\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(T_A)=2\sin(\pi/(4k))$.
Lemma \[lemma:min\_singular\_val\] implies that if $\|\Delta T_A\|_2$ is small enough, then $T_A+ \Delta T_A$ has also full row rank and the linear system is consistent for any right-hand-side, or, equivalently, the bilinear operator $S_{(A,\widehat{E}_{kn},\widehat{F}_{kn})}(Y,Z)$ is surjective. In Lemma \[lemma:linear\_bound\], we bound the norm of the minimum 2-norm solution of or, equivalently, of the minimum Frobenius norm solution of the equation , since $\|[\mathrm{vec}(Y)^T, \mathrm{vec}(Z^\star)^T ]^T \|_2 = \|(Y,Z) \|_F$ (recall the definition of the Frobenius norm of a pair of matrices in ). We omit the proof of Lemma \[lemma:linear\_bound\], since it is identical to the proof of [@minimal_pencils Lemma 6.6].
\[lemma:linear\_bound\] Let $(T_A+\Delta T_A)x= b$ be the underdetermined linear system , and let us assume that $\sigma_{\min}(T_A)>\|\Delta T_A\|_2$. Then $(T_A+\Delta T_A)x= b$ is consistent and its minimum norm solution $(Y_0, Z_0)$ satisfies $$\label{eq:bound_YZ}
\|(Y_0,Z_0)\|_F\leq \frac{1}{\delta} \|(C_0,C_1)\|_F,$$ where $ \delta:=\sigma_{\rm min}(T_A)-\|\Delta T_A\|_2$.
Since the quantity $\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(T_A)-\|\Delta T_A\|_2$ plays an important role in the rest of our analysis, we obtain in Lemma \[lemm:deltabound\] a tractable lower bound on it. The proof of this lemma is almost identical to the one for [@minimal_pencils Lemma 6.7], so it is omitted.
\[lemm:deltabound\] Let $T_A$ and $\Delta T_A$ be the matrices in with $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$ any of the matrices in Table \[table:1\], let $\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ be the pencil in . If $\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F < 1/(3k)$, then $$\sigma_{\rm min}(T_A)-\|\Delta T_A\|_2 \geq \frac{\pi}{4 k} \, (1 - 3 k \|\Delta\mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F ) >0 \, .$$
Finally, we show in Theorem \[thm:gen\_sylvester\_solution\] and its corollary Theorem \[thm:finalofstep1\] that the fixed point iteration – or, equivalently, the iteration – by choosing minimum norm solutions $(Y_i,Z_i)$ at each step converges to a solution $X$ of the system of quadratic $\star$-Sylvester-like matrix equations such that $\|X\|_F \lesssim \|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F$, whenever $\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F$ is properly upper bounded. The proof of Theorem \[thm:gen\_sylvester\_solution\] follows closely those by Stewart [@Stewart Theorem 5.1] and Dopico, Lawrence, Pérez and Van Dooren [@minimal_pencils Theorem 6.8].
\[thm:gen\_sylvester\_solution\] There exists a solution $X$ of the quadratic system of $\star$-Sylvester-like matrix equations satisfying $$\label{eq:norm_solution}
\|X\|_F\leq 2\frac{\theta}{\delta}\>,$$ whenever $$\label{eq:condition_convergence}
\delta>0 \quad \mbox{and} \quad \frac{\theta\omega}{\delta^2}<\frac{1}{4}\>,$$ where $\delta = \sigma_{\rm min}(T_A)-\|\Delta T_A\|_2$, $\theta :=\|(\Delta A_{22},\Delta B_{22})\|_F$, and $\omega:=\|(M_0+\Delta A_{11},M_1+\Delta B_{11})\|_F$.
Lemma \[lemma:linear\_bound\] and the hypothesis $\delta >0$ guarantee that the linear system of matrix equations is consistent for any right-hand side. Let the minimum norm solution of be denoted by $(Y_0,Z_0)$, and set $X_0:=(Y_0+Z_0)/2$. From Theorem \[thm:from\_T-Syl\_to\_Syl\] and Lemma \[lemma:linear\_bound\] we get that the matrix $X_0$ is a solution of the matrix equation such that $$\|X_0\|_F\leq \|(Y_0,Z_0)\|_F \leq \frac{1}{\delta}\|(\Delta A_{22}, \Delta B_{22})\|_F = \frac{\theta}{\delta}=:\rho_0.$$ Then, let us define a sequence $\{X_i\}_{i=0}^\infty$ of matrices as follows: for $i > 0$, the matrix $X_i$ is defined as $X_i:=(Y_i+Z_i)/2$, where the pair of matrices $(Y_i, Z_i)$ denotes the minimum Frobenius norm solution of the underdetermined system . Clearly, we have $\|X_i\|_F\leq \|(Y_i,Z_i)\|_F$. Moreover, vectorizing and using the matrix $T_A + \Delta T_A$ defined in , we get $$\label{eq:fixed_it_vec}
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{vec}(Y_{i})\\
\mathrm{vec}(Z_{i}^\star)
\end{array}
\right]
=
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{vec} (Y_0)\\
\mathrm{vec} (Z_0^\star)
\end{array}
\right]
-(T_A+\Delta T_A)^\dagger
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{vec}(X_{i-1}(M_0+\Delta A_{11})X_{i-1}^\star)\\
\mathrm{vec}(X_{i-1}(M_1+\Delta B_{11})X_{i-1}^\star)
\end{array}
\right]\>.$$ We claim that the sequence $\{X_i\}_{i=0}^\infty$ converges to a solution $X$ of satisfying . To prove this, we first show that the sequence $\{\|X_i\|_F\}_{i=0}^\infty$ is a bounded sequence. If $\|X_{i-1}\|_F\leq \|(Y_{i-1},Z_{i-1})\|_F \leq \rho_{i-1}$, then we have from that $$\begin{aligned}
\|X_i\|_F\leq &\|(Y_{i},Z_{i})\|_F \leq \|(Y_0,Z_0)\|_F \\
&+\|(T_A+\Delta T_A)^\dagger \|_2\|\|(Y_{i-1},Z_{i-1})\|_F^{2}\|(M_0+\Delta A_{11},M_1+\Delta B_{11})\|_F\\
\leq &\rho_0+\rho_{i-1}^2\omega\delta^{-1}=:\rho_{i}\>.
\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $\rho_{i}$ in the equation above may be written as $\rho_{i}=\rho_0(1+\kappa_i)$, where $\kappa_i$ satisfies the recursion $$\label{eq:fixedstewart}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\kappa_1=\rho_0\omega\delta^{-1}=\theta \omega \delta^{-2},\\
\kappa_{i+1}=\kappa_1(1+\kappa_i)^2\>.
\end{array}\right.$$ As it is shown in the proofs of [@minimal_pencils Theorem 6.8] and [@Stewart Theorem 5.1], if $\kappa_1<1/4$, then $\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} \kappa_i = \kappa$, where $\kappa$ is given by $$\kappa =\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty} \kappa_i = \frac{2\kappa_1}{1-2\kappa_1+\sqrt{1-4\kappa_1}} < 1,$$ and $\kappa_i <\kappa$ for all $i\geq 1$. Thus, the norms of the elements of the sequence $\{X_i\}_{i=0}^\infty$ are bounded as $$\label{eq:bound_X}
\|X_i\|_F\leq \rho :=\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty}{\rho_i}=\rho_0(1+\kappa)\>.$$
We now show that the sequence $\{ X_i\}_{i=0}^\infty$ converges provided that $2\delta^{-1}\omega \rho<1$, which is guaranteed by . To this purpose, let $S_i:=(Y_i-Y_{i-1},Z_i-Z_{i-1})$. Then, notice that implies $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
&\|S_i\|_F \\ & \leq \|(T_A+\Delta T_A)^\dagger\|_2 \,
\left\| \begin{bmatrix}
{\rm vec}\left(X_{i-1}(M_0+\Delta A_{11})X_{i-1}^\star-X_{i-2}(M_0+\Delta A_{11})X_{i-2}^\star \right) \\
{\rm vec}\left(X_{i-1}(M_1+\Delta B_{11})X_{i-1}^\star-X_{i-2}(M_1+\Delta B_{11})X_{i-2}^\star \right)
\end{bmatrix} \right\|_2 \\
&\leq \delta^{-1} \,
\left\| \left[ \begin{matrix}
{\rm vec}\left((X_{i-1}-X_{i-2})(M_0+\Delta A_{11})X_{i-1}^\star \right) \\
{\rm vec}\left((X_{i-1}-X_{i-2})(M_1+\Delta B_{11})X_{i-1}^\star \right)
\end{matrix} \right. \right. \\
&\hspace{5cm}\left.\left. \begin{matrix}
+ {\rm vec}\left(X_{i-2}(M_0+\Delta A_{11})(X_{i-1}-X_{i-2})^\star\right)\\
+ {\rm vec}\left(X_{i-2}(M_1+\Delta B_{11})(X_{i-1}-X_{i-2})^\star\right)
\end{matrix}\right]\right\|_2
\\
&\leq 2\delta^{-1}\omega\rho \|X_{i-1}-X_{i-2}\|_F\leq 2\delta^{-1}\omega \rho \|S_{i-1}\|_F.\end{aligned}$$ Since $2\delta^{-1}\omega \rho<1$, we get that $\{(Y_i,Z_i)\}_{i=0}^\infty$ is a Cauchy sequence and, therefore, it has a limit $(Y,Z):=\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty} (Y_i,Z_i)$. Thus, the matrix $X:=(Y+Z)/2=\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty}(Y_i+Z_i)/2=\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty} X_i$ exists. Finally, we show that the matrix $X$ is a solution of satisfying . First, since the sequence $\{(Y_i,Z_i)\}_{i=0}^\infty$ satisfies and, so, , we have that the sequence $\{X_i=(Y_i+Z_i)/2\}_{i=0}^\infty$ satisfies as a consequence of Theorem \[thm:from\_T-Syl\_to\_Syl\] and Lemma \[lemma:right-hand-side\]. Then, by taking limits in both sides of , we get that $X$ is a solution of . We conclude the proof just noticing that implies $\|X\|_F\leq \rho_0(1+\kappa)<2\rho_0=2\delta^{-1}\theta$.
We complete the first step of the structured backward error analysis with Theorem \[thm:finalofstep1\]. Its proof follows from Lemma \[lemm:deltabound\], Theorem \[thm:gen\_sylvester\_solution\] and norm inequalites, and it is identical to its unstructured counterpart [@minimal_pencils Theorem 6.9], so it is omitted.
\[thm:finalofstep1\] Let $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ be an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencil as in , where $A$ is any of the matrices in Table \[table:1\], and let $\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ be any pencil with the same size and structure as $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ such that $$\label{eq:boundL1}
\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F < \left(\frac{\pi}{16} \right)^2 \, \frac{1}{k^2} \, \frac{1}{1 + \|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F}.$$ Then, there exists a matrix $X\in{{\mathbb F}}^{kn\times (k+1)n}$ that satisfies $$\label{eq:easyboundCD}
\|X\|_F \leq \frac{3k}{1-3k \|\Delta\mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F} \, \|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F,$$ and the equality with $$\label{eq:boundL12tilde}
\|\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_{21}(\lambda)\|_{F} \leq
\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F
\left(1 + \frac{3k}{1-3k \|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F} \, (\|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F + \|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F) \right).$$
Second step: proving that $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{\widetilde{L}}(\lambda)$ in is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil {#sec:second_step}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aim of this section is to obtain bounds on $\|\Delta \mathcal{\widetilde{L}}(\lambda)\|_F$ that ensure the pencil is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil. To prove this, we rely heavily on some important minimal bases perturbations results in [@minimal_pencils Section 6.2]. In particular, we will use [@minimal_pencils Theorem 6.18], which is stated below for completeness.
\[thm:finalofstep2\] Let $L_k (\lambda)$ and $\Lambda_k (\lambda)^T$ be the pencil and the row vector polynomial defined in and , respectively, and let $\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_{21} (\lambda)$ be any pencil of size $k n \times (k + 1) n$ such that $$\label{eq:final21pertbound}
\|\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_{21} (\lambda) \|_F < \frac{\pi}{12 (k +1)^{3/2}}.$$ Then, there exists a matrix polynomial $\Delta R_k (\lambda)^T$ with size $n \times (k + 1) n$ and grade $k$ such that
1. $L_{k}(\lambda)\otimes I_n+\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_{21}(\lambda)$ and $\Lambda_{k}(\lambda)^T\otimes I_n+\Delta R_k (\lambda)^T$ are dual minimal bases, with all the row degrees of the former equal to $1$ and with all the row degrees of the latter equal to $k$, and
2. $\displaystyle \|\Delta R_k (\lambda) \|_F \leq
\frac{6 \, \sqrt{2} \, (k+1)}{\pi} \, \|\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_{21} (\lambda) \|_F \,
< \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$.
By using Theorem \[thm:finalofstep2\], together with Theorem \[thm:minimal\_basis\_Mobius\], and the definition of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencils in Definition \[def:structured-minimal-bases-pencil\], we prove the final result of this section.
\[thm:corfinalofstep2\] Let $A\in {\rm GL}(2,\mathbb{F})$ be any of the matrices listed in Table \[table:1\], let $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda)$ be the pencil in . If $$\|\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_{21} (\lambda) \|_F < \frac{\pi}{12 \, (k+1)^{3/2}},$$ then $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda)$ is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil. Moreover, there exists a matrix polynomial $\Delta R_k (\lambda)^T$ of grade $k$ such that $\Lambda_{k}(\lambda)^T\otimes I_n+\Delta R_k (\lambda)^T$ is a minimal basis dual to $ L_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n+\Delta \mathcal{\widetilde{L}}_{21}(\lambda)$ with all its row degrees equal to $k$, and $$\label{eq:bound_dual}
\|\Delta R_k (\lambda) \|_F = \|\mathbf{M}_A[\Delta R_k] (\lambda) \|_F \leq
\frac{6 \, \sqrt{2} \, (k+1)}{\pi} \, \|\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_{21} (\lambda) \|_F \,
< \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \, .$$
By Theorem \[thm:finalofstep2\], the matrix pencil $L_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n+\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_{21}(\lambda)$ is a minimal basis with all its row degrees equal to 1, and there exists a matrix polynomial $\Delta R_k(\lambda)$ such that $\Lambda_k(\lambda)^T\otimes I_n +\Delta R_k(\lambda)^T$ is a dual minimal basis of $L_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n+\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_{21}(\lambda)$ with all its row degrees equal to $k$. Therefore, by Definition \[def:structured-minimal-bases-pencil\], the pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda)$ in is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil. To finish the proof, we only need to prove the upper bound . Indeed, the upper bound for $\|\Delta R_k(\lambda)\|_F$ follows from part-(b) in Theorem \[thm:finalofstep2\]. Moreover, since $A$ is any of the matrices in Table \[table:1\], it is easily checked that $\| \mathbf{M}_A[\Delta R_k](\lambda) \|_F = \|\Delta R_k(\lambda)\|_F$, and the result is established.
Third step: Mapping structured perturbations to a structured block Kronecker pencil onto the structured matrix polynomial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combining the results in Sections \[sec:first\_step\] and \[sec:second\_step\], in this section we finish the structured backward error analysis of structured odd-degree polynomial eigenvalue problems solved using structured block Kronecker pencils. The main result is Theorem \[thm:back\_error\_main\_theorem\], whose consequences are, then, discussed in Corollary \[cor:FINperturbation\] and Remark \[remark:FIN\].
In order to simplify the proof of Theorem \[thm:back\_error\_main\_theorem\], we present first the following lemma.
\[lemma:FIN\] Let $P(\lambda)$ and $P(\lambda) + \Delta P(\lambda)$ be the matrix polynomials in and , respectively, where $A$ is one of the matrices in Table \[table:1\], and write $M(\lambda)=\lambda M_1+M_0$. If the matrix polynomial $\Delta R_k (\lambda)$ satisfies $\|\Delta R_k (\lambda)\|_F < 1/\sqrt{2}$, then $$\|\Delta P(\lambda)\|_F \leq \sqrt{k+1} \left(5 \|\Delta \mathcal{L}_{11}(\lambda) \|_F + 4 \|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F \|\Delta R_k (\lambda)\|_F\right) \, ,$$ where $g = 2k + 1$.
First, following the notation introduced in the proof of [@minimal_pencils Lemma 6.20], for brevity, we use the notation $\Lambda_{k n} := \Lambda_{k}(\lambda) \otimes I_n$ and $\Lambda_{k n}^\star := \Lambda_{k}(\lambda)^\star\otimes I_n$, and omit the dependence on $\lambda$ of some matrix polynomials. Then, note that, since $A$ is one of the matrices in Table \[table:1\], we have $\|\Lambda_{k n}\|_F=\| \mathbf{M}_{A}[\Lambda_{k n}] \|_F$ and $\|\Delta R_k \|_F=\| \mathbf{M}_{A}[\Delta R_k] \|_F$. From and , we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Delta P (\lambda) = & \mathbf{M}_{A}[\Delta R_k]^\star(\lambda M_1 + M_0) \Lambda_{k n} + \mathbf{M}_{A}[\Lambda_{k n}]^\star \Delta \mathcal{L}_{11} \Lambda_{k n} + \mathbf{M}_{A}[\Delta R_k]^\star \Delta\mathcal{L}_{11} \Lambda_{k n} \\ \nonumber & + \mathbf{M}_{A}[\Lambda_{kn}]^\star (\lambda M_1 + M_0) \Delta R_k +
\mathbf{M}_{A}[\Delta R_{k}]^\star (\lambda M_1 + M_0) \Delta R_k \\ & + \mathbf{M}_{A}[\Lambda_{kn}]^\star \Delta\mathcal{L}_{11} \Delta R_k + \mathbf{M}_{A}[\Delta R_k]^\star \Delta\mathcal{L}_{11} \Delta R_k \, . \label{eq:longDeltaP}\end{aligned}$$ The result follows from bounding the Frobenius norm of each of the terms in the right-hand side of , using Lemma \[lemma:normsproducts\], together with $\|\Delta R_k \|_F < 1/\sqrt{2}$ and $\| \mathbf{M}_{A}[\Delta R_k] \|_F < 1/\sqrt{2}$ in those terms that are not linear in $\Delta \mathcal{L}_{11} $, $\Delta R_k $, and $\mathbf{M}_{A}[\Delta R_k]$ for bounding them with linear terms. In particular, note that Lemma \[lemma:normsproducts\] implies that for any matrix polynomial $Z(\lambda)$ of grade $t$ and any $A$ in Table \[table:1\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf{M}_A[\Lambda_{k n}]^\star Z(\lambda)\|_F =
\|\mathbf{M}_A[\Lambda_{k n}^T\mathbf{M}_{A^{-1}}[Z]]\|_F\leq & \min\{\sqrt{k+1},\sqrt{t+1}\}\|\mathbf{M}_{A^{-1}}[Z]\|_F \\
\leq &\min \{\sqrt{k+1},\sqrt{t+1}\}\|Z\|_F.\end{aligned}$$ With this observation, bounding all the terms of the right-hand-side of is elementary but rather long, so we invite the reader to complete the proof.
Finally, we are at the position of stating and proving the main result of this section, namely, the perturbation of structured block Kronecker pencils result in Theorem \[thm:back\_error\_main\_theorem\].
\[thm:back\_error\_main\_theorem\] Let $P(\lambda) = \sum_{i=0}^g P_i \lambda^i \in \mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{n\times n}$ be a structured ((skew)-symmetric, (anti)-palindromic, or alternating) matrix polynomial and let $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ be a structured block Kronecker pencil as in , where the matrix $A$ is one of the matrices in Table \[table:1\] and it is chosen to guarantee that $\mathscr{S}(P)=\mathscr{S}(\mathcal{L})$, with $g = 2k + 1$ and such that $P(\lambda) = (\mathbf{M}_{A}[\Lambda_k](\lambda)^\star\otimes I_n)(\lambda M_1+M_0)(\Lambda_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n)$, where $\lambda M_1 + M_0$ is the $(1,1)$-block in the natural partition of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ and $\Lambda_k (\lambda)$ is the vector polynomial in . If $\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is any pencil with the same size and structure as $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ and such that $$\label{eq:Lfinalbound}
\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F < \left(\frac{\pi}{16} \right)^2 \, \frac{1}{(k+1)^{5/2}} \, \frac{1}{1 + \|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F},$$ then $\mathcal{L}(\lambda) + \Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong linearization of a matrix polynomial $P(\lambda) + \Delta P(\lambda)$ with grade $g$ and such that $$\frac{\|\Delta P(\lambda)\|_F}{\|P(\lambda)\|_F} \leq 68\, (k+1)^{5/2} \frac{\|\mathcal{L}(\lambda) \|_F}{\|P(\lambda)\|_F} \, (1+ \|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F + \|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F^2) \,
\frac{\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda) \|_F}{\|\mathcal{L}(\lambda) \|_F} \, ,$$ and $\mathscr{S}(\Delta P)=\mathscr{S}(P)$. In addition, the right minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda) + \Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ are those of $P(\lambda) + \Delta P(\lambda)$ shifted by $k$, and the left minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda) + \Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ are those of $P(\lambda) + \Delta P(\lambda)$ shifted also by $k$.
Notice that the condition implies , so we can apply Theorem \[thm:finalofstep1\] to prove that the pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is $\star$-congruent to the pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda)$ in . Since $\star$-congruences are strict equivalences, both pencils have the same complete eigenstructures. By using together with $3k \|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F < 1/2$, which is implied by , we get the following upper bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:aux1boundfinal}
\|\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_{21}(\lambda)\|_{F}
&\leq \|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F \left(2 + 6 \, k \, \|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F \right) \, \\
& \leq 6 \left(\frac{\pi}{16} \right)^2 \, \frac{1}{(k+1)^{3/2}} < \frac{\pi}{12} \, \frac{1}{(k+1)^{3/2}} \,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The above upper bound allows us to apply Theorem \[thm:corfinalofstep2\] to the pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda)$. Thus, the pencil $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda)$ is an $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencil, which, by Theorem \[thm:structured-minimal-basis-pencil\], is a strong linearization of the matrix polynomial $P(\lambda)+\Delta P(\lambda)$ in with $\mathscr{S}(\Delta P)=\mathscr{S}(P)$. Furthermore, Theorem \[thm:structured-minimal-basis-pencil\] also implies that the right and left minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda)$ and, since they are strictly equivalent, the ones of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)+\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$, are those of $P(\lambda)+\Delta P(\lambda)$ shifted by $k$. It only remains to obtain the upper bound for $\|\Delta P(\lambda)\|_F/\|P(\lambda)\|_F$. But this follows from combining Theorem \[thm:corfinalofstep2\] with to obtain $$\|\Delta R_k (\lambda) \|_F = \|\mathbf{M}_{A}[\Delta R_k](\lambda) \|_F \leq 17 \, (k+1)^2 \,
\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F \left(1 + \|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F \right),$$ and, then, combining the above upper bound with Lemma \[lemma:FIN\].
Recall that our main goal is to study whether solving a SPEP or a SCPE applying a structurally backward stable algorithm (like the palindromic-QR or the structured staircase algorithm) to a structured block Kronecker pencil is structurally global backward stable from the point of view of the polynomial or not. In view of Theorem \[thm:back\_error\_main\_theorem\], the structured backward stability is guaranteed when the constant $$\label{eq:C_pl}
C_{P,\mathcal{L}} := 68\, (k+1)^{5/2} \frac{\|\mathcal{L}(\lambda) \|_F}{\|P(\lambda)\|_F} \, (1+ \|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F + \|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F^2)$$ is a moderate number. To help us to study the size of , we present Lemma \[lemma:quotient\]. Although Lemma \[lemma:quotient\] is similar to [@minimal_pencils Lemma 6.24], we reprove it in a simpler way that is more adequate in our structured setting.
\[lemma:quotient\] Let $P(\lambda) = \sum_{i=0}^g P_i \lambda^i \in \mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{n\times n}$ be a structured matrix polynomial and let $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ be a structured block Kronecker pencil as in , where the matrix $A$ is one of the matrices in Table \[table:1\] and it is chosen to guarantee that $\mathscr{S}(P)=\mathscr{S}(\mathcal{L})$, with $g = 2k + 1$ and such that $P(\lambda) = (\mathbf{M}_{A}[\Lambda_k](\lambda)^\star\otimes I_n)(\lambda M_1+M_0)(\Lambda_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n)$. Then:
1. $\displaystyle \frac{\| \mathcal{L}(\lambda) \|_F}{\|P(\lambda)\|_F} = \sqrt{\displaystyle \left( \frac{\|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F}{\|P(\lambda)\|_F }\right)^2 +
\frac{4nk}{\|P(\lambda)\|_F^2}} \geq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\, (k+1)} }$.
2. $\displaystyle \|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F \, \geq \, \|P (\lambda) \|_F /\sqrt{2\, (k+1)}$.
The equality in part (a) follows directly from the structure of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ in . On the other hand Lemma \[lemma:normsproducts\] and the related property $\|(\mathbf{M}_A[\Lambda_k](\lambda)^\star\otimes I_n)Z(\lambda)\|_F\leq \min\{\sqrt{k+1},\sqrt{t+1}\}\|Z(\lambda)\|_F$ for any matrix polynomial $Z(\lambda)$ of grade $t$, that we have already used in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:FIN\], yield $\|P(\lambda)\|_F\leq \sqrt{k+1}\|(\lambda M_1+M_0)(\Lambda_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n)\|_F\leq \sqrt{2(k+1)}\|\lambda M_1+M_0\|_F$. This proves (b), which implies the inequality in (a).
The consequences of Theorem \[thm:back\_error\_main\_theorem\] and Lemma \[lemma:quotient\] are the same as the consequences of [@minimal_pencils Lemma 6.24] and [@minimal_pencils Theorems 6.22 and 6.23] in the backward error analysis in [@minimal_pencils]. If $\|P(\lambda)\|_F \ll 1$, then $C_{P,\mathcal{L}}$ is huge, since $4kn/\|P(\lambda)\|_F^2$ is huge. Moreover, from and part-(b) in Lemma \[lemma:quotient\], we see that if $\|P(\lambda)\|_F \gg 1$, then $C_{P,\mathcal{L}}$ is also huge, since $\|\lambda M_1 + M_0 \|_F$ is huge and $\|\mathcal{L}(\lambda) \|_F/\|P(\lambda)\|_F \geq 1/\sqrt{2\, (k+1)}$. Therefore, it is necessary to scale $P(\lambda)$ in advance in such a way that $\|P(\lambda)\|_F = 1$ to have a chance $C_{P,\mathcal{L}}$ moderate. However, even in this case, $C_{P,\mathcal{L}}$ is large if $\|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F$ is large. Therefore, to guarantee that $C_{P,\mathcal{L}}$ is a moderate number, in addition to scale $P(\lambda)$, one has to consider only structured block Kronecker pencils with $\|\lambda M_1+M_0\|_F\approx \|P(\lambda)\|_F$.
As a consequence of the discussion in the previous paragraph, we finally state the informal Corollary \[cor:FINperturbation\], which establishes sufficient conditions for the structurally backward stability of the solution of SPEPs and SCPEs via structured block Kronecker pencils. As it was done in its unstructured version [@minimal_pencils Corollary 6.25], for the sake of clarity and simplicity any nonessential numerical constant is omitted.
\[cor:FINperturbation\] Let $P(\lambda) = \sum_{i=0}^g P_i \lambda^i \in \mathbb{F}[\lambda]^{n\times n}$ be a structured matrix polynomial with $\|P(\lambda)\|_F = 1$. Let $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ be a structured block Kronecker pencil as in , where the matrix $A$ is one of the matrices in Table \[table:1\] and it is chosen to guarantee that $\mathscr{S}(P)=\mathscr{S}(\mathcal{L})$, with $g = 2k + 1$ and such that $P(\lambda) = (\mathbf{M}_{A}[\Lambda_k](\lambda)^\star\otimes I_n)(\lambda M_1+M_0)(\Lambda_k(\lambda)\otimes I_n)$, where $\lambda M_1+M_0$ is the (1,1) block of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$. Let $\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ be any pencil with the same size and structure as $\mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ and with $\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)\|_F$ sufficiently small. If $\|\lambda M_1 + M_0\|_F \approx \|P(\lambda)\|_F$, then $\mathcal{L}(\lambda) + \Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ is a strong linearization of a matrix polynomial $P(\lambda) + \Delta P(\lambda)$ with grade $g$ and such that $$\label{eq:informalcor}
\frac{\|\Delta P(\lambda)\|_F}{\|P(\lambda)\|_F} \lesssim \, (k+1)^{3} \,\sqrt{n} \, \,
\frac{\|\Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda) \|_F}{\|\mathcal{L}(\lambda) \|_F} \quad \mbox{with} \quad \mathscr{S}(\Delta P)=\mathscr{S}(P).$$ In addition, the right minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda) + \Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ are those of $P(\lambda) + \Delta P(\lambda)$ shifted by $k$, and the left minimal indices of $\mathcal{L}(\lambda) + \Delta \mathcal{L}(\lambda)$ are those of $P(\lambda) + \Delta P(\lambda)$ also shifted by $k$.
\[remark:FIN\] We emphasize that Corollary \[cor:FINperturbation\] can be applied in particular to the non-permuted block-tridiagonal and block-antitridiagonal structure preserving strong linearizations in [@Greeks2; @Alternating; @Palindromic; @Skew] (see also Example \[ex:tridiagonal\] in this paper), since the Frobenius norm is invariant under permutations, permutations preserve strong linearizations and minimal indices, and the structure of the pencils are preserved under $\star$-congruence. Therefore, given one of these block-tridiagonal or block-antitridiagonal structure preserving strong linearization and a perturbation of it with the same structure, we can permute both and transform the corresponding perturbation problem into the problem we have solved in this section.
Notice the following rather surprising result. The constant , which shows whether or not solving SPEPs or SCPEs applying a structured backward stable algorithm to a structured block Kronecker pencil is structurally global backward stable, is the same constant (except by the minor change of replacing $g$ by $k+1$) that shows whether or not the (unstructured) backward stability of solving PEPs and CPEs applying a backward stable algorithm (like the QZ algorithm of the staircase algorithm) to a block Kronecker pencil holds (see [@minimal_pencils Section 6.3]).
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
The numerical solution of a structured polynomial eigenvalue problem is usually performed by embedding the associated structured matrix polynomial into a matrix pencil with the same structure, called a structure-preserving linearization, and then applying well-established algorithms for structured matrix pencils, like the palindromic-QR algorithm or the structured versions of the staircase algorithm, to the linearization. This approach guarantees that the computed complete eigenstructure is the exact one of a nearby matrix pencil with the same structure as the original matrix polynomial. However, it has remained an open problem to determine whether or not the computed eigenstructure is the exact one of a nearby structured matrix polynomial. In this paper, we have solved this problem for a large family of structure-preserving linearizations, i.e., the family of structured block Kronecker linearizations. More precisely, we have performed for the first time a rigorous global and structured backward error analysis of structured complete polynomial eigenvalue problems solved by using structured block Kronecker linearizations, when the associated matrix polynomial has odd degree and is (skew-)symmetric, (anti-)palindromic or alternating. In order to perform our analysis for the six considered structures in an unified way, we have introduced the formalism of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured matrix polynomials, and the families of $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured strong block minimal bases pencils and $\mathbf{M}_A$-structured block Kronecker pencils, which contains as a particular subclass the family of structured Kronecker pencils. This analysis has allowed us to identify a huge family of structure-preserving linearizations that yield perfect structured polynomial backward stability in the solution of structured complete polynomial eigenvalue problems. In particular, this family contains the famous block-tridiagonal and block-antitridiagonal structure preserving strong linearizations presented in [@Greeks2; @PalindromicFiedler; @Alternating; @Palindromic; @Skew] and the symmetric and skew-symmetric strong linearizations in [@PartI].
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:min\_singular\_val\] {#appendix:proof}
===========================================
The goal of this appendix is the computation of the minimum singular value of the matrix $$T_A = \left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
(bF_{kn}-dE_{kn})\otimes I_{kn} &-I_{kn}\otimes E_{kn}\\\hline
(aF_{kn}-cE_{kn})\otimes I_{kn}&I_{kn}\otimes F_{kn}
\end{array}
\right],$$ when the matrix $A=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{smallmatrix}\right]$ is equal to any of the following matrices $$\begin{aligned}
&A_1:=\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}, \,\,
A_2:=\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1
\end{bmatrix},\,\,
A_3:=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0
\end{bmatrix},\,\,
A_4:=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -1 \\ -1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}, \\
&A_5:=\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix},\,\, \mbox{and} \,\,
A_6:=\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$
We start by reducing the problem of computing the minimum singular value of $T_A$ to the problem of computing the minimum singular value of a matrix $\widehat{T}_A$ with a size much smaller than the size of $T_A$. First, notice that we may write the matrix $T_A$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
T_A=&
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
(bF_{kn}-dE_{kn})\otimes I_{k}\otimes I_{n} &-I_{kn}\otimes E_{k}\otimes I_{n}\\\hline
(aF_{kn}-cE_{kn})\otimes I_{k}\otimes I_{n}&I_{kn}\otimes F_{k}\otimes I_{n}
\end{array}
\right]\\
=&
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
(bF_{kn}-dE_{kn})\otimes I_k & -I_{kn}\otimes E_{k}\\\hline
(aF_{kn}-cE_{kn})\otimes I_{k}&I_{kn}\otimes F_{k}
\end{array}
\right]\otimes I_{n}=:\widetilde{T}_A\otimes I_{n}.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we obtain $\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(T_A) = \sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widetilde{T}_A)$. Then, we perform a perfect shuffle permutation on each block of the matrix $\widetilde{T}_A$ to swap the order of the Kronecker products. In other words, there exist permutation matrices $S$, $R_1$, and $R_2$ (see, for example, [@VanLoan]) such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
S&\\\hline
&S
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
(bF_{kn}-dE_{kn})\otimes I_k & -I_{kn}\otimes E_{k}\\\hline
(aF_{kn}-cE_{kn})\otimes I_{k}&I_{kn}\otimes F_{k}
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
R_1^{T}&\\\hline
\phantom{\Big{(}} & R_2^{T}
\end{array}
\right]\\
=&
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
I_k\otimes (bF_{kn}-dE_{kn}) & -E_{k}\otimes I_{kn}\\\hline
I_{k}\otimes (aF_{kn}-cE_{kn}) & F_{k}\otimes I_{kn}
\end{array}
\right] \\
=&
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
I_k\otimes (bF_{k}-dE_{k}) & -E_{k}\otimes I_{k}\\\hline
I_{k}\otimes (aF_{k}-cE_{k}) & F_{k}\otimes I_{k}
\end{array}
\right]\otimes I_{n}=:\widehat{T}_A\otimes I_{n}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we obtain $\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(T_A) = \sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widetilde{T}_A)=\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T}_A)$.
We will denote by $\widehat{T}_{i}$ the matrix $\widehat{T}_A$ when $A=A_i$, for $i=1,\hdots,6$. The rest of the proof consists in showing that the minimum singular value of the matrix $\widehat{T}_i$, for $i=1,\hdots,6$, is equal to the minimum singular value of the matrix $$\label{eq:That}
\widehat{T}:=
\begin{bmatrix}
I_k\otimes E_k & E_k \otimes I_k \\
I_k\otimes F_k & F_k \otimes I_k
\end{bmatrix},$$ which, by [@minimal_pencils Lemmas 6.4 and B.1], is equal to $2\sin(\pi/(4k))$.
First, notice the following equalities $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{T}=&
\begin{bmatrix}
-I_{k^2} & 0 \\ 0 & I_{k^2}
\end{bmatrix}
\left[ \begin{array}{c|c}
-I_k\otimes E_k & -E_k \otimes I_k \\ \hline
I_k\otimes F_k & F_k \otimes I_k
\end{array}\right] \\
=&\begin{bmatrix}
-I_{k^2} & 0 \\ 0 & I_{k^2}
\end{bmatrix}
\left[ \begin{array}{c|c}
I_k\otimes E_k & -E_k \otimes I_k \\ \hline
-I_k\otimes F_k & F_k \otimes I_k
\end{array}\right]
\begin{bmatrix}
-I_{k(k+1)} & 0 \\ 0 & I_{k(k+1)}
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we immediately obtain $\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T}_1)=\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T}_2)=\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T})=2\sin(\pi/(4k))$. In addition, notice $$\begin{aligned}
&\left[ \begin{array}{c|c}
-I_k\otimes F_k & -E_k \otimes I_k \\ \hline
I_k\otimes E_k & F_k \otimes I_k
\end{array}\right] =
\left[ \begin{array}{c|c}
I_k\otimes F_k & -E_k \otimes I_k \\ \hline
-I_k\otimes E_k & F_k \otimes I_k
\end{array}\right]\begin{bmatrix}
-I_{k(k+1)} & 0 \\ 0 & I_{k(k+1)}
\end{bmatrix}, \quad \mbox{and} \\
&\left[ \begin{array}{c|c}
-I_k\otimes E_k & -E_k \otimes I_k \\ \hline
-I_k\otimes F_k & F_k \otimes I_k
\end{array}\right] =
\left[ \begin{array}{c|c}
I_k\otimes E_k & -E_k \otimes I_k \\ \hline
I_k\otimes F_k & F_k \otimes I_k
\end{array}\right]\begin{bmatrix}
-I_{k(k+1)} & 0 \\ 0 & I_{k(k+1)}
\end{bmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ so we obtain $\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T}_3)=\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T}_4)$ and $\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T}_5)=\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T}_6)$, and, therefore, we only need to compute $\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T}_3)$ and $\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T}_5)$.
Let us compute first the minimum singular value of $\widehat{T}_3$. Recall that the singular values of $\widehat{T}_3$ are equal to the square roots of the eigenvalues of the matrix $\widehat{T}_3\widehat{T}_3^T$. The matrix $\widehat{T}_3\widehat{T}_3^T$ is equal to $$\widehat{T}_3\widehat{T}_3^T=\begin{bmatrix}
2I_{k^2} & -\widehat{W}_{k,k} \\ -\widehat{W}_{k,k}^T & 2I_{k^2}
\end{bmatrix} = 2I_{2k^2} -\begin{bmatrix}
0 & \widehat{W}_{k,k} \\ \widehat{W}_{k,k}^T &0
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $\widehat{W}_{k,k}=I_k\otimes F_kE_k^T+E_kF_k^T\otimes I_k$. It is well known that the eigenvalues of the matrix $$\begin{bmatrix}
0 & \widehat{W}_{k,k} \\ \widehat{W}_{k,k}^T & 0
\end{bmatrix}$$ are $\pm \sigma_1 (\widehat{W}_{k,k}), \ldots, \pm \sigma_{k^2} (\widehat{W}_{k,k})$, where $\sigma_1 (\widehat{W}_{k,k}) \geq \cdots \geq \sigma_{k^2} (\widehat{W}_{k,k})$ are the singular values of $\widehat{W}_{k,k}$. Therefore, the eigenvalues of $\widehat{T}_3 \widehat{T}_3^T$ are $2 \pm \sigma_1 (\widehat{W}_{k,k}), \ldots, 2 \pm \sigma_{k^2} (\widehat{W}_{k,k})$, which implies $$\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T}_3)=\sqrt{2-\sigma_{\mathrm{max}}(\widehat{W}_{k,k})}.$$ So we have to compute the largest singular value of the matrix $\widehat{W}_{k,k}$. To this aim, let us denote by $R_k$ the $k\times k$ reverse identity matrix, i.e., the matrix $$R_k:=\begin{bmatrix}
& & 1 \\ & \iddots & \\ 1
\end{bmatrix}\in\mathbb{R}^{k\times k}.$$ Notice $R_kF_kE_k^TR_k=E_kF_k^T$. Thus, we have $(I_k\otimes R_k)\widehat{W}_{k,k}(I_k\otimes R_k)= I_k\otimes E_kF_k^T+E_kF_k^T\otimes I_k=:W_{k,k}$. From [@minimal_pencils Proposition B4] and the previous argument, we get $\sigma_{\mathrm{max}}(\widehat{W}_{k,k})=\sigma_{\mathrm{max}}(W_{k,k})=2\cos(\pi/(2k))$. Therefore, using a simple trigonometric identity, we obtain $$\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T}_3)=\sqrt{2-2\cos\left(\frac{\pi}{2k}\right)} = 2\sin\left(\frac{\pi}{4k}\right),$$ which is the desired result.
Let us compute, now, the minimum singular value of the matrix $\widehat{T}_5$. To this purpose, note that $$\begin{bmatrix}
-I_{k^2} & \\ & I_{k^2}
\end{bmatrix}
\widehat{T}_5 =
\begin{bmatrix}
I_k\otimes E_k & E_k\otimes I_k \\
I_k\otimes (-F_k) & F_k\otimes I_k
\end{bmatrix} =: \widetilde{T}_5,$$ and that $\widehat{T}_5$ and $\widetilde{T}_5$ have the same singular values. If we define the diagonal matrices $S_k:=\diag ((-1)^0,(-1)^1, \hdots,(-1)^{k-1})\in\mathbb{R}^{k\times k}$ and $S_{k+1}:= \diag(S_k,(-1)^k)\in\mathbb{R}^{(k+1)\times (k+1)}$, then $S_kE_kS_{k+1}=E_k$ and $S_kF_kS_{k+1}=-F_k$. Therefore $$\begin{bmatrix}
I_k\otimes S_k \\ & I_k\otimes S_k
\end{bmatrix}
\widetilde{T}_5
\begin{bmatrix}
I_k\otimes S_{k+1}\\&I_{k+1}\otimes S_k
\end{bmatrix}=\widehat{T},$$ where $\widehat{T}$ is the matrix in . So the singular values of $\widehat{T}_5$ and $\widehat{T}$ coincide and $\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T}_5)=\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(\widehat{T})=2\sin(\pi/(4k))$, which completes the proof.
[1]{}
B. Adhikari. Backward errors and linearizations for palindromic matrix polynomials. In preparation. Available as arXiv:0812.4154v1 (2008).
B. Adhikari, R. Alam. On backward errors of structured polynomial eigenproblems solved by structured preserving linearizations. , 434(9), pp. 1989–2017 (2011).
Sk. S. Ahmad, V. Mehrmann. Perturbation analysis for complex symmetric, skew-symmetric, even and odd matrix polynomials. , 38, pp. 275–302 (2011).
M. Al-Ammari, F. Tisseur. Hermitian matrix polynomials with real eigenvalues of definite type. Part I: Classification. , 436(10), pp. 3954–3973 (2012).
E. N. Antoniou, S. Vologiannidis. Linearizations of polynomial matrices with symmetries and their applications. , 15, pp. 107–114 (2006).
T. Apel, V. Mehrmann, D. Watkins. Structured eigenvalue methods for the computation of corner singularities in 3D anisotropic elastic structures. , 11, pp. 78–87 (2004).
T. Apel, V. Mehrmann, D. Watkins. Numerical solution of large scale structured polynomial or rational eigenvalue problems. In: Cucker, F., Olver, P. (eds.). Foundations of Computational Mathematics. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 312. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 137–157 (2004).
P. Benner, M. Bollhöfer, D. Kressner, C. Mehl and T. Stykel (Eds:). . Festschrift in Honor of Volker Mehrmann. Springer, Heidelberg, 2015.
S. Bora. Structured eigenvalue condition number and backward error of a class of polynomial eigenvalue problems. 31(3), pp. 900–917 (2009).
S. Bora, M. Karow, C. Mehl, P. Sharma. Structured eigenvalue backward errors of matrix pencils and polynomials with Hermitian and related structures. , 35(2), pp. 453–475 (2014).
S. Bora, M. Karow, C. Mehl, P. Sharma. Structured eigenvalue backward error of matrix pencils and polynomials with palindromic structures. , 36(2), pp. 393–416 (2015).
T. Brüll, C. Schöder. Dissipativity enforcement via perturbation of para-Hermitian pencils. , 60(1), pp. 164–177 (2013).
M. I. Bueno, K. Curlett, S. Furtado. Structured strong linearizations from Fiedler pencils with repetition I. , 460, pp. 51–80 (2014).
M. I. Bueno, F. M. Dopico, S. Furtado. Linearizations of Hermitian matrix polynomials preserving the sign characteristic. Submitted for publication (2016).
M. I. Bueno, F. M. Dopico, J. Pérez, R. Saavedra, B. Zykoski. A unified approach to Fiedler-like pencils via strong block minimal bases pencils. Submitted for publication (2016). Available as arXiv:1611.07170.
M. I. Bueno, S. Furtado. Palindromic linearizations of a matrix polynomial of odd degree obtained from Fiedler pencils with repetition. , 23, pp. 562–577 (2012).
M. I. Bueno, S. Furtado. Structured linearizations from Fiedler pencils with repetition II. , 463, pp. 282–321 (2014).
M. I. Bueno, F. M. Dopico, S. Furtado, M. Rychnovsky. Large vector spaces of block-symmetric strong linearizations of matrix polynomials. , 477, pp. 165–210 (2015).
R. Byers, D. S. Mackey, V. Mehrmann, H. Xu. Symplectic, BDV, and palindromic approaches to discrete-time control problems. In: Petkov, P. Christov, N. (eds.). A collection of Papers Dedicated to the 60th Anniversary of Mihail Konstantinov, Sofia, pp. 81–102. Publishing House Rodina (2009).
R. Byers, V. Mehrmann, H. Xu. A structured staircase algorithm for skew-symmetric/symmetric pencils. , 26, pp. 1–33 (2007).
F. De Terán, F. M. Dopico, D. S. Mackey. Linearizations of singular matrix polynomials and the recovery of minimal indices. , 19, pp. 371–402 (2009).
F. De Terán, F. M. Dopico, D. S. Mackey. Fiedler companion linearizations and the recovery of minimal indices. , 31, pp. 2181–2204 (2010).
F. De Terán, F. M. Dopico, D. S. Mackey. Palindromic companion forms for matrix polynomials of odd degree. , 236, pp. 1464–1480 (2011).
F. De Terán, F. M. Dopico, D. S. Mackey. Spectral equivalence of matrix polynomials and the index sum theorem. *Linear Algebra Appl.*, 459, pp. 264–333 (2014).
F. De Terán, F. M. Dopico, D. S. Mackey, P. Van Dooren. Polynomial zigzag matrices, dual minimal bases, and the realization of completely singular polynomials. *Linear Algebra Appl.*, 488, pp. 460–504 (2016).
F. De Terán, F. M. Dopico, and P. Van Dooren. Matrix polynomials with completely prescribed eigenstructure. *SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl.*, 36, pp. 302–328 (2015).
F. M. Dopico, J. Pérez, P. Van Dooren. Block minimal dual bases $\ell$-ifications. In preparation (2016).
F. M. Dopico, P. Lawrence, J. Pérez, P. Van Dooren. Block Kronecker linearizations of matrix polynomials and their backward errors. Submitted to publication (2016). Available as MIMS EPrint 2016.34, School of Mathematics, The University of Manchester, UK.
A. Dmytryshyn. Structure preserving stratification of skew-symmetric matrix polynomials. Report UMINF 15.16, Dept. of Computing Science, Ume[å]{} University, Sweden (2015).
R. J. Duffin. The Rayleigh-Ritz method for dissipative and gyroscopic systems. , 18, pp. 215–221 (1960).
H. Fassbender, J. Pérez, N. Shayanfar. Symmetric and skew-symmetric block Kronecker linearizations. Submitted for publication (2016). Available as arXiv:1606.01766.
H. Fassbender, J. Pérez, N. Shayanfar. Palindromic and anti-palindromic block Kronecker linearizations. In preparation (2016).
H. Fassbender, J. Pérez, N. Shayanfar. Alternating block Kronecker linearizations. In preparation (2016).
G. D. Forney Jr. Minimal bases of rational vector spaces, with applications to multivariable linear systems. *SIAM J. Control*, 13, pp. 493–520 (1975).
F. R. Gantmacher. *The Theory of Matrices. Vols. 1, 2*. Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1959.
G. M. L. Gladwell. . 2nd edn., Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 2004.
I. Gohberg, P. Lancaster, L. Rodman. . Academic Press, New York-London, 1982.
N. J. Higham, D. S. Mackey, N. Mackey, F. Tisseur. Symmetric linearizations for matrix polynomials. , 29(1), pp. 143–159 (2006).
N. J. Higham, D. S. Mackey, F. Tisseur. Definite matrix polynomials and their linearizations by definite pencils. , 31(2), pp. 478–502 (2009).
A. Hilligues, C. Mehl, V. Mehrmann. On the solution of palindromic eigenvalue problems. Proceedings of the 4th European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMAS), Jyväskylä (2004).
M. Hofer, N. Finger, J. Schöberl, S. Zaglmayr, U. Langer, R. Lerch. Finite element simulation of wave propagation in periodic piezoelectric SAW structures. , 53, pp. 1192–1201 (2006).
R. A. Horn, C. R. Johnson. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994. Corrected reprint of the 1991 original.
R. A. Horn, D. I. Merino. A real-coninvolutory analog of the polar decomposition. , 190(1), pp. 209–227 (1993).
T. -M. Huang, W. -W. Lin, W. -S. Su. Palindromic quadratization and structure-preserving algorithm for palindromic matrix polynomials of even degree. , 118, pp. 713–735 (2011).
T. Kailath. . Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1980.
D. Kressner, C. Schr[ö]{}der, D. S. Watkins. Implicit QR algorithm for palindromic and even eigenvalue problems. , 51, pp. 209–238 (2009).
P. Lancaster. . Pergamon, Oxford, 1966.
P. Lancaster. Strongly stable gyroscopic systems. , 5. pp. 53–66 (1999).
P. W. Lawrence, J. Pérez. Constructing strong linearizations of matrix polynomials expressed in Chebyshev bases. Submitted for publication (2016). Also Available as MIMS EPrint 2016.12.
T. Li, C.-Y. Chiang, E. K.-W. Chu, W.-W. Lin. The palindromic generalized eigenvalue problem $A^*x=\lambda Ax$: Numerical solution and applications. , 434, pp. 2269–2284 (2011).
D. S. Mackey, N. Mackey, C. Mehl, V. Mehrmann. Vector spaces of linearizations for matrix polynomials. , 28, pp. 971–1004 (2006).
D. S. Mackey, N. Mackey, C. Mehl, V. Mehrmann. Structured polynomial eigenvalue problems: good vibrations from good linearizations. , 28, pp. 1029–1051 (2006).
D. S. Mackey, N. Mackey, C. Mehl, V. Mehrmann. Numerical methods for palindromic eigenvalue problems: computing the anti-triangular Schur form. , 16(1), pp. 63–86 (2009).
D. S. Mackey, N. Mackey, C. Mehl, V. Mehrmann. Jordan structures of alternating matrix polynomials. , 432(4), pp. 867–891 (2010).
D. S. Mackey, N. Mackey, C. Mehl, V. Mehrmann. Smith forms of palindromic matrix polynomials. , 22, pp. 53–91 (2011).
D. S. Mackey, N. Mackey, C. Mehl, V. Mehrmann. Skew-symmetric matrix polynomials and their Smith forms. , 438(12), pp. 4625–4653 (2013).
D. S. Mackey, N. Mackey, C. Mehl, V. Mehrmann. Möbius transformations of matrix polynomials. , 470(1), pp. 120–184 (2015).
V. Markine, A. D. Man, S. Jovanovic, C. Esveld. Optimal design of embedded rail structure for high-speed railway lines. , 3rd International Conference, London (2000).
C. Mehl. Jacobi-like algorithms for the indefinite generalized Hermitian eigenvalue problem. , 25, pp. 964–985 (2004).
V. Mehrmann, D. Watkins. Structure-preserving methods for computing eigenpairs of large sparse skew-Hamiltonian/Hamiltonian pencils. , 22, pp. 1905–1925 (2001).
V. Mehrmann, H. Voss. Nonlinear eigenvalue problems: a challenge for modern eigenvalue methods. , 27, pp. 121–152 (2004).
V. Mehrmann, C. Schröder, V. Simoncini. An implicitly-restarted Krylov subspace method for real symmetric/skew-symmetric eigenproblems. , 436(10), pp. 4070–4087 (2012).
C. B. Moler and G. W. Stewart. An algorithm for generalized matrix eigenvalue problems. , 10(2), pp. 241–256 (1971).
Y. Nakatsukasa, V. Noferini, A. Townsend. Vector spaces of linearizations for matrix polynomials: a bivariate polynomial approach. To appear in SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. (2016). Also available as MIMS EPrint 2012.118, Manchester Institute for Mathematical Sciences, UK.
V. Noferini. The behaviour of the complete eigenstructure of a polynomial matrix under a generic rational transformation. 23, pp. 607–624 (2012).
V. Noferini, J. P[é]{}rez. Chebyshev-[F]{}iedler pencils. To appear in SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. (2016). Also available as MIMS EPrint 2015.90, Manchester Institute for Mathematical Sciences, UK.
L. Robol, R. Vandebril, P. Van Dooren. A framework for structured linearizations of matrix polynomials in various bases. To appear in [*SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl.*]{}, 2016. Available as arXiv:1603.05773.
H. H. Rosenbrock. . Nelson & Sons, Ltd., London, 1970.
C. Schröder. Palindromic and Even Eigenvalue Problems - Analysis and Numerical Methods. PhD. Dissertation, Technische Universität Berlin, 2008. <http://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-1852>.
C. Schröder. URV decomposition bases structured methods for palindromic and even eigenvalue problems. Technical report, Preprint 375, TU Berlin, MATHEON, Germany (2007).
C. Schröder. A QR-like algorithm for the palindromic eigenvalue problem. Technical report, Preprint 388, TU Berlin, Matheon, Germany (2007).
G. W. Stewart. On the sensitivity of the eigenvalue problem $Ax=\lambda Bx$. , 9, pp. 669–686 (1972).
F. Tisseur, K. Meerbergen. The quadratic eigenvalue problem. , 43, pp. 235–286 (2001).
P. Van Dooren. The computation of Kronecker’s canonical form of a singular pencil. , 27, pp. 103–140, (1979).
P. Van Dooren and P. Dewilde. The eigenstructure of an arbitrary polynomial matrix: computational aspects. , 50, pp. 545–579 (1983).
C. F. Van Loan. The ubiquitous Kronecker product. , 123, pp. 85–100 (2000).
Y. Wu, Y. Yang, E. Yau. Three-dimensional analysis of train-rail-bridge interaction problems. , 36, pp. 1–35 (2001).
S. Zaglmayr. Eigenvalue problems in SAW-filter simulations. Diplomarbeit, Johannes Kepler Universität Linz (2002).
[^1]: Structurally global backward stable algorithms are called strongly backward stable algorithms in [@Implicit_palQR; @Schroder_thesis].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**Coherence evolution in two-qubit system going through amplitude damping channel**
[Ming-Jing Zhao$^{1}$, Teng Ma$^{2}$, Yuquan Ma$^{1}$]{}
$~^{1}$ [School of Science, Beijing Information Science and Technology University, 100192, Beijing, China]{}
$~^{2}$ [State Key Laboratory of Low-Dimensional Quantum Physics and Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China]{}
**Abstract** In this paper, we analyze the evolution of quantum coherence in a two-qubit system going through the amplitude damping channel. After they had gone through this channel many times, we analyze the systems with respect to the coherence of their output states. When only one subsystem goes through the channel, frozen coherence occurs if and only if this subsystem is incoherent and an auxiliary condition is satisfied for the other subsystem. When two subsystems go through this quantum channel, quantum coherence can be frozen if and only if the two subsystems are both incoherent. We also investigate the evolution of coherence for maximally incoherent-coherent states and derive an equation for the output states after one or two subsystems have gone through the amplitude damping channel.
**Keywords** Quantum coherence, Amplitude damping channel, Frozen coherence
**PACS** 03.65.Ud, 03.67.Mn
Introduction
============
Coherence, the superposition of state in quantum theory [@J.; @Aberg; @T.; @Theurer], constitutes a powerful resource in quantum metrology [@V.; @Giovannetti], entanglement creation [@J.; @K.; @Asboth; @M.; @Gao], and biological systems [@E.; @Collini; @N.; @Lambert; @J.; @Cai; @J.; @M.; @Cai; @E.; @J.OReilly]. Since the inception of quantum mechanics, many approaches have been proposed for incorporating this important feature [@A.; @Streltsov-rev]. In Ref. [@T.; @Baumgratz], the authors introduced a rigorous framework for the quantification of coherence and identified some intuitive and computable measures of coherence including, for example relative entropy coherence and $l_1$ norm coherence. A state’s relative entropy coherence is defined as the difference of von Neumann entropy between a density matrix and a diagonal matrix formed by its diagonal elements. The $l_1$ norm coherence depends on the absolute value of the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix. The authors in Ref. [@A.; @Winter] introduced coherence distillation and coherence cost in operational way by focusing on the optimal rate of performance of certain tasks, which revealed that the distillable coherence equals to the relative entropy coherence. Coherence can also be converted to entanglement via incoherent operations and the authors in Ref. [@A.; @Streltsov] introduced geometric coherence on this basis. In Ref. [@L.; @H.; @Shao], the authors showed that coherence fidelity in general does not satisfy the monotonicity requirement of a coherence measure, and they reported that trace norm coherence can act as a measure of coherence for qubits. Moreover, the authors in Ref. [@S.; @Rana] reported that trace norm coherence is also a strong monotone for all qubit states and X states. In addition, coherence can also be quantified via convex roof construction [@X.; @Yuan].
However, quantum coherence is typically recognized as a fragile feature, and the disappearance of coherence in open quantum systems exposed to environmental noise is commonly referred to as decoherence [@A.; @Streltsov-rev]. As quantum resources, it is important to identify the conditions under which quantum coherence does not deteriorate during open evolution. As such, the concept of frozen coherence was proposed and the authors in Ref. [@T.; @R.; @Bromley] investigated the dynamical conditions under which coherence is totally unaffected by quantum noise. With just one qubit system, no nontrival condition exists such that $l_1$ norm coherence and relative entropy coherence are simultaneously frozen under any quantum channel. For a high dimensional quantum system, all measures of coherence are frozen in an initial state in a strictly incoherent channel if and only if the relative entropy coherence is frozen [@X.; @D.; @Yu]. In Ref. [@M.; @L.; @Hu], the authors proved a factorization relation for $l_1$ norm coherence under some special conditions and obtained a condition for frozen coherence.
In this paper we investigate the evolution of quantum coherence in the two-qubit system. Here we focus on $l_1$ norm coherence and analyze the dynamics of quantum coherence in the amplitude damping channel. We find that if one subsystem goes through the amplitude damping channel many times, frozen coherence can appear if and only if this subsystem is incoherent and the other subsystem fulfills an additional requirement. If two subsystems go through this quantum channel, then frozen coherence can appear if and only if the two subsystems are both incoherent. As an example, we analyze the evolution of coherence of maximally incoherent-coherent states in the amplitude damping channel. We also derive an equation for the output states occurring after one or two subsystems go through the amplitude damping channel.
Coherence evolution under amplitude damping channel in two-qubit system
=======================================================================
Theory preliminary
------------------
*Quantum states* First, we fix computational basis $\{|i\rangle\}$ as the reference basis in each local subsystem, which we then use throughout this paper. Using this local reference basis, quantum states can be classified with respect to the type of quantum coherence. In the bipartite system, a quantum state is called incoherent-coherent if it can be written as $\rho=\sum_{i} p_i |i\rangle\langle i|\otimes \rho_i$. Similarly, it is called coherent-incoherent if it can be written as $\rho=\sum_{i} p_i \rho_i \otimes|i\rangle\langle i| $ [@E.; @Chitambar]. Incoherent-coherent and coherent-incoherent states are incoherent in one subsystem. Their coherence are the average of the coherent parts, $C(\rho)=\sum_i p_i C(\rho_i)$. In fact, for the incoherent-coherent state, one postulate for a measure of coherence [@A.; @Streltsov-rev] requires that $C(\rho)$ be nonincreasing on average under selective incoherent operations, so $C(\rho)\geq\sum_i p_i C(|i\rangle\langle i|\otimes \rho_i)=\sum_i p_i C(\rho_i)$, for which we choose the incoherent operation for the local projective measurements $\{|i\rangle\langle i|\}$ on the first subsystem. Another postulate for a measure of coherence [@A.; @Streltsov-rev] requires that $C(\rho)$ be a convex function of density matrices, which implies $C(\rho)\leq \sum_i p_i C(|i\rangle\langle i|\otimes \rho_i) =\sum_i p_i C(\rho_i)$. Therefore, the coherence of incoherent-coherent and coherent-incoherent states is the average of the coherent parts. They are maximally coherent if and only if all components $\rho_i$ in the coherent part are maximally coherent. If a quantum state is incoherent in two subsystems, it is called incoherent and is written as $\rho=\sum_{ij} p_{ij} |i\rangle\langle i|\otimes |j\rangle\langle j|$. The classification of quantum states with respect to quantum coherence parallels the classification of quantum correlation [@S.; @Luo2008], the former relevant to the reference basis and the latter independent of reference basis.
*Quantum coherence* A very intuitive quantification of coherence would relate to the off-diagonal elements of the quantum state being considered. Therefore, it is desirable to quantify the coherence by a function that depends on the off-diagonal elements [@T.; @Baumgratz]. For the quantum state $\rho=\sum_{ij} \rho_{ij}|i\rangle\langle j|$, the $l_1$ norm coherence under the given reference basis $\{|i\rangle\langle i|\}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C(\rho)=\sum_{i\neq j} |\rho_{ij}|.\end{aligned}$$ For $d$-dimensional quantum state $\rho$, its coherence is bounded by $$0\leq C(\rho)\leq d-1,$$ since $C(\rho)=2 \sum_{i< j} |\rho_{ij}|
= 2 \sum_{i< j} \sqrt{|\rho_{ij}|^2}
\leq 2 \sum_{i< j} \sqrt{\rho_{ii}\rho_{jj}}
\leq \sum_{i< j} (\rho_{ii}+\rho_{jj})
=d-1$. It is maximally coherent if and only if $$\rho_{ii}=|\rho_{ij}|=\frac{1}{d}$$ for $i\neq j$, $i,j=0,\cdots, d-1$.
*Amplitude damping channel* The amplitude damping channel is a quantum operation that describes the energy dissipation-effects due to the loss of energy in a quantum system. Suppose we have a single optical mode $a_0|0\rangle+a_1|1\rangle$ with $|a_0|^2+|a_1|^2=1$, i.e., a superposition of zero or one photons. The scattering of photon from this mode can be modeled by inserting a beam splitter on the path of the photon. This beam splitter allows the photon to couple with another single optical mode, $|0\rangle$, according to the unitary transformation $B=\exp[\theta(a^\dagger b- ab^\dagger)]$, where $a, a^\dagger$ and $b, b^\dagger$ are annihilation and creation operators for photons in the two modes respectively. Assuming that the environment starts out with no photons, the output state after beamsplitter is simply $B|0\rangle(a_0|0\rangle+a_1|1\rangle)=a_0|00\rangle+a_1(\cos\theta|01\rangle+\sin\theta|10\rangle)$. By tracing over the environment, we obtain the following amplitude damping operation [@M.; @A.; @Nielsen] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{E}}(\rho)=E_0\rho E_0^\dagger + E_1\rho E_1^\dagger,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
E_0=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1& 0\\
0 & \sqrt{1-\gamma}\\
\end{array}
\right),
E_1=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0& \sqrt{\gamma}\\
0 & 0\\
\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ $0 \leq\gamma\leq 1$.
Coherence evolution under amplitude damping channel in two-qubit system
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we consider a quantum state in the two-qubit system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{two qubit state}
\rho=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
a_{11}& a_{12} & a_{13} & a_{14}\\
a_{21}& a_{22} & a_{23} & a_{24}\\
a_{31}& a_{32} & a_{33} & a_{34}\\
a_{41}& a_{42} & a_{43} & a_{44}
\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ with $\rho\geq 0$, $a_{ji}=a_{ij}^*$ for $i\neq j$, $\sum_{i=1}^4 a_{ii}=1$. The coherence is $$\begin{aligned}
C(\rho)=2\sum_{i< j} |a_{ij}|.\end{aligned}$$
In the first case, we let the first subsystem goe through the amplitude damping channel, and the output state $\rho_{L}^{(1)}$ for $\rho$ is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{L}^{(1)}=E_0\otimes I \rho E_0^\dagger\otimes I + E_1\otimes I \rho E_1^\dagger\otimes I,\end{aligned}$$ where the subscript $L$ indicates that the first subsystem goes through the amplitude damping channel. If the first subsystem goes through this channel twice, the output state $\rho_{L}^{(2)}$ is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{L}^{(2)}=E_0\otimes I \rho_{L}^{(1)} E_0^\dagger\otimes I + E_1\otimes I \rho_{L}^{(1)} E_1^\dagger\otimes I.\end{aligned}$$ If the first subsystem goes through the amplitude damping channel $n$ times, then the output state $\rho_{L}^{(n)}$ is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{L}^{(n)}=E_0\otimes I \rho_{L}^{(n-1)} E_0^\dagger\otimes I + E_1\otimes I \rho_{L}^{(n-1)} E_1^\dagger\otimes I,\end{aligned}$$ which can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{L}^{(n)}=\sum_{i_1,i_2,\cdots, i_n=0,1} E_{i_1i_2\cdots i_n} \otimes I \rho E_{i_1i_2\cdots i_n}^\dagger\otimes I\end{aligned}$$ with $E_{i_1i_2\cdots i_n}=E_{i_1}E_{i_2}\cdots E_{i_n}$. Due to the properties of operators $E_0$ and $E_1$ in the amplitude damping channel, $$\begin{aligned}
E_1^2=0, \ \ E_0E_1=E_1,\ \ E_1E_0=\sqrt{1-\gamma}E_1,\end{aligned}$$ $\rho_{L}^{(n)}$ is reduced to the sum of $n+1$ terms as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{L}^{(n)}=E_0^n \otimes I \rho (E_0^n)^\dagger\otimes I+\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} E_1 E_0^{n-i-1} \otimes I \rho (E_1 E_0^{n-i-1})^\dagger \otimes I.\end{aligned}$$
By straightforward calculation, we obtain the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{left rho}
\rho_{L}^{(n)}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
a_{11}+a_{33}[1-(1-\gamma)^n]& a_{12}+a_{34}[1-(1-\gamma)^n] & a_{13}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & a_{14}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}\\
a_{21}+a_{43}[1-(1-\gamma)^n]& a_{22}+a_{44}[1-(1-\gamma)^n] & a_{23}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & a_{24}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}\\
a_{31}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}& a_{32}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & a_{33}(1-\gamma)^{n} & a_{34}(1-\gamma)^{n}\\
a_{41}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}& a_{42}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & a_{43}(1-\gamma)^{n} & a_{44}(1-\gamma)^{n}
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ The coherence is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
C(\rho_{L}^{(n)})&=2\{|a_{12}+a_{34}[1-(1-\gamma)^n]|\\
&+(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}(|a_{13}|+|a_{14}|+|a_{23}|+|a_{24}|+|a_{34}|(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}})\},
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ which is smaller than or equal to $C(\rho)$, $C(\rho_{L}^{(n)})\leq C(\rho)$. They coincide if and only if $a_{13}=a_{14}=a_{23}=a_{24}=0$ and $|a_{12}+a_{34}[1-(1-\gamma)^n]|=|a_{12}|+|a_{34}|[1-(1-\gamma)^n]$. This means that the input state is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{special inco-co}
\rho=|0\rangle\langle0|\otimes \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{11}& a_{12}\\
a_{21}& a_{22}
\end{array}
\right)+
|1\rangle\langle1|\otimes \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{33}& a_{34}\\
a_{43}& a_{44}
\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ with $a_{12}$ and $a_{34}$ having the same argument, $a_{12}=a_{21}^*$, $a_{34}=a_{43}^*$, and $\sum_{i=1}^4 a_{ii}=1$. So if the first subsystem goes through the amplitude damping channel, frozen coherence occurs only for incoherent-coherent state in the form of Eq. (\[special inco-co\]) with $a_{12}$ and $a_{34}$ having the same argument for the second subsystem.
If we consider the case in which $n$ tends to infinite, $C(\rho_{L}^{(n)})$ tends to $2|a_{12}+a_{34}|$. So if the first subsystem goes through the amplitude damping channel many times, the coherence can not disappear for quantum states if $a_{12}+a_{34}\neq 0$. This implies that the coherence is robust under the influence of this channel.
Similarly, when the second subsystem goes through the amplitude damping channel many times, the output state is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{R}^{(n)}=\sum_{i_1,i_2,\cdots, i_n=0,1} I\otimes E_{i_1i_2\cdots i_n} \rho I\otimes E_{i_1i_2\cdots i_n}^\dagger,\end{aligned}$$ where the subscript $R$ indicates that the second subsystem goes through this channel. For the quantum state $\rho$ in Eq. (\[two qubit state\]), the output state $\rho_{R}^{(n)}$ is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{right rho}
\rho_{R}^{(n)}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
a_{11}+a_{22}[1-(1-\gamma)^n] & a_{12}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & a_{13}+a_{24}[1-(1-\gamma)^n] & a_{14}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} \\
a_{21}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & a_{22}(1-\gamma)^{n} & a_{23}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & a_{24}(1-\gamma)^{n}\\
a_{31}+a_{42}[1-(1-\gamma)^n] & a_{32}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & a_{33}+a_{44}[1-(1-\gamma)^n] & a_{34}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}\\
a_{41}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & a_{42}(1-\gamma)^{n} & a_{43}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & a_{44}(1-\gamma)^{n}
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Its coherence is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
C(\rho_{R}^{(n)})&=2\{|a_{13}+a_{24}[1-(1-\gamma)^n]|\\
&+(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}(|a_{12}|+|a_{14}|+|a_{23}|+|a_{34}|+|a_{24}|(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}})\},
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ which is smaller than or equal to the coherence of the input state, $C(\rho_{R}^{(n)})\leq C(\rho)$. These coincide if and only if $a_{12}=a_{14}=a_{23}=a_{34}=0$ and $|a_{13}+a_{24}[1-(1-\gamma)^n]|=|a_{13}|+|a_{24}|[1-(1-\gamma)^n]$, which means that the input state is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{special co-inco}
\rho=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{11}& a_{13}\\
a_{31}& a_{33}
\end{array}
\right)\otimes |0\rangle\langle0|+
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{22}& a_{24}\\
a_{42}& a_{44}
\end{array}
\right)\otimes |1\rangle\langle1|,\end{aligned}$$ with $a_{13}$ and $a_{24}$ having the same argument, $a_{13}=a_{31}^*$, $a_{24}=a_{42}^*$, and $\sum_{i=1}^4 a_{ii}=1$. So if the second subsystem goes through the amplitude damping channel, frozen coherence occurs only for coherent-incoherent state in the form of Eq. (\[special co-inco\]) with $a_{13}$ and $a_{24}$ having the same argument for the first subsystem.
Furthermore, if two subsystems both go through the amplitude damping channel, the output state is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{(n)}=\sum_{i_1,i_2,\cdots, i_n,j_1,j_2,\cdots, j_n=0,1} E_{i_1i_2\cdots i_n}\otimes E_{j_1j_2\cdots j_n} \rho E_{i_1i_2\cdots i_n}^\dagger\otimes E_{j_1j_2\cdots j_n}^\dagger.\end{aligned}$$ By straightforward calculation, we have the following: [$$\begin{gathered}
\rho^{(n)}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
a_{11}+a_{33}[1-(1-\gamma)^n] & \{a_{12}+a_{34}[1-(1-\gamma)^n]\}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}& a_{13}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & a_{14}(1-\gamma)^{n} \\
\{a_{21}+a_{43}[1-(1-\gamma)^n]\}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & \{a_{22}+a_{44}[1-(1-\gamma)^n]\}(1-\gamma)^{n} &a_{23}(1-\gamma)^{n} & a_{24}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{3n}{2}}\\
a_{31}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}} & a_{32}(1-\gamma)^{n} &a_{33}(1-\gamma)^{n} & a_{34}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{3n}{2}}\\
a_{41}(1-\gamma)^{n} & a_{42}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{3n}{2}}&a_{43}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{3n}{2}} & a_{44}(1-\gamma)^{2n}
\end{array}
\right)\\
+\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\{a_{22}+a_{44}[1-(1-\gamma)^n]\}[1-(1-\gamma)^n] & 0 & a_{24}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}[1-(1-\gamma)^n] & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
a_{42}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}[1-(1-\gamma)^n] & 0 & a_{44}(1-\gamma)^{{n}}[1-(1-\gamma)^n] & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right).\end{gathered}$$ ]{}
The coherence of $\rho^{(n)}$ is $C(\rho^{(n)})=2\{|a_{12}+a_{34}[1-(1-\gamma)^n]|+ |a_{13}+a_{24}[1-(1-\gamma)^n]|+(|a_{14}|+|a_{23}|)(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}+
(|a_{24}|+|a_{34}|)(1-\gamma)^{n}\}(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}$. The coherence is frozen after two subsystems go through the amplitude damping channel if and only if $\rho$ is incoherent, which means that the coherence in the coherent state can not be frozen under this assumption.
Since, in this scenario, only the coherence in coherent-incoherent and incoherent-coherent states can be frozen forever, we now examine them more closely. For example, for the following two-qubit incoherent-coherent state $$\begin{aligned}
\label{incoherent quantum state}
\rho=p_0 |0\rangle\langle0|\otimes \rho_0 + p_1|1\rangle\langle1|\otimes \rho_1 ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_0=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{11}& a_{12}\\
a_{21} & a_{22}
\end{array}
\right)$, $\rho_1=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{33}& a_{34}\\
a_{43} & a_{44}
\end{array}
\right)$, $a_{12}=a_{21}^*$, $a_{34}=a_{43}^*$, and $a_{11}+a_{22}=a_{33}+a_{44}=1$, its coherence is $C(\rho)=2(p_0|a_{12}|+p_1|a_{34}|)$. By the positivity of $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$, we know $|a_{12}|,|a_{34}|\leq \frac{1}{2}$. Therefore, $0\leq C(\rho)\leq 1$. Obviously, $C(\rho)$ reaches its minimum of zero, if $\rho$ is incoherent. $C(\rho)$ reaches its maximum if and only if both $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ are maximally coherent states, which are in the form of $\frac{1}{2}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1& e^{i\theta}\\
e^{-i\theta} & 1
\end{array}
\right)$ and pure states.
Now we consider the maximally coherent states in Eq. (\[incoherent quantum state\]), which we refer to as a maximally incoherent-coherent state and study the evolution of coherence through the amplitude damping channel. First, it is easy to determine that $C(\rho_{R}^{(n)})=(1-\gamma)^{\frac{n}{2}}$ which is independent of the quantum states themselves. Coherence $C(\rho_{R}^{(n)})$ decreases strictly as parameter $\gamma$ increases. After further calculation we obtain the following equation $$\label{equation}
C(\rho^{(n)})=C(\rho_{L}^{(n)})C(\rho_{R}^{(n)}),$$ which reveals that $C(\rho^{(n)})$ is proportional to $C(\rho_{L}^{(n)})$ since $C(\rho_{R}^{(n)})$ is uniquely determined by the quantum channel. This demonstrates that the evolution of coherence after two subsystems go through the amplitude damping channel is determined by the evolution of coherence when the first subsystem goes through this channel.
Next we analyze the coherence of the maximally incoherent-coherent states when the first subsystem goes through the amplitude damping channel. If $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ are the same maximally coherent state $|+\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle+|1\rangle)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{m_1}= (p_0|0\rangle\langle0|+p_1|1\rangle\langle1|) \otimes |+\rangle\langle+|.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the reference basis is computational basis, from which is easy to obtain $C(\rho_{m_1,L}^{(n)})=1$. So if the first subsystem goes through the amplitude damping channel, the coherence can be frozen forever. If $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ are the orthogonal maximally coherent pure states $|+\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle+|1\rangle)$ and $|-\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle-|1\rangle)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{m_2}=p_0 |0\rangle\langle0| \otimes |+\rangle\langle+|+p_1 |1\rangle\langle1| \otimes |-\rangle\langle-|\end{aligned}$$ and $C(\rho_{m_2,L}^{(n)})=|p_0-p_1[1-(1-\gamma)^n]|+p_1({1-\gamma})^n$. The coherence can not be frozen for the nontrival case $\gamma\neq 0,1$. When $n$ tends to infinity, the coherence reaches $|p_0-p_1|$. For $p_0\neq p_1$, the coherence can not disappear forever and is robust under the influence of amplitude damping channel. If $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ are non-orthogonal maximally coherent pure states, for example, $|+\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle+|1\rangle)$ and $|r\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle+i|1\rangle)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{m_3}=p_0|0\rangle\langle0|\otimes |+\rangle\langle+| + p_1 |1\rangle\langle1| \otimes |r\rangle\langle r|.\end{aligned}$$ $C(\rho_{m_3,L}^{(n)})=\sqrt{p_0^2+p_1^2[1-(1-\gamma)^n]^2}+p_1({1-\gamma})^n$. Neither can the coherence be frozen for the nontrival case $\gamma\neq 0,1$. When $n$ approaches infinity, the coherence reaches $\sqrt{p_0^2+p_1^2}$, which is larger than $|p_0-p_1|$. Hence the coherence in $\rho_{m_3}$ is more robust than the coherence in $\rho_{m_2}$ under the influence of the amplitude damping channel. In FIG. 1, we show plots of the coherence evolution of $C(\rho_{m_2,L}^{(2)})$ and $C(\rho_{m_3,L}^{(2)})$, in which we can see the rate of change of coherence $C(\rho_{m_2,L}^{(2)})$ and $C(\rho_{m_3,L}^{(2)})$ becomes larger as parameter $\gamma$ becomes larger.
\[fig\]
Discussions
-----------
The amplitude damping channel is a quantum operation, and, more specially, an incoherent quantum operation. Its operators $K_0$ and $K_1$ map incoherent states into incoherent states. It appears that amplitude damping channel cannot create coherence, and if a quantum state goes through this quantum channel, then its coherence will decrease. It is plausible to assert that in the two-qubit system, if the first subsystem goes through this channel, then the quantum coherence can be frozen for all incoherent-coherent states, since we do nothing to the second subsystem. But our above analysis shows this to be false. Not all coherence in the incoherent-coherent state can be frozen when the first subsystem goes through this channel, i.e., part of this coherence does not deteriorate.
Another quantum operation is the phase damping channel, which describes the loss of quantum information without loss of energy [@M.; @A.; @Nielsen]. The energy eigenstates of a quantum system do not change as a function of time, but rather accumulate a phase that is proportional to the eigenvalue. Its operators can be represented as $\tilde{K}_0=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1& 0\\
0 & \sqrt{1-\lambda}
\end{array}
\right)$ and $\tilde{K_1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0& 0\\
0 & \sqrt{\lambda}
\end{array}
\right)$. The phase damping channel is also an incoherent quantum operation. Therefore, it cannot increase coherence when a quantum state goes through it. Moreover, because of the commutativity of operators $\tilde{K}_0$ and $\tilde{K}_1$, we derive that for the two-qubit system, when one subsystem goes through this channel, frozen coherence appears if and only if this subsystem is incoherent. Similarly if two subsystems go through this channel, frozen coherence happens if and only if both subsystems are incoherent. By contrast, the amplitude damping channel requires more condition for frozen coherence. Since all ccoherence in incoherent-coherent states can be frozen when the first subsystem goes through the phase damping channel, and only some of coherence can be frozen when going through the amplitude damping channel, more conditions are required for the second subsystem.
Physically, the dynamics in which an atom emits a photon spontaneously, a spin system at high temperature approaches equilibrium with its environment, and the state of a photon in an interferometer or cavity when it is subject to scattering and attenuation are all characterized as amplitude damping channel [@M.; @A.; @Nielsen]. For example, in the process in which a two level atom coupled with a vacuum undergoes spontaneous emission, the parameter $\gamma$ in the amplitude damping channel is expressed as $1-\exp(-2\Gamma t)$, where $\Gamma$ is a constant and $t$ is time. In this model, repeatedly sending the state into the amplitude damping channel is equivalent to letting the state remain a longer period of time. However, for the process in which a harmonic oscillator interacts with an environment through the Hamiltonian $H=\chi (a^{\dagger} b + b^{\dagger} a)$, the parameter $\gamma$ in the amplitude damping channel is expressed as $\gamma=1-\cos^2(\chi t)$, which denotes the probability of loosing a single quantum of energy. For this process, repeatedly sending quantum state into the amplitude damping channel is now not equivalent to letting it remain for a longer period of time. In short, it is certain that parameter $\gamma$ generally depends on time, but going through quantum channel many times is still a discrete time evolution.
Another matter we want to clarify is that frozen coherence differs from the concept of a “decoherence free subspace" [@D.; @A.; @Lidar]. Frozen coherence is the retaining of coherence subjected to an external environment, whereas a decoherence free subspace is a subspace that is invariant under non unitary dynamics. It is the carrier of quantum information and is completely safe from the influence of an environment [@M.; @Demianowicz].
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have analyzed the evolution of quantum coherence in the two-qubit system through the amplitude damping channel. Using calculations, we have analyzed the coherence of the output states of one or two subsystems going through this channel many times. We have found that if one subsystem goes through this quantum channel, frozen coherence occurs if and only if this subsystem is incoherent and an auxiliary requirement is satisfied for the other subsystem. If two subsystems undergo this quantum channel, frozen coherence occurs if and only if the two subsystems are both incoherent. We have also analyzed the evolution of coherence for maximally incoherent-coherent states and derived an equation for the output states after one or two subsystems have gone through the amplitude damping channel.
Acknowledgments: This work is supported by the NSF of China under Grant Nos. 11401032 and 11404023.
[99]{}
Aberg, J.: Quantifying Superposition. arXiv:0612146v1.
Theurer, T., Killoran N., Egloff, D., Plenio, M.B.: A resource theory of superposition. arXiv:1703.10943 .
Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., Maccone, L.: Quantum-Enhanced Measurements: Beating the Standard Quantum Limit. [ Science]{}, [**306**]{}, 1330 (2004).
Asbóth, J. K., Calsamiglia, J., Ritsch, H.: A computable measure of nonclassicality for light. [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**94**]{}, 173602 (2005).
Gao, M., Lei, F. C., Du, C. G., Long, G. L.: Dynamics and entanglement of a membrane-in-the-middle optomechanical system in the extremely-large-amplitude regime. Science China Physics, Mechanics [&]{} Astronomy, [**59**]{}, 610301 (2016).
Collini, E., Wong, C. Y., Wilk, K. E., Curmi, P. M. G., Brumer, P., Scholes, G. D.: Coherently wired light-harvesting in photosynthetic marine algae at ambient temperature. [ Nature]{} [**463**]{}, 644 (2010).
Lambert, N., Chen, Y. N., Cheng, Y. C., Li, C. M., Chen, G. Y., Nori, F.: Quantum biology. [ Nat. Phys.]{} [**9**]{}, 10 (2013).
Cai, J., Plenio, M. B.: Chemical compass model for avian magnetoreception as a quantum coherent device. [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**111**]{}, 230503 (2013).
Cai, J. M.: Quantum simulation meets quantum biology. Science China Physics, Mechanics [&]{} Astronomy, [**60**]{}, 030331 (2017).
O‘Reilly, E. J., Olaya-Castro, A.: Non-classicality of the molecular vibrations assisting exciton energy transfer at room temperature. [ Nat. Comm.]{} [**5**]{}, 3012 (2014).
Streltsov, A., Adesso, G., Plenio, M. B.: Colloquium: Quantum Coherence as a Resource. arXiv: 1609.02439.
Baumgratz, T., Cramer, M., Plenio, M. B.: Quantifying Coherence. [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**113**]{}, 140401 (2014).
Winter, A., Yang, D.: Operational Resource Theory of Coherence. [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**116**]{}, 120404 (2016).
Streltsov, A., Singh, U., Dhar, H. S., Bera, M. N., Adesso, G.: Measuring Quantum Coherence with Entanglement. [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**115**]{}, 020403 (2015).
Shao, L. H., Xi, Z., Fan, H., Li, Y.: The Fidelity and Trace Norm Distances for Quantifying Coherence. [ Phys. Rev. A]{} [**91**]{}, 042120 (2015).
Rana, S., Parashar, P., Lewenstein M.: Trace-distance measure of coherence. [ Phys. Rev. A]{} [**93**]{}, 012110 (2016).
Yuan, X., Zhou, H., Cao, Z., Ma, X.: Inherent randomness as a measure of quantum coherence. [ Phys. Rev. A]{} [**92**]{}, 022124 (2015).
Bromley, T. R., Cianciaruso, M., Adesso, G.: Frozen Quantum Coherence. [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**114**]{}, 210401 (2015).
Yu, X. D., Zhang, D. J., Liu, C. L., Tong, D. M.: Measure-Independent Freezing of Quantum Coherence. [ Phys. Rev. A]{} [**93**]{}, 060303 (2016).
Hu, M. L., Fan, H.: Evolution equation for quantum coherence. [ Sci. Rep.]{} [**6**]{}, 29260 (2016).
Chitambar, E., Streltsov, A., Rana, S., Bera, M. N., Adesso, G., Lewenstein, M.: Assisted Distillation of Quantum Coherence. [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**116**]{}, 070402 (2016).
Luo, S.: Using measurement-induced disturbance to characterize correlations as classical or quantum. [ Phys. Rev. A]{} [**77**]{}, 022301 (2008).
Nielsen, M. A., Chuang, I. L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Lidar, D. A., Whaley, K. B.: Decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems, in: Irreversible Quantum Dynamics, F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, eds., Lecture Notes in Physics 622, Springer, Berlin, 2003, pp. 83-120.
Demianowicz, M.: Decoherence free subspaces for two access quantum channels. arXiv:1209.0120.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We have performed a detailed Monte Carlo exploration of the parameter space for a warped Higgsless model of electroweak symmetry breaking in 5 dimensions. This model is based on the $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times
U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge group in an AdS$_5$ bulk with arbitrary gauge kinetic terms on both the Planck and TeV branes. Constraints arising from precision electroweak measurements and collider data are found to be relatively easy to satisfy. We show, however, that the additional requirement of perturbative unitarity up to the cut-off, $\simeq 10$ TeV, in $W_L^+W_L^-$ elastic scattering in the absence of dangerous tachyons eliminates all models. If successful models of this class exist, they must be highly fine-tuned.
---
[**Monte Carlo Exploration of Warped Higgsless Models [^1] [^2]**]{}
J.L. Hewett$^{a}$, B. Lillie$^{b}$, and T.G. Rizzo$^{c}$
*Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, 2575 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park, CA, 94025*
Introduction
============
As the time of the LHC turn-on draws nearer, the search for alternative theories to the standard single Higgs boson picture of electroweak symmetry breaking is intensifying. One such scenario [@warped] is particularly appealing in that it employs a minimal particle content in a 5-dimensional spacetime and exploits the geometry of the additional dimension to break the electroweak symmetry. The model is based on the Randall-Sundrum framework [@RS] with an $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge group in 5-d Anti-de Sitter space. The AdS$_5$ slice is bounded by two branes, with the scale of physics on the IR(TeV)-brane being given by $\Lambda_\pi\equiv \overline M_{Pl}e^{k\pi r_c}$, with $k$ corresponding to the RS curvature parameter and $r_c$ being the radius of the compactified dimension. The set of boundary conditions, which differ for the two branes, generate the breaking chain $SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}\to
U(1)_Y$ at the Planck scale with the subsequent breaking $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\to U(1)_{QED}$ at the TeV scale. The electroweak symmetry is thus broken without the introduction of a Higgs field. After the Planck scale symmetry breaking occurs, a global $SU(2)_L\times
SU(2)_R$ symmetry is present in the brane description. This breaks on the TeV-brane to a diagonal group $SU(2)_D$ which corresponds [@sundrum] to the custodial $SU(2)$ symmetry of the Standard Model (SM) and helps preserve the SM tree-level relation $\rho=1$. We denote this scenario as the Warped Higgsless Model (WHM).
In this scenario, the role of the Goldstone boson in generating masses for the $W$ and $Z$ bosons is played by the would be zero-mode of the KK tower corresponding to the $5^{th}$ component of the bulk gauge fields (, $A^5_{0}$). The $Z$ boson observed at LEP/SLC/Tevatron is the first excitation of a neutral gauge boson KK tower, while the photon corresponds to the massless zero-mode of this tower. The $W$ boson observed in experiments is then the first state of a KK tower of charged gauge bosons, and there is no charged massless zero-mode. The experimentally observed values of the $W$ and $Z$ masses and couplings are essentially reproduced in this model. However, the presence of the gauge KK states affect a number of processes. In particular, much work has been performed analyzing the contributions to the set of precision electroweak measurements in Higgsless scenarios [@NomuraI; @Bar; @DHLRI; @NomuraII; @CsakiTeV; @BPRS; @Chiv; @nick; @Casal]. In the flat space analog of the WHM [@flat], , a Higgsless model based on a flat higher dimensional spacetime, unacceptably large deviations from precision electroweak data are generated. However, good agreement with the data can be obtained at tree-level in the warped Higgsless scenarios, provided that the masses of the KK excitations are sufficiently heavy. In addition, the KK excitations must satisfy the constraints from direct production of new gauge bosons at the Tevatron and from their contribution to contact interactions in four fermion processes at LEPII.
Note that precision observables are sensitive to one-loop electroweak effects. In general, the loop corrections in this model will be qualitatively similar to those in the SM (up to small shifts in the couplings). However, there are three types of loop corrections that may cause large deviations: the gauge KK excitations, the absence of loops with a physical higgs, and the top quark. Since the gauge KKs are playing the role of the physical Higgs in WW scattering, it is expected that they will do the same here, so the first two effects should largely cancel. In our model all fermions are localized to the Planck brane, and the parameters of the model are adjusted so the couplings are as close to the SM couplings as possible. Hence, the top corrections should again approximate the Standard Model values. (In a model where the top mass is generated on the TeV brane [[@fermion]]{} a more careful treatment would be needed.) Since we expect all loop corrections to qualitatively approximate the SM corrections, we will require that the tree level WHM approximate the tree level SM as closely as possible in the analysis below.
In the absence of a Higgs boson, or any other new physics, perturbative unitarity (PU) in elastic $W_L^+W_L^-$ scattering is violated at an energy scale of $\simeq 1.7$ TeV. However, in these Higgsless scenarios, it is in principle possible that the exchange of the neutral gauge KK tower in $W_L^+W_L^-\to W_L^+W_L^-$ can restore PU, provided that a set of conditions on the KK masses and couplings are satisfied [@flat]. This works well in the flat space analog of the WHM, but is problematic within the warped scenario. In particular, the region of parameter space which enjoys good agreement with the precision electroweak and collider data leads to low-scale ($\sim 2$ TeV) perturbative unitarity violation (PUV) in gauge boson scattering [@DHLRI]. One would at least expect the theory to remain perturbative up to the cutoff scale of the effective theory on the TeV-brane, $\Lambda_\pi$, where $\Lambda_\pi$ is roughly on the order of 10 TeV. This leads to a tension in the model parameter space in terms of finding a region which simultaneously satisfies all of the model building requirements as well as the experimental constraints. In [@CsakiTeV; @DHLRII] the effects of including the IR-brane terms associated with the $U(1)_{B-L}$ and $SU(2)_D$ gauge symmetries were examined; the presence of such terms is known to alter the corresponding KK spectrum and couplings [@DHRbt]. In these analyses it was found that the addition of the $U(1)_{B-L}$ IR-brane term could lead to improved agreement with the electroweak data [@CsakiTeV] and the inclusion of the $SU(2)_D$ brane term could delay PUV in $W_L^+W_L^-
\to W_L^+W_L^-$ to scattering energies of order $\sim 6-7$ TeV [@DHLRII]. However, a scan of the full parameter space was not performed in order to determine whether there exists a region where all the constraints discussed above are simultaneously satisfied.
In this paper, we perform a detailed exploration of the WHM parameter space via Monte Carlo techniques. There are a number of parameters present in this scenario: (i) the set of coupling strengths for each gauge symmetry: $g_{5L}$ which is fixed by $G_F$, the ratio $\lambda\equiv g_{5B}/g_{5L}$ which is fixed by the value of $M_Z$, and the ratio $\kappa\equiv g_{5R}/g_{5L}$ which lies in the restricted range $0.75\lsim\kappa\lsim 4.0$, but is otherwise free. (ii) The brane kinetic terms associated with the IR-brane, $\delta_{B,D}$, and the UV-brane, $\delta_{L,Y}$. Here the brane terms will be treated as free phenomenological parameters but should in principle be calculable from the full theory once the UV-completion is known. The parameter space is sufficiently large such that it is best scanned by Monte Carlo sampling. For each set of parameters, we subject the model to a succession of tests: (i) model requirements, such as the absence of ghosts and tachyon states, (ii) consistency with the precision electroweak data, (iii) consistency with the direct and indirect collider bounds on new gauge boson production, and (iv) PU in elastic $W_L^+W_L^-$ scattering. In particular, we require that this scattering process be unitary up to $\Lambda_\pi \simeq 10$ TeV. We find that the conditions (i-iii) are relatively easy to simultaneously satisfy, but that none of the models satisfied perturbative unitarity beyond the scale of $\simeq 2$ TeV. We conclude that if a successful model of this type exists, it must be highly fine-tuned, or must contain other sources of new physics.
We present our analysis in the next two sections. The formalism of the WHM is presented in detail in our earlier work [@DHLRI; @DHLRII] and will not be reproduced here.
Analysis: Electroweak and Collider Constraints
==============================================
As discussed above, the model in its present form contains five free parameters: $\kappa=g_R/g_L$, the ratio of the two $SU(2)_{L,R}$ gauge couplings which is expected to be of order unity, and the four brane kinetic term parameters, $\delta_{B,D,L,Y}$, corresponding to the various unbroken gauge groups on the TeV and Planck branes: $U(1)_{B-L}, SU(2)_D, SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$, respectively. Our approach is to choose a value for $\kappa$ and then explore the parameter space spanned by $\delta_{B,D,L,Y}$ via Monte Carlo methods. To be definitive we will assume that all the $\delta_i$ are constrained to lie in the range $-\pi kr_c \leq \delta_i \leq \pi kr_c$ as suggested in [[@DHRbt]]{}, and we fix $kr_c=11.27$ in our numerical study. For each set of values of the $\delta_i$ we define a successful model as one which passes through a number of cuts and filters that we now describe in some detail. Our results are compiled in Tables 1 and 2, which displays the amount of statistics generated for each value of $\kappa$ and the number of models which survive each successive constraint. Our statistics are concentrated near $\kappa=1$ as in this case the KK spectrum is relatively light and we are more hopeful that PU constraints will be satisfied.
Upon generating a set of $\delta_i$ we first calculate a group of model parameters which are associated with the lightest massive charged and neutral gauge bosons, and ensure that they are identified with the observed SM fields, $W_1=W$ and $Z_1=Z$. We take the experimental values of their masses $M_Z=91.1875$ GeV and $M_W=80.426$ GeV [[@EWK]]{} as input to our analysis. This numerically fixes the low energy scale $k e^{-\pi kr_c}$ that gives the masses of the KK excitations in the RS model, as well as the value of the on-shell weak mixing angle, $\sin^2 \theta_{OS}=1-M_W^2/M_Z^2$. Next, the requirement of the absence of ghosts in the unitary gauge of any physical theory implies that these two states, $W_1$ and $Z_1$, must have positive norms. Similarly, the field that represents the photon must also have a positive norm. In addition to these constraints, we demand that the ratio of the squares of the gauge couplings, $\lambda^2=g_{B-L}^2/g_L^2$, be positive definite. As can be seen from Table 1, these few simple cuts can remove as much as $\sim 40\%$ of the parameter space volume.
Assuming that the SM fermions (at least the first two generations) are localized near the Planck brane we can now calculate a number of electroweak quantities. Recall that our philosophy is that we want the tree level Higgsless model to match the tree level SM as closely as possible, outside of the Higgs sector, since in many cases we expect approximately similar one-loop radiative corrections. As we found in our earlier works [[@DHLRI; @DHLRII]]{}, a description of the $\gamma, W$ and $Z$ couplings to the SM matter fields can be parameterized in terms of two other definitions of the weak mixing angle in addition to $\sin^2 \theta_{OS}$. These two additional angles are defined via: $\sin^2\theta_{eg}=e^2/g_W^2$, with $g_W=g_{ffW_1}$ being the coupling of the $W$ to SM fermions on the Planck brane, and $\sin^2 \theta_{eff}$ being given by the couplings of the $Z$ to the same fermions at the $Z$-pole as discussed below. The electromagnetic coupling is, as usual, defined through the interaction of the massless neutral mode, $Z_0$, which we identify as the photon, to the SM fields. All three definitions of the weak mixing angle are identical at the tree level in the SM but are, in general, quite different numerically in the WHM.
Cuts$\kappa$ 0.75 0.9 1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0
------------------------------------------------------ --------- --------- ----------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Initial Sample 308,710 141,950 1,307,463 251,970 271,570 145,570 181,274 136,920
$\lambda^2 > 0$ 130,286 62,202 585,011 115,455 125,035 67,662 82,583 16,204
No $\gamma,Z$ ghosts 130,286 62,202 585,011 115,455 125,035 67,662 82,583 16,204
$|\delta\rho| < 0.005$ 16,181 7,887 76,994 16,728 20,183 13,799 24,223 2,958
$|s^2_{\rm eff} - s^2_{\rm os}| < 0.005s^2_{\rm os}$ 676 387 3,665 875 1,356 1,328 3,838 2,899
$|s^2_{\rm eg} - s^2_{\rm os}| < 0.005s^2_{\rm os}$ 242 159 1,539 332 545 576 1,805 2,013
No $Z'$ ghost 242 159 1,539 322 545 576 1,805 2,013
$Z'$ Tevatron 150 102 1134 217 393 439 1,556 1,830
$m_{Z'} < 1.5$ TeV 74 50 644 90 180 202 828 1,581
LEPII indirect 70 45 550 72 80 175 796 1,178
Isospin coupling 24 13 112 12 8 12 65 0
No Tachyons 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0
PUV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
: Data samples and their responses to the various constraints as described in the text. The values represent the number of cases surviving each of the cuts.
Writing the $Z$-pole couplings to SM fermions as $${g_Z\over {c_{OS}}} (T_3 -\sin^2 \theta_{eff}~ Q)\,,$$ in obvious notation, we also can define an auxiliary quantity, $\rho_{eff}^Z=g_Z^2/g_W^2$, which relates the strengths of the $W$ and $Z$ gauge boson interactions. We identify $g_Z/c_{OS}=g_{ffZ_1}$. In the SM at tree-level $\rho_{eff}^Z=1$, of course. We note that all of the electroweak observables at the $W,Z$ mass scale can now be described in terms of the three weak mixing angles, $M_Z$, and $\rho_{eff}^Z$ and we have no need to introduce any other parameterizations.[[^3]]{} It is clear that if we wish to reproduce the tree-level SM we must have all three values of $\sin^2 \theta$ be almost equal as well as require that $\rho_{eff}^Z$ be very close to unity. In our numerical study we will demand that the three definitions of $\sin^2 \theta$ all be equal within $0.5\%$ and additionally require $|\delta \rho_{eff}^Z|=|\rho_{eff}^Z-1|$ to be less than 0.005. The magnitude of these constraints should be comparable to the size of the one-loop generated electroweak corrections. This set of constraints is extremely powerful for the full WHM parameter space, but is especially strong for low values of $\kappa$ as can be seen from Table 1; only a few percent of the original model parameter space remains after applying these cuts. Note that models with larger values of $\kappa$ are generally favored by these electroweak constraints. This is not unexpected; we saw in our earlier work that the SM limit is approached rapidly as the value of $\kappa$ is increased. The price one pays for this is a rapid increase in the masses of the KK states leading to an obvious failure in PU as discussed below.
We now turn our attention to the mass and couplings of the next lightest neutral KK state, $Z_2$; these parameters are highly constrained by both experimental data as well as our requirement of PU as we will see below. We first impose the obvious constraints that this state not be a ghost and that it has not (yet) been observed in [*direct*]{} $Z'$-like production searches at LEPII or the Tevatron[[@TeV2; @LEP2]]{}. This places a correlated cut on the mass of this state as a function of its couplings to the SM fermions on the Planck brane. Futhermore, we note that the [*indirect*]{} search constraints for $Z'$-like states must also be satisfied. To be specific we will demand that the masses of the $Z_2$’s as well as their couplings to SM fermions are such as to have avoided the LEPII contact interaction constraints[[@LEP2]]{}. This constraint is actually quite powerful and removes an entire region in the $Z_2$ mass vs. coupling plane which survives the electroweak and Tevatron bounds. After imposing all these requirements we see from Table 1 that there are a respectable number of surviving cases.
The particular properties of the surviving cases will be examined in detail below. Figures. 1 and 2 show the values of the $Z_2$ mass and coupling for those models passing all of our above cuts except the constraints imposed by LEPII; in these figures an additional requirement for PU that $M_{Z_2}\leq$ 1.5 TeV, to be discussed further below, has been imposed. The Tevatron direct search constraint is responsible for the sharp diagonal boundary in the bottom panel of Fig. 2. Note that the couplings of the $Z_2$ can always be written in a form similar to the $Z$ above except we denote the overall coupling strength as $g_{ffZ_2}$ and the value of the corresponding weak mixing angle as $s_2^2=
\sin^2 \theta_{eff}(Z_2)$, , $(g_{ffZ_2}/c_w)(T^f_{3L}-s^2_2Q^f)$. Note the large set of models near $s_2^2=0$ and 1, the former with large couplings and masses between $\sim$ 1 and 1.5 TeV. These strongly coupled cases are entirely removed by the LEPII contact interaction bound and will not concern us further. It is important to note that at this point there [*are*]{} a reasonable of surviving models subsequent to applying this rather strict set of electroweak and collider constraints on the model parameter space. This situation is in contrast with results previously obtained by Barbieri in the case of the flat space analog where no warping is present. These authors showed that there was no significant region of parameter space which simultaneously satisfied the collider and precision electroweak constraints. We have performed a Monte Carlo study of the flat space analog model, imposing the constraints presented above, and effectively confirm their results. We note for completeness that if we strengthen our electroweak cuts such that $0.5\% \to 0.1\%$ in the analysis above, the number of surviving cases is reduced by a factor $\simeq 10$.
Analysis: Perturbative Unitarity and Tachyons
=============================================
Unitarity is an important property of any gauge theory[[@bike; @Hirn; @Ohl]]{}. Before examining PU directly, two further filters can be applied that will help us to focus on models which may satisfy our basic requirements. If the $Z_2$ in any of the models that survive both the electroweak and collider constraints is to contribute significantly to the $W_L^+W_L^-$ amplitude it must predominantly couple to isospin and not to $B-L$ or hypercharge $Y$. Note that when $s_2^2$ is near unity(zero), the $Z_2$ couples almost purely to $Y$(isospin). To ensure that the $Z_2$ has significant isospin-like coupling, we will demand that $s_2^2 <0.7$. We make exception for the special set of cases where the $Z_2$ mass is less than $\simeq
400$ GeV. The reason for keeping these $B-L$-like coupled states is that their light masses may help induce a potentially large contribution to the $W_L^+W_L^-$ elastic scattering amplitude. Furthermore, there may exist somewhat heavier excitations not too far away in mass which [*are*]{} coupled to isospin. This cut on $s_2^2$ appears to be rather loose, but many of the surviving models have great difficulty satisfying it. It is interesting to note that at this point in the parallel analysis of the flat space analog model [[@flat]]{} none of the cases satisfy this constraint; all of the possible cases in the flat space model surviving both collider and electroweak constraints are found to essentially couple to $B-L$ or $Y$.
In addition to the above, the $Z_2$ satisfying the collider constraints must still be sufficiently light as to make a significant contribution to $W_L^+W_L^-$ elastic scattering. Recall that in the SM without a Higgs boson, PUV occurs near $\sqrt s \simeq 1.7$ TeV. This implies that there must be at least one, and more likely several, neutral KK states below this scale if they are to ‘substitute’ for the SM Higgs in restoring unitarity. We thus impose the rather weak requirement that the lightest new neutral KK state, $Z_2$, must exist with a mass below 1.5 TeV; we make no further requirements on the spectrum for now.
This pair of constraints on the mass and nature of the $Z_2$ couplings are rather difficult to satisfy simultaneously for the models that have passed the electroweak and collider cuts; relatively few cases survive at this point as can be seen from Table 1. Most of the models passing the electroweak and collider bounds tend to be either too massive or predominantly coupled to hypercharge. We can also see this from Figs. 1 and 2 where the densely populated region near $s_2^2=1$ with a mass greater than 400 GeV is now removed by these cuts. At this point, the remaining models are presented in Figs. 3 and 4; their distribution in $\delta_i$ space is shown in Fig. 5.
At this point we are ready to examine the PU characteristics of the remaining cases shown in Figs. 3-5 in detail. First we note that these models fall into two broad classes: those few with all positive $\delta_i$ and those with at least one of the $\delta_i$ being negative. An analysis of PU in $W_L^+W_L^-$ elastic scattering for the cases with all positive $\delta_i$ follows the standard procedure described in our earlier work [[@DHLRI; @DHLRII]]{} which makes use of the scattering amplitude as given by [[@Duncan]]{} augmented to include additional neutral KK exchanges. Our proceedure is to calculate the complete amplitude using the expressions of Duncan which we modify to include an an arbitrary number of neutral KK exchanges in the $s-$ and $t-$ channels as well as an arbitrary $W$ 4-point coupling. We then integrate this amplitude to extract out the $J=0$ patial wave, $a_0$, subject to angular integration cuts imposed to avoid the photon $t-$channel pole. For our test of PU we demand that $|Re ~a_0|<1/2$, as is widely done in the literature. This analysis reveals that [*none*]{} of these models are much improved in comparison to the SM without a Higgs boson, , PUV occurs at $\simeq 2$ TeV. The main reason for this is that these cases tend to have a light $Z_2$ which is predominantly coupled to $Y$ as discussed above. To restate, if the $\delta_i$ are all chosen positive, the models surviving the electroweak and collider constraints [*do not*]{} lead to theories which have PU beyond the $\simeq 2$ TeV scale.
Cuts$\kappa$ 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.75 3.0 4.0
------------------------------------------------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- --
Initial Sample 611,150 304,680 178,320 122,801 266,801 169,862 70,661
$\lambda^2 > 0$ 611,150 304,680 178,320 122,801 266,801 169,862 70,661
No $\gamma,Z$ ghosts 611,150 304,680 178,320 122,801 266,801 169,862 70,661
$|\delta\rho| < 0.005$ 168,732 159,537 107,709 89,124 211,944 146,087 69,867
$|s^2_{\rm eff} - s^2_{\rm os}| < 0.005s^2_{\rm os}$ 0 502 1,506 2,734 8,600 7,456 8,724
$|s^2_{\rm eg} - s^2_{\rm os}| < 0.005s^2_{\rm os}$ 0 244 760 1,505 4,887 4,308 5,317
No $Z'$ ghost 0 244 760 1,505 4,887 4,308 5,317
$Z'$ Tevatron 0 6 145 530 2,204 2,233 4,174
$m_{Z'} < 1.5$ TeV 0 6 143 530 2,086 2,112 3,919
LEPII indirect 0 6 143 509 2,086 2,112 3,919
Isospin coupling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No Tachyons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PUV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
: Same as the previous table but now for a special set of runs assuming all the $\delta_i \geq 0$. Note that many cases survive until the $B-L$ or $Y$ cut is employed.
In order to verify this result we generated a larger statistical sample, an additional $\sim 1.7 \cdot 10^6$ models, distributed over various values of $\kappa$, assuming all of the $\delta_i \geq 0$. The results from performing these runs are shown in Table 2 using the same cuts as above. Here we see that although many models pass the combined collider and electroweak constraints none of them survive the non-$B-L/Y$ coupling requirement. Thus all of these models fail, confirming our previous results. We checked that this also occurs in the analog flat space model.
We now return to the models with at least one negative $\delta_i$. Ordinarily, such models would not be considered since having negative $\delta_i$ at the tree-level implies the existence of tachyons with all their related difficulties [[@tachyon]]{}. Indeed, we have verified numerically that such tachyonic states do indeed exist in the spectrum for all the models in this class, and found that the tachyon masses are quite sensitive to the magnitudes of the $\delta_i$. Nomura [[@NomuraI]]{}, however, has argued that potentially large and negative boundary terms associated with the Planck brane may be benignly generated at loop level without the significant influence of tachyons. These negative brane terms can be of sufficient importance numerically as to require their inclusion in a detailed tree-level analysis such as we are performing here. In such a case one could view the existence of tachyons as an artifact of including only partial one-loop effects. Since we are ignorant of the possible origin of negative $\delta_i$ in the full UV-completed theory, we must in principle consider these cases further.
When analyzing the models with negative $\delta_i$, one has to take care that the existence of tachyons at the tree level does not have important phenomenological effects, , tachyons that have significant couplings to SM fermions or which contribute substantially to SM processes such as $W_L^+W_L^-$ scattering. At the very least, if we are to consider models with such states, the tachyons must be [*truly*]{} benign. Certainly models where these tachyons can lead to important physical effects must not be allowed. However, if the tachyons are significantly decoupled from the SM fields we will consider such theories as benign and examine their PU properties. Based on the analysis of Nomura [[@NomuraI]]{}, as well as our previous work [[@DHLRI; @DHLRII]]{}, one might suspect that the tachyons induced by Planck brane kinetic terms, $\delta_{L,Y}$, are benign while those arising from kinetic terms on the TeV-brane, $\delta_{B,D}$, may not be.
As an initial filter, we analyze the couplings of tachyons to the SM fermions localized near the Planck brane; clearly, these couplings can depend sensitively on the magnitude of the $\delta_i$. First, we must determine the number of tachyon states that are in the spectrum. In the flat space analog [[@flat]]{} of WHM it is easy to see that there can be only a single complex conjugate pair of tachyons in each of the neutral and charged KK towers; we expect this result to be equally valid in the warped case. A numerical study verifies these expectations and so we need to concern ourselves with only two tachyonic states, $T^0$ and $T^\pm$. We find that in all the sample cases examined the relevant couplings of these states to the SM fermions are suppressed by powers of $\epsilon=e^{-\pi kr_c}$ and are thus exponentially small. Such a result might have been anticipated since the Bessel functions of an imaginary argument, $I_n$ and $K_n$, which are needed to describe the tachyonic wavefunctions, are asymptotic to exponentials instead of sines and cosines as is case for the usual $J_n$ and $Y_n$. This suppression of couplings is similarly observed to take place in the flat space analog of the current model, though in a more modest fashion due to the absence of warping, where sinh’s and cosh’s replace the usual sines and cosines in the expression for the tachyonic wavefunctions. Thus consideration of the fermion-fermion-tachyon coupling places no additional constraints on any of the models under consideration. One should note, however, that such constraints may be of some importance in a wider class of models.
As a second test we turn to $W_L^+W_L^-$ elastic scattering. Here we expect a different result as the gauge fields are in the bulk and their wave functions sample the entire region between, as well as on, the two branes. A quick way to analyze this case is to consider the contribution of the neutral tachyon to the first sum rule of Csaki [[@flat]]{}, which is one of the conditions for PU. Their derivation of this sum rule relies heavily on the completeness of the set of eigenstates of Hermitian operators; thus the neutral KK spectrum in the case of $\delta_i <0$ is not complete unless the tachyon state is included. Clearly as the magnitude of the negative brane terms increase the couplings of the tachyon to SM gauge fields will also increase and the tachyon will become lighter. The important issue for us is whether or not the tachyon state makes a numerically [*significant*]{} contribution to the sum rule.
Our results show that there are essentially three possibilities: ($i$) When $\delta_D <0$, we find that the tachyon makes a substantial contribution to the sum rule, which is on the order of $10\%$ or more of that of the photon, even when the magnitude of $\delta_D$ is small. In addition, this contribution is [*negative*]{}, , the tachyon is also a ghost state! Certainly all such cases must be excluded. This is a powerful constraint as many of the surviving models shown in Figs. 3-5 have negative values of $\delta_D$ in the region near $\sim -0.7$. ($ii$) When $\delta_{L,Y}<0$, the tachyon is generally sufficiently decoupled as to make almost no significant contribution to the sum rule. Not only are the couplings weak but the masses tend to lie in the multi-TeV range. For example, when $\delta_L \simeq -35$, a very extreme value, the tachyon coupling to $WW$ is found to be $g_T^2 \sim 10^{-6}$ which is only dangerous if the tachyon is light. For $\delta_L$ values of lesser magnitude the couplings are significantly smaller. This is as expected since we showed in our earlier work[[@DHLRI]]{} that in, , a model with $\delta_L \sim -7.5$, the sum rules were very well satisfied without including any tachyonic contributions. Thus we will retain all such models for further study. ($iii$) The remaining case where $\delta_B<0$ is a bit more problematic. As we saw in earlier [[@DHLRII]]{}, $\delta_B \neq 0$ has little influence on $W_L^+W_L^-$ elastic scattering since it only modifies the spectrum and couplings of the neutral KK’s which couple predominantly to $B-L/Y$. The tachyon $W_L^+W_L^-$ coupling is found to be generally intermediate in strength between that of the $\delta_D <0$ case and those for $\delta_{L,Y}<0$, unless the magnitude of $\delta_B$ is reasonably large $\simeq 10$. Our analysis of the surviving sample of models, however, indicates that the values of $\delta_B$ are indeed of this magnitude or larger. Correspondingly the masses of these states are also dangerously light implying that they can significantly contribute to SM processes. We thus drop these cases from further consideration below.
Summarizing, our numerical study confirms our expectations that the tachyons induced by negative TeV-brane kinetic terms are dangerous while those induced by the corresponding Planck brane terms are benign unless $\delta_L$ is very near its lower bound. Figures 6 and 7 show what little remains of our surviving models after we employ the requirement that $\delta_{B,D} \geq 0$. These 10 cases are mostly clustered (those with large negative $\delta_Y$) at high $Z_2$ masses in excess of 1.3 TeV and have pure isospin-like couplings. Those with negative $\delta_L$ tend to have much lighter $Z_2$ masses, of order less than 400 GeV. Their rather small couplings to fermions place them outside the range accessible to the Tevatron. These are the cases with small masses and large $B-L/Y$-like couplings that have survived the $B-L/Y$ cut imposed above. Unfortunately, these models all have values of $\delta_L \simeq -\pi kr_c$ and thus have light tachyons with potentially significant couplings $\sim 10^{-6}$ and are thus dropped from further consideration. This leaves only the 7 cases with negative $\delta_Y$ for further examination.
We now turn to the PU characteristics of these few surviving models; naively we expect all these cases to be problematic since the first KK excitation is always in excess of 1.3 TeV even though they are isospin-like coupled. Indeed all of these cases lead to PUV in the 1.9-2.2 TeV range which is not a significant improvement over the case of the SM without a Higgs boson. We thus conclude that none of the surviving models pass our PU requirements leaving us with no remaining models. Note that in obtaining these results we have not required PU to be valid up to the cutoff but only that the successful model to reasonably better than the SM without a Higgs.
Since we found that PUV occured at $\sqrt s \simeq 2$ TeV in the surviving models it is interesting to compare this value to that of the cutoff scale, $\Lambda$, as determined by Naive Dimensional Analysis[[@pap]]{}, , $$\Lambda=\epsilon {24\pi^3\over {g_{5L}^2}} \,,$$ Following the notation of our earlier work, $g_W^2=N_\delta g_{5L}^2/2\pi r_c$, where $N_\delta$ is a number near unity which depends in detail on the values of the $\delta_i$. With $g_W$ fixed via $G_F$ this now yields $$\Lambda={12\pi^2\over {g_W^2}} {N_\delta\over {kr_c}} {k\epsilon} \,,$$ where $kr_c=11.27$ in our analysis. Taking typical model values we find that $\Lambda\simeq \Lambda_\pi \simeq 10$ TeV, which is much larger that the $\sqrt s$ values obtained above for PUV. Thus PUV is apparently lost long before the cutoff is reached.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have performed a detailed tree-level Monte Carlo exploration of the parameter space of the 5-d warped Higgsless model which is based on the $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge group in the Randall-Sundrum bulk. We have generated several millions of test models allowing for arbitrary gauge kinetic terms on both the Planck and TeV branes which are parameterized through the $\delta_i$ coefficients. As we have seen from our earlier work this scenario suffers from a serious tension between constraints arising from precision electroweak measurements and collider data as well as the requirements of perturbative unitarity in $W_L^+W_L^-$ elastic scattering up to the $\Lambda_\pi \sim 10$ TeV scale. We have shown that it is relatively easy to find a class of models which satisfy all of the current direct and indirect collider bounds and yet has electroweak properties which are extremely close to those of the tree-level SM. As before, the size of the parameter space that satisfies the precision EW constraints increases dramatically as $\kappa$ increases. The real difficulty arises when we require the same theories to also satisfy perturbative unitarity while being free of dangerous tachyons. Though we have generated a fairly large data sample, none of the models we have examined have been able to satisfy all of our requirements simultaneously. We do note that if a generic solution of the PUV problem is found, there appears to be enough room in the parameter space to accomodate precision EW constraints. Absent such a solution, we can thus conclude that either successful models of this type are highly fine-tuned or must include additional sources of new physics [@nandi] which unitarizes the $W_L^+W_L^-$ scattering amplitude.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
We would like to thank Csabi Csaki, Hooman Davoudiasl, Christophe Grojean, Tao Han, Graham Kribs, and John Terning for discussions related to this work. T. Rizzo would like to thank Atul Gurtu for his suggesting this type of analysis.
\#1 \#2 \#3 [Mod. Phys. Lett. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Nucl. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Phys. Lett. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Phys. Rep. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Phys. Rev. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Rev. Mod. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Nuc. Inst. Meth. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Z. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [E. Phys. J. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [J. High En. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{}
[99]{} C. Csaki, C. Grojean, L. Pilo and J. Terning, “Towards a realistic model of Higgsless electroweak symmetry breaking,” arXiv:hep-ph/0308038.
L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3370 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9905221\]. K. Agashe, A. Delgado, M. J. May and R. Sundrum, “RS1, custodial isospin and precision tests,” JHEP [**0308**]{}, 050 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0308036\]. Y. Nomura, “Higgsless theory of electroweak symmetry breaking from warped space,” arXiv:hep-ph/0309189.
R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, “Weakly coupled Higgsless theories and precision electroweak tests,” arXiv:hep-ph/0310285.
H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett, B. Lillie and T. G. Rizzo, “Higgsless electroweak symmetry breaking in warped backgrounds: Constraints and signatures,” to appear in Phys. Rev [**D**]{}, arXiv:hep-ph/0312193.
G. Burdman and Y. Nomura, “Holographic theories of electroweak symmetry breaking without a Higgs boson,” arXiv:hep-ph/0312247.
G. Cacciapaglia, C. Csaki, C. Grojean and J. Terning, “Oblique corrections from Higgsless models in warped space,” arXiv:hep-ph/0401160.
R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi and A. Strumia, “Electroweak symmetry breaking after LEP1 and LEP2,” arXiv:hep-ph/0405040. R. S. Chivukula, E. H. Simmons, H. J. He, M. Kurachi and M. Tanabashi, “The structure of corrections to electroweak interactions in Higgsless models,” arXiv:hep-ph/0406077. N. Evans and P. Membry, “Higgless W Unitarity from Decoupling Deconstruction,” arXiv:hep-ph/0406285.
R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis and D. Dominici, “Moose models with vanishing S parameter,” arXiv:hep-ph/0405188. C. Csaki, C. Grojean, H. Murayama, L. Pilo and J. Terning, “Gauge theories on an interval: Unitarity without a Higgs,” arXiv:hep-ph/0305237.
C. Csaki, C. Grojean, J. Hubisz, Y. Shirman and J. Terning, “Fermions on an interval: Quark and lepton masses without a Higgs,” arXiv:hep-ph/0310355.
H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett, B. Lillie and T. G. Rizzo, JHEP [**0405**]{}, 015 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0403300\]. M. Carena, T. M. P. Tait and C. E. M. Wagner, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**33**]{}, 2355 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0207056\]; H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 045002 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0212279\]; JHEP [**0308**]{}, 034 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0305086\]; M. Carena, E. Ponton, T. M. P. Tait and C. E. M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 096006 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0212307\]. For a review, see M. Grünwald, “Precision electroweak measurements and fits,” talk given at APS2004, Denver, CO. May, 2004.
G. Altarelli and R. Barbieri, “Vacuum Polarization Effects Of New Physics On Electroweak Processes,” Phys. Lett. B [**253**]{}, 161 (1991). The strongest bounds at present are given by the D0 Collaboration in D0note 4375-Conf, v2.1 based on $\sim 200~pb^{-1}$ of Run II data.
The analysis of LEPII data leading to bounds on new gauge boson-like signatures can be found in C. Geweniger , LEP Electroweak Working Group note LEP2FF/02-03(2002)
C. Schwinn, “Higgsless fermion masses and unitarity,” arXiv:hep-ph/0402118. J. Hirn and J. Stern, “The role of spurions in Higgs-less electroweak effective theories,” arXiv:hep-ph/0401032. T. Ohl and C. Schwinn, “Unitarity, BRST symmetry and Ward identities in orbifold gauge theories,” arXiv:hep-ph/0312263. M. J. Duncan, G. L. Kane and W. W. Repko, Nucl. Phys. B [**272**]{}, 517 (1986). See for example, T. Jacobson, N.C. Tsamis and R.P. Woodard, D38 1823 1988 , and references therein.
M. Papucci, “NDA and perturbativity in Higgsless models,” arXiv:hep-ph/0408058.
S. Gabriel, S. Nandi and G. Seidl, “6D Higgsless standard model,” arXiv:hep-ph/0406020.
[^1]: Work supported in part by the Department of Energy, Contract DE-AC03-76SF00515
[^2]: e-mails: $^[email protected], $^[email protected], and $^[email protected]
[^3]: It can be easily shown that there is a unique mapping of the above parameters, together with $G_F$ which now involves a KK sum, over to the $\epsilon_i$ of Altarelli and Barbieri[[@AB]]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Consider the problem of finding a point in an ultrametric space with the minimum average distance to all points. We give this problem a Monte Carlo $O((\log^2(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^3)$-time $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for all $\epsilon>0$.'
author:
- 'Ching-Lueh Chang [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'ultrametric\_1\_median.bib'
title: 'On ultrametric $1$-median selection'
---
Introduction
============
A metric space is a nonempty set $M$ endowed with a distance function $d\colon M\times M\to[0,\infty)$ satisfying
- $d(x,y)=0$ if and only if $x=y$,
- $d(x,y)=d(y,x)$, and
- $d(x,z)\le d(x,y)+d(y,z)$ (triangle inequality)
for all $x$, $y$, $z\in M$. With the triangle inequality strengthened to $$d\left(x,z\right)\le \max\left\{d\left(x,y\right),\,d\left(y,z\right)\right\},$$ we call $(M,d)$ an ultrametric space and $d$ an ultrametric (a.k.a.non-Archimedean metric or super-metric). The mathematical community studies ultrametrics extensively. Given an $n$-point metric space $(M,d)$, [metric $1$-median]{} asks for a point in $M$, called a $1$-median, with the minimum average distance to all points. [Metric $1$-median]{} is a special case of the classical $k$-median clustering and a generalization to the classical median selection [@CLRS09]. It can also be interpreted as finding the most important point because social network analysis often measures the importance of an actor $v$ by $v$’s closeness centrality, defined to be $v$’s average distance to all points [@WF94]. Not surprisingly, [metric $1$-median]{} is extensively studied, e.g., in the general [@Ind99; @Ind00], Euclidean [@KSS10], streaming [@GMMMO03] and deterministic [@Cha18] cases. Indyk [@Ind99; @Ind00] has the currently best upper bound for [metric $1$-median]{}:
\[greattheoremofIndyk\] [Metric $1$-median]{} has a Monte Carlo $O(n/\epsilon^2)$-time $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for all $\epsilon>0$.
The greatest strengths of Theorem \[greattheoremofIndyk\] are the [*sublinear*]{} time complexity (of $O(n/\epsilon^2)$) and the optimal approximation ratio (of $1+\epsilon$), where “sublinear” means “$o(n^2)$” by convention because there are $\Theta(n^2)$ distances. Furthermore, except for the dependence of the time complexity on $\epsilon$, all parameters in Theorem \[greattheoremofIndyk\] are easily shown to be optimal [@Cha12 Sec. 7]. Chang [@Cha12 Sec. 6] uses Indyk’s [@Ind00 Sec. 6.1] technique to give a Monte Carlo algorithm for [metric $1$-median]{} with time complexity [*independent*]{} of $n$ but at the cost of a worse approximation ratio:
\[Changconstanttime\] For all $\epsilon>0$, [metric $1$-median]{} has a Monte Carlo $O((\log^2 (1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^3)$-time $(2+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm with success probability greater than $1-\epsilon$.
Let [ultrametric $1$-median]{} be [metric $1$-median]{} restricted to ultrametric spaces. The approximation ratio of $2+\epsilon$ in Theorem \[Changconstanttime\] cannot be improved to $2-\epsilon$ even if we require the success probability only to be a small constant [[@Cha12 Sec. 7]]{}. In contrast, this paper gives a Monte Carlo $O((\log^2 (1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^3)$-time $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for [ultrametric $1$-median]{}. So our algorithm has the optimal approximation ratio (of $1+\epsilon$) and a time complexity (of $O((\log^2 (1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^3)$) independent of $n$.
Algorithm
=========
For all $n\in\mathbb{Z}^+$, $[n]\stackrel{\text{def.}}{=}\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ by convention. Let $([n],d)$ be an ultrametric space, OPT a $1$-median of $([n],d)$ and $\epsilon>0$. Order the points in $[n]$ as $p_1=\text{\rm OPT}$, $p_2$, $\ldots$, $p_n$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
0=d\left(\text{OPT},p_1\right)
\le d\left(\text{OPT},p_2\right)
\le \cdots
\le
d\left(\text{OPT},p_n\right).
\label{orderofincreasingdistances}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, let $$\begin{aligned}
r^*\stackrel{\text{def.}}{=}\frac{1}{n}\cdot
\sum_{i=1}^n\,
d\left(\text{\rm OPT},p_i\right)
\label{closenesscentralityofthe1median}\end{aligned}$$ be the average distance from a $1$-median to all points. Because the brute-force algorithm for [ultrametric $1$-median]{} takes $\Theta(n^2)$ time and we want an $O((\log^2 (1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^3)$-time algorithm, assume $\epsilon\ge n^{-2/3}$ W.L.O.G. Furthermore, assume $\epsilon\le 0.0001$ W.L.O.G.[^2]
\[nowthisshouldbethekeylemma\] For all $1\le\ell\le n$, $$\sum_{i=1}^n\,d\left(p_\ell,p_i\right)
\le
\left(1+\frac{\ell-1}{n-\ell+1}\right)
\sum_{i=1}^n\,d\left(\text{\rm OPT},p_i\right).$$
We have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{i=1}^n\,d\left(p_\ell,p_i\right)\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,d\left(p_\ell,p_i\right)
+\sum_{i=\ell+1}^{n}\,d\left(p_\ell,p_i\right)\\
&\le&\sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,\max\left\{d\left(\text{OPT},p_\ell\right),\,
d\left(\text{OPT},p_i\right)\right\}
+\sum_{i=\ell+1}^{n}\,\max\left\{d\left(\text{OPT},p_\ell\right),\,
d\left(\text{OPT},p_i\right)\right\}\\
&\stackrel{\text{(\ref{orderofincreasingdistances})}}{\le}&
\sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_\ell\right)
+\sum_{i=\ell+1}^n\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_i\right)\\
&\le&
\sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_\ell\right)
+\sum_{i=1}^n\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_i\right)\\
&=&
\sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,
\frac{1}{n-\ell+1}\cdot \sum_{j=\ell}^n\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_\ell\right)
+\sum_{i=1}^n\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_i\right)\\
&\stackrel{\text{(\ref{orderofincreasingdistances})}}{\le}&
\sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,
\frac{1}{n-\ell+1}\cdot \sum_{j=\ell}^n\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_j\right)
+\sum_{i=1}^n\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_i\right)\\
&\le&
\sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,
\frac{1}{n-\ell+1}\cdot \sum_{j=1}^n\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_j\right)
+\sum_{i=1}^n\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_i\right)\\
&=&
\frac{\ell-1}{n-\ell+1}\cdot \sum_{i=1}^n\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_i\right)
+\sum_{i=1}^n\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_i\right).\end{aligned}$$
In short, Lemma \[nowthisshouldbethekeylemma\] says that $p_\ell$ is an approximate $1$-median for all small $\ell$. Below is the key of the proof of Theorem \[greattheoremofIndyk\].
\[Indykkeyfact\] Pick ${\boldsymbol v}_1$, ${\boldsymbol v}_2$, $\ldots$, ${\boldsymbol v}_k$ independently and uniformly at random from $[n]$, where $k\in\mathbb{Z}^+$. Then for all $a$, $b\in[n]$ satisfying $\sum_{j=1}^n\,d(b,p_j)>(1+\epsilon)\,\sum_{j=1}^n\,d(a,p_j)$, $$\Pr\left[
\sum_{j=1}^k\,d\left(b,{\boldsymbol v}_j\right)
\le
\sum_{j=1}^k\,d\left(a,{\boldsymbol v}_j\right)
\right]
<\exp{\left(-\frac{\epsilon^2 k}{64}\right)}.$$
The following lemma uses Indyk’s [@Ind00 Sec. 6.1] technique that Chang [@Cha12 Sec. 6] uses to prove Theorem \[Changconstanttime\].
\[wemaytakethebestaccordingtothesamples\] Pick ${\boldsymbol v}_1$, ${\boldsymbol v}_2$, $\ldots$, ${\boldsymbol v}_k$ as in Fact \[Indykkeyfact\], where $k=\lceil
10^9(\log(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^2\rceil$. Let $x_1$, $x_2$, $\ldots$, $x_h\in[n]$, where $h=\lceil 10^9(\log(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon\rceil$, and $$\begin{aligned}
t=\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{i=1}^h\,
\sum_{j=1}^k\,d\left(x_i,{\boldsymbol v}_j\right),
\label{thebestindexaccordingtorandomsamples}\end{aligned}$$ breaking ties arbitrarily. Then $$\Pr\left[\sum_{j=1}^n\,d\left(x_t,p_j\right)
\le \left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot \min_{i=1}^h\,
\sum_{j=1}^n\,d\left(x_i,p_j\right)\right]>1-\epsilon.$$
Let $$\begin{aligned}
i^*&=&\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{i=1}^h\,
\sum_{j=1}^n\,d\left(x_i,p_j\right),\label{thebestfromthesamples}
$$ breaking ties arbitrarily. Then [$$\begin{aligned}
&&\Pr\left[
\sum_{j=1}^n\,
d\left(x_t,p_j\right)> \left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot \min_{i=1}^h\,
\sum_{j=1}^n\,
d\left(x_i,p_j\right)\right]\\
&\stackrel{\text{(\ref{thebestfromthesamples})}}{=}&\Pr\left[
\sum_{j=1}^n\,
d\left(x_t,p_j\right)>\left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot
\sum_{j=1}^n\,
d\left(x_{i^*},p_j
\right)\right]\\
&\stackrel{\text{(\ref{thebestindexaccordingtorandomsamples})}}{=}&
\Pr\left[
\left(
\sum_{j=1}^n\,
d\left(x_t,p_j\right)>\left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot
\sum_{j=1}^n\,
d\left(x_{i^*},p_j\right)
\right)\land\left(
\sum_{j=1}^k\,d\left(x_t,{\boldsymbol v}_j\right)
=
\min_{i=1}^h\,\sum_{j=1}^k\,d\left(x_i,{\boldsymbol v}_j\right)\right)
\right]\\
&\le&
\Pr\left[
\left(
\sum_{j=1}^n\,
d\left(x_t,p_j\right)>\left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot
\sum_{j=1}^n\,
d\left(x_{i^*},p_j\right)
\right)\land\left(
\sum_{j=1}^k\,d\left(x_t,{\boldsymbol v}_j\right)
\le
\sum_{j=1}^k\,d\left(x_{i^*},{\boldsymbol v}_j\right)\right)
\right]\\
&\le&
\Pr\left[\exists i\in[h],\,
\left(
\sum_{j=1}^n\,
d\left(x_i,p_j\right)>\left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot
\sum_{j=1}^n\,
d\left(x_{i^*},p_j\right)
\right)\land\left(
\sum_{j=1}^k\,d\left(x_i,{\boldsymbol v}_j\right)
\le
\sum_{j=1}^k\,d\left(x_{i^*},{\boldsymbol v}_j\right)\right)
\right]\\
&\le&
\sum_{i=1}^h\,
\Pr\left[
\left(
\sum_{j=1}^n\,
d\left(x_i,p_j\right)>\left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot
\sum_{j=1}^n\,
d\left(x_{i^*},p_j\right)
\right)\land\left(
\sum_{j=1}^k\,d\left(x_i,{\boldsymbol v}_j\right)
\le
\sum_{j=1}^k\,d\left(x_{i^*},{\boldsymbol v}_j\right)\right)
\right]\\
&\stackrel{\text{Fact~\ref{Indykkeyfact}}}{<}&
\sum_{i=1}^h\,\exp{\left(-\frac{\epsilon^2 k}{64}\right)}\\
&=&
h\cdot \exp{\left(-\frac{\epsilon^2 k}{64}\right)}\\
&<&\epsilon,\end{aligned}$$ ]{}where the second inequality uses $t\in[h]$.
In short, Lemma \[wemaytakethebestaccordingtothesamples\] says how to find a $((1+\epsilon)\kappa)$-approximate $1$-median from $\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_h\}$ with probability greater than $1-\epsilon$, where $\kappa$ is the best approximation ratio among $x_1$, $x_2$, $\ldots$, $x_h$. Note that computing $t$ in Eq. (\[thebestindexaccordingtorandomsamples\]) requires no knowledge of the ordering $p_1$, $p_2$, $\ldots$, $p_n$.
$h\leftarrow \lceil 10^9(\log(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon\rceil$; $k\leftarrow \lceil 10^9(\log(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^2\rceil$; Pick ${\boldsymbol u}_1$, ${\boldsymbol u}_2$, $\ldots$, ${\boldsymbol u}_h$, ${\boldsymbol v}_1$, ${\boldsymbol v}_2$, $\ldots$, ${\boldsymbol v}_k$ independently and uniformly at random from $[n]$; $t\leftarrow \mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{i=1}^h\, \sum_{j=1}^k\,
d({\boldsymbol u}_i,{\boldsymbol v}_j)$, breaking ties arbitrarily; ${\boldsymbol u}_t$;
\[mainlemmafor1median\] Algorithm [approx. median]{} in Fig. \[mainalgorithmfor1median\] outputs a $((1+\epsilon)(1+2\epsilon))$-approximate $1$-median with probability greater than $1-2\epsilon$.
With $h$ and ${\boldsymbol u}_1$, ${\boldsymbol u}_2$, $\ldots$, ${\boldsymbol u}_h$ as in [approx. median]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Pr\left[\exists
i\in[h],
\, {\boldsymbol u}_i\in
\left\{p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_{\lceil\epsilon n\rceil}\right\}\right]\label{probabilityofpickinggoodfirst}\\
&=&1-\Pr\left[\forall
i\in[h],
\, {\boldsymbol u}_i\notin
\left\{p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_{\lceil\epsilon n\rceil}\right\}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&1-\left(1-\frac{\lceil\epsilon n\rceil}{n}\right)^h\nonumber\\
&>&1-\epsilon.\label{probabilityofpickinggoodlast}\end{aligned}$$ When there exists $1\le i\le h$ satisfying ${\boldsymbol u}_i\in
\{p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_{\lceil\epsilon n\rceil}\}$, Lemma \[nowthisshouldbethekeylemma\] asserts the existence of a $(1+2\epsilon)$-approximate $1$-median in $\{{\boldsymbol u}_1,{\boldsymbol u}_2,\ldots,{\boldsymbol u}_h\}$. So Eqs. (\[probabilityofpickinggoodfirst\])–(\[probabilityofpickinggoodlast\]) force $\{{\boldsymbol u}_1,{\boldsymbol u}_2,\ldots,{\boldsymbol u}_h\}$ to contain a $(1+2\epsilon)$-approximate $1$-median with probability greater than $1-\epsilon$. By Lemma \[wemaytakethebestaccordingtothesamples\] (with $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^h$ substituted by $\{{\boldsymbol u}_i\}_{i=1}^h$), [approx. median]{} outputs a $((1+\epsilon)\kappa)$-approximate $1$-median with probability greater than $1-\epsilon$ if $\{{\boldsymbol u}_1,{\boldsymbol u}_2,\ldots,{\boldsymbol u}_h\}$ contains a $\kappa$-approximate $1$-median, for all $\kappa>0$. Now take $\kappa=1+2\epsilon$.
\[maintheorem\] [Ultrametric $1$-median]{} has a Monte Carlo $O((\log^2(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^3)$-time $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm with success probability greater than $1-\epsilon$.
Invoke Lemma \[mainlemmafor1median\] (with $\epsilon$ substituted by $\epsilon/4$) and calculate the running time of [approx. median]{}.
[^1]: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. Email: [email protected]
[^2]: It is easy to see that if our result holds when $\epsilon=0.0001$, then it also holds for all $\epsilon> 0.0001$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Collective migration of animals in a cohesive group is rendered possible by a strategic distribution of tasks among members: some track the travel route, which is time and energy-consuming, while the others follow the group by interacting among themselves. In this paper, we study a social dynamics system modeling collective migration. We consider a group of agents able to align their velocities to a global *target velocity*, or to follow the group via interaction with the other agents. The balance between these two attractive forces is our control for each agent, as we aim to drive the group to consensus at the target velocity. We show that the optimal control strategies in the case of final and integral costs consist of controlling the agents whose velocities are the furthest from the target one: these agents sense only the target velocity and become *leaders*, while the uncontrolled ones sense only the group, and become *followers*. Moreover, in the case of final cost, we prove an “Inactivation” principle: there exist initial conditions such that the optimal control strategy consists of letting the system evolve freely for an initial period of time, before acting with full control on the agent furthest from the target velocity.'
author:
- Benedetto Piccoli
- Nastassia Pouradier Duteil
- Benjamin Scharf
title: '**Optimal Control of a Collective Migration Model**'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
A fascinating feature of large groups is their *self-organization* ability, i.e. the emergence from local interaction rules of certain global patterns. For instance, animal groups such as schools of fish, flocks of birds or herds of mammals exhibit strong coordination in their movements, see e.g. [@Bellomo; @Bellomo2; @Camazine; @Couzin; @CouzinKrause; @Niwa; @Parrish; @Parrish2; @Romey; @Toner; @Viscek]. This collective behavior in animal groups also inspired applications to robotics (see [@Berman]), in which the aim is to coordinate autonomous vehicles [@Chuang; @Jadbabaie; @Leonard; @Sugawara] and flight formations [@Perea; @Sepulchre]. Other interests concern models in microbiology [@Horstmann; @Horstmann2; @Keller; @Patlak; @Perthame], pedestrian and crowd motions [@Cristiani; @Cristiani2] and financial markets [@Bae; @During; @Lasry]. Such systems are usually referred to as social dynamics. Examples of self-organization include clustering of the agents, alignment of velocities, or other kinds of equilibria, see [@Camazine; @Tadmor; @Motsch; @Niwa; @Parrish; @Parrish2; @Toner]. This raises the question of understanding the mechanisms behind the global pattern formation.
A well-known model was proposed by F. Cucker and S. Smale (see [@CuckerSmale]) to describe the phenomenon of [*consensus*]{} in terms of alignment of velocities in a group on the move. The Cucker-Smale model in formula is written as: $$\label{Model_CS}
\begin{cases}
\dot{x_i} = v_i \\
\dot{v_i} = \cfrac{1}{N} \sum\limits_{j=1}^N \cfrac{v_j - v_i}{(1+\| x_j-x_i\|^2)^\beta}
\end{cases}\quad \text{ for } i\in\{1,...,N\},$$ where $\beta>0$, and $x_i\in\mathbb{R}^d$ and $v_i\in\mathbb{R}^d$ are respectively the [*state*]{} and [*velocity*]{}. This model was originally designed to describe the formation and evolution of language, and the variables $v_i$ can more generally represent opinions, preferences or invested capital. The system converges to consensus if $\beta\leq \frac12$, which corresponds to a strong interaction even between distant agents, see [@Caponigro2; @Caponigro]. On the other hand, if $\beta>\frac12$, i.e. if the interaction is too weak, convergence to consensus only happens under certain conditions. More generally, the term $(1+\| x_j-x_i\|^2)^{-\beta}$ can be replaced by $a(\|x_j-x_i\|)$. Intuitively, it is natural to define $a$ as a non-increasing function, since proximity often encourages interaction. On the other hand, it was proven that interactions modeled by non-decreasing functions $a$, called heterophilious, in fact enhance consensus (see [@Motsch]). When the system does not converge to a desired state, a natural question is to study the possibility of steering it via controls functions $u_i$, in which case the second equation of becomes: $\dot{v_i} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N a(\|x_j-x_i\|) (v_j - v_i)+u_i$ (see [@Caponigro2; @Caponigro; @Fornasier]).
In the *collective migration* problem (see [@Leonard1]), not only do agents interact with one another to travel as a group, but they also gather clues from the environment guiding them towards a global *target velocity*. In the case of migrating birds, for instance, this velocity can be sensed through a magnetic field, the direction of the sun, or environmental features. However, sensing the migration velocity is costly, both in used time and energy. A trade-off thus occurs between gathering this information, which ensures more precision, and following the group, which is less costly and saves time and energy for other tasks such as surveying for predators [@Dall; @Guttal]. This problem also applies to the field of robotics, in which gathering information from the environment is done at the expense of communicating with other robots (or planes, drones, etc.) or performing other tasks, and to the field of economics when one aims to influence decisions of a group based on limited information. This trade-off naturally separates the group into *leaders*, who gather information, and *followers*, who only interact with the other agents (see [@Guttal]).
We study a *Collective Migration Model*, where the agents’ dynamics is determined by two forces: the attraction towards a target velocity $V$ (which we assume can be sensed) and the consensus dynamics as in the Cucker-Smale model. More precisely, each agent’s evolution is governed by a parameter $\alpha_i\in [0,1]$ which provides the balance between the two forces. The system can be written as: $$\label{Model_Migration}
\begin{cases}
\dot{x_i} = v_i \\
\dot{v_i} = \alpha_i (V-v_i) + (1-\alpha_i)\cfrac{1}{N} \sum\limits_{j=1}^N a(\|x_j-x_i\|) (v_j - v_i)
\end{cases}\quad \text{ for } i\in\{1,...,N\},$$ where $x_i\in\mathbb{R}^d$ and $v_i\in\mathbb{R}^d$ are the state and velocity, $V\in\mathbb{R}^d$ is the target velocity, and $\alpha_i \in [0,1]$ is the control, with the constraint $\sum_i \alpha_i \leq M$, $M>0$. In this paper, we choose to set $a\equiv 1$, so that the strength of interaction does not depend on the agents’ positions. This is a reasonable hypothesis for instance if we consider groups of planes or drones that can communicate just as easily from great distances.
While the Cucker-Smale model leads to alignment of all velocities to the average one (when there is consensus), the migration model tends to align all velocities to the preassigned [*target velocity*]{}. Our work focuses on finding optimal control strategies in order to achieve consensus to the target velocity, and in particular on selecting optimal [*controlled leaders*]{} among the agents when the control strength $M$ is small with respect to the size of the group. In order to do that, we define the cost function $\tilde{\mathbb{V}} = \frac1N \sum_i \|v_i-V\|^2$, measuring the distance from consensus at the target velocity. We first show that, given any $M>0$, the strategy to decrease $\tilde{\mathbb{V}}$ instantaneously, with the constraint $\sum_i \alpha_i\leq M$, consists of distributing the control among the agents with the largest positive projections of velocities along $\bar{v}-V$ (where $\bar{v}$ is the mean velocity). In particular, if $\langle v_i, \bar{v}-V\rangle <0$, the agent $i$ is not controlled ($\alpha_i=0$).
We then study the optimal control strategy to minimize $\tilde{\mathbb{V}}$ at a fixed final time and first focus on the case of two agents, with control bounded by $M\in [0,2]$. The optimal control strategies depend on $M$ but, in all cases, we act with larger control on the agent with the largest projected velocity. Furthermore, if the final time is too short to bring the agents together, then there are initial conditions for which at first the system must evolve with no control ($\alpha\equiv 0$). We call this phenomenon “Inactivation”, in line with the “Inactivation Principle” proven in [@Gauthier] in the context of arm movements. In this collaborative work with biologists, the authors prove that during fast arm movements, it is optimal to simultaneously inactivate both agonistic and antagonistic muscles for a short moment nearing the peak velocity. We next generalize our results to any number of agents, but with the constraint $M\leq 1$. Then the optimal control strategy acts with full strength on a sub-group of agents to bring them together. Also in this case we observe “Inactivation”, which occurs when the initial average velocity $\bar{v}$ is very close to the target velocity $V$. Indeed, driving the system to $V$ requires both achieving consensus and moving the average velocity towards $V$. If the average velocity is already close to $V$, then we are left with inducing consensus which happens naturally without control. However, simulations show that Inactivation is rare and its performance gain is very minor compared to a full-control strategy.
Then we move on to examine integral costs $\int_0^T\tilde{\mathbb{V}}(t)dt$ and show that the optimal control strategy never exhibits Inactivation. More precisely, we must use full control at all time splitting it evenly among the agents with the biggest projected velocity. Such a strategy is more restrictive than that with final cost, since the controls are completely determined by initial conditions, while previously we could use any strategy bringing agents together at final time.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[Sec:gen\], we define the cost functional and make general observations. In Section \[Sec:instantaneous\], we determine the strategy to decrease it instantaneously in time. Then, in Section \[Sec\_opt\], we introduce the optimal control problem to minimize the cost function at a given final time. We solve it for the particular case of two agents (Section \[Sec:2agents\]) before generalizing to any number of agents with a control bounded by $1$ (Section \[Sec:gencase\]). Lastly we find optimal control strategies to minimize the integral cost (Section \[Sec:int\_cost\]).
Cost function and general observations {#Sec:gen}
======================================
With no loss of generality, we set the target velocity $V$ to zero. Having simplified the interaction function $a$, system (\[Model\_Migration\]) reduces to: $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x_i} = v_i \\
\dot{v_i} = - \alpha_i v_i + (1-\alpha_i)\cfrac{1}{N} \sum\limits_{j=1}^N (v_j - v_i)
\end{cases} \quad i\in\{1,...,N\}.
\label{dynamics}$$ We set a final time $T>0$. Then given $M>0$, we define the set of controls $\mathcal{U}_M$ as: $$\label{Um}
\mathcal{U}_M=\Big\{\alpha:[0,T]\rightarrow [0,1]^N \Big | \; \alpha \text{ measurable, s.t. for all } t, \; \sum\limits_{i=1}^N\alpha_i(t) \leq M\Big\}.$$
Projection of the Dynamics
--------------------------
Note that the dynamics (\[dynamics\]) can be written in the more compact way: $$\label{dynamics2}
\begin{cases}
\dot{x_i} = v_i \\
\dot{v_i} = - v_i + (1-\alpha_i) \; \bar{v} ,
\end{cases}$$ where $\bar v$ represents the mean velocity $\bar v = \frac1N \sum_i v_i$. The evolution of $\bar v$ is given by $\dot{\bar v}=-\frac1N (\sum_i\alpha_i) \bar v$, so the direction of $\bar v$ is an invariant of the dynamics. We begin by assuming that the initial average velocity is different from the target one:
\[hyp\_first\] $\bar{v}(0)\neq 0$.
This first assumption is only made in order to render the problem interesting. Indeed, if $\bar v(0)=0$, i.e. if the mean velocity is already at the target velocity $V$, then according to the evolution $\dot{\bar v} = -(\sum_i \alpha_i)\bar v$, it would hold $\bar v(t) = 0$ for all $t\geq 0$. Then looking at Equation , we notice that the system is not controllable and that each velocity decreases exponentially to zero. We can then define the invariant unit vector $e = \frac{\bar{v}}{\|\bar{v}\|}$.
Let $w_i = v_i - \langle v_i, e \rangle \; e$ be the projection of $v_i$ over $(\bar{v}^\perp)$. Then $$\dot{w}_i = -v_i + (1-\alpha_i) \; \bar{v} - \langle -v_i + (1-\alpha_i) \; \bar{v} , e \rangle \; e = - w_i.$$ Therefore the projection of $v_i$ over $(\bar{v}^\perp)$ decreases exponentially, independently of the controls $\alpha_i$. Let us now define $\xi_i = \langle v_i, e \rangle$. Its evolution is given by: $\dot\xi_i = - \langle v_i, e \rangle + (1-\alpha_i) \langle \bar{v}, e \rangle = - \xi_i + (1-\alpha_i) \| \bar{v} \| = - \xi_i + (1-\alpha_i) \bar\xi$. In the following, we will only study the equations governing the evolution of the projected variables $\xi_i$: $$\text{For all } i\in \{1,...,N\}, \quad \dot\xi_i = - \xi_i + (1-\alpha_i) \bar\xi ,
\label{scalar}$$ where $\bar\xi=\frac1N \sum_j \xi_j$. This is a significant result: instead of studying a system evolving in $\mathbb{R}^{Nd}$, we consider a system in $\mathbb{R}^N$, thus greatly reducing the complexity of theoretical and numerical analyses. Hereafter we shall make the following hypothesis:
\[hyp\_main\] $\xi_i(0)\geq \xi_{i+1}(0)$ for every $ i\in \{1,...,N-1\}$.
This assumption allows us to order the initial projected velocities without loss of generality.
\
Having made Hyp. \[hyp\_first\] and Hyp. \[hyp\_main\], it holds $\bar{v}(t) \neq 0$ and $\bar{\xi}(t)> 0$ for all $t \in [0,T]$.\
Furthermore, let $\tau\in[0,T]$. If $\xi_i(\tau)\geq 0$, then $\xi_i(t)\geq 0$ for all $t\in[\tau,T]$. If $\xi_i(\tau)> 0$, then $\xi_i(t)> 0$ for all $t\in[\tau,T]$. \[prop\_positive\]
The proposition is mainly a consequence of Gronwall’s inequality: It holds $$\label{xibarvbar}
{\bar \xi}=\frac1N \sum_j \langle v_j,\frac{\bar{v}}{\|\bar{v}\|}\rangle =\langle \bar{v},\frac{\bar{v}}{\|\bar{v}\|}\rangle = \|\bar{v}\|$$ and $$\dot{\bar{\xi}} = - \frac1N \left(\sum_{i=1} \alpha_i \right) \bar{\xi} \geq - \frac{M}{N} \bar{\xi}.$$ Hence, if $\bar{v}(0) \neq 0$ and therefore $\bar{\xi}(0)> 0$, then $\bar{\xi}(t)\geq e^{-Mt/N}\bar{\xi}(0)>0$ and thus $\bar{v}(t) \neq 0$ for all $t \in [0,T]$. Now notice that from we can compute for all $t\in [\tau,T]$: $\xi_i(t)=e^{-(t-\tau)} (\xi_i(\tau) + \int_\tau^t (1-\alpha_i)(s)\bar{\xi}(s)e^{s-\tau} ds)$, so $\xi_i(t)\geq e^{-(t-\tau)} \xi_i(\tau)$, which proves the second part of the proposition.
Migration functional
--------------------
We introduce the functional $$\tilde{\mathbb{V}} = \frac1N \sum\limits_{i=1}^N \|v_i-V\|^2 ,$$ which measures the distance from consensus at the desired velocity $V$. Since we set $V=0$, $\tilde{\mathbb{V}}$ reduces to: $\tilde{\mathbb{V}} = \frac1N \sum_i \|v_i\|^2 $. In the new projected coordinates $\xi$, the migration functional can be written as: $\tilde{\mathbb{V}} = \frac1N \sum_i (\|w_i\|^2 + \xi_i^2)$, where only the second term $\xi_i^2$ can be controlled. Hence, here onward we will only consider the controllable part of $\tilde{\mathbb{V}}$, which we denote $\mathbb{V}$: $$\mathbb{V} = \frac1N \sum\limits_{i=1}^N \xi_i^2.
\label{Vxi}$$ Notice that $\mathbb{V}$ can be written as a sum of two terms: $$\label{Vdecomp}
\mathbb{V}=\bar\xi^2+\frac1N\sum\limits_{i=1}^N(\xi_i-\bar\xi)^2,$$ which should be minimized simultaneously (where we remind that $\bar{\xi}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_i\xi_i$). Minimizing $\bar\xi ^2$ (or $\bar\xi$, since according to Proposition \[prop\_positive\], $\bar\xi>0$) corresponds to steering the system as a whole to the desired velocity $V=0$. On the other hand, minimizing $ \frac1N\sum_i(\xi_i-\bar\xi)^2$ corresponds to driving the system to consensus. However, the dynamics (\[scalar\]) of $\xi_i$ show that if $\xi_i<0$, decreasing $\bar\xi$ slows down the increase of $\xi_i$, resulting in a possible increase of $(\xi_i-\bar\xi)^2$. Hence, minimizing $\mathbb{V}$ requires balancing the decrease of the two terms in (\[Vdecomp\]).
Minimization problems {#Sec:techniques}
---------------------
In the following sections, we will deal with the minimization of different quantities, in order to design a strategy for consensus at the migration velocity $V=0$. Having fixed the final time $T$ a priori, we address three problems:
($i$)
: The minimization of $\frac{d \mathbb{V}}{dt}$, i.e. the maximization of the instantaneous decrease of $\mathbb{V}$ (see Section \[Sec:instantaneous\]).
($ii$)
: The minimization of the final cost $\mathbb{V}(T)$ (see Sections \[Sec\_opt\], \[Sec:2agents\] and \[Sec:gencase\]).
($iii$)
: The minimization of the integral cost $\int_0^T \mathbb{V}(t) dt$ (see Section \[Sec:int\_cost\]).
In order to minimize $(ii)$ $\mathbb{V}(T)$ and $(iii)$ $\int_0^T \mathbb{V}(t) dt$, we will design an optimal control strategy using Pontryagin’s maximum principle. The minimization of $\dot{\mathbb{V}}$, on the other hand, will not provide an optimal control.
Instantaneous Decrease {#Sec:instantaneous}
======================
In this section we look for a control strategy maximizing the instantaneous decrease of $\mathbb{V}$. Strategies designed in this way are not optimal (in general), but are easier to study and can give a first good insight on the problem. Indeed, we will later compare the instantaneous decrease strategy to the optimal control strategies developed in Sections \[Sec:gencase\] and \[Sec:int\_cost\]. The time derivative of the migration functional $\mathbb{V}$ is given by: $$\dot{\mathbb{V}} = \frac2N \sum\limits_{i=1}^N \xi_i \dot{\xi}_i = \frac2N \left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^N - \xi_i^2 + \sum\limits_{i=1}^N (1-\alpha_i) \bar{\xi} \xi_i \right)
= -2 \mathbb{V} + \frac2N \bar{\xi} \sum\limits_{i=1}^N (1-\alpha_i)\xi_i .$$ Since $\bar{\xi}\geq 0$, minimizing $\dot{\mathbb{V}}$ amounts to the following problem: $$\text{Find} \; \; \; \text{min} \sum\limits_{i=1}^N (1-\alpha_i) \xi_i,$$ which can be done as follows (where $\floor*{M}$ and $\ceil{M}$ respectively denote the floor and the ceiling of $M$, and $|\cdot|$ denotes the cardinality of a set):
\[prop\_inst\] Suppose that $\xi_1(t)\geq...\geq \xi_{N}(t)$ (or re-arrange the agents so that this is satisfied). Then the following strategy minimizes $\frac{d}{dt}\mathbb{V}$ at time $t$:\
Define $I^+(t)=\{i\in\{1,..,N\}, \; \xi_i(t) > 0 \}$.\
If $|I^+(t)|\leq M$, then set $\alpha_i(t)=1$ if $i\in I^+$ and $\alpha_i(t)=0$ otherwise.\
If $|I^+(t)|>M$ and $\xi_{\ceil{M-1}}>\xi_{\ceil{M}}>\xi_{\ceil{M+1}}$ then set $\alpha_i(t)=1$ if $i\leq \floor{M}$, $\alpha_{\floor{M}+1}(t)=M-\floor{M}$ and $\alpha_i(t)=0$ otherwise.\
If $|I^+(t)|>M$ and $\xi_{\ceil{M-1}}=\xi_{\ceil{M}}$ or $\xi_{\ceil{M}}=\xi_{\ceil{M+1}}$, let $I_{\ceil{M}}=\{i\in\{1,...,N\}, \; \xi_i(t)=\xi_{\ceil{M}}(t)\}$ and $I_{\ceil{M}}^*=\{1, ...,\ceil{M}\}\setminus I_{\ceil{M}} $ . Then set $\alpha_i(t)=1$ if $i\in I_{\ceil{M}}^*$, $\alpha_i(t)=\frac{M-|I_{\ceil{M}}^*|}{|I_{\ceil{M}}|}$ if $i\in I_{\ceil{M}}$ and $\alpha_i(t)=0$ otherwise.\
Optimal control for final cost {#Sec_opt}
==============================
In this section, we focus on problem $(ii)$ (see Section \[Sec:techniques\]), i.e. minimizing the migration functional $\mathbb{V}$ at final time $T$ using Pontryagin’s maximum principle.
Let us compute the Hamiltonian $H$ of the scalar system (\[scalar\]): $$\label{Ham}
H
%= \langle\lambda , f(\xi, \alpha)\rangle
= \sum\limits_{i=1}^N \lambda_i \left( -\xi_i + (1-\alpha_i) \bar{\xi} \right) = - \bar{\xi} \sum\limits_{i=1}^N \alpha_i \lambda_i + \sum\limits_{i=1}^N \lambda_i \left( - \xi_i + \bar{\xi} \right).$$ By Pontryagin’s maximum principle [@Pont], if $\alpha\in\mathcal{U}_M$, associated with the trajectory $\xi$, is optimal on $[0,T]$, then there exists $\lambda : [0,T]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N$ such that $\dot{\xi}=\frac{\partial H}{\partial \lambda}$ and $\dot{\lambda}=-\frac{\partial H}{\partial \xi}$. Furthermore the following minimization condition holds for almost all $t\in [0,T]$: $$\label{MinH}
H(t,\xi(t),\lambda(t),\alpha(t))=\min\limits_{\beta\in\mathcal{U}_M} H(t,\xi(t),\lambda(t),\beta(t)).$$ Since $\bar{\xi}\geq 0$, minimizing $H$ requires to set $\alpha_i = 1$ on the biggest positive $\lambda_i$. The differential equation for the covectors $\lambda_i$ gives: $$\dot{\lambda}_i = - \frac{\partial H}{\partial \xi_i} = \frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{j=1}^N \alpha_j \lambda_j- \bar{\lambda} + \lambda_i, \quad i \in \{1,...,N\}. \;
\label{lambda}$$ From this we can also compute the evolution of $\bar{\lambda}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_i\lambda_i$: $$\label{lambdabar}
\dot{\bar{\lambda}}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N\alpha_j\lambda_j.$$ Since the final condition for $\xi$ is not fixed, the final condition for $\lambda$ at time $T$ gives: $$\lambda(T) = \nabla \mathbb{V}(\xi(T)) = \left( \frac2N \xi_1(T), ... , \frac2N \xi_N(T)\right).
\label{lambda_final}$$
\[prop\_equality\] If $\bar t>0$, $i,j\in\{1,...,N\}$ , and $\lambda_i(\bar t)= \lambda_j(\bar t)$, then $\lambda_i(t)= \lambda_j(t)$ for all $t$. In this case, for a given control $\alpha$, any control $\tilde{\alpha}$ satisfying $\tilde{\alpha_i}+\tilde{\alpha_j} = \alpha_i +\alpha_j$ and $\tilde{\alpha_k} = \alpha_k$ for every $k \neq i,j$ gives the same evolution of $\lambda$. If the control $\alpha$ satisfies the Pontryagin Maximum Principle, then the control $\tilde{\alpha}$ also does.
Assume that at time $\bar{t}$, $\lambda_i(\bar{t})= \lambda_j(\bar{t})$. Let us define $z_{ij} = \lambda_i - \lambda_j.$ The evolution of $z_{ij}$ is given by: $\dot{z}_{ij} = \dot{\lambda}_i - \dot{\lambda}_j = \lambda_i - \lambda_j = z_{ij}.$ Hence, $z_{ij}(t)=z_{ij}(\bar{t}) e^{t-\bar{t}}$, and if $z_{ij}(\bar{t})=0$, then for all $t$, $z_{ij}(t)=0$, i.e. $\lambda_i(t)=\lambda_j(t)$. From this it follows that if $\alpha$ minimizes the Hamiltonian $H$, then any control $\tilde{\alpha}$ satisfying $\tilde{\alpha_i}+\tilde{\alpha_j} = \alpha_i +\alpha_j$ and $\tilde{\alpha_k} = \alpha_k$ also minimizes $H$, since one easily sees from (\[Ham\]) that $H^\alpha=H^{\tilde{\alpha}}$ (where we denote by $H^\alpha$ the Hamiltonian obtained with the control function $\alpha$).
Still assuming that the projected velocities are initially ordered (Hypothesis \[hyp\_main\]), the following lemma will allow us to further assume that they are ordered at all time.
\[lemma\_orderxi\] \
There exists an optimal strategy satisfying the following: For all $ t\in [0,T]$, $$\label{orderxi}
\text{If } i<j, \text{ then } \xi_i(t)\geq\xi_j(t).$$
Consider an optimal control strategy $\alpha\in \mathcal{U}_M$.\
Define $\tau=\sup\{t\in [0,T]; \; \exists \beta\in \mathcal{U}_M \text{ s.t. } \mathbb{V}_{\beta}(T)=\mathbb{V}_\alpha(T) \text{ and } \xi^\beta \text{ satisfies } (\ref{orderxi}) \text{ on } [0,t]\}$, where $\mathbb{V}_\beta$ and $\xi^\beta$ denote respectively the migration functional and the dynamics driven by the control $\beta$. Let us prove by contradiction that $\tau=T$. Suppose that $\tau<T$. Then there exist $i,j \in \{1,...,N\}$ with $i<j$ such that $\xi_i^\beta(\tau)=\xi^\beta_j(\tau)$ and $\xi^\beta_j(t)>\xi^\beta_i(t)$ on $]\tau, \tau+\delta]$ for some $\delta>0$. Design a control strategy $\tilde{\beta}$ such that on $[\tau,T], \; \tilde{\beta}_i=\beta_j, \; \tilde{\beta}_j=\beta_i $ and for every $ k\in \{1,...,N\}\setminus\{i,j\}, \; \tilde{\beta}_k=\beta_k$. Then for all $ t\in [\tau, T], \; \xi^{\tilde{\beta}}_i(t)=\xi^\beta_j(t), \;$ $ \text{ and } \xi^{\tilde{\beta}}_j(t)=\xi^\beta_i(t)$. So for all $t\in[\tau, \tau+\delta], \; \xi^{\tilde{\beta}}_i(t)\geq\xi^{\tilde{\beta}}_j(t) \text{ and } \mathbb{V}^{\tilde{\beta}}(T)=\mathbb{V}^\beta(T)$. Proceeding likewise for every pair of indices $(m,n)$ satisfying $m<n$ and $\xi^\beta_m(t)<\xi^\beta_n(t)$ on $]\tau, \tau+\delta]$ we are able to design a control strategy $\tilde{\beta}$ satisfying (\[orderxi\]) on $[0,\tau+\delta]$ and $\mathbb{V}^{\tilde{\beta}}(T)=\mathbb{V}^\alpha(T)$, which contradicts the definition of $\tau$. In conclusion, $\tau=T$, i.e. for all $ t\in [0,T]$, for every $i, j\in \{1,...,N\}$, if $i<j$ then $\xi_i(t)\geq\xi_j(t)$.
Hence, from here onward we shall assume that the variables $\xi_i$ are ordered at all time.
\[hyp\_orderxi\] If $i<j$, then $\xi_i(t)\geq\xi_j(t)$ for all $t\in [0,T]$.
From Hyp.\[hyp\_orderxi\] and the transversality condition (\[lambda\_final\]), we know that the covectors are ordered at final time, i.e. $\lambda_1(T)\geq ... \geq \lambda_N(T)$. From Prop. \[prop\_equality\], we can generalize this for any time $t$: $$\label{Condopt}
\lambda_1(t)\geq ... \geq \lambda_N(t) \quad \text{ for all } t \in [0,T].$$ The Pontryagin Maximum Principle allows us to state the following:
\[prop\_optstrat\] The optimal strategy requires controlling the agents with the biggest positive covectors. Let $\alpha\in\mathcal{U}_M$ be an optimal strategy and $\lambda_i, \; i\in\{1,...,N\}$ the corresponding covectors. Define: $$\label{setI}
I_\lambda(t):=\Big \{ i\in \{1,...,N\} \; \Big | \; \lambda_i(t)\geq 0 \Big\} \quad \text{ and }\quad I_\lambda^+(t):=\Big \{i\in \{1,...,N\} \; \Big | \; \lambda_i(t)>0 \Big \}.$$ If the set $I_\lambda(t)$ is empty, then there is no control on any agent: $\alpha_i(t)= 0$ for every $i$.\
If the set $I_\lambda^+(t)$ is not empty, then there exists $i\in I_\lambda^+(t)$ such that $\alpha_i(t)> 0$. Furthermore, $\sum_j \alpha_j \geq \min(|I_\lambda^+(t)|,M)$.
According to Pontryagin’s maximum principle (\[MinH\]), if the control $\alpha$ is optimal, then it minimizes the Hamiltonian $H$ (\[Ham\]) for almost all $t\in[0,T]$. The only controllable part of $H$ is $\tilde{H}=-\bar{\xi}\sum_i\alpha_i\lambda_i$. Minimizing $H$ requires controlling the largest positive $\lambda_i$ with the maximum strength allowed, while setting $\alpha_i=0$ if $\lambda_i<0$. If $\lambda_i=0$, Pontryagin’s maximum principle gives no information on $\alpha_i$.
This leads to a trichotomy of cases.
- The biggest positive $\lambda_i$’s are always controlled with maximum control: $\sum_{i\in I_\lambda^+} \alpha_i=\min (|I_\lambda^+|, M )$.
- If for $i,j$, $\lambda_i$ and $\lambda_j$ coincide (at a certain time, which implies at all time) then $\alpha_i$ and $\alpha_j$ are under-determined. The PMP only requests that $\alpha_i + \alpha_j = c$ where $c$ is given by the strength of the control to be used on the two agents.
- The negative $\lambda_i$’s are never controlled: if $\lambda_i<0$, then $\alpha_i = 0$.
The existence of an optimal control for the problem described above is ensured by the convexity of the sets $F(t,\xi)=\{\left(\xi_i + (1-\alpha_i)\bar{\xi}\right)_{i=1...N}, \; \alpha\in [0,1]^N, \; \sum_i\alpha_i\leq M \}$ (see [@BressPic]).
Final cost with two agents {#Sec:2agents}
==========================
For a clearer understanding of the mechanisms taking place, we consider the simple case of two agents in $\mathbb{R}^d$. We consider the sets of controls $\mathcal{U}_M$, where $0<M\leq 2$. Thus, system (\[scalar\]) becomes:
$$\begin{cases}
\dot{\xi}_1 = -\xi_1 + (1-\alpha_1) \; \bar{\xi} \\
\dot{\xi}_2 = -\xi_2 + (1-\alpha_2) \; \bar{\xi}.
\end{cases}
\label{scalar2}$$
Computing the difference of the two projected variables will also prove useful: $$\label{diffxi1}
\dot{\xi}_1-\dot{\xi}_2= -(\xi_1-\xi_2)-(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)\bar{\xi}.$$
Three different situations may arise, depending on the value of the constraint on the control. Indeed, two constraints are set: $\alpha_1+\alpha_2 \leq M$, and $0\leq\alpha_i \leq 1$ for $i=1,2$. We differentiate the cases (a) $0<M\leq 1$, (b) $1<M<2$ and (c) $M=2$.
Pontryagin’s Maximum Principal {#Sec:PMP}
------------------------------
Notice that the migration functional can be written as: $$\mathbb{V} = \frac12 (\xi_1^2 + \xi_2^2) = \frac14 \left( (\xi_1+\xi_2)^2 + (\xi_1-\xi_2)^2 \right)=\bar{\xi}^2+\left(\frac{\xi_1-\xi_2}{2}\right)^2,
\label{functional_V}$$ once again emphasizing the necessary trade-off between two terms: the mean velocity $\bar{\xi}$ and the distance between the agents $|\xi_1-\xi_2 |$. Computing the Hamiltonian of the system gives:
$$H(t,\xi,\lambda,\alpha) = - \bar{\xi} \;(\alpha_1\lambda_1+\alpha_2\lambda_2) + \frac{\xi_2-\xi_1}{2} (\lambda_1-\lambda_2).$$
In line with Hyp. \[hyp\_main\], two cases are possible: $\xi_1(0)=\xi_2(0)$ or $\xi_1(0)>\xi_2(0)$. The following proposition deals with the first case.
\[prop\_control2equal\] If $\xi_1(0)=\xi_2(0)$, then a control strategy $\alpha$ is optimal if and only if it satisfies $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$ and $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$.
Consider the control given by $\tilde\alpha_1\equiv\tilde\alpha_2\equiv \frac{M}{2}$. It achieves $[\frac12(\xi_1(T)-\xi_2(T))]^2=0$ and ensures the maximal decrease of $\bar\xi^2$, thus is optimal for the minimization of $\mathbb{V}(T)$ . Still from , a control $\alpha$ is optimal if and only if it achieves $[\frac12(\xi_1(T)-\xi_2(T))]^2=0$, which is equivalent to $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$, and ensures the maximal decrease of $\bar\xi^2$, which is equivalent to $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$.
Hence, the case $\xi_1(0)=\xi_2(0)$ is fully understood. In the following, we will deal with more complex cases by assuming:
$\xi_1(0)>\xi_2(0)$. \[hyp\_signs\]
Before studying each case in detail, we give general considerations on the relation between the control $\alpha$ and $\lambda$:
- If $M \leq 1$, minimizing $H$ (i.e. maximizing $\langle \lambda,\alpha \rangle$) gives (see Fig.\[fig:M1\]): $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = (M,0)$ if $0<\lambda_2 < \lambda_1$; $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = (M/2,M/2)$ if $0<\lambda_2=\lambda_1$; $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = (M,0)$ if $\lambda_2 < 0 < \lambda_1$; $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = (0,0)$ if $\lambda_2 < 0$ and $\lambda_1 < 0$.
- If $1< M< 2$, minimizing $H$ gives (see Fig.\[fig:M12\]): $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = (1,M-1)$ if $0<\lambda_2 < \lambda_1$; $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = (M/2,M/2)$ if $0<\lambda_2=\lambda_1$; $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = (1,0)$ if $\lambda_2 < 0 < \lambda_1$; $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = (0,0)$ if $\lambda_2 < 0$ and $\lambda_1 < 0$.
- If $M \geq 2$, minimizing $H$ gives (see Fig.\[fig:M2\]): $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = (1,1)$ if $0<\lambda_2\leq \lambda_1$; $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = (1,0)$ if $\lambda_2 < 0 < \lambda_1$; $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = (0,0)$ if $\lambda_2 < 0$ and $\lambda_1 < 0$.
Notice that in all three cases, if $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$, then the Pontryagin maximum principle does not give sufficient information since any combination of $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ such that $\alpha_1 + \alpha_2 = M$ minimizes the scalar product $-\langle \lambda,\alpha \rangle $ (see Figure \[fig:M\]).
[0.3]{}
[0.3]{} ![Minimizing $-\langle \lambda,\alpha \rangle $[]{data-label="fig:M"}](M12.jpg "fig:")
[0.3]{} ![Minimizing $-\langle \lambda,\alpha \rangle $[]{data-label="fig:M"}](M2.jpg "fig:")
The dynamics for $\lambda$ are given by $\dot{\lambda} = - \nabla H = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1+\alpha_1}{2} \lambda_1 - \frac{1-\alpha_2}{2} \lambda_2 \\
\frac{1+\alpha_2}{2} \lambda_2 - \frac{1-\alpha_1}{2} \lambda_1
\end{array}
\right) $, which allows us to compute the evolution of the difference $\lambda_1-\lambda_2$: $$\frac{d}{dt}(\lambda_1-\lambda_2) = \lambda_1-\lambda_2.$$ The transversality conditions give: $\lambda(T)=\nabla \mathbb{V}(T) = \left(\xi_1(T), \xi_2(T)\right)^T $. Hence, if the final configuration is such that $\xi_1(T) \neq \xi_2(T)$, i.e. $\lambda_1(T) \neq
\lambda_2(T)$, the difference $\lambda_1-\lambda_2$ increases with time. On the other hand, if $\lambda_1(T) = \lambda_2(T)$, then $\forall t \leq T, \; \lambda_1(t) = \lambda_2(t)$. If the dynamics allow us to drive $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ together before time $T$, then $\lambda_1(t) = \lambda_2(t)$ for all $t$, and the Pontryagin maximum principle does not give sufficient information, as seen above.
Global Strategy
---------------
According to equation (\[functional\_V\]), the functional $\mathbb{V}$ can be written as: $$\mathbb{V} = \bar{\xi}^2+ \frac{(\xi_1-\xi_2)^2}{4}.
\label{functional_V2}$$
Minimizing $\mathbb{V}$ requires minimizing $\bar{\xi}$ and $(\xi_1-\xi_2)^2$ simultaneously. The evolution of $\bar{\xi}$ is given by: $$\dot{\bar{\xi}} = - \frac12 (\alpha_1+\alpha_2) \; \bar{\xi},
\label{xibar}$$ while that of $(\xi_1-\xi_2)^2$ is: $$\frac{d}{dt}\left( (\xi_1-\xi_2)^2 \right) = -2 (\xi_1-\xi_2)^2 -2 (\xi_1-\xi_2)\bar{\xi}(\alpha_1-\alpha_2).
\label{diffxi}$$ Thus, minimizing $\bar{\xi}^2$ (both instantaneously and globally) requires using full control, i.e. setting $\alpha_1+\alpha_2=M$. On the other hand, the strategy to minimize $(\xi_1-\xi_2)^2$ is less clear. It would require both maximizing $\bar{\xi}$ and maximizing the difference $\alpha_1-\alpha_2$ (assuming that $\xi_1-\xi_2\geq 0$), and these conditions might not be compatible.
Case $M=1$
----------
\
\[Th\_M1\] Let $T>0$ and let $M=1$. Furthermore, let $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\in\mathcal{U}_1$ (see ) be an optimal control and $\xi$ be the corresponding trajectory of system . Define $t_0=2\ln(\xi_1(0) / \bar\xi(0))$. Then
- $T\geq t_0$ if and only if $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$. In such a case, the control satisfies: $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv 1$ (so $\bar{\xi}(t)=\bar{\xi}(0)e^{-t/2}$). For instance, the strategy $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)(t)=(1,0)$ for all $t \in [0,t_0[$ and $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)(t)=(1/2,1/2)$ for all $t \in [t_0,T]$ is optimal.
- If $T< t_0$, then $\alpha(t)=(0,0)$ for all $t\in [0,t^*[$ and $\alpha(t)=(1,0)$ for all $t\in [t^*, T]$, where $t^*=2\ln(\bar X)$ and $\bar X\in [1,e^{T/2}[$ is defined as follows:
$$\bar X=\arg\min_{X\in[1,e^{T/2}]}\left[ \left( \xi_1(0)+\bar{\xi}(0)(X^2-1) \right) ^2+\left( \xi_2(0)+\bar\xi(0)(X^2-1)+2\bar\xi(0)X(e^{T/2}-X)\right)^2 \right].$$
Let $\xi$ be an optimal trajectory achieved with optimal control $\alpha$.\
To prove [*(i)*]{}, we shall show that the three statements $(a)$ $T\geq t_0$, $(b)$ there exists $t\in [0,T]$ such that $\xi_1(t)=\xi_2(t)$ and $(c)$ $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$ are equivalent.\
Suppose $(b)$ there exists $\tau\in [0,T]$ such that $\xi_1(\tau)=\xi_2(\tau)$. Then necessarily $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$. Indeed, suppose that $\xi_1(T)\neq \xi_2(T)$. Then any strategy $\tilde{\alpha}$ such that on $[0,\tau], \; \tilde{\alpha}=\alpha$ and on $]\tau, T], \; (\tilde{\alpha}_1,\tilde{\alpha}_2)=(\frac{\alpha_1+\alpha_2}{2},\frac{\alpha_1+\alpha_2}{2})$ achieves: $\bar{\tilde{\xi}}(T)=\bar{\xi}(T)$ and $(\tilde{\xi}_1-\tilde{\xi}_2)^2(T)=0<(\xi_1-\xi_2)(T)$ (where $\tilde{\xi}$, $\tilde{V}$ denote the trajectory and cost corresponding to $\tilde{\alpha}$), so according to equation (\[functional\_V2\]), $\tilde{\mathbb{V}}(T)<\mathbb{V}(T)$ and control strategy $\alpha$ cannot be optimal. Hence, $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$.\
Now suppose $(c)$ $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$. The transversality condition (\[lambda\_final\]) gives $\lambda_1(T)=\lambda_2(T)$ and from Proposition \[prop\_equality\] we get: $\lambda_1(t)=\lambda_2(t)$ for all $t\in [0,T]$. Then, $\dot{\bar{\lambda}}=\sum\alpha_i\lambda_i =(\sum\alpha_i)\bar{\lambda}$. Since $\bar{\xi}(T)>0$, the transversality condition (\[lambda\_final\]) gives: $\bar{\lambda}(T)>0$, and $\bar{\lambda}(t)=\lambda_1(t)=\lambda_2(t)>0$ for all $ t\in [0,T]$. Therefore, the set $I_\lambda$, see (\[setI\]), is not empty, so according to Proposition \[prop\_optstrat\], the optimal control strategy requires using maximal control strength: $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv 1$. According to equation (\[xibar\]), this suffices to fully determine $\bar{\xi}(t)=\bar{\xi}(0)\; e^{-t/2}$. Then $\xi_1(t)-\xi_2(t)=e^{-t}\left( (\xi_1-\xi_2)(0)-\bar{\xi}(0)\int_0^t(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)e^{s/2}ds\right)$, and $\xi_1(t)-\xi_2(t)=0$ if, and only if, $\int_0^t e^{s/2}(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)(s)ds = (\xi_1(0)-\xi_2(0)) / \bar{\xi}(0)$. Notice that $\min_{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\in\mathcal{U}_1}\{t \; |\; (\xi_1-\xi_2)(t)=0\}$ is obtained when $\alpha_1-\alpha_2$ is maximal, i.e. for $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\equiv(1,0)$. With this strategy, $\min_{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\in\mathcal{U}_1}\{t \; |\; (\xi_1-\xi_2)(t)=0\}:=t_0=2\ln(\xi_1(0) / \bar\xi(0))$. Hence, we must have: $T\geq t_0$.\
Lastly, suppose $(a)$ $T\geq t_0$. Design a strategy $\tilde{\alpha}$ so that for all $t<t_0, \; (\tilde{\alpha}_1, \tilde{\alpha}_2)=(1,0)$ and for all $t \geq t_0, \; (\tilde{\alpha}_1, \tilde{\alpha}_2)=(1/2,1/2)$. This strategy is optimal since it maximizes the decrease of $\bar{\tilde{\xi}}$, see , and achieves $(\tilde\xi_1-\tilde\xi_2)(T)=0$, see . Hence, our optimal strategy $\alpha$ must also satisfy: $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$ and $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv 1$. This proves $(b)$.\
We showed that $(a)$, $(b)$ and $(c)$ are equivalent. We thus proved the first part of the proposition: $T\geq t_0$ if and only if $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$. In this case, it also holds: $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv 1$.\
If on the other hand, [*(ii)*]{} $T<t_0$, then $\xi_1(t)>\xi_2(t)$ for all $t\in [0,T]$ (since $(b)$ implies $(a)$). According to condition (\[lambda\_final\]) and to Prop. \[prop\_equality\], $\lambda_1(t)>\lambda_2(t)$ for all $t\in [0,T]$ and $\lambda_1(T)>0$. The evolution of $\lambda_1$ is given by: $\dot{\lambda}_1=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha_1\lambda_1+\alpha_2\lambda_2)+\lambda_1-\bar{\lambda}>0$ since $\lambda_1>\bar{\lambda}$. Hence, two cases must be distinguished: either $\lambda_1> 0$ at all time, so the set $I_\lambda^+$ is non-empty and full control will be used at all time, or there exists $ t^*\in]0,T[$ such that $\lambda_1< 0$ on $[0,t^*[$, $\lambda_1(t^*)=0$ and $\lambda_1> 0$ on $]t^*,T]$, in which case $\alpha=(0,0)$ on $[0,t^*[$ and $\alpha=(1,0)$ on $]t^*,T]$. Knowing this, it is easy to express $\xi_1$, $\xi_2$ and $\mathbb{V}$ as functions of $t^*$: $$\forall t\in [t^*,T],
\begin{cases}
\xi_1(t)=e^{-t}(\xi_1(0)+\bar\xi(0)(e^{t^*}-1)) \\
\xi_2(t)=e^{-t}(\xi_2(0)+\bar\xi(0)(e^{t^*}-1)+2\bar\xi(0)e^{t^*/2}(e^{t/2}-e^{t^*/2}))\\
\mathbb{V}(t)=\xi_1^2(t)+\xi_2^2(t)
\end{cases}.$$ Denoting $X=e^{t^*/2}$, $\mathbb{V}(T)$ can be written as a biquadratic polynomial in $X$: $$\mathbb{V}(T)(X)=e^{-2T}\left[ \left( \xi_1(0)+\bar{\xi}(0)(X^2-1) \right) ^2+\left( \xi_2(0)+\bar\xi(0)(X^2-1)+2\bar\xi(0)X(e^{T/2}-X)\right)^2 \right].$$ We look for $\bar{X}$ minimizing $\mathbb{V}(T)(X)$ in the interval $[1,e^{T/2}]$ (so that $t^*\in[0,T]$). Notice that the leading term is $2 e^{-2T} \bar{\xi}(0)^2 \cdot X^4$. Hence, there are at most two local minima in the interval $[1,e^{T/2}]$. Furthermore, $\mathbb{V}(T)(1)=e^{-2T}\left[\xi_1(0)^2+(\xi_2(0)+2\bar{\xi}(0)(e^{T/2}-1))^2\right]$ and $\mathbb{V}(T)(e^{T/2}) = e^{-2T}[ (\xi_1(0)+\bar{\xi}(0) (e^{T/2}-1))^2+ (\xi_2(0) + \bar{\xi}(0) (e^{T}-1))^2 ]$, so $\mathbb{V}(T)(1)<\mathbb{V}(T)(e^{T/2})$, which means that $\bar{X}< e^{T/2}.$ If $\bar{X} =1$, then $t^*=0$ so it is optimal to act with control $(1,0)$ on the full interval $[0,T]$. If $1<\bar{X}<e^{T/2}$, then $0<t^*<T$. The optimal control strategy will require leaving the system to evolve without control on $[0,t^*[$, and acting with control $\alpha=(1,0)$ on $[t^*,T]$.
The existence of an initial “Inactivation” period can be proven also with any number of agents (see Theorem \[th\_inactivation\]). Numerical simulations with any number of agents (see Section \[Sec\_gen\_prac\]) show that in some cases it is indeed optimal to let the system evolve without control on an initial time interval $[0, t^*]$, where $t^*>0$.
Case $M<1$
----------
Generalizing to the case of any $M<1$, we conduct the same analysis and the optimal control strategy is similar.
\[Th\_Ms1\] Let T>0 and M<1. Let $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\in\mathcal{U}_M$ (see ) be an optimal control and $\xi$ be the corresponding trajectory of system . Define $t_0=\frac{2}{2-M}\ln\left(\frac{2-M}{2M}(\xi_1(0)-\xi_2(0))/ \bar{\xi}(0)+1\right)$. Then
- $T\geq t_0$ if and only of $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$. In this case, the control satisfies: $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$ (so $\bar{\xi}(t)=\bar{\xi}(0) e^{-M t/2 }$).
- If $T< t_0$, then there exists $t^* \in [0,T[$ such that $\alpha(t)=(0,0)$ for all $t\in [0,t^*[$ and $\alpha(t)=(1,0)$ for all $t\in [t^*, T]$.
To compute $t^* \in [0,T[$ in the case $T< t_0$, one can compute $\mathbb{V}(T)(e^{t^*/2})$ depending on $t^* \in [0,T]$ similarly to the case $M=1$.
Let $\xi$ be an optimal trajectory achieved with optimal control $\alpha \in \mathcal{U}_M$. We argue as in the case $M=1$.\
To prove [*(i)*]{}, first suppose that there exists $\tau\in [0,T]$ such that $\xi_1(\tau)=\xi_2(\tau)$. Then, as in the case $M=1$, necessarily it holds $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$ and any strategy achieving $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$ while using maximum control $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$ is optimal. Then $\xi_1(t)-\xi_2(t)=0 \Leftrightarrow \int_0^t e^{\frac{2-M}{2}s}(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)(s)ds = (\xi_1(0)-\xi_2(0))/ \bar{\xi}(0)$. Hence, $\min_{\alpha\in\mathcal{U}_M}\{t \; |\; (\xi_1-\xi_2)(t)=0\}$ is obtained when $\alpha_1-\alpha_2$ is maximal, i.e. for $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\equiv(M,0)$. With this strategy, $\min_{\alpha\in\mathcal{U}_M}\{t \; |\; (\xi_1-\xi_2)(t)=0\}=t_0$ as defined above. Hence, if there exists $\tau \leq T$ such that $\xi_1(\tau)=\xi_2(\tau)$, then $T\geq t_0$. This proves the first implication of the proposition: if $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$, then $T\geq t_0$.
Conversely, if $T\geq t_0$, then the strategy $(\tilde{\alpha}_1, \tilde{\alpha}_2)=(M,0)$ on $[0, t_0[$ and $(\tilde{\alpha}_1, \tilde{\alpha}_2)=(\frac{M}{2},\frac{M}{2})$ on $[t_0,T]$ is optimal since it minimizes $\bar{\tilde\xi}(T)$ and achieves $\tilde\xi_1(T)=\tilde\xi_2(T)$. Hence, if $\alpha$ is optimal, it must also satisfy $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$ and $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$, which proves the second implication.
Now assume [*(ii)*]{} $T<t_0$. From [*(i)*]{} we get: $\xi_1(t)>\xi_2(t)$ for all $t \in [0,T]$. One can then argue as in the case $M=1$. According to Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle, $\alpha_2\equiv 0$ and two cases have to be distinguished: either $\lambda_1>0$ at all time, so the set $I_\lambda^+$ (see ) is non-empty and full control will be used at all time, or there exists $ t^*\in]0,T[$ such that $\lambda_1< 0$ on $[0,t^*[$, $\lambda_1(t^*)=0$ and $\lambda_1> 0$ on $]t^*,T]$, in which case $\alpha=(0,0)$ on $[0,t^*[$ and $\alpha=(M,0)$ on $]t^*,T]$.
Notice that in the limit case $M\rightarrow 1$ of Theorem \[Th\_Ms1\], one finds the same expression for $t_0$ as in Theorem $\ref{Th_M1}$.
Case $M=2$
----------
In order to determine the optimal strategy, let us first study the evolution of the covectors $\lambda$. From $\xi_1(T)\geq\bar\xi(T)>0$ (see Prop. \[prop\_positive\] and Hyp. \[hyp\_orderxi\]) and the transversality condition , we get $\lambda_1(T)>0$.
\[prop\_M2\] Let $M=2$ and $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ be the covectors corresponding to an optimal control strategy for the system . Then they satisfy the following properties:
- If $\lambda_2(T)>0$, then $\lambda_1(t)>0$ and $\lambda_2(t)>0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
- If $\lambda_2(T)=0$, then $\lambda_1(t)>0$ and $\lambda_2(t)=0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
- If $\lambda_2(T)<0$, then $\lambda_2(t)<0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
\
*[(i)]{} Let $\lambda_2(T)>0$. Suppose that there exists $\tau\in [0,T[$ such that $\lambda_2(\tau)=0$ and $\lambda_2(t)>0$ for all $t\in ]\tau, T]$. Then since $\lambda_1\geq \lambda_2>0$ on $]\tau, T]$, according to Pontryagin’s maximum principle (see Section \[Sec:PMP\]), $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\equiv (1,1)$ on $]\tau, T]$, which gives the following evolutions: $\dot{\lambda}_1=\lambda_1$ and $\dot{\lambda}_2=\lambda_2$. Hence, $\lambda_2(\tau)=\lambda_2(T)e^{\tau-T}>0$, which contradicts the definition of $\tau$. Therefore, $\lambda_2(t)>0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$, and by , $\lambda_1(t)>0$ .\
*[(ii)]{} Let $\lambda_2(T)=0$. Let $\tau := \inf_{[0,T]}\{\bar t\in [0,T] \text{ s.t. } \lambda_2(t)=0 \text{ for all } t>\bar t\}$ and suppose that $\tau>0$. By definition of $\tau$, $\lambda_2(\tau)=0$. Since $\lambda_1(t)>\lambda_2(t)$ for all $t$ (see Prop. \[prop\_equality\]), there exists an interval $[\tau-\delta, \tau[$ on which $\lambda_1>0$ and either $\lambda_2>0$ or $\lambda_2<0$. If $\lambda_2(t)>0$ for all $t\in[\tau-\delta, \tau[$, then according to Pontryagin’s maximum principle (Section \[Sec:PMP\]), the control satisfies $\alpha_1(t)=\alpha_2(t)=1$, which gives: $\dot{\lambda}_2(t)=\lambda_2(t)>0$. So $\lambda_2(\tau)>0$, which contradicts the definition of $\tau$. If on the other hand $\lambda_2(t)<0$ for all $t\in [\tau-\delta, \tau[$, then $\alpha_2(t)=0$ and $\dot{\lambda}_2(t)=\frac{1}{2}\lambda_2(t)<0$, which is impossible since it implies $\lambda_2(\tau)<0$. Hence, $\tau=0$. Furthermore, since $\lambda_1(T)>0$ and $\lambda_2\equiv 0$, then $\dot{\lambda}_1=\lambda_1$ in a neighborhood of $T$, which ensures that $\lambda_1(t)>0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ (by the same reasoning as in *[(i)]{}).\
*[(iii)]{} Let $\lambda_2(T)<0$. Define $\tau := \inf_{[0,T]}\{\bar t\in [0,T] \text{ s.t. } \lambda_1(t)>0 \text{ and }\lambda_2(t)<0 \text{ for all } t>\bar t\}$. Then on $]\tau,T]$, as seen in Section \[Sec:PMP\], $\alpha_1\equiv 1$ and $\alpha_2\equiv 0$, which gives: $\lambda_2(t)=\lambda_2(\tau)e^{T-\tau}$. Since $\lambda_2(T)<0$, it follows that $\lambda_2(\tau)<0$. Hence, either $\tau=0$ or $\lambda_1(\tau)=0$. Notice that since $\lambda_1(t)>\lambda_2(t)$ for all $t$, $\lambda_1$ is strictly increasing (see ). Then the former case implies that $\lambda_2(t)<0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. In the latter case, we get that $\lambda_2(t)<0$ for all $t\leq \tau$.****
This information about the covectors allows us to solve the optimization problem based on the initial conditions and the final time. Recall from Proposition \[prop\_positive\] that $\xi_1(0)>0$.
\[Th\_M2\] Let M=2. Let $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\in\mathcal{U}_2$ be an optimal control strategy and $\xi$ be the corresponding trajectory for system . Define $t_0=2\ln\left(\xi_1(0)/(2\bar{\xi}(0))\right)$.
- If $\xi_2(0)>0$, then $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\equiv (1,1).$
- If $\xi_2(0)\leq 0$ and $T\geq t_0$, then $\xi_2(T)=0$ and $\alpha_1\equiv 1$. For instance the strategy $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=(1,0)$ for all $t \in [0,t_0[$ and $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=(1,1)$ for all $t \in [t_0,T]$ is optimal. Furthermore, if there exists $\bar{t} \in [0,T[$ such that $\xi_2(\bar{t})=0$, then $\xi_2(t)=0$ for all $t \in [\bar{t},T]$.
- If $\xi_2(0)\leq 0$ and $T<t_0$, then there exists $t^* \in [0,T[$ such that $\alpha(t)=(0,0)$ for all $t\in [0,t^*[$ and $\alpha(t)=(1,0)$ for all $t\in [t^*, T]$.
Let $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$ be an optimal control strategy and $\xi$ be the corresponding trajectory.\
[*(i)*]{} Let $\xi_2(0)>0$. According to Prop. \[prop\_positive\], for all $t\in [0,T]$ it holds $\xi_1(t)>0$ and $\xi_2(t)>0$. Then $\lambda_1(T)>0$ and $\lambda_2(T)>0$. From Prop. \[prop\_M2\] it follows that $\lambda_1(t)>0$ and $\lambda_2(t)>0$ for all $t\in [0,T]$. According to the PMP (see Section \[Sec:PMP\]), maximal control has to be used at all time, i.e. $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)(t)=(1,1)$ for all $t\in [0,T]$.
For cases [*(ii)*]{} and [*(iii)*]{}, let $\xi_2(0)\leq 0$. By Prop. \[prop\_positive\] it holds $\xi_1(t)>0$ for all $t \in [0,T]$. Suppose that $\xi_2(T)>0$. Then from Prop. \[prop\_M2\] we get $\lambda_1(t)\geq \lambda_2(t)>0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$, so $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\equiv(1,1)$. But with this strategy $\dot \xi_2 = -\xi_2$, so $\xi_2(t)=\xi_2(0)e^{-t}\leq 0$ for all $t \in [0,T]$, which contradicts $\xi_2(T)>0$. Hence $\xi_2(T)\leq 0$.\
[*(ii)*]{} First assume that $T\geq t_0$. Let us show that $\xi_2(T)=0$ and $\alpha_1\equiv 1$. Such a strategy exists, since for instance the control $(\beta_1,\beta_2)(t)=(1,0)$ for $t \in [0,t_0[$ and $(\beta_1,\beta_2)(t)=(1,1)$ for $t \in [t_0,T]$ achieves $\xi_2^\beta(t)=0$ for all $t \in [t_0,T]$ (where $\xi^\beta$ denotes the trajectory corresponding to the control strategy $\beta$) – by direct computation of . Suppose that $\xi_2(T)<0$. Then $\alpha$ cannot be optimal since the control strategy $\beta$ achieves the minimum of $\xi_1^\beta(T)^2$, see , and of $\xi_2^\beta(T)^2$ and therefore the minimum of $\mathbb{V}(T)=\xi_1^\beta(T)^2+\xi_2^\beta(T)^2$. Hence $\alpha$ must satisfy $\alpha_1\equiv 1$ and $\xi_2(T)=0$ in order to perform as well as $\beta$. Obviously, all strategies that achieve $\xi_2(T)=0$ with $\alpha_1 \equiv 1$ achieve the same final positions (see ) and thus have the same $\mathbb{V}(T)$. Furthermore, if there exists a $\hat{t}<T$ such that $\xi_2(\hat{t})=0$, then $\xi_2(t)=0$ for all $t \in [\hat{t},T]$: if $\xi_2(\bar t)=0$, then $\dot\xi_2(\bar t)=(1-\alpha_2)\bar\xi(\bar t) \geq 0$ and therefore $\xi_2$ cannot become negative, once it reaches $0$. On the other hand, if $\xi_2(t)>0$, then $\xi_2(T)>0$ by Prop. \[prop\_positive\].\
[*(iii)*]{} Assume now that $T< t_0$. Firstly, we show that an optimal strategy (by PMP) always achieves $\xi_2(T)<0$. We argue by contradiction: Assume that $\xi_2(T)=0$. Then $\lambda_1(T)>0$ and $\lambda_2(T)=0$ and, according to Proposition \[prop\_M2\], it follows that $\lambda_1(t)>\lambda_2(t)=0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. According to the PMP, $\alpha_1 \equiv 1$. Then the growth of $\xi_2$ is maximal if, and only if, $\alpha_2 \equiv 0$ since in this case $\bar\xi$ is maximal. But with this strategy $\xi_2$ cannot reach $0$ before $t_0$ – by direct computation of . Therefore $\xi_2(T)<0$, so $\lambda_2(T)<0$ and $\lambda_2(t)<0$ for all $t \in [0,T]$ by Prop. \[prop\_M2\]. Hence we are in the same situation as in the case $M=1$ and $M<1$. Two cases are possible: either $\lambda_1> 0$ at all time, so the set $I_\lambda^+$ is non-empty and full control on $\xi_1$ is used at all time, or there exists $ t^*\in]0,T[$ such that $\lambda_1< 0$ on $[0,t^*[$, $\lambda_1(t^*)=0$ and $\lambda_1> 0$ on $]t^*,T]$, in which case $\alpha=(0,0)$ on $[0,t^*[$ and $\alpha=(1,0)$ on $]t^*,T]$.
To compute $t^* \in [0,T[$ in the case $\xi_1(0)>-\xi_2(0)>0$ and $T<t_0$, one can compute $\mathbb{V}(T)(X)$ depending on $t^* \in [0,T[$ similarly to the case $M=1$.
Case $1<M<2$
------------
As in the case $M=2$, we state the following properties concerning the covectors $\lambda$.
\[prop\_M12\] Let $M\in ]1,2[$ and $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ be the covectors corresponding to an optimal control strategy for the system . They satisfy the following properties:
- If $\lambda_2(T)>0$, then $\lambda_1(t)>0$ and $\lambda_2(t)>0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
- If $\lambda_2(T)=0$, then $\lambda_1(t)>0$ and $\lambda_2(t)=0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
- If $\lambda_2(T)<0$, then $\lambda_2(t)<0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
The proof is very similar to that of Prop \[prop\_M2\].\
*[(i)]{} Let $\lambda_2(T)>0$. Suppose that there exists $\tau\in [0,T[$ such that $\lambda_2(\tau)=0$ and $\lambda_2(t)>0$ for all $t\in ]\tau, T]$. Then if $\lambda_1> \lambda_2>0$ on $]\tau, T]$, according to Pontryagin’s maximum principle (see Section \[Sec:PMP\]), $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\equiv (1,M-1)$ on $]\tau, T]$, which gives $\dot{\lambda}_2=\frac{M}{2}\lambda_2$. If $\lambda_1= \lambda_2>0$ on $]\tau, T]$, then $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$ (see Figure \[fig:M12\]), which also gives $\dot{\lambda}_2=\frac{M}{2}\lambda_2$. Hence, $\lambda_2(\tau)=\lambda_2(T)e^{\frac{M}{2}(\tau-T)}>0$, which contradicts the definition of $\tau$.\
For *[(ii)]{} and *[(iii)]{} we reason the same way as in the proof of Proposition \[prop\_M2\].***
As in the previous sections, this allows us to solve the optimal control problem by distinguishing cases based on the initial conditions and the final time. The case $\xi_2(0)<0$ is illustrated in Figure \[fig:2agents\].
\[Th\_M12\] \
Let $M\in]1,2[$. Let $\alpha\in\mathcal{U}_M$ be an optimal control strategy and $\xi$ be the corresponding trajectory.\
Define $t_0\leq t_1\leq t_2$ as: $t_0=2\ln\left(\frac{\xi_1(0)}{2\bar\xi(0)}\right), \; t_1=\frac{2}{2-M}\ln\left(\frac{\xi_1(0)}{2\bar\xi(0)}\right) \text{ and } t_2=\frac{2}{2-M} \ln(\frac{\xi_1(0)}{\bar\xi(0)})$.\
If $\xi_2(0) > 0$, two subcases are to be distinguished:
- If $T<t_2$, then $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) \equiv (1,M-1)$ and $0<\xi_2(T)<\xi_1(T)$.
- If $T\geq t_2$, $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$ and $\alpha_1+\alpha_2=M$.
In the case $\xi_2(0)< 0$, four subcases appear:
- If $T<t_0$, then $\xi_2(t)<0$ and there exists $t^*\in [0,T[$ such that $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)(t)= (0,0)$ for all $t\in [0,t^*]$ and $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)(t)= (1,0)$ for all $t\in ]t^*,T]$.
- If $t_0\leq T\leq t_1$, then $\alpha_1\equiv 1$ and $\xi_2(T)=0$.
- If $t_1 < T<t_2$, then $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\equiv (1,M-1)$ and $0<\xi_2(T)<\xi_1(T)$.
- If $t_2\leq T$, then $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$ and $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$.
Notice that if $\xi_1(0)=\xi_2(0)$, then $t_2=0$.
In the limit case $M\rightarrow 1$, the times $t_0$ and $t_1$ are equal, which is in line with Theorem \[Th\_M1\]. In the limit case $M\rightarrow 2$, $t_1$ and $t_2$ are undefined, in line with Theorem \[Th\_M2\].
[0.2]{}
[0.2]{}
[0.2]{}
[0.2]{}
See appendix.
Final cost with any number of agents and control bounded by M=1 {#Sec:gencase}
===============================================================
Theroretical Analysis
---------------------
In this section, we address the optimal control problem of minimizing $\mathbb{V}(T)$ with any number of agents, setting the upper bound $M=1$ on the strength of the control, i.e. $\sum_{i=1}^N \alpha_i\leq 1$. We define the set of such controls:
$$\label{setU}
\mathcal{U}=\Big\{\alpha:[0,T]\rightarrow [0,1]^N \Big | \; \alpha \text{ measurable, s.t. for all } t\in[0,T] \; \sum\limits_{i=1}^N\alpha_i(t) \leq 1\Big\}.$$
\
We remind the equations governing the evolution of $\xi_i$ and $\bar{\xi}$ for $i\in\{1,...,N\}$: $$\label{xidot}
\dot\xi_i=-\xi_i+(1-\alpha_i)\bar\xi \qquad \text{and} \qquad \dot{\bar{\xi}}=-(\sum_i\alpha_i) \; \bar{\xi}.$$ As before, we aim to minimize the migration functional $\mathbb{V}=\frac1N\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\xi_i^2$ over the space $\mathcal{U}$ at final time:
\[prob\_main\] Find $\arg\min\limits_{\alpha\in\mathcal{U}} \mathbb{V}(T).$
Let us consider the restricted set of full-strength controls $\mathcal{U}_{FS}\subset\mathcal{U}$: $$\label{setUFS}
\mathcal{U}_{FS}=\Big\{\alpha:[0,T]\rightarrow [0,1]^N \Big | \; \alpha \text{ measurable, s.t. for all } t, \; \sum\limits_{i=1}^N\alpha_i(t)= 1\Big\}.$$ We also introduce the set of optimal controls $\mathcal{U}_\text{opt}$: $$\label{setUopt}
\mathcal{U}_{\text{opt}}=\Big\{\alpha\in\mathcal{U}\; \text{ s.t. } \mathbb{V}_\alpha=\min\limits_{\beta\in\mathcal{U}}\mathbb{V}_\beta\Big\}.$$ A question then arises naturally: are there optimal controls among full-strength controls? In other words, we study the intersection $\mathcal{U}_\text{FS}\cap\mathcal{U}_\text{opt}$. To answer this, we first look for an optimal control strategy among the restricted set of controls $\mathcal{U}_\text{FS}$, i.e. we consider the problem:
\[prob\_FS\] Find $\arg\min\limits_{\alpha\in\mathcal{U}_{FS}} \mathbb{V}(T).$
Introducing the partial mean $\bar\xi_{1,l}=\frac1l \sum_{i=1}^l \xi_i$, we design the following optimal control strategy to solve Problem \[prob\_FS\].
\
\[th\_strategy\] Let $T>0$. The strategy designed in Prop \[prop\_inst\] to decrease $\dot{\mathbb{V}}$ instantaneously is an optimal control strategy for Problem \[prob\_FS\]. It can be explicitly described as follows:\
Define $t_1=0$ and for $l\in \{2,...,N\}, \; t_l = \frac{N}{N-1}\ln \left( (l-1)\frac{N-1}{N} \frac{\bar{\xi}_{1,l-1}(0)-\xi_{l}(0)}{\bar{\xi}(0)}+1 \right)$.\
If there exists $l\in \{1,...,N-1\} \text{ such that } T\in [t_l, t_{l+1}[$, then any strategy satisfying: $\xi_i(T)=\bar\xi_{1,l}(T)$ for every $ i\in \{1,...,l\}$, $\sum_{i=1}^l\alpha_i\equiv 1$ and $\alpha_i\equiv 0$ for every $ i \in \{l+1,...,N\}$ is optimal.\
If $T\geq t_N$, then any strategy satisfying $\xi_i(T)=\bar{\xi}(T)$ for all $i\in \{1,...,N\}$ and $\sum_{i=1}^N\alpha_i\equiv 1$ is optimal.\
For instance, if $T\in [t_l, t_{l+1}[$, one optimal strategy would consist in defining the following piecewise constant control: $$\forall k\leq l,\; \forall t\in [t_k,t_{k+1}[, \;
\begin{cases}
\alpha_i(t)=\frac{1}{k}\; \text{if } i\leq k\\
\alpha_i(t)=0 \; \text{if } i>k.
\end{cases}$$
Let us first show that if $T\geq t_l$, then the optimal control strategy for Problem \[prob\_FS\] must achieve $\xi_i(T)=\bar{\xi}_{1,l}(T)$ for all $i\in\{1,...,l\} $, reasoning by contradiction.\
Suppose that there exists $k\in\{1,...,l\}$ such that $\xi_k(T)\neq \bar\xi_{1,l}(T)$. Using Hyp. \[hyp\_orderxi\], we can suppose that there exists $m<l$ such that for every $i\in \{1,...,m\}, \; \xi_i(T)=\bar\xi_{1,m}(T)$, and for every $i\in \{1,...,m\}$ and $j\in \{m+1,...,N\}, \; \xi_j(T)<\xi_i(T)$.
Let $j\in \{m+1,...,l\}$. The transversality condition (\[lambda\_final\]) gives: for every $i\in \{1,...,m\}, \; \lambda_j(T)<\lambda_i(T)$. According to Proposition \[prop\_equality\], for all $t\in [0,T]$, for every $i\in \{1,...,m\}, \; \lambda_j(t)<\lambda_i(t)$. According to the PMP, as seen in Section \[Sec\_opt\], only the biggest covectors are controlled, and since $\alpha\in\mathcal{U}_\text{FS}$, with maximum control. So $\sum_{i=1}^m \alpha_i\equiv 1$ and $\alpha_j \equiv 0$. The evolutions of $\xi_j$ and $\bar\xi_{1,m}$ are then given by: $$\begin{cases}
\dot{\xi}_j = -\xi_j+\bar\xi \\
\dot{\bar{\xi}}_{1,m} = -\bar{\xi}_{1,m} + \frac{m-1}{m}\bar{\xi}.
\end{cases}$$ Since $\sum_{i=1}^N\alpha_i\equiv 1$, the evolution of the mean is given by $\dot{\bar\xi}=-\frac1N \bar\xi$, and we can compute $\bar\xi=\bar\xi(0) e^{-t/N}$, which in turn allows us to solve: $$\forall t\in [0,T],
\begin{cases}
\xi_j(t)= e^{-t} \left( \xi_j(0) + \frac{N}{N-1}\bar\xi(0) (e^{\frac{N-1}{N}t}-1)\right) \\
\bar\xi_{1,m}(t)= e^{-t} \left( \bar\xi_{1,m}(0) + \frac{m-1}{m}\frac{N}{N-1}\bar\xi(0) (e^{\frac{N-1}{N}t}-1)\right). \\
\end{cases}$$ We get: $$(\bar{\xi}_{1,m}-\xi_j)(T)= e^{-T} \left(\bar{\xi}_{1,m}(0)-\xi_j(0)-\frac1m \frac{N}{N-1}\bar{\xi}(0)(e^{\frac{N-1}{N}T}-1) \right).$$ We made the hypothesis that $T\geq t_l = \frac{N}{N-1}\ln \left( (l-1)\frac{N-1}{N} \frac{\bar{\xi}_{1,l-1}(0)-\xi_{l}(0)}{\bar{\xi}(0)}+1 \right)$. Hence, $$\begin{split}
(\bar{\xi}_{1,m}-\xi_j)(T) & \leq e^{-T} \left(\bar{\xi}_{1,m}(0)-\xi_j(0)-\frac1m (l-1) (\bar{\xi}_{1,l-1}(0)-\xi_l(0)) \right) \\
& = \frac1m e^{-T} \left[ m \bar{\xi}_{1,m}(0) - m \xi_j(0)- (l-1)\bar{\xi}_{1,l-1}(0)+ (l-1)\xi_l(0) \right] \\
& \overset{(*)}{\leq} \frac1m e^{-T} \left[ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}\xi_i(0) - \sum\limits_{i=1}^{l-1}\xi_i(0) +(l-1-m)\xi_l(0) \right] \\
& = \frac1m e^{-T} \left[ - \sum\limits_{i=m+1}^{l-1} \xi_i(0) +(l-1-m)\xi_l(0) \right] \\
& \overset{(*)}{\leq} \frac1m e^{-T} \left[ -(l-1-m)\xi_l(0) +(l-1-m)\xi_l(0) \right] \\
& = 0,
\end{split}$$ where inequalities $(*)$ derive from Hypothesis \[hyp\_main\]: since $j\leq l $, $\xi_j(0)\geq \xi_l(0)$. However, $(\bar{\xi}_{1,m}-\xi_j)(T)\leq 0$ contradicts that $\xi_j(T)<\xi_i(T)$ for every $i\in \{1,...,m\}$. From this we conclude that if $T\geq t_l$, then for every $ i\in \{1,...,l\}, \; \xi_i(T)=\bar{\xi}_{1,l}(T)$ for an optimal control strategy fulfilling Hypothesis \[hyp\_orderxi\].
Let us now show that if $T<t_{l+1}$, then for every $k\in \{l+1,...,N\}, \; \alpha_i\equiv 0$ and $\xi_k(T)<\bar{\xi}_{1,l}(T)$. $$\begin{split}
\bar{\xi}_{1,l}(T)-\xi_k(T) & \overset{(1)}{=} e^{-T}
\left( \bar{\xi}_{1,l}(0)-\xi_k(0)-\int_0^T e^{\frac{N-1}{N}s}(\frac{1}{l}\sum\limits_{j=1}^l \alpha_j - \alpha_k)(s)\bar{\xi}(0) ds \right) \\
& \overset{(2)}{\geq} e^{-T}
\left( \bar{\xi}_{1,l}(0)-\xi_k(0)-\int_0^T e^{\frac{N-1}{N}s}\frac{1}{l}\bar{\xi}(0) ds \right) \\
& = e^{-T}
\left( \bar{\xi}_{1,l}(0)-\xi_k(0)-\frac{N}{N-1}\frac{1}{l}\bar{\xi}(0) (e^{\frac{N-1}{N}T}-1) \right) \\
& \overset{(3)}{>} e^{-T}
\left( \bar{\xi}_{1,l}(0)-\xi_k(0)- (\bar{\xi}_{1,l}(0)-\xi_{l+1}(0) ) \right) \\
& = e^{-T}
\left( \xi_{l+1}(0) -\xi_k(0) \right) \\
& \overset{(4)}{\geq} 0,
\end{split}$$ where:\
(1) was computed using the evolutions of $\xi_k$ and $\bar{\xi}_{1,l}$: $\dot{\xi}_k=-\xi_k+(1-\alpha_k)\bar{\xi}$ and $\dot{\bar{\xi}}_{1,l} = -\bar{\xi}_{1,l} + (1-\frac{1}{l}\sum_{i=1}^l\alpha_i ) \bar{\xi}$,\
(2) was obtained from inequalities $\sum_{j=1}^l \alpha_j(t)\leq 1$ and $\alpha_k(t)\geq 0$ for all $t$,\
(3) comes from the inequality: $T<t_{l+1}=\frac{N}{N-1}\ln (\frac{N-1}{N}l\frac{\bar{\xi}_{1,l}(0)-\xi_{l+1}(0)}{\bar{\xi}(0)} +1)$,\
(4) derives from Hypothesis \[hyp\_main\] since $k\geq l+1$.\
Hence, for every $k\in \{l+1,...,N\}, \; \xi_k(T)\geq\bar{\xi}_{1,l}(T)$. Furthermore, the transversality condition (\[lambda\_final\]) and Proposition \[prop\_equality\] imply that for all $t\in [0,T]$ for every $i\in \{1,...,l\}, \; \lambda_k(t)<\lambda_i(t)$ and the Pontryagin Maximum Principle as seen in Section \[Sec\_opt\] states that $\alpha_k\equiv 0$. So $\xi_k(T)\geq\bar{\xi}_{1,l}(T)$.
We proved that if $T\in [t_l, t_{l+1}[$, then for every $i\in \{l+1,...,N\}$, $ \alpha_i\equiv 0$. Since $\bar{\xi}$ is fully determined as $\alpha\in\mathcal{U}_\text{FS}$, this means that for all $i\in \{l+1,...,N\}, \; \xi_i(T)$ is also fully determined (satisfying the equation $\dot{\xi}_i = -\xi_i + \bar\xi$ ). On the other hand, we proved that for all $i\in \{1,...,l\}, \; \xi_i(T)=\bar\xi_{1,l}(T)$ and that $\sum_{i=1}^l \alpha_i \equiv 1$, so $\bar{\xi}_{1,l}$ is also fully determined (satisfying the equation $\dot{\bar{\xi}}_{1,l}=-\bar{\xi}_{1,l}+\frac{l-1}{l}\bar{\xi}$ ). Hence, any strategy such that for all $i\in \{1,...,l\}, \;\xi_i(T)=\xi_{1,l}(T)$ with $\sum_{i=1}^l\alpha_i\equiv 1$ and for all $i \in \{l+1,...,N\},\ \alpha_i\equiv 0$ is optimal for Problem \[prob\_FS\].
Notice that this optimal control strategy is not sparse, as control is split among more and more agents as time goes. However, it is not unique and one could very well act on one agent at a time until all reach the known final velocities. Going back to the general Problem \[prob\_main\], we prove that under certain conditions, the optimal control strategy uses full strength at all time, i.e. $\alpha^\text{opt}\in\mathcal{U}_{FS}$.
\
\[th\_suffcond\] Define the time $t_N= \frac{N}{N-1}\ln\left(\frac{(N-1)^2}{N} \frac{\bar\xi_{1,N-1}(0)-\xi_N(0)}{\bar\xi(0)}+1\right)$ as in Theorem \[th\_strategy\].\
If $T\geq t_N$, then the optimal strategies $\alpha^\text{opt}$ to Problem \[prob\_main\] belong to $\mathcal{U}_\text{FS}$ and for these controls $ \xi_i(T)=\bar{\xi}(T)$ for every $ i\in \{1,...,N\}$.
If $T\geq t_N$, then the instantaneous decrease strategy designed in Theorem \[th\_strategy\] is optimal. Indeed, we noticed that the migration functional can be written as the sum of two terms (\[Vdecomp\]): $\mathbb{V}=\bar\xi^2+\frac1N\sum(\xi_i-\bar\xi)^2$. The strategy designed in Theorem \[th\_strategy\] minimizes $\bar{\xi}(T)$ by using full control at all time, hence minimizing $\bar{\xi}(T)^2$ since $\bar{\xi}>0$. Furthermore, it achieves $\xi_i(T)=\bar\xi(T)$ for all $i\in \{1,...,N\}$, thus minimizing the second term $\frac1N\sum(\xi_i-\bar\xi)^2$. Hence any optimal control strategy has to use full control at all time and achieve $\xi_i(T)=\bar\xi(T)$ for every $i\in \{1,...,N\}$ in order to perform as well.
We finally address the general case stated in Problem \[prob\_main\]: minimize $\mathbb{V}(T)$ over the set of controls $\mathcal{U}$, for a given final time $T$. In the following theorem, we show the existence of an initial “Inactivation” time interval: the optimal strategy can require to let the system evolve freely (i.e. without control) at initial time, before acting on it with full strength.
\[th\_inactivation\] \
If $T<t_N$, then one of the two holds: any control strategy $\alpha^{opt}$ either belongs to $\mathcal{U}_\text{FS}$ and the strategy designed in Theorem \[th\_strategy\] is optimal, or there exists some $\delta<T$ such that $\alpha^\text{opt}\equiv 0$ on $[0,\delta]$, and $\sum\alpha^\text{opt}_i \equiv 1$ on $[\delta, T]$.
According to Hypothesis \[hyp\_orderxi\], we can assume that $\xi_1(T)\geq\xi_i(T)$ for every $i\in \{1,...,N\}$. Furthermore, $\bar\xi(T)>0$, so $\xi_1(T)>0$. From the transversality condition (\[lambda\_final\]) we deduce: $\lambda_1(T)\geq\lambda_i(T)$ for every $i\in \{1,...,N\}$ and $\lambda_1(T)>0$. From Prop. \[prop\_equality\], we know that for all $t\in [0,T], \; \lambda_1(t)\geq\lambda_i(t)$. According to Prop. \[prop\_optstrat\], full control is used at time $t$ if $\lambda_1(t) > 0$ and no control is used if $\lambda_1(t)<0$. Let us study the evolution of $\lambda_1$: $\dot{\lambda}_1=\frac1N\sum\alpha_j\lambda_j-\bar\lambda+\lambda_1$. By the Pontryagin maximum principle, we always have $\sum\alpha_j\lambda_j\geq 0$. Furthermore, $\lambda_1-\bar\lambda\geq 0$. So $\dot{\lambda}_1(t)\geq 0$ for all $t\in [0,T]$. We show that $\lambda_1=0$ at most at one point. Indeed, suppose that $\lambda_1(\tau)=0$ for some $\tau\in[0,T]$ and that $\dot{\lambda}_1(\tau)=0$. Then $\dot{\lambda}_1(\tau)=-\bar{\lambda}(\tau)$ so $\bar{\lambda}(\tau)=\lambda_1(\tau)=0$, and since the $\lambda_i$’s are ordered, $\lambda_i(\tau)=\bar{\lambda}(\tau)$ for every $i\in \{1,...,N\}$. According to Proposition \[prop\_equality\], $\lambda_i(t)=\bar{\lambda}(t)$ for all time $t$ and every $i$. Since $\lambda_1(T)>0$, there exists a time interval $[\tau^*, T]$ such that $\lambda_1(t)>0$ for all $t\in[\tau^*,T]$. On this interval, $\dot{\lambda}_1=\frac{1}{N}\lambda_1\sum_j\alpha_j=\frac{1}{N} \lambda_1$, which gives: $\lambda_1(T)=\lambda_1(\tau^*)e^{\frac{1}{N}(T-\tau^*)}$. This contradicts the existence of a time $\tau$ at which $\lambda_1(\tau)=0$. In conclusion, if $\lambda_1(\tau)=0$, then $\dot{\lambda}_1(\tau)>0$ so $\lambda_1=0$ at most at one point.\
Hence, there is a dichotomy of cases:\
Either $\lambda_1(t)\geq 0$ for all time, so $I(t)\neq\emptyset$ for all $t$, which implies that $\alpha^\text{opt}\in\mathcal{U}_\text{FS}$ according to Prop. \[prop\_optstrat\]. In this case, $\arg\max_{\alpha
\in\mathcal{U}}\mathbb{V}=\arg\max_{\alpha
\in\mathcal{U}_\text{FS}}\mathbb{V}$ and the control strategy designed in Theorem \[th\_strategy\] for Problem \[prob\_FS\] is optimal also for Problem \[prob\_main\].\
Or there exists $\delta\in[0,T]$ such that $\lambda_1(t)< 0$ on $[0,\delta[$ and $\lambda_1(t)\geq 0$ on $[\delta, T]$, which implies that $\alpha(t) \equiv 0 \text{ on } [0,\delta] \text{ and } \sum\alpha_i(t) \equiv 1 \text{ on } ]\delta, T]$. Practically, an optimal control strategy would consist in letting the system evolve without control on $[0,\delta[$. Then the full-control strategy from Theorem \[th\_strategy\] can be applied on $[\delta, T]$ with the new initial positions $\xi(\delta)$.
Although this result may seem counter-intuitive, in certain cases it makes sense to let the system evolve freely, at least initially. Indeed, without control the system naturally regroups in order to reach consensus, minimizing $\sum_{i=1}^N(\xi_i-\bar{\xi})$ in (\[Vdecomp\]), but keeping $\bar{\xi}$ constant. Actual examples of such cases are shown in the next section.
Note that a constraint $M<1$ would not change the nature of the results. It would only mean acting with less strength on the controlled agents, therefore changing the values of the times $t_l$ defined in Theorem \[th\_strategy\], but the optimal control strategy would be unchanged. With a constraint $M>1$, we can expect results similar to those of Section \[Sec:2agents\], with two kinds of Inactivation periods, consisting either in letting the system evolve freely, or in controlling it with a non-maximal total strength $0<\sum_i\alpha_i<M$ (see Theorem \[Th\_M2\] (ii) and (iii)).
Practical Approach {#Sec_gen_prac}
------------------
We proved in the previous section that the optimal strategy can either be to act with full control as in Theorem \[th\_strategy\], or to let the system evolve without control on some time interval $[0,\delta]$, before acting with full control on $]\delta,T]$. In this section, we explore the practicality of Inactivation strategies.
First, we run numerical simulations to find cases in which the optimal strategy involves Inactivation. The migration functional $\mathbb{V}_\delta$ can be computed explicitly as a function of $\delta$. We then look for the value of $\delta$ that minimizes $\mathbb{V}_\delta(T)$. Let us denote by $\xi^\delta$ the solution to system (\[xidot\]) when no control is applied on $[0,\delta]$ and full control is used on $]\delta,T]$. Equation (\[xidot\]) gives: $$\begin{cases}
\dot{\xi}^\delta_i=-\xi^\delta_i+\bar\xi^\delta \\
\dot{\bar{\xi}}^\delta=0
\end{cases}
\quad \text{ on } [0,\delta], \;$$ which allows us to solve: $\xi^\delta_i(\delta)=e^{-\delta}\left(\xi^\delta_i(0)+\bar{\xi}^\delta(0)(e^{\delta}-1)\right)$. We then apply the strategy designed in Theorem \[th\_strategy\] with the new initial conditions $\xi^\delta(\delta)$ and the new final time $T-\delta$. Define the times $t^\delta_1=0$ and for $l\in \{2,...,N\}, \; t^\delta_l = \frac{N}{N-1}\ln \left( (l-1)\frac{N-1}{N} \frac{\bar{\xi}^\delta_{1,l-1}(\delta)-\xi^\delta_{l}(\delta)}{\bar{\xi}^\delta(\delta)}+1 \right)$. Find $l\in \{1,...,N-1\}, \text{ such that } T-\delta\in [t^\delta_l, t^\delta_{l+1}[$. Then any strategy satisfying $\xi^\delta_i(T)=\bar\xi^\delta_{1,l}(T)$ for every $ i\in \{1,...,l\}$, $\sum_{i=1}^l\alpha_i(t)= 1$ for all $ t\in [\delta,T]$, and $\alpha_i\equiv 0$ for every $i \in \{l+1,...,N\}$ is optimal. From equation (\[xidot\]) we get: $$\begin{cases}
\dot{\bar{\xi}}^\delta_{1,l}=-\bar\xi^\delta_{1,l}+\frac{l-1}{l}\bar\xi^\delta \\
\dot{\xi}^\delta_{i}=-\xi^\delta_{i}+\bar\xi^\delta \; \; \text{ for } i\in \{l+1,...,N\}\\
\dot{\bar{\xi}}^\delta=-\frac{1}{N}\bar\xi^\delta
\end{cases}
\quad \text{ on } [\delta,T],$$ from which we can solve: $$\begin{cases}
\xi^\delta_i(T)=\bar\xi^\delta_{1,l}(T)=e^{-(T-\delta)}\left(\bar\xi^\delta_{1,l}(\delta)+\frac{l-1}{l}\frac{N}{N-1}\bar\xi^\delta(0)(e^{\frac{N-1}{N}(T-\delta)}-1)\right) \quad \text{ for all } i\in \{1,...,l\}, \\
\xi^\delta_i(T)=e^{-(T-\delta)}\left(\xi^\delta_i(\delta)+\frac{N}{N-1}\bar\xi^\delta(0)(e^{\frac{N-1}{N}(T-\delta)}-1)\right) \quad \text{ for all } i\in \{l+1,...,N\}.
\end{cases}$$ We can now compute $\mathbb{V}^\delta(T)=\frac1N\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\xi_i^\delta(T)^2$ and numerically look for $\min\limits_{\delta\in[0,T]} \mathbb{V}^\delta(T)$ (see Figure \[fig:inactiontime\]).
![$V^\delta(T)$ with respect to Inactivation time $\delta$. Here the optimal Inactivation time is $\delta=1.94$.[]{data-label="fig:inactiontime"}](optimaldelta.png)
Series of simulations were run to look for cases in which $\delta>0$. Table \[table\_numcases\] lists the percentage of such cases found over 1000 simulations, for different values of the number of agents and of the final time. Initial projected variables $\xi_i(0)$ were chosen randomly in the interval $[-1,1]$ and such that the mean $\bar{\xi}$ is strictly positive. As expected (and proven in Theorem \[th\_suffcond\]), for larger values of $T$, it is always optimal to act with full control at all time (in other words $\delta=0$). One also notices that as the number of agents increases, “Inactivation” cases become less and less frequent.
Number of agents 5 10 20 50
------------------ ------- ------- ------- -------
T=3 1.6 % 0.9 % 0 0
T=4 1.8 % 0.7 % 0.3 % 0
T=5 1.0 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0
T=6 0.2 % 0.1 % 0 0.1 %
T=7 0 0 0 0
: Percentage of cases in which $\delta>0$ out of 1000 simulations. $\xi_i(0)$ chosen randomly in $[-1, 1]$.[]{data-label="table_numcases"}
Table \[table\_V\] shows the average of the relative difference $\frac{\mathbb{V}_\text{fc}-\mathbb{V}^\delta}{\mathbb{V}_\text{fc}}$, where $\mathbb{V}^\delta$ was obtained by using optimal control and $\mathbb{V}_{\text{fc}}$ by using full control at all time (as designed in Theorem \[th\_strategy\]). The gain in performance when using the optimal strategy is minor (significantly less than 1% in most cases), and decreases as the number of agents increases.
Number of agents 5 10 20 50
------------------ -------- -------- --------- -----------
T=3 0.073% 0.001% - -
T=4 0.27% 0.018% 0.001% -
T=5 0.91% 0.056% 0.0069% -
T=6 1.53% 0.2% - 0.00003 %
: Average relative improvement of $\mathbb{V}^\delta$ w.r.t. $\mathbb{V}_{\text{fc}}$ []{data-label="table_V"}
The occurrence of Inactivation cases can be explained by looking at the two terms in the migration functional $\mathbb{V}=\bar\xi^2+\frac1N\sum(\xi_i-\bar\xi)^2$ (\[Vdecomp\]). When $\bar{\xi}^2$ is small, the control strategy should concentrate on minimizing the second term $\frac1N\sum(\xi_i-\bar\xi)^2$, which does not necessarily require full control since the system naturally evolves to minimize this term. To confirm this reasoning, we look at the ratio $R:=(\frac1N\sum(\xi_i-\bar\xi)^2)/\bar{\xi}^2$ in one set of simulations ($N=5$, $T=3$) and find that the Inactivation cases correspond exactly to the largest values of $R$. Furthermore, the larger the ratio, the longer the Inactivation interval (see Figure \[fig:RatioInactivation\]).
![Ratio $R:=(\frac1N\sum(\xi_i-\bar\xi)^2)/\bar{\xi}^2$ as a function of the length of the Inactivation interval $\delta$, for 20 simulations involving Inactivation with $N=5$ and $T=3$. The Inactivation $\delta$ increases as $\bar{\xi}^2$ tends to zero.[]{data-label="fig:RatioInactivation"}](RatioInactivation)
Hence, $\mathcal{U}_\text{opt}\cap\mathcal{U}_\text{FS}=\emptyset$ occurs in very few cases, namely those in which $\bar\xi^2\ll\frac1N\sum(\xi_i-\bar\xi)^2$. Furthermore, when Inactivation exists, the gain in performance compared to the full control strategy is very minor. For reasons of computational speed and complexity, it is very reasonable to neglect those cases and to apply the full control strategy at all time.
Figure \[fig:strategy\] shows the evolution of the projected velocities $\xi_i, \; i\in \{1,...,10\}$ with respect to time, in a case where the optimal strategy requires full control at all time, with $T>t_{10}$. The control function is the one designed in Theorem \[th\_strategy\] and acts first on $\xi_1$, then on $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$, and so on until all have reached consensus (in terms of the projected velocities $\xi_i$), at which point it acts with equal strength on all agents to drive $\bar\xi$ down to $0$.
Optimal control for integral cost {#Sec:int_cost}
=================================
In this section we focus on minimizing the integral of the migration functional, with the constraint on the controls $M=1$. As done in Section \[Sec:gencase\], we define two problems (where $\mathcal{U}$ (\[setU\]) and $\mathcal{U}_{\text{FS}}$ (\[setUFS\]) are defined as before).
\[prob\_main2\] Find $\arg\min\limits_{\alpha\in\mathcal{U}} \int_0^T \mathbb{V}(t) dt.$
\[prob\_FS2\] Find $\arg\min\limits_{\alpha\in\mathcal{U}_{FS}} \int_0^T \mathbb{V}(t) dt.$
Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle {#Sec:PMPint}
------------------------------
We first prove general results, with the aim of solving Problem \[prob\_main2\]. In order to use Pontryagin’s maximum principle, we introduce the new Hamiltonian $H=\langle \lambda, f\rangle + \lambda^0\mathbb{V}$ and the equations governing the covectors’ evolution $\dot\lambda_i=-\frac{\partial H}{\partial \xi_i}$. Considering normal trajectories, we set $\lambda^0=1$ and obtain: $$\label{Hlambda_int}
\begin{cases}
H=\sum\limits_{i=1}^N(-\lambda_i\xi_i)+\bar\xi\sum\limits_{i=1}^N(1-\alpha_i)\lambda_i+\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\xi_i^2 \\
\dot\lambda_i=\lambda_i-\frac1N\sum_j (1-\alpha_j)\lambda_j - 2\xi_i .
\end{cases}$$ Since the final condition is not fixed, we have the following transversality condition for the covectors: $$\label{lambda_final2}
\lambda(T)=0.$$ As in the minimization of the migration functional at final time (Section \[Sec\_opt\]), we define $I_\lambda$ and $I_\lambda^+$ (see ). Then minimizing $H=\sum_{i=1}^N-\alpha_i\lambda_i + \tilde{H}$ (where $\tilde{H }$ contains only uncontrolled terms) requires the following : if $k \not\in I_\lambda$, $\alpha_k=0$; furthermore, if $I_\lambda^+\neq\emptyset$, then $\sum_{i\in I_\lambda^+} \alpha_i =1$.
As in Section \[Sec:gencase\], we make Hypothesis \[hyp\_main\]. Given the initial order on the agents’ projected velocities $\xi_i$, we prove the following:
There exists an optimal control strategy satisfying: $$\label{orderxi2}
\forall t\in [0,T], \; \forall i,j\in\{1,...,N\}, \; i<j \Rightarrow \xi_i(t)\geq\xi_j(t).$$
The proof is very similar to that of Lemma \[lemma\_orderxi\]. Consider an optimal control strategy $\alpha\in \mathcal{U}$.\
Define $\tau=\sup\{t \; | \; \exists \beta\in \mathcal{U} \text{ s.t. } \int_0^T\mathbb{V}_{\beta}(s)ds=\int_0^T\mathbb{V}_\alpha(s)ds \text{ and } \xi^\beta \text{ satisfies } (\ref{orderxi2}) \text{ on } [0,t]\}$. Let us prove by contradiction that $\tau=T$. Suppose that $\tau<T$. Then there exist $i,j \in \{1,...,N\}$ with $i<j$ such that $\xi_i^\beta(\tau)=\xi^\beta_j(\tau)$ and $\xi^\beta_j(t)>\xi^\beta_i(t)$ on $]\tau, \tau+\delta]$ for some $\delta>0$. Design a control strategy $\tilde{\beta}$ such that on $[\tau,T], \; \tilde{\beta}_i=\beta_j, \; \tilde{\beta}_j=\beta_i $ and for every $ k\in \{1,...,N\}\setminus\{i,j\}, \; \tilde{\beta}_k=\beta_k$. Then for all $ t\in [\tau, T], \; \xi^{\tilde{\beta}}_i(t)=\xi^\beta_j(t), \;$ $ \text{ and } \xi^{\tilde{\beta}}_j(t)=\xi^\beta_i(t)$. So for all $t\in[\tau, \tau+\delta], \; \xi^{\tilde{\beta}}_i(t)\geq\xi^{\tilde{\beta}}_j(t) \text{ and for all } t\in [0,T], \; \mathbb{V}^{\tilde{\beta}}(t)=\mathbb{V}^\beta(t)$. Proceeding likewise for every pair of indices $(m,n)$ satisfying $m<n$ and $\xi^\beta_n(t)>\xi^\beta_n(t)$ on $]\tau, \tau+\delta]$ we are able to design a control strategy $\tilde{\beta}$ satisfying (\[orderxi2\]) on $[0,\tau+\delta]$ and $\int_0^T\mathbb{V}_{\beta}(t)dt=\int_0^T\mathbb{V}_\alpha(t)dt$, which contradicts the definition of $\tau$. In conclusion, $\tau=T$, i.e. for all $ t\in [0,T]$, for every $i, j\in \{1,...,N\}, \; i<j \Rightarrow \xi_i(t)\geq\xi_j(t)$.
Hence, as in Section \[Sec:gencase\], we can assume Hypothesis \[hyp\_orderxi\]: for all $t\in [0,T]$, if $i<j$, then $\xi_i(t)\geq\xi_j(t)$. By the following proposition, we shall prove that the same order is observed among the covectors $\lambda_i$.
\[prop\_orderlambda2\] $$\forall t\in[0,T], \; i<j \Rightarrow \lambda_i(t)\geq\lambda_j(t).$$
Let us reason by contradiction. Suppose that there exists $\tau\in[0,T]$ such that for some i<j, $(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(\tau)<0$. From the evolution of the covectors (\[Hlambda\_int\]) we derive for all $t\geq\tau$: $(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(t)=e^{t-\tau}\left((\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(\tau)-2\int_\tau^t e^{-(s-\tau)}(\xi_i-\xi_j)(s)ds\right)$. Since $(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(\tau)<0$ and for all $s\in[0,T], \; (\xi_i-\xi_j)(s)\geq 0$, we deduce that for all $t\in [\tau,T]$, $(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(t)<0$, which contradicts the final condition (\[lambda\_final2\]).
\[prop\_difflambda0\] Let $\tau\in[0,T]$ and $i,j\in\{1,...,N\}$, such that $(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(\tau)=0$. Then for all $t\geq \tau$, $(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(t)=0$ and $(\xi_i-\xi_j)(t)=0$.
Let $\tau\in[0,T]$ and $i,j\in\{1,...,N\}$, such that $(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(\tau)=0$. Then for all $t\geq \tau$, $$\label{difflambda0}
(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(t)=-2 e^{t-\tau}\int_\tau^t e^{-(s-\tau)}(\xi_i-\xi_j)(s)ds.$$ Suppose for instance that $i<j$. According to Proposition \[prop\_orderlambda2\], for all $t\in[0,T]$, $(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(t)\geq 0$. Since we made Hypothesis \[hyp\_orderxi\], the right-hand side of equation (\[difflambda0\]) is nonpositive. This is only possible if both sides are equally zero. Hence, for all $t\geq \tau$, $(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(t)=0$ and $(\xi_i-\xi_j)(t)=0$.
The following proposition states that if at a certain point in time, two agents have the same projected velocities, then these should stay identical until final time.
\[prop\_equalcontrol\] Suppose that there exists $\tau\in [0,T]$ and $i,j \in \{1,...,N\}$ such that $\xi_i(\tau)=\xi_j(\tau)$. Then $$\label{equalcontrol}
\text{for all } t\geq\tau, \; \xi_i(t)=\xi_j(t).$$ As a consequence, for almost all $t\geq\tau$, $\alpha_i(t)=\alpha_j(t)$.
Let $\tau\in [0,T]$ and $i,j\in \{1,...,N\}$. Define $\tilde\tau=\sup\{t\geq \tau \; | \; \xi_i(t)=\xi_j(t) \text{ for all } t\in [\tau, \tilde\tau]\}$. Notice from that this implies that $\alpha_i(t)=\alpha_j(t)$ for almost every $t\in [\tau, \tilde{\tau}]$. Let us prove that $\tilde{\tau}=T$.\
Suppose that $\tilde\tau<T$. Then there exists $\delta>0$ such that for all $t\in ]\tilde\tau, \tilde\tau+\delta]$, $\xi_i(t)\neq \xi_j(t)$. Define $\beta$ such that $\beta=\alpha$ on $[0,\tilde\tau]$ and $$\begin{cases}
\beta_i=\beta_j=\frac12(\alpha_i+\alpha_j) \\
\beta_k=\alpha_k \text{ for } k\not =i,\; k \not =j
\end{cases} \qquad \text{ on } ]\tilde\tau,T ],$$ and denote by $\xi^\beta$ the corresponding trajectory. Notice that $\sum_k\alpha_k\equiv \sum_k\beta_k$, so according to , $\bar{\xi}\equiv\bar{\xi}^\beta$. This implies that $\xi_k=\xi_k^\beta$ for all $k\neq i,j$. Moreover, $\alpha_i+\alpha_j\equiv \beta_i+\beta_j$ so for all $t\in [\tilde\tau,T]$, $(\xi_i+\xi_j)(t) =(\xi_i^\beta+\xi_j^\beta)(t)$. Furthermore, $\xi_i^\beta$ and $\xi_j^\beta$ satisfy the same differential equation on $[\tilde\tau, T]$ and $\xi_i^\beta(\tau)=\xi_j^\beta(\tau)$, so for all $t\in [\tilde\tau,T]$, $\xi_i^\beta(t)=\xi_j^\beta(t)=\frac12 (\xi_i+\xi_j)(t)$. Define $\mathbb{V}_\alpha$ and $\mathbb{V}_{\beta}$ as the cost functions associated respectively with the controls $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Then $\mathbb{V}_{\beta}=\mathbb{V}_\alpha \text{ on } [0,\tilde\tau]$. On $]\tilde\tau,T]$, $$\begin{split}
\mathbb{V}_{\alpha}-\mathbb{V}_{\beta} & =
\sum_k(\xi_k)^2-\sum_k(\xi_k^{\beta})^2
= (\xi_i)^2 +(\xi_j)^2 - (\xi_i^{\beta})^2 - (\xi_j^{\beta})^2\\
& =(\xi_i)^2 +(\xi_j)^2- 2(\frac12 (\xi_i+\xi_j) )^2 = (\xi_i - \xi_j)^2.
\end{split}$$ Hence, for all $t\in ]\tilde{\tau},\tilde{\tau}+\delta]$, $\mathbb{V}_\alpha(t) > \mathbb{V}_\beta(t)$, and for all $t\in [\tilde{\tau}+\delta,T]$, $\mathbb{V}_\alpha(t) \geq \mathbb{V}_\beta(t)$. We get $\int_0^T\mathbb{V}_{\beta}<\int_0^T\mathbb{V}_\alpha$, which contradicts that $\alpha$ is an optimal control. In conclusion, $\tau=T$, which proves the proposition.
Optimal full-strength control
-----------------------------
We design an optimal control strategy for Problem \[prob\_FS2\]:
\[th\_intstrategy\] Let $J(t)=\{i\in\{1,...,N\} \; | \; \xi_i(t)=\max_j\xi_j(t)\}$. The following control $\alpha$ is optimal for Problem \[prob\_FS2\]: $$\label{optcontstratint}
\begin{cases}
\forall i\in J(t), \; \alpha_i(t)=\frac{1}{|J(t)|} \\
\forall i\not\in J(t), \; \alpha_i(t)=0.
\end{cases}$$
According to Pontryagin’s maximum principle and the expression of the Hamiltonian (\[Hlambda\_int\]), the optimal control strategy solving Problem \[prob\_FS2\] requires to set $\sum_{i\in I(t)} \alpha_i(t) =1$ and $\alpha_k(t)=0$ for $k \not\in I(t)$, where $I(t):=\{i \; | \; \lambda_i(t)=\max_j \lambda_j(t)\}$. Furthermore, according to Proposition \[prop\_difflambda0\], if $\lambda_i(\bar t)=\lambda_j(\bar t)$, then $\xi_i(t)=\xi_j(t)$ for all $t\geq \bar t$, and according to Proposition \[prop\_equalcontrol\], $\alpha_i(t)=\alpha_j(t)$ for almost every $t\geq \bar t $. Hence, the optimal strategy in fact requires to set, for almost every $t\in [0,T]$, $$\label{optcontstratint2}
\begin{cases}
\forall i\in I(t), \; \alpha_i(t)=\frac{1}{|I(t)|} \\
\forall i\not\in I(t), \; \alpha_i(t)=0,
\end{cases}$$ where $|\cdot |$ denotes the cardinality of a set. Let us prove that $I(t)=J(t)$ for almost every $t$. Assume that $i\in I(t)$ and holds true. According to Proposition \[prop\_orderlambda2\], the covectors are ordered, so $\lambda_1(t)=\cdots=\lambda_i(t)$. From Proposition \[prop\_difflambda0\] and Hypothesis \[hyp\_orderxi\], this implies $\xi_1(t)=\cdots =\xi_i(t)$, so $i\in J(t)$. Conversely, assume that $i\in J(t)$. Then from Hypothesis \[hyp\_orderxi\], $\xi_1(t)=\cdots=\xi_i(t)$. According to Proposition \[prop\_equalcontrol\], $\alpha_1(t)=\cdots=\alpha_i(t)$. Since $\alpha(t)$ verifies , we deduce that $i\in I(t)$. Therefore, $I(t)=J(t)$ for almost every $t\in [0,T]$ and the optimal strategies and are equivalent.
Notice that the control strategy in the case of integral cost minimization with full control (Problem \[prob\_FS2\]) is equivalent to the Instantaneous decrease strategy of Prop. \[prop\_inst\] (taking $M=1$). It is more restrictive than the optimal strategy minimizing the final value of the migration functional with full control (Problem \[prob\_FS\]) seen in Section \[Sec:gencase\]. Indeed, this control strategy cannot be sparse. In order to minimize $\int_0^T\mathbb{V}(t)dt$, one has to split the control among more and more agents. However, any optimal control solving Problem \[prob\_FS2\] is also optimal for Problem \[prob\_FS\].
Optimal control in the general case
-----------------------------------
After designing the optimal strategy for Problem \[prob\_FS2\], we show that Problems \[prob\_main2\] and \[prob\_FS2\] are actually equivalent, i.e. that the optimal control solving Problem \[prob\_main2\] belongs to $\mathcal{U}_{\text{FS}}$.
The optimal control strategy for Problem \[prob\_main2\] requires using full-strength control, i.e. $\alpha\in\mathcal{U}_{\text{FS}}$.
According to the Pontryagin Maximum Principle (see Section \[Sec:PMPint\]), if $\lambda_1(t)>0$ for all $t$, then full control must be used at all time. Combining the final condition and the evolution , we get $\lambda_1(T)=0$ and $\dot{\lambda}_1(T)=-2\xi_1(T)<0$. Hence there exists an interval $]t,T[$ on which $\lambda_1>0$. Let $\tau=\inf\{t\in [0, T] \text{ s.t. } \lambda_1(s)>0 \text{ for all } s\in ]t,T[ \}$. Suppose that $\tau>0$. Then $\lambda_1(\tau)=0$. Furthermore, $\dot\lambda_1(\tau)=(\lambda_1-\bar\lambda)(\tau) -2\xi_1(\tau)$. We compute: $\dot\lambda_1-\dot{\bar\lambda}=\lambda_1-\bar\lambda -2(\xi_1-\bar\xi)$. Denoting $\Lambda=\lambda_1-\bar{\lambda}$, we get the following evolution backwards in time: $\dot{\Lambda}=-\Lambda+2(\xi_1-\bar\xi)$. Recall that backwards in time, we also have: $\dot\xi_1=\xi_1-(1-\alpha_1)\bar\xi$. If $\Lambda=\xi_1$, then $\dot\Lambda= \xi_1-2\bar\xi=\dot\xi_1+(1-\alpha_1)\bar\xi-2\bar\xi=\dot\xi_1-(1+\alpha_1)\bar\xi<\dot\xi_1$. Since $\Lambda(T)=0<\xi_1(T)$, this implies that $\Lambda(t)<\xi_1(t)$ for all $t\in[\tau,T]$. Hence, $\dot\lambda_1(\tau) = \Lambda(\tau)-2\xi_1(\tau) <0$, which contradicts the definition of $\tau$. We conclude that $\lambda_1(t)>0$ for all $t\in]0,T[$, and that $\sum_i\alpha_i\equiv 1$.
Hence, the control strategy designed in Theorem \[th\_intstrategy\] is an optimal strategy for the minimization of integral cost (Prob. \[prob\_main2\]). Unlike in the minimization of the final cost (Prob. \[prob\_main\]), there is no initial Inactivation period.
Figure \[fig:t\] illustrates the control strategy designed in Theorem \[th\_intstrategy\]. In this example, 5 agents are to be controlled optimally to reach consensus at the target velocity $V=(1,0)$. Initially (Figure \[fig:t1\]), only one agent is controlled, the agent with the biggest projected velocity over $\bar{v}-V$. The set $J(t)=\arg\max_{i\in\{1,...,N\} } \langle v_i, \frac{\bar{v}-V}{\|\bar{v}-V\|}\rangle $ contains more and more agents as time goes (\[fig:t2\], \[fig:t3\]) and eventually, control is split evenly among all agents (see Figure \[fig:t4\]).
[0.22]{} ![Control of 5 agents to reach the target velocity $V=(1,0)$. Agents are represented in the velocity space, controlled ones in red, uncontrolled ones in blue, and the mean velocity in black. Initial positions are marked by stars.[]{data-label="fig:t"}](t010.jpg "fig:")
[0.22]{} ![Control of 5 agents to reach the target velocity $V=(1,0)$. Agents are represented in the velocity space, controlled ones in red, uncontrolled ones in blue, and the mean velocity in black. Initial positions are marked by stars.[]{data-label="fig:t"}](t048.jpg "fig:")
[0.22]{} ![Control of 5 agents to reach the target velocity $V=(1,0)$. Agents are represented in the velocity space, controlled ones in red, uncontrolled ones in blue, and the mean velocity in black. Initial positions are marked by stars.[]{data-label="fig:t"}](t135.jpg "fig:")
[0.22]{} ![Control of 5 agents to reach the target velocity $V=(1,0)$. Agents are represented in the velocity space, controlled ones in red, uncontrolled ones in blue, and the mean velocity in black. Initial positions are marked by stars.[]{data-label="fig:t"}](t600.jpg "fig:")
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The authors acknowledge the support of the NSF project KI-Net, DMS Grant \# 1107444. Benjamin Scharf acknowledges the support of the ERC-Starting Grant “High-Dimensional Sparse Optimal Control”.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
(Theorem \[Th\_M12\]) First, let $\xi_1(0)\geq\xi_2(0) > 0$. According to Prop. \[prop\_positive\], $\xi_1(t)> 0$ and $\xi_2(t) > 0$ for all $t\in [0,T]$. The transversality condition gives $\lambda_1(T)> 0$ and $\lambda_2(T)> 0$, and according to Prop. \[prop\_M12\], $\lambda_1(t)> 0$ and $\lambda_2(t)> 0$ for all $t\leq T$. According to Pontryagin’s maximum principle (see Section \[Sec:PMP\]), the global strategy requires setting $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$. In this case, $\bar\xi(t) = \bar\xi(0) \exp(-\frac{M}{2}t)$ does not depend on the choice of $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$. Minimizing $\mathbb{V}$ (\[functional\_V2\]) therefore amounts to minimizing $(\xi_1-\xi_2)^2$.
- If $T\geq t_2$, we will show that in addition to satisfying $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$, the optimal control $\alpha$ must achieve $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$. Such a control strategy exists, since for instance (as one can see by direct computation of ) the control $(\beta_1,\beta_2)(t)=(1,M-1)$ for all $t\in [0,t_2[$ and $(\beta_1,\beta_2)(t)=(M/2,M/2)$ for all $t\in [t_2,T]$ achieves $\xi_1^\beta(t)=\xi_2^\beta(t)$ for all $t\in [t_2,T]$, where $\xi^\beta$ denotes the corresponding trajectory. Notice that $\beta$ minimizes $\bar{\xi}(T)$ by using the full strength $M$ of the control at all time (see ), and minimizes $(\xi_1-\xi_2)^2(T)$, so it minimizes $\mathbb{V}(T)$ (see ). Hence, in order to be optimal, $\alpha$ must satisfy $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$ as well as $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$.
- If $T<t_2$, we will show that $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\equiv (1,M-1)$ and that $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ cannot be brought together (i.e. $\xi_1(T)>\xi_2(T)$). Indeed, knowing that $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$, one can use to compute: $(\xi_1-\xi_2)(t)=e^{-t}\left( (\xi_1-\xi_2)(0)-\int_0^t (\alpha_1-\alpha_2)(s)\bar{\xi}(s)e^s ds \right)$. Since $\bar{\xi}$ is fully determined, $t_{\text{min}}:=\min_{\alpha\in\mathcal{U}_M, \alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M} \{t\in [0,T] \text{ s.t. } (\xi_1-\xi_2)(t)=0\}$ is achieved by maximizing $(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)$, which gives: $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2)\equiv (1,M-1)$. As seen previously, by direct computation of , $t_{\text{min}}=t_2$ as defined above. Hence, if $T<t_2$, necessarily $\xi_1(T)>\xi_2(T)$. Then $\lambda_1(T)>\lambda_2(T)$ and according to Prop. \[prop\_M12\], and to Prop. \[prop\_equality\], $\lambda_1(t)>\lambda_2(t)> 0$ for all $t$. According to the PMP (see \[Sec:PMP\]), the optimal strategy is $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2)\equiv (1,M-1)$.
Now let $\xi_1(0)> 0, \; \xi_2(0)< 0$ and $\bar{\xi}(0)>0$. We then distinguish four subcases.\
Firstly, let us prove that if $\xi_2(T)> 0$, then necessarily $T> t_1$. Indeed, if $0<\xi_2(T)\leq \xi_1(T)$, then $0<\lambda_2(T)\leq \lambda_1(T)$, and according to Proposition \[prop\_M12\], $0<\lambda_2(t)\leq \lambda_1(t)$ for all $t\in [0,T]$. According to the PMP (see Section \[Sec:PMP\]), $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$. Hence $\bar{\xi}(t)=\bar{\xi}(0)e^{-Mt/2}$, and $\xi_2(t)=e^{-t}(\xi_2(0)+\bar{\xi}(0)\int_0^t(1-\alpha_2)e^{\frac{2-M}{2}s}ds)$. The minimum time $t_\text{min}$ needed to achieve $\xi_2(t_\text{min})>0$ is achieved for $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\equiv(1,M-1)$, which, after computation, gives $t_\text{min}=t_1$ as defined above. Hence, if $\xi_2(T)\geq 0$, then $T> t_1$.
- Let $T\geq t_2$. Let us prove that $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$ and $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$. Such a control strategy exists. Indeed, take for example $(\beta_1,\beta_2)(t)=(1,M-1)$ on $[0,t_2]$ and $(\beta_1,\beta_2)(t)=(M/2,M/2)$ on $]t_2,T]$. Then, by direct computation of , $\xi_1^\beta(t)=\xi_2^\beta(t)$ for all $t\in [t_2,T]$ (where $\xi^\beta$ denotes the trajectory corresponding to the control $\beta$). Furthermore, $\beta$ is optimal since it minimizes $\bar{\xi^\beta}$ by using full control at all time and achieves $(\xi_1^\beta-\xi_2^\beta)^2(T)=0$ (see ). In order to perform optimally, the control $\alpha$ must also satisfy $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$ and $\xi_1(T)=\xi_2(T)$.
- Let $T<t_0$. Since $t_0<t_1$, then as proved above, $\xi_2(T)\leq 0$. Suppose that $\xi_2(T)=0$. Then $\lambda_1(T)>\lambda_2(T)=0$ and according to Proposition \[prop\_M12\], $\lambda_1(t)>\lambda_2(t)=0$ for all time $t$. Hence, $
\alpha_1\equiv 1$ (see Section \[Sec:PMP\]). Then $\min_{\alpha_2} \{t\in [0,T] \text{ s.t. } \xi_2(t)=0\} = t_0$ as defined above (obtained for $\alpha_2\equiv 0$). This contradicts the condition on $T$. Hence, if $T<t_0$, then $\xi_2(T)<0$ and according to Proposition \[prop\_M12\] and Section \[Sec:PMP\], $\lambda_2<0$ so $ \alpha_2\equiv 0$. However, there is no information on $\lambda_1$ other than $\dot{\lambda}_1=\alpha_1 /2 \lambda_1+\bar{\lambda}-\lambda_1\geq 0$ and $\lambda_1(\tau)=0$ implies $\dot{\lambda}_1(\tau)>0$. Hence, as in the previous sections, there exists $t^*\in [0,T[$ such that $\lambda_1<0$ on $[0,t^*[$, $\lambda_1(t^*)=0$ and $\lambda_1>0$ on $]t^*,T]$. This implies that $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=(0,0)$ on $[0,t^*[$ and $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=(1,0)$ on $[t^*,T[$.
- Let $t_0\leq T \leq t_1$. We shall prove that $\xi_2(T)=0$ and that $\alpha_1\equiv 1$. As seen previously, if $T\leq t_1$, then $\xi_2(T)\leq 0$. Suppose that $\xi_2(T)<0$. Then $\lambda_1(T)>0$ and $\lambda_2(T)<0$ which according to Proposition \[prop\_M12\] gives $\lambda_2(t)<0$ for all $t$, and according to the PMP (see Section \[Sec:PMP\]), $\alpha_2\equiv 0$. Then $\xi_2(t)=e^{-t} (\xi_2(0)+\bar{\xi}(0)\int_0^T e^{-\int_0^s\frac12\alpha_1(r)dr}e^s ds)$. Thus $t_{\text{sup}}:=\sup_{\alpha_1} \{\tau\in [0,T] \text{ s.t. } \xi_2(t)<0 \text{ for all } t\in [0,\tau[ \}$ is obtained for $\alpha_1\equiv 1$ and by direct computation, $t_{\text{sup}}=t_0$. Since $T\geq t_0$, there exists $\tau\leq T$ such that $\xi_2(\tau)=0$. However, by Proposition \[prop\_positive\], once $\xi_2=0$ it cannot become negative again, which contradicts $\xi(T)<0$. Therefore, $\xi_2(T)=0$, and according to Proposition \[prop\_M12\] and the PMP (Section \[Sec:PMP\]), $\lambda_1(t)>0$ for all $t\in [0,T]$ so $\alpha_1\equiv 1$. Furthermore, if $\xi_2(\tau)=0$, then $\dot{\xi}_2(\tau)=(1-\alpha_2(\tau))\bar{\xi}(\tau)>0$ since $\alpha_2=M-\alpha_1=M-1<1$. According to Proposition \[prop\_positive\], once $\xi_2$ becomes positive it cannot become zero again. Hence we must have $\xi_2(t)<0$ for all $t<T$ and $\xi_2(T)=0$.
- Let $t_1<T<t_2$. As in the previous case, since $T\geq t_0$, one must have: $\xi_2(T)\geq 0$. Suppose that $\xi_2(T)=0$. Then according to Proposition \[prop\_M12\] and the PMP, $\alpha_1\equiv 1$ and $\xi_2(t)=e^{-t} (\xi_2(0)+\bar{\xi}(0)\int_0^T (1-\alpha_2)(s) e^{-\int_0^s\frac12(1+\alpha_2)(r)dr}e^s ds)$. Then the minimum of $\xi_2(T)$ is obtained for $\alpha_2\equiv M-1$, so $$\xi_2(T)\geq e^{-T} (\xi_2(0)+\bar{\xi}(0)\int_0^T (2-M) e^{-\frac12 M s}e^s ds) > e^{-T} (\xi_2(0)+\bar{\xi}(0) ( e^{\frac{2-M}{2}t_1}-1) ) > 0
\vspace{-0.2cm}$$ by definition of $t_1$. This contradicts $\xi_2(T)=0$, so necessarily $\xi_2(T)>0$. Then $\lambda_1(t)>0$ and $\lambda_2(t)>0$ for all $t$, which implies that $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\equiv M$. In this case we prove as in case [*(ii)*]{} that $\xi_1(T)>\xi_2(T)$, which implies $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\equiv (1,M-1)$.
[9]{}
H.-O. Bae, S.-Y. Ha, Y. Kim, S.-H. Lee, H. Lim, J.Yoo, Mathematical model for volatility flocking with a regime switching mechanism in a stock market, *Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.*, **25** (2015), 12991335.
N. Bellomo and A. Bellouquid, On the modeling of crowd dynamics: Looking at the beautiful shapes of swarms, *Netw. Heter. Media* **6** (2011) 383–399.
N. Bellomo and J. Soler, On the mathematical theory of the dynamics of swarms viewed as complex systems, *Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.* **22** (2012) 1140006.
S. Berman, Q. Lindsey, M. S. Sakar, V. Kumar, and S. C. Pratt, Experimental study and modeling of group retrieval in ants as an approach to collective transport in swarm robotic systems, *Proceedings of the IEEE, 99* **9** (2011) 1470–1481.
A. Bressan and B. Piccoli, *Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of Control* (AIMS on Applied Math, Vol.2, 2007).
S. Camazine, J. Deneubourg, N. Franks, J. Sneyd, G. Theraulaz, and E. Bonabeau. *Self organization in biological systems* (Princeton University Press, 2003).
M. Caponigro, M. Fornasier, B. Piccoli, E. Trélat, Sparse stabilization and control of alignment models, *Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.*, **25**(03) (2015), 521-564.
M. Caponigro, M. Fornasier, B. Piccoli, E. Trélat, Sparse stabilization and optimal control of the Cucker-Smale model, *Math. Cont. Related Fields* **3** (2013) 447–466.
Y. Chuang, Y. Huang, M. D’Orsogna, and A. Bertozzi, Multi-vehicle flocking: scalability of cooperative control algorithms using pairwise potentials, *IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation* (2007) 2292–2299.
I. Couzin and N. Franks, Self-organized lane formation and optimized traffic flow in army ants, *Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B* **270** (2002) 139–146.
I. Couzin, J. Krause, N. Franks, and S. Levin, Effective leadership and decision making in animal groups on the move, *Nature* **433** (2005) 513–516.
E. Cristiani, B. Piccoli, and A. Tosin, Modeling self-organization in pedestrians and animal groups from macroscopic and microscopic viewpoints, in G. Naldi, L. Pareschi, G. Toscani, and N. Bellomo, editors, *Mathematical Modeling of Collective Behavior in Socio-Economic and Life Sciences*, Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology (Birkhäuser Boston, 2010) 337–364.
E. Cristiani, B. Piccoli, and A. Tosin, Multiscale modeling of granular flows with application to crowd dynamics, *Multiscale Model. Simul.* **9** (2011) 155–182.
F. Cucker and S. Smale, Emergent behavior in flocks, *IEEE Trans. Automat. Control* **52** (2007) 852–862.
S. R. X. Dall, L.-A. Giraldeau, O. Olsson, J. M. McNamara, and D. W. Stephens. Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology, *Trends in Ecology & Evolution* **20** (2005) 187–193.
B. D" uring, D. Matthes, and G. Toscani, Kinetic equations modelling wealth redistribution: A comparison of approaches, *Phys. Rev. E* **78** (2008) 056103.
M. Fornasier, B. Piccoli, and F. Rossi, Mean-field sparse optimal control, *Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.* **372** (2014) 20130400.
J.P. Gauthier, The Inactivation principle: Mathematical solutions minimizing the absolute work and biological implications for the planning of arm movements, *PLoS Comput. Biol.* **4**(10) (2008).
V. Guttal and I. D. Couzin, Social interactions, information use, and the evolution of collective migration, *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* **107**(37) (2010) 16172–16177.
S.-Y. Ha and E. Tadmor, From particle to kinetic and hydrodynamic descriptions of flocking, *Kinet. Relat. Models* **1** (2008) 415–435.
D. Horstmann, From 1970 until present: The Keller-Segel model in chemotaxis and its consequences, *I. Jahresber. Dtsch. Math.-Ver.* **105**(3) (2003) 103–165.
D. Horstmann, From 1970 until present: the Keller-Segel model in chemotaxis and its consequences, II. *Jahresber. Dtsch. Math.-Ver.* **106** (2004) 51–69.
A. Jadbabaie, J. Lin, and A. S. Morse, Correction to: “Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules” \[IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 48, no. 6, 2003. 988–1001; MR 1986266\], *IEEE Trans. Automat. Control* **48**(9) (2003) 1675.
E. F. Keller and L. A. Segel, Initiation of slime mold aggregation viewed as an instability, *J. Theor. Biol.* **26**(3) (1970) 399–415.
J.-M. Lasry and P.-L. Lions, Mean field games, *Jpn. J. Math* **2**(1) (2007) 229–260.
N. Leonard, Multi-Agent System Dynamics: Bifurcation and Behavior of Animal Groups, *Proc. 9th IFAC Symposium on Nonlinear Control Systems* 307–317.
N. Leonard and E. Fiorelli, Virtual leaders, artificial potentials and coordinated control of groups, *Proc. 40th IEEE Conf. Decision Contr.* (2001) 2968–2973.
S. Motsch, E. Tadmor, How heterophilious dynamics enhance consensus, *SIAM review* **56**(4) (2014) 577–621.
H. Niwa, Self-organizing dynamic model of fish schooling, *J. Theor. Biol.* **171** (1994) 123–136.
J. Parrish and L. Edelstein-Keshet, Complexity, pattern, and evolutionary trade-offs in animal aggregation, *Science* **294** (1999) 99–101.
J. Parrish, S. Viscido, and D. Gruenbaum. Self-organized fish schools: An examination of emergent properties, *Biol. Bull.* **202** (2002) 296–305.
C. S. Patlak, Random walk with persistence and external bias, *Bull. Math. Biophys.* **15** (1953) 311–338.
L. Perea, G. G´omez, and P. Elosegui, Extension of the Cucker-Smale control law to space flight formations, *AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics*, **32** (2009) 527–537.
B. Perthame, *Transport Equations in Biology* (Basel: Birkhauser, 2007).
L.S. Pontryagin, V.G.Boltyanskii, R.V. Gamkrelidze and E.F. Mishenko, *The Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes* (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1962).
W. Romey, Individual differences make a difference in the trajectories of simulated schools of fish, *Ecol. Model.* **92** (1996) 65–77.
R. Sepulchre, D. Paley, and N. E. Leonard, Stabilization of planar collective motion with all-to-all communication, *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control* **52**(5) (2007) 811–824.
K. Sugawara and M. Sano, Cooperative acceleration of task performance: Foraging behavior of interacting multi-robots system, *Physica D* **100** (1997) 343–354.
J. Toner and Y. Tu, Long-range order in a two-dimensional dynamical xy model: How birds fly together, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **75** (1995) 4326–4329.
T. Vicsek, A. Czirok, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **75** (1995) 1226–1229.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
В статье рассматривается представление дискретных функций, определенных в аналитической форме без использования приближений, а именно функции Хевисайда, тождественной функции, дельта-функции Дирака и функции распределения простых чисел.
А также в статье введен и рассмотрен новый тип множеств ($\xi$-множества) посредством аналогии взятой из нахождения суммы ряда Гранди и других противоречий в математики и физике. С помощью $\xi$-множеств интерпретируется парадокс Рассела в системе аксиом наивной теории множеств.
author:
- |
Oleh Kyrhan\
[email protected]
title: 'Performances piecewise defined functions in analytic form, prime-counting function, $\xi$ sets'
---
Введения
========
В статье рассматривается вопрос представления дискретно определенных функций в аналитической форме без использования аппроксимации, а именно: функции Хевисайда, функция тождества, дельта-функция Дирака, функция распределения простых чисел и доказана теорема о представлении любой кусочно-заданной функции $$t(x) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{t_0}(x),~x < {x_1}}~~~~~~~ \\
{{t_1}(x),~{x_1} \le x < {x_2}} \\
{...} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\
{{t_n}(x),~{x_n} \le x} ~~~~~~
\end{array}} \right.$$ где ${x_1} < {x_2} < ... < {x_n}$ точки изменения значения функции $t(x)$. Будут показаны функции из использованием несобственного и определенного интегралов. Например функция Хевисайда дискретные форы которой [@1; @2; @3]:
$$H_1(x) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{0,~x < 0}\\
{1,~x \ge 0}
\end{array}} \right.$$
и $$H_2(x) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{0,~ x < 0}\\
{\frac{1}{2},~x = 0}\\
{1,~x > 0}
\end{array}} \right.$$ имеют аналитические формы с использования аппроксимации [@1; @2; @3]: $$H(x) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{k \to \infty } \left( {\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{\pi }arctg{\rm{ }}k \cdot x} \right)$$ $$H(x) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{k \to \infty } \frac{1}{{1 + {e^{ - 2k \cdot x}}}}$$ $$H(x) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{k \to \infty } \left( {\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}erf{\rm{ }}k \cdot x} \right)$$ и интегральное представление с использованием аппроксимации и несобственного интеграла [@2; @3]: $$H(x) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{\varepsilon \to 0 + } \frac{1}{{2\pi i}}\int\limits_{ - \infty }^\infty {\frac{1}{{\tau - i\varepsilon }}} {e^{ix\tau }}d\tau$$
Формулировка основных результатов (функции Хевисайда, функция тождества)
========================================================================
Переведем в аналитическую форму без аппроксимаций функции (2), (3) и функцию тождества, с помощью которых переведем функцию распределения простых чисел в аналитическую форму без аппроксимаций.
Рассмотрим интеграл: $$\int\limits_0^\infty {\frac{{{e^t}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{ t}}} \right)}^2}}}} dt$$ который равняется $\frac {1} {2} $. Теперь на основе этого интеграла построим функцию: $$f(x) = \int\limits_0^\infty {\frac{{x{e^{xt}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{xt}}} \right)}^2}}}} dt$$
Найдем значение этой функции на числовой оси в соответствии со значениями переменой $x$.
$$f(x) = \int\limits_0^\infty {\frac{{x{e^{xt}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{xt}}} \right)}^2}}}} dt = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( { - \frac{1}{{1 + {e^{xt}}}}} \right) - \left( { - \frac{1}{{1 + {e^{x0}}}}} \right) = \frac{1}{2} - \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{1}{{1 + {e^{xt}}}}} \right)$$ для $x>0$ $$f(x > 0) = \frac{1}{2} - \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{1}{{1 + {e^{xt}}}}} \right) = \frac{1}{2} - 0 = \frac{1}{2}$$ для $x<0$ $$f(x < 0) = \frac{1}{2} - \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{1}{{1 + {e^{xt}}}}} \right) = \frac{1}{2} - 1 = - \frac{1}{2}$$ для $x=0$ $$f(x = 0) = \frac{1}{2} - \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{1}{{1 + {e^{0t}}}}} \right) = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2} = 0$$
В дискретном определении функция $f(x)$ имеет следующую форму: $$f(x) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{-\frac{1}{2},~x < 0}~~~ \\
{0,~x = 0} \\
{ \frac{1}{2},~x > 0}
\end{array}} \right.$$
Теперь прибавим $\frac{1}{2}$ к функции $f(x)$ и получим функцию которая совпадает из функциею (3) $${H_2}(x) = f(x) + \frac{1}{2} = \int\limits_0^\infty {\frac{{x{e^{xt}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{xt}}} \right)}^2}}}} dt + \frac{1}{2}$$
Чтобы получить функцию (2) рассмотрим функцию $$u(x) = \int\limits_0^\infty {{x^2}\cdot{e^{ - t\cdot{x^2}}}} dt$$
Найдем значения функции $u(x)$ на числовой оси $$u(x) = \int\limits_0^\infty {{x^2}\cdot{e^{ - t\cdot{x^2}}}} dt = \left( { - {e^{ - t\cdot{x^2}}}} \right)\left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
\infty \\
0
\end{array}} \right. = - \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } {e^{ - t\cdot{x^2}}} - \left( { - {e^{ - 0\cdot{x^2}}}} \right) = - \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } {e^{ - t\cdot{x^2}}} + 1$$ у нас есть два варианты $ x=0 $ и $x \ne 0 $ так как в уравнения (5) входит квадрат $x$ $$u(x = 0) = - \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } {e^{ - t\cdot 0}} + 1 = -1 + 1 = 0$$ $$u(x \ne 0,~{x^2}) = - \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } {e^{ - t\cdot k}} + 1 = 0 + 1 = 1$$ Дискретная форма функции $u(x)$ имеет следующий вид $$u(x) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{0,~x = 0} \\
{1,~x \ne 0}
\end{array}} \right.$$ функция $ rt(x) = 1 - u(x)$ называется функция тождества.
Теперь с помощью функций (4) и $rt(x)$ построим функцию (2) $$\begin{gathered}
\nonumber
{H_1}(x) = {H_2}(x) + \frac{1}{2}rt(x) = \int\limits_0^\infty {\frac{{x{e^{ xt}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{ xt}}} \right)}^2}}}} dt + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}\left( {1 - \int\limits_0^\infty {{x^2}{e^{ - t{x^2}}}} dt} \right) =\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
= 1 - \frac{1}{2} \int\limits_0^\infty {{x^2}{e^{ - t{x^2}}}} dt + \int\limits_0^\infty {\frac{{x{e^{ xt}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{ xt}}} \right)}^2}}}} dt\end{gathered}$$ $${H_1}(x) = 1 + \int\limits_0^\infty {\left( {\frac{{x{e^{xt}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{xt}}} \right)}^2}}} - \frac{1}{2}{x^2} {e^{ - t{x^2}}}} \right)} dt$$
Теперь покажем аналитические формы без аппроксимаций и несобственного интеграла функции (2) и $rt(x)$
Рассмотрим функцию $c(x)$ $$c(x) = \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {\frac{{x{{\sec }^2}t{e^{ - x\tan t}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{ - x\tan t}}} \right)}^2}}}dt}$$
Вычислим значение функции $c(x) $ при разных $x$ $$c(x) = \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {\frac{{x{{\sec }^2}t{e^{ - x\tan t}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{ - x\tan t}}} \right)}^2}}}dt} = - \frac{1}{{1 + {{\text{e}}^{x\tan t}}}}\left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\frac{\pi }{2}} \\
\\
0
\end{array}} \right. = - \frac{1}{{1 + {{\text{e}}^{x\tan \frac{\pi }{2}}}}} - \left( { - \frac{1}{{1 + {{\text{e}}^{x\tan 0}}}}} \right)$$ так как $\tan \frac{\pi }{2} = \infty$ и $\tan 0 = 0$ то функция $c(x)$ принимает те самые значения что и функция $f(x)$. $$c(x) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{-\frac{1}{2},~x < 0}~~~ \\
{0,~x = 0} \\
{ \frac{1}{2},~x > 0}
\end{array}} \right.$$
Заменим $f(x)$ на $c(x)$ в (4), тем самим получим аналитическую форму без аппроксимаций и несобственного интеграла функцию (3): $$\begin{aligned}
{H_2}(x) = \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {\frac{{x{{\sec }^2}t{e^{ - x\tan t}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{ - x\tan t}}} \right)}^2}}}dt} + \frac{1}{2}\end{aligned}$$ Теперь найдем аналитическую форму без аппроксимаций и несобственного интеграла функции $rt(x)$, рассмотрим функцию $$q(x)=\int\limits_{0}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}{{{\text{e}}^{-{{x}^{2}}\tan t}}{{x}^{2}}{{\sec }^{2}}t~dt}$$
Вычислим значение функции $q(x) $ при разных $x$ $$\begin{gathered}
\nonumber
q(x) = \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {{{\text{e}}^{ - {x^2}\tan t}}{x^2}{{\sec }^2}tdt} = \left( { - {{\text{e}}^{ - {x^2}\tan t}}} \right)\left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\frac{\pi }{2}} \\
0
\end{array}} \right. = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( { - {{\text{e}}^{ - {x^2}\tan t}}} \right) - \left( { - {{\text{e}}^{ - {x^2}\tan 0}}} \right) =\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
= \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( { - {{\text{e}}^{ - {x^2}\tan t}}} \right) + 1\end{gathered}$$ у нас есть два варианты $ x=0 $ и $x \ne 0 $ так как в функцию $q(x)$ входит квадрат $x$ $$q(x = 0) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \frac{\pi}{2} } \left( { - {{\text{e}}^{ - 0\tan t}}} \right) + 1 = - 1 + 1=0$$ $$q(x \ne 0,~k = {x^2}) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \frac{\pi }{2}} \left( { - {{\text{e}}^{ - k\tan t}}} \right) + 1 = 0 + 1 = 1$$ как видно функция $q(x)$ совпадает с $u(x)$. Функция тождества в таком случаи имеет вид $$\begin{aligned}
rt(x) = 1 - q(x) = 1 - \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {{{\text{e}}^{ - {x^2}\tan t}}{x^2}{{\sec }^2}t~dt}\end{aligned}$$
Теперь определим функцию $H_1(x)$ c помощью функций (6) и (7) $$\begin{gathered}
\nonumber
{H_1}(x) = {H_2}(x) + \frac{1}{2}rt(x) = \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {\frac{{x{{\sec }^2}t{e^{ - x\tan t}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{ - x\tan t}}} \right)}^2}}}dt} + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}\left( {1 - \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {{{\text{e}}^{ - {x^2}\tan t}}{x^2}{{\sec }^2}tdt} } \right) =\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
= 1 + \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {\left( {\frac{{x{{\sec }^2}t{e^{ - x\tan t}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{ - x\tan t}}} \right)}^2}}} - \frac{1}{2}{{\text{e}}^{ - {x^2}\tan t}}{x^2}{{\sec }^2}t} \right)dt} \end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{H_1}(x) = 1 + \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {\left( {\frac{{x{{\sec }^2}t{e^{ - x\tan t}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{ - x\tan t}}} \right)}^2}}} - \frac{1}{2}{{\text{e}}^{ - {x^2}\tan t}}{x^2}{{\sec }^2}t} \right)dt}\end{aligned}$$
Теперь у нас есть все чтобы доказать теорему о представлении любой кусочно-заданной функции в аналитической форме без использования аппроксимации.
Кусочно-задание функции
=======================
\[theorem1\] Всякую кусочно-заданную функцию (1) можно представить в аналитической форме без аппроксимации, если функции $t_0(x),~t_1(x),~t_2(x)...~t_n(x)$ имеют аналитическую форму без аппроксимаций.
Используем функцию (8). Возьмем два числа $a<b$ и построим функцию единичного импульса $$I(x,~a,~b) = H_1(x - a) - H_1(x - b)$$ которая равняется 1 когда $a \le x < b$ и 0 в остальных случаях. Составим функцию (1) используя $I(x)$ и функции $t_0(x),~t_1(x),~t_2(x)...~t_n(x)$ $$t(x) = \left( {1 - {H_1}(x - {x_1})} \right){t_0}(x) + \sum\limits_{i = 2}^{n - 1} {I(x,{x_{i - 1}},{x_i})} {t_{i - 1}}(x) + {H_1}(x - {x_n}){t_n}(x)$$ исходя из построения функции $t(x)$, теорема \[theorem1\] доказана.
Дельта-функция Дирака
=====================
Представим дельта-функцию Дирака [@4; @5] в аналитической форме без аппроксимации через производную функции (8) по переменой $x$ $$\begin{gathered}
\nonumber
\frac{d{{H}^{*}}(x)}{dx}=\frac{d\left( \int\limits_{0}^{\infty }{\left( {{e}^{-t}}-{{x}^{2}}\cdot {{e}^{-t\cdot {{x}^{2}}}}+\frac{x\cdot {{e}^{t\cdot x}}}{{{(1+{{e}^{t\cdot x}})}^{2}}} \right)}dt \right)}{dx}=\int\limits_{0}^{\infty }{\frac{d\left( {{e}^{-t}}-{{x}^{2}}\cdot {{e}^{-t\cdot {{x}^{2}}}}+\frac{x\cdot {{e}^{t\cdot }}}{{{(1+{{e}^{t\cdot }})}^{2}}} \right)}{dx}dt}=\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
= \int\limits_0^\infty {\left( {\frac{{{{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}}}}{{{{(1 + {{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}})}^2}}} - 2{{\text{e}}^{ - t\cdot{x^2}}}x} \right)} dt - \int\limits_0^\infty {\left( {\frac{{2{{\text{e}}^{2t\cdot x}}t\cdot x}}{{{{(1 + {{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}})}^3}}}} \right)} dt + \int\limits_0^\infty {\left( {\frac{{{{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}}t\cdot x}}{{{{(1 + {{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}})}^2}}} + 2{{\text{e}}^{ - t\cdot{x^2}}}t\cdot{x^3}} \right)} dt\end{gathered}$$ $$\frac{{d{H^*}(x)}}{{dx}} = \int\limits_0^\infty {\left( {\frac{{{{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}} + {{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}}t\cdot x}}{{{{(1 + {{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}})}^2}}} - 2{{\text{e}}^{ - t\cdot{x^2}}}x} \right)} dt + \int\limits_0^\infty {\left( {2{{\text{e}}^{ - t\cdot{x^2}}}t\cdot{x^3} - \frac{{2{{\text{e}}^{2t\cdot x}}t\cdot x}}{{{{(1 + {{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}})}^3}}}} \right)} dt$$ Найдем значения функции (9) $$\begin{gathered}
\nonumber
\frac{{d{H^*}(x)}}{{dx}} = \int\limits_0^\infty {\left( {\frac{{{{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}}}}{{{{(1 + {{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}})}^2}}} - 2{{\text{e}}^{ - t\cdot{x^2}}}x} \right)} dt + \int\limits_0^\infty {\left( { - \frac{{2{{\text{e}}^{2t\cdot x}}t\cdot x}}{{{{(1 + {{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}})}^3}}} + \frac{{{{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}}t\cdot x}}{{{{(1 + {{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}})}^2}}}} \right)} dt + \int\limits_0^\infty {\left( {2{{\text{e}}^{ - t\cdot{x^2}}}t\cdot{x^3}} \right)} dt = \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\left. { = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{A \to \infty } \left( { - \frac{t}{{{{(1 + {{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}})}^2}}}} \right)} \right|\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
A \\
0
\end{array} -\left. { \mathop {\lim }\limits_{A \to \infty } \left( {2{{\text{e}}^{ - t\cdot{x^2}}}t\cdot x + \frac{t}{{1 + {{\text{e}}^{t\cdot x}}}}} \right)} \right|\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
A \\
0
\end{array} =\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
= \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( { - \frac{t}{{{{(1 + {{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot x}})}^2}}}} \right) + \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( { - 2{{\rm{e}}^{ - t \cdot {x^2}}}t \cdot x} \right) + \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{t}{{1 + {{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot x}}}}} \right) - 0 - 0 + 0 =\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
= \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( { - \frac{t}{{{{(1 + {{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot x}})}^2}}}} \right) + \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( { - 2{{\rm{e}}^{ - t \cdot {x^2}}}t \cdot x} \right) + \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{t}{{1 + {{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot x}}}}} \right)=\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
= \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{{t{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot x}}}}{{{{(1 + {{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot x}})}^2}}}} \right) + \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( { - 2{{\rm{e}}^{ - t \cdot {x^2}}}t \cdot x} \right)\end{gathered}$$ второй член при любом $x<\infty$ равняется нулю: $$\mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( { - 2{{\rm{e}}^{ - t \cdot {x^2}}}t \cdot x} \right) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( { - 2\frac{{t \cdot x}}{{{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot {x^2}}}}}} \right) = 0.$$
Рассмотрим первый член, при $x > 0$, пускай $ \infty > k > 0 $ і $ k = \left| x \right| $ $$\begin{gathered}
\nonumber
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{{t{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}}}}{{{{(1 + {{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}})}^2}}}} \right) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{{t{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}}}}{{{{\rm{e}}^{2t \cdot k}} + 2{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}} + 1}}} \right) = \left[ {\frac{\infty }{\infty }} \right] = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{{{t^2}{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}}}}{{{\rm{2}}t \cdot {{\rm{e}}^{2t \cdot k}} + 2t \cdot {{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}}}}} \right) = \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
= \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{{{t^2}{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}}}}{{2t \cdot {{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}}({{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}} + 1)}}} \right) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{t}{{2({{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}} + 1)}}} \right) = 0.\end{gathered}$$ при $x < 0$ , пускай $ \infty > k > 0 $ і $ k = \left| x \right| $
$$\begin{gathered}
\nonumber
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{{t{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot x}}}}{{{{(1 + {{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot x}})}^2}}}} \right) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{{t{{\rm{e}}^{ - t \cdot k}}}}{{{{(1 + {{\rm{e}}^{ - t \cdot k}})}^2}}}} \right) = \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
=\mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{t}{{{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}}{{(1 + {{\rm{e}}^{ - t \cdot k}})}^2}}}} \right) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{t}{{{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}}{{(1 + \frac{1}{{{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}}}})}^2}}}} \right) = \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
= \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{t}{{{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}}{{(1 + \frac{1}{{{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}}}})}^2}}}} \right) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{t}{{{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot k}}{{(1 + 0)}^2}}}} \right) = 0.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\end{gathered}$$
при $x = 0$ $$\mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{{t{{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot x}}}}{{{{(1 + {{\rm{e}}^{t \cdot x}})}^2}}}} \right) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{{t{{\rm{e}}^0}}}{{{{(1 + {{\rm{e}}^0})}^2}}}} \right) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \left( {\frac{t}{4}} \right) = \infty.$$
Как видно уравнения (9) имеет значения дельта-функции Дирака т.е. $\frac{{d{H^*}(x)}}{{dx}}~=~{\delta ^*}(x)$.
Функция распределения простых чисел
===================================
Чтобы получить функцию распределения простых чисел [@6], нужно построить функцию количества делителей ${\sigma _0}(n)$ числа $n$ на основе которой строится функция идентификации простых чисел.
Переведем функцию ${\sigma _0}(n)$ количества делителей числа $n$ в аналитическую форму без аппроксимации. Используем свойство функции $\sin (x)$, если $x$ целое то $\sin (x) = 0$.
Если $i$ делит число $n$ то $\sin \left( {\pi \frac{n}{i}} \right) = 0$ в противном случаи $\sin \left( {\pi \frac{n}{i}} \right) \ne 0$. Используем функцию (7), тогда следующая функция $rt\left( {\sin \left( {\pi \frac{n}{i}} \right)} \right)$ равняется 1 если $i$ делит $n$ и 0 в противном случаи. Теперь построим функцию ${\sigma _0}(n)$ которая суммирует $rt\left( {\sin \left( {\pi \frac{n}{i}} \right)} \right)$ по всем $i$ $${\sigma _0}(n) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty {rt\left( {\sin \left( {\pi \frac{n}{i}} \right)} \right)}$$
Теперь построим функцию идентификации простых чисел на основе функции ${\sigma _0}(n)$ и $rt(x)$, так как у простого числа всего два делителя, 1 и оно само, то $$fes(n) = rt\left( {{\sigma _0}(n) - 2} \right) = rt\left( {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty {rt\left( {\sin \left( {\pi \frac{n}{i}} \right)} \right)} - 2} \right)$$ дискретная форма которого будет иметь следующий вид $$fes(n) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{1,~n~\text{простое}}~~~ \\
{0,~n~\text{составное}}
\end{array}} \right.$$ Теперь имея функцию идентификации простых чисел и функцию Хевисайда $H_1(x)$ построим функцию распределения простых чисел в аналитической форме без использования аппроксимации. $$\pi (x) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty {fes(i)} {H_1}(x - i) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty {rt\left( {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {rt\left( {\sin \left( {\pi \frac{i}{j}} \right)} \right)} - 2} \right)} {H_1}(x - i)$$ Общий вид функции распределения простых чисел:
[$$\begin{gathered}
\nonumber
\pi (x) = \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
= \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty {\left( {1 - \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {{{\text{e}}^{ - {{\left( {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {\left( {1 - \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {{{\text{e}}^{ - \sin {{\left( {\pi \frac{n}{j}} \right)}^2}\tan z}}\sin {{\left( {\pi \frac{n}{j}} \right)}^2}{{\sec }^2}zdz} } \right)} - 2} \right)}^2}\tan v}}{{\left( {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^\infty {\left( {1 - \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {{{\text{e}}^{ - \sin {{\left( {\pi \frac{n}{j}} \right)}^2}\tan z}}\sin {{\left( {\pi \frac{n}{j}} \right)}^2}{{\sec }^2}zdz} } \right)} - 2} \right)}^2}{{\sec }^2}vdv} } \right)} \cdot \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\cdot \left( {1 + \int\limits_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}} {\left( {\frac{{\left( {x - i} \right){{\sec }^2}t{e^{ - \left( {x - i} \right)\tan t}}}}{{{{\left( {1 + {e^{ - \left( {x - i} \right)\tan t}}} \right)}^2}}} - \frac{1}{2}{{\text{e}}^{ - {{\left( {x - i} \right)}^2}\tan t}}{{\left( {x - i} \right)}^2}{{\sec }^2}t} \right)dt} } \right)\end{gathered}$$ ]{}
Все вычисления были проверены в *wolfram mathematica*.
Введения 2
==========
[Show me the infinity and I will prove the inconsistency of the Universe, let me infinity and I create my Universe.]{}
[- *Ron Swanson* -]{}
**Противоречия в математике**
Некоторые противоречия[^1] используются на практике (или используются утверждения приводящие к противоречиям) в математике и физике, например:
$\bullet$ Использование мнимой единицы [@7] не нужно перечислять, так как без нее не было некоторых разделов математики и физики, но не только ее определения не вписывается в наше понимание, вона еще и приводит к противоречию:
$i = \sqrt { - 1} = \sqrt {\frac{{ - 1}}{1}} = \sqrt {\frac{1}{{ - 1}}} = \frac{1}{{\sqrt { - 1} }} = \frac{1}{i}$ откуда следует $- 1 = {i^2} = ii = \frac{i}{i} = 1$.
$\bullet$ Конечная сумма всех натуральных чисел [@3] $$\sum\limits_{n = 1}^\infty n = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + ...$$
используется в объяснении эффекта Казимира и в теории струн. Существует множество способов найти сумму всех натуральных чисел, рассмотрим один из них: $$~~~~c = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + ...$$ $$~~~4c =~~~~~4 + ~~~~~8 + ~~~~~12 + ...$$ $$-3c = 1 - 2 + 3 - 4 + 5 - 6 + ...$$ ряд $1 - 2 + 3 - 4 + 5 - 6 + ...$ является разложения в степенной ряд функции $1/{\left( {1 + x} \right)^2}$ при $x$, равном 1. Соответственно $$-3c = 1 - 2 + 3 - 4 + 5 - 6 + ... = 1/\left( {1 + 1} \right)^2 = \frac{1}{4}$$
поделив обе части на $-3$ получаем $c=- \frac{1}{12}$.
Следствиям такого суммирования, это нахождения сумм следующих бесконечных рядов: $$\sum\limits_{n = 1}^\infty \frac{n}{n} = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... = - \frac{1}{2};$$ $$\sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty {{n^2}} = 1 + 4 + 9 + 16 + ... = 0.$$
Рассмотрим еще несколько противоречий которые имеют место в математике.
$\bullet$ Теорема Римана об условно сходящихся рядах [@10] которая гласит что:
*Пусть ряд $\mathbf{A}$ сходится условно, тогда для любого числа $\mathbf{S}\in\mathbb{R} \cup \{ \infty \}$ можно так поменять порядок суммирования, что сумма нового ряда будет равна $\mathbf{S}$.*
$\bullet$ Ряд Гранди [@8; @9] — это бесконечный ряд $$1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1+... \text{~или~}
\sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty {{{( - 1)}^n}}$$.
Один из очевидных методов нахождения суммы ряда, это воспринимать его как телескопический ряд и попарно сгруппировать члены: $(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+...=0+0+0+0+...=0.$ С другой стороны, похожим способом можно получить другой ответ: $1+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+...=1+0+0+0+...=1.$
Таким образом, различной расстановкой скобок в ряде Гранди, можно получить в качестве суммы 0 или 1. Если считать ряд Гранди расходящейся геометрической прогрессией, то, используя те же методы что и при работе со сходящимися геометрическими прогрессиями, можно получить третье значение, $1/2$: $$\sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty {{{( - 1)}^n}} = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ...$$ $$1 - \sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty {{{( - 1)}^n}} = 1 - (1 + 1 - 1 + ...) = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ... = \sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty {{{( - 1)}^n}}$$ $$1 - \sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty {{{( - 1)}^n}} = \sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty {{{( - 1)}^n}}$$ $$\sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty {{{( - 1)}^n}} = \frac{1}{2}$$
из этого можно прийти к двум выводам: Ряд $1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ...$ не имеет суммы или его сумма должна быть равна $1/2$.
Перенесем (по аналогии) рассуждения про сумму ряда Гранди на множества.
**$\xi$-парадокс**
Для рассмотрения $\xi$-парадокса нам понадобится вспомогательная теорема об операциях над множествами. В тексте пустое множество обозначается символом $\theta $.
\[theorem2\] Для двух множеств $\mathbf A$ и $\mathbf B$, $\mathbf A \ne \mathbf B$ справедливо равенство $$(\mathbf A \cap \mathbf B) \cup (\mathbf A \cap \mathbf B) \cup (\mathbf A \cap \mathbf B) \cup (\mathbf A \cap \mathbf B) \cup ... = \mathbf A \cap (\mathbf B \cup \mathbf A) \cap (\mathbf B \cup \mathbf A) \cap (\mathbf B \cup \mathbf A) \cap (\mathbf B \cup ...$$
Для двух множеств $\mathbf A$ и двух множеств $\mathbf B$, операции объединения и пересечения ассоциативная: $$\mathbf A \cap \mathbf B = \mathbf A \cap \mathbf B \cup \mathbf A \cap \mathbf B = (\mathbf A \cap \mathbf B ) \cup (\mathbf A \cap \mathbf B) = \mathbf A \cap (\mathbf B \cup \mathbf A) \cap \mathbf B$$
Для трех множеств $\mathbf A$ и двух множеств $\mathbf B$, операции объединения и пересечения ассоциативная: $$\mathbf {A = A \cap B \cup A \cap B \cup A = (A \cap B ) \cup (A \cap B) \cup A = A \cap (B \cup A) \cap (B \cup A)}$$
Для производного количества элементов ассоциативность поочередного использования операций объединения и пересечения доказывается по индукции.
\[theorem4\] Для произвольного множества $\mathbf G \ne \theta$ справедливо утверждения
$\mathbf {G \ne \theta \Leftrightarrow G = \theta }$.
Пустое множество представим, как бесконечное объединения пустых множеств: $$\mathbf { \theta = \theta \cup \theta \cup \theta \cup \theta \cup \theta \cup \theta \cup ...}$$
каждое из них, представим как пересечения произвольного не пустого множества $\mathbf G \ne \theta$ из пустым $\mathbf {\theta = G \cap \theta}$, из этого получим $$\mathbf { \theta = (G \cap \theta ) \cup (G \cap \theta ) \cup (G \cap \theta ) \cup (G \cap \theta ) \cup (G \cap \theta ) \cup (G \cap \theta ) \cup ...}$$ согласно теореме \[theorem2\] поменяем порядок поочередного применения операций пересечения и объединения $$\mathbf { \theta = G \cap (\theta \cup G) \cap (\theta \cup G) \cap (\theta \cup G) \cap (\theta \cup G) \cap (\theta \cup G) \cap (\theta \cup ... =}$$ $$\mathbf {= G \cap G \cap G \cap G \cap G \cap G \cap ... = G. }$$
Обратное утверждения доказывается аналогично, нужно рассмотреть эту процедуру в обратном порядке.
Теорема \[theorem4\] утверждает что “всякое непустое множество является пустым, и наоборот” это противоречия, но по аналогии из рядом Гранди мы не станем отвергать теорему \[theorem4\], мы сделаем предположения о возможности существования множества которое одновременно может равняться двум или более множествам.
$\xi$-множество
===============
**Определения $\xi$-множества.** Из теоремы \[theorem4\] следует что ряд $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xi}
\mathbf {G \cap \theta \cup G \cap \theta \cup G \cap \theta \cup G \cap \theta \cup G \cap \theta \cup G \cap \theta \cup ...}\end{aligned}$$ равняется сразу двум множествам $\mathbf G$ и $\theta$ одновременно, как и ряд Гранди $0$ и $1$, предположим что ряд (\[xi\]) равняется некоторому множеству назовем его $\xi$-множество.
Расширим ряд (\[xi\]) на случай произвольных двух множеств, построим $\xi$-множество класса 2 которое одновременно равняется двум не пустым множествам. Возьмем два произвольных множества $\mathbf A \ne \theta $ и $\mathbf B \ne \theta $ из условием что $$\mathbf {A \cap B = F \ne \theta }\text{~и~}\mathbf {A \cup B = D \ne \theta }$$
на их основе построим ряд $$\mathbf {A \cap B \cup A \cap B \cup A \cap B \cup A \cap B \cup A \cap B \cup ...}$$
найдем какому множеству равняется этот ряд. Расставим дужки, и это даст нам следующий результат $$\mathbf {A \cap (B \cup A) \cap (B \cup A) \cap (B \cup A) \cap (B \cup A) \cap (B \cup ... =}$$ $$\mathbf {= A \cap D \cap D \cap D \cap D \cap ... = A}$$
теперь согласно теореме \[theorem2\] переставим дужки и получим $$\mathbf {(A \cap B) \cup (A \cap B) \cup (A \cap B) \cup (A \cap B) \cup (A \cap B) \cup ...= }$$ $$\mathbf {= F \cup F \cup F \cup F \cup F \cup ... = F}$$
как видно этот ряд одновременно равняется двум множествам $\mathbf A$ и $\mathbf F$.
Из этого можно сделать определение $\xi$ множества
$\xi$ множество класса n это множество которое одновременно равняется нескольким множествам, класс $\xi$ множества это количество множеств которым равняется это $\xi$ множество.
Обозначим $\xi$-множество явно $\mathbf {G_1 || G_2 || G_3 ||...||G_n}$ (явно показывает каким именно множествам равняется $\xi$-множество) и не явно $\mathbf { \widetilde G^n}$.
Если класс $\xi$-множества бесконечный, то он обозначается алефом того множества $\aleph$ множеств котором оно равняется одновременно.
Обычное множество это $\xi$-множество произвольного класса которое равняется одному и то муже множеству $\mathbf {A = \widetilde A = A||A||A||...||A||...}$
**Функции образования $\xi$-множеств, $\xi$-функции**
Функции образования $\xi$-множеств обозначаются как
$\mathbf {\cap \left( {A,B} \right)}$ и $\mathbf {\cup \left( {A,B} \right)}$
и имеют следующий вид: $$\label{cap}
\mathbf {\cap \left( {A,B} \right) = A \cap B \cup A \cap B \cup A \cap B \cup A \cap B \cup A \cap B \cup ... }$$ $$\label{cup}
\mathbf {\cup \left( {A,B} \right) = A \cup B \cap A \cup B \cap A \cup B \cap A \cup B \cap A \cup B \cap ...}$$
Используя теорему \[theorem2\], значения этих функций будут следующими $\xi$- множествами:
$\mathbf { \cup \left( {A,B} \right) = \left( {A \cup B} \right)||A}$
и
$\mathbf {\cap \left( {A,B} \right) = A||\left( {A \cap B} \right)}$ соответственно. Из определения функций (\[cap\]) и (\[cup\]) следует следующая теорема для $\xi$-множества класса 2
Для двух множеств $\mathbf A$ и $\mathbf B$ которым равняется $\xi$ множество класса 2 справедливо утверждения: $\mathbf {A \subseteq B}$ или $\mathbf {B \subseteq A}$.
**Операции над $\xi$-множествами класса 2, образования $\xi$-множеств класса больше 2**
Объединения $\xi$-множеств класса 2. Возьмем два $\xi$ множества класса 2 $\mathbf {A||F}$, $\mathbf {B||C}$ и объединим их $\mathbf {A||F \cup B||C}$. Так как каждое из них равняется одновременно $\mathbf {A,~F}$ и $\mathbf {B,~C}$ соответственно, то определим их объединение при условии $$\mathbf {A||F \cup B||C = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\mathbf {A||F \cup B = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\mathbf {A \cup B}} \\
{\mathbf {F \cup B}}
\end{array}} \right.}} \\
{\mathbf {A||F \cup C = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\mathbf {A \cup C}} \\
{\mathbf {F \cup C}}
\end{array}} \right.}}
\end{array}} \right.}$$
что будет равняться $\xi$-множеству класса 4 $$\mathbf {A||F \cup B||C = \left( {A \cup B} \right)||\left( {B \cup F} \right)||\left( {A \cup C} \right)||\left( {F \cup C} \right)}$$
пересечения и разность определяется по той же схеме $$\mathbf {A||F \cap B||C = \left( {A \cap B} \right)||\left( {B \cap F} \right)||\left( {A \cap C} \right)||\left( {F \cap C} \right)}$$ $$\mathbf {A||F\backslash B||C = \left( {A\backslash B} \right)||\left( {B\backslash F} \right)||\left( {A\backslash C} \right)||\left( {F\backslash C} \right)}$$
Используя эти определения операций над $\xi$-множествами, докажем следующую теорему
\[theorem3\] При операциях объединения, пересечения и разность двух $\xi$-множеств классов $n$ и $m$, результирующее $\xi$-множество будет иметь класс $k \leqslant n m$.
В самом деле, если рассмотреть определения операций объединения, пересечения и разность двух $\xi$-множеств классов 2 и взять к сведению что $\mathbf {A = A||A||...}$, то теорема доказана для этих $\xi$-множеств. Для $\xi$-множеств класса больше 2 теорема доказывается по индукции.
Тем самым мы получили средство образования $\xi$-множества произвольного класса используя эти операции.
**Принадлежность элементов к $\xi$-множеству**
Возьмем произвольное $\xi$-множество
$$\label{A`}
{ \mathbf{{\tilde A}^\aleph }} = \mathop {||}\limits_{i \in \mathbf R} {\mathbf{A}_i}$$
класса $\mathbf{{\aleph} = \overline{\overline R} }$. Рассмотрим $\xi$-множество (\[A‘\]) класса $\aleph_0$ т.е. $\mathbf{\overline{\overline R} = {\aleph _0}}$, принадлежность элементов к этому множеству неоднозначно т.е. если элемент $a$ принадлежит множествам $\mathbf{A}_i$ некоторого подмножества множества всех $\mathbf{A}_i$ из (\[A‘\]), то эта принадлежность обозначается как $$\mathbf{a\overset{{{k}_{1}},{{k}_{2}},...{{k}_{d}...}}{\mathop{\in }}\, \widetilde A^{{\aleph _0}} = {{A}_{1}}||{{A}_{2}}||...||{{A}_{n}}||...\Leftrightarrow a\in {{A}_{{{k}_{1}}}},a\in {{A}_{{{k}_{2}}}},...a\in {{A}_{{{k}_{d}}}} }$$
или $$\mathbf{ a\mathop \in \limits^{{k_1},{k_2},...{k_d}} {\kern 1pt} \widetilde A^{{\aleph _0}}}$$
где индексы $\mathbf{{k}_{1},{k}_{2},...{k}_{d}...}$ над знаком принадлежности означают, каким именно множествам $\mathbf{A}_i$ из (\[A‘\]) принадлежит элемент $\mathbf a$.
Если мощность множества множеств $\mathbf{A}_i$ произвольна $\aleph$ т.е. $\xi$-множество имеет класс $\aleph$, то принадлежность элемента $\mathbf a$ к $\mathbf{{\widetilde A^\aleph }}$ определяется как $$\mathbf{a\mathop \in \limits^T {\widetilde A^\aleph }}$$
где $\mathbf{T = \left\{ {i|a \in {A_i}} \right\},~T \subset R,~\overline{\overline R} = \aleph}$.
Если элемент $b$ принадлежит всем множествам $\mathbf{A_i}$ из (\[A‘\]), то это обозначается как $\mathbf{b\mathop \in \limits^{all} {\widetilde A^n}}$, если $c$ не принадлежит всем $\mathbf{A_i}$ из (\[A‘\]), то это обозначается как $\mathbf{c\mathop \in \limits^0 {\widetilde A^n}}$ или в традиционном смысле как $\mathbf{c \notin {\widetilde A^n}}$.
**Интерпретация $\xi$-множеств**
Так как рациональные числа есть что-то что находится межу целыми числами то $\xi$-множества это то что находится между обычными множествами. Обычное множество это то что находится <<между собой>>.
**Аксиома $\xi$-множества, интерпретация парадокса Рассела**
Добавим аксиому существования $\xi$-множества: $$\mathbf{\forall a \forall b \exists \tilde a (b \subseteq a \leftrightarrow \tilde a = a \wedge \tilde a=b)}$$
к системе аксиом наивной теории множеств и используем ее для интерпретации парадокса Рассела. Рассмотрим множества:
$\mathbf {U = \{X \mid X = X\}}$ — множество всех множеств;
$\mathbf{U_R = \{ X \mid X \notin X\}}$ — множество Рассела, $\mathbf{{U_R} \in {U_R} \Leftrightarrow {U_R} \notin {U_R}}$;
$\mathbf{U_D = \{ X \mid X \in X\}}$;
$\mathbf{W = \{ X \mid X\mathop \in \limits^1 X\}}$;
Примером множества принадлежащего $\mathbf W$ есть множество: $$\mathbf{{A_a} = \{ a\} \cup \{ X \mid a \in X \wedge X \notin X\} }$$
в самом деле, так как $\mathbf{a \in A_a}$, то справедливо утверждения $$\mathbf{{\bf{A_a}} \in {\bf{A_a}} \Leftrightarrow {\bf{A_a}} \notin {\bf{A_a}}}$$
Учитывая все свойства множеств $\mathbf{U_R}$, $\mathbf W$ и $\mathbf{U_D}$ можно сделать следующие утверждения:
\[W\] $\mathbf{\forall K \in {U_R}\left( {K \ne {U_R} \Leftrightarrow K \notin W} \right)}$
В самом деле для всех множеств принадлежащих к $\mathbf{U_R}$, кроме самого $\mathbf{U_R}$ (так как $\mathbf{{U_R}\mathop \in \limits^1 {U_R}}$), справедливо утверждения $\mathbf{X \notin X}$, что не соответствует свойству определения множества $\mathbf W$.
Используя теорему \[W\], представим множество Рассела: $$\mathbf{{U_R} = A||B = \left( {U_R \cup \left( {{U_R}\backslash \left[ {W \cap {U_R}} \right]} \right)} \right)||\left( {{U_R}\backslash \left[ {W \cap {U_R}} \right]} \right)}$$
**Гипотеза о равномощности множества и его булеана, Парадокс Кантора**
Парадокс Кантора [@11] — парадокс теории множеств, который демонстрирует, что предположение о существовании множества всех множеств ведет к противоречиям и, следовательно, противоречивой является теория, в которой построение такого множества возможно.
Для объяснение парадокса Кантора рассмотрим теорему кантора.
\[kantor\] Любое множество менее мощно, чем множество всех его подмножеств.
Предположим, что существует множество $\mathbf A$, равномощное множеству всех своих подмножеств $2^\mathbf{A}$, то есть, что существует такая биекция $\mathbf f$, ставящая в соответствие каждому элементу множества $\mathbf A$ некоторое подмножество множества $\mathbf A$.
Рассмотрим множество $\mathbf B$, состоящее из всех элементов $\mathbf A$, не принадлежащих своим образам при отображении $\mathbf f$ (оно существует по аксиоме выделения):
$$\mathbf{B=\left\{\,x\in A \mid x\not\in f(x)\,\right\}}$$
$\mathbf f$ биективно, а $\mathbf{B \subseteq A}$, поэтому существует $\mathbf{y \in A}$ такой, что $\mathbf{f(y) = B}$. Теперь посмотрим, может ли $\mathbf{y}$ принадлежать $\mathbf B$. Если $\mathbf{y \in B}$, то $\mathbf{y \in f(y)}$, а тогда, по определению $\mathbf B$, $\mathbf{y \not\in B}$. И наоборот, если $\mathbf{y \not\in B}$, то $\mathbf{y \not\in f(y)}$, а следовательно, $\mathbf{y \in B}$. В любом случае, получаем противоречие.
Следовательно, исходное предположение ложно и $\mathbf A$ не равномощно $\mathbf{2^A}$.
Доказательство теоремы \[kantor\] производится методом от противного и на основе противоречия (с точки зрения наивной теории множеств) ${\bf{y}} \in {\bf{B}} \Leftrightarrow {\bf{y}} \notin {\bf{B}}$. Но если принять чо множество $\bf B$ это $\xi$-множество класса 2: $$\mathbf{B = \{ y\} \cup D||D} \text{, где}\mathbf{D = \{ x \mid x \notin f(x) \wedge x \ne y\} }$$
тогда $\mathbf{y\mathop \in \limits^1 B}$.
Гипотеза о равномощности множества и его булеана заключается в следующем:
Множество всех множеств не может существовать в терминах наивной теории множеств, но если рассматривать его с точки зрения $\xi$-множеств, то имеет место равномощности множества и его булеана.
[99]{}
[^1]: В работе противоречия рассматриваются не как недостаток логики или неполнота теории, а как нечто что не вписывается в рамки логики и имеет право на существование.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The XMASS detector is a large single phase liquid Xenon scintillator. After its feasibility had been studied using a 100 kg size prototype detector [@minamino], an 800 kg size detector is being built for dark matter search with the sensitivity of $10^{-45} {\rm cm}^2$ region in spin-independent cross section. The results of R&D study for 800 kg detector, especially ultra low background technologies, and the prospects of the experiment are described.'
address: 'Kamioka Observatory, ICRR, University of Tokyo, 456 Higashi-Mozumi, Kamioka, Hida , Gifu, 506-1205, Japan'
author:
- 'Hiroyuki Sekiya, for the XMASS collaboration'
title: XMASS
---
Introduction
============
Recently, many dark matter search experiments are underway using liquid Xe because of its special features [@xereview]. As sharing many features of liquid Xe with lower cost, liquid Ar is also interested for dark matter search [@these], however Xe still has the advantage of density and mass number $A$.
Simultaneous detection of both scintillation of ionization in Xe provides the nuclear recoil discrimination power, consequently, most experiments adopted the two-phase time projection detectors. In contrast, XMASS chose a single-phase scintillator, because in principle simple detector setups should easily achieve the high radio-purity that is mandatory for dark matter search. Accordingly, the background suppression technologies should be more critical.
The key idea of the background reduction in XMASS is “self-shielding”. The external gamma rays can be absorbed by the liquid xenon itself. Figure \[selfshield\]. shows a simulation of $^{238}$U-chain gamma rays injected on the surface of a liquid xenon volume. The outer surface of the liquid xenon volume absorbs the external gamma rays within 10-20 cm of thickness, and a low background environment in the central volume is achieved, while dark matters interact throughout the detector. Therefore dark matters can be observed in a low background environment by extracting the events in the central fiducial volume.
![\[selfshield\]Simulation of $^{238}$U-chain gamma rays injected on the surface of the liquid xenon volume. The tracks show the trajectory of gamma rays. The diameter of the liquid xenon volume is 80 cm.](selfshield.eps){width="6.5cm"}
The 800kg detector
==================
The 800 kg detector, currently being built, is the first designed XMASS detector dedicated to search for dark matter. Actually, the detector consists of 857 kg liquid Xe in a OFHC vessel, newly developed 642 PMTs, and a 10 m diameter and 10 m height water tank. Figure \[800kg\]. shows the schematic drawings of the detector and the pictures of the completed “PMT ball” for Xe scintillation light readouts. The PMTs are mounted on a 80 cm diameter pentakis-dodecahedron with 64.2% photocathode coverage of the inner surface. This configuration provide a light yield of 4.4 photoelectrons/keV and the energy threshold below 5 keV (electron equivalent).
![\[800kg\]The 800 kg detector.](800kgdetector.eps){width="12cm"}
Ultra low background technologies
=================================
Water tank
----------
In order to reduce the environmental radioactive background, the 800 kg detector is put in a water shield. Simulations of gamma rays and fast neutrons show that about a 200 cm thick water layer is enough to reduce the environmental backgrounds to a level below that of the PMT induced backgrounds, however a water tank 10 m diameter and 10 m height is prepared not only for this 800 kg detector but also for future projects. As shown in Figure \[800kg\]., 72 PMTs (20 inch PMT) are attached to the wall of the tank to detect the Cherenkov light and thus the water tank can also work as the shield for muon induced events.
The water in the tank is circulated and purified with the flow rate of 5 ton/hour by a dedicated water purification system. The Rn concentration in the water is kept below 1 mBq/m$^3$.
Low background PMTs
-------------------
The most serious external backgrounds come from the radioactive contamination in the PMTs. Since 2000, we have developed high radio-pure PMTs with with Hamamatsu Photonics K. K. All the components of PMTs were examined individually and selected by ourselves. In 2002, R8778, a 2 inch diameter PMT for the 100 kg prototype XMASS detector, was developed and it is also used in LUX [@xereview] now. Then, in 2009, we have succeeded in reducing about a factor 10 of radioactivity and developed a hexagonal R10789. The PMTs have rather high quantum efficiency, up to 39% for 178 nm photons at 173 K.
Table \[pmtimp\]. shows the contamination of the radioactive impurities of R8778 and R10789 measured by a high purity Ge (HPGe) detector in Kamioka underground laboratory.
[@\*[7]{}[l]{}[l]{}]{} RI & R8778 & R10789\
$^{238}$U(mBq/PMT) & 18$\pm$2 & 0.70$\pm$0.28\
$^{232}$Th(mBq/PMT)& 6.9$\pm$1.3 & 1.51$\pm$0.31\
$^{40}$K(mBq/PMT)& 140$\pm$20 & $<$5.1\
$^{60}$Co(mBq/PMT)& 18$\pm$2 & 2.92$\pm$1.61\
Materials screening
-------------------
Not only the components of the PMT, but other components are also screened with HPGe measurement. Although our detector is quite simple, more than 250 materials are used around the liquid Xe region, such as OFHC PMT holder, screws, cables, PTFE gaskets, LEDs for calibration, and so on. Sum of radioactive impurities of the measured materials (upper limits) are listed in Table\[otherimp\].
[@\*[7]{}[c]{}]{} RI & compared with 642 PMTs\
$^{238}$U(/PMT) & $<35$%\
$^{232}$Th(/PMT)& $<35$%\
$^{40}$K(/PMT)& $<20$%\
$^{60}$Co(/PMT)& $<20$%\
Kr removal
----------
As for the internal background, $^{85}$Kr in xenon is one potential source due to the $\beta$-decay of $^{85}$Kr ($\tau=$10.8y, $Q_\beta=$ 687 keV). The natural abundance $^{85}$ Kr/Kr is 1.2$\times$10$^{-10}$ and commercial available “pure Xe” contains about 0.1 ppm level of Kr, as a consequence, to keep the background from $^{85}$Kr below 10$^{-5}$ counts/day/keV/kg, Kr concentration should be below 1ppt, i.e 5 order reduction is required. In order to achieve this, we have developed new distillation system based on our previous system [@distillation]. The distillation technique efficiently removes Kr from Xe because the boiling temperature of Xe and Kr are quite different(178 K for Xe and around 145 K for Kr at the operation pressure of 0.2 atmosphere). The schematic diagram and the picture of the system is shown in Figure \[distillation\]. The system has 99% efficiency for collecting xenon (i.e. only 1% of original xenon is rejected) with the process speed 4.7 kg/hour.
![\[distillation\]The distillation system](distillation.eps){width="12cm"}
Rn removal
----------
$^{222}$Rn is the most difficult background source because $\beta$-decay of $^{222}$Rn daughters remain in Xe; moreover, $^{222}$Rn is emanated from all the materials. During the materials screening, $^{222}$Rn emanation rates from the components were also measured using high sensitivity Rn detectors developed for Super-Kamiokande [@rn]. It is found that up to $15$ mBq sources exist in the detector, thus these $^{222}$Rn should be continuously removed from the system. Figure\[circulation\] shows the purification system.
In order to suppress the background from $^{222}$Rn as the level of those from the PMTs, Rn concentration should be kept below 1.2 mBq/ton in liquid phase or 0.8 $\mu$Bq/m$^3$ in gas phase. We have succeeded removing $^{222}$Rn from gas phase using cooled ($-100^{\circ}$C) activated charcoals with more than 90% efficiency, however as the flow rate of gas circulation is limited by the cooling power of the condenser, Rn removal from liquid is preferable. We are testing some setups in liquid phase now.
![\[circulation\]The Xe circulation and purification system](circulation.eps){width="12cm"}
Expected sensitivity
====================
By putting above listed background sources into the full detector MC simulation code, the total backgrounds in fiducial volume of 100 kg was evaluated and turned out to be below 10$^4$ counts/day/kg/keVee. As an example and in order to demonstrate the “self-shielding” effect, the background contribution from $^{238}$U-chain in PMTs is shown in Figure \[upmt\].
![\[upmt\]The evaluated background rate from $^{238}$U in 642 PMTs. 20 cm of the self-shield layer corresponds to the fiducial volume of 100 kg.](upmt1.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm"} ![\[upmt\]The evaluated background rate from $^{238}$U in 642 PMTs. 20 cm of the self-shield layer corresponds to the fiducial volume of 100 kg.](upmt2.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
With these background assumptions, the expected detection sensitivity is derived. Figure \[energy\] shows the expected energy spectrum in case of M$_\chi$=50GeV and $\sigma_{\chi\rm{-p}}=3\times10^{-44}$cm$^{-2}$, and 90% CL spin-independent sensitivity lines for 10 days operation and 1 year operation are shown in Figure \[sens\].
![\[energy\]The expected energy spectrum in the 100 kg fiducial volume. Red points show the background events and black points show the background $+$ the expected dark matter signal when M$_\chi=50$ GeV and $\sigma_{\chi\rm{-p}}=3\times10^{-44}$ cm$^{-2}$.](energy2.eps){width="7cm"}
![\[sens\]The expected sensitivity of the 800kg detector compared with other experiments. The yellow dotted is the 90% CL spin-independent sensitivity line for 10 days operation and the red dotted is the one for 1 year operation](sensitivity2.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![\[sens\]The expected sensitivity of the 800kg detector compared with other experiments. The yellow dotted is the 90% CL spin-independent sensitivity line for 10 days operation and the red dotted is the one for 1 year operation](slabel2.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"}
Conclusion
==========
The construction of XMASS 800 kg detector is almost finished in Kamioka underground laboratory. Its sensitivity for spin-independent interaction of M$_\chi=50$ GeV case is expected to be $\sigma_{\chi\rm{-p}}=2\times10^{-44}$ cm$^{-2}$ with one year operation. After the commissioning runs for a few months, the dark matter search run will be started in this year, 2010.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[9]{} A. Minamino et al., arXive:0912.2405.v1
E. Aprile and T. Doke, arXive:0910.4956.v1
K. Abe et al., [*Astopart. Phys.*]{}, [**31**]{}, (2009) 290
Y. Takeuchi et al., [*Nucl. Instrum. Meth.*]{}, [**A 421**]{}, (1999) 113
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We derive the evolution equations for the spectra of a space (“Universe"). Here the spectra mean the eigenvalues of the Laplacian on a space, which contain the geometrical information on the space.
These spectral evolution equations are expected to be useful to analyze the time evolution of the geometrical structures of the Universe. In particular, it is indispensable to investigate the time evolution of the spectral distance between two spaces, which is a measure of closeness between two geometries defined in terms of the spectra.
As an application, we investigate the time evolution of the spectral distance between two Universes that are very close to each other; it is the first necessary step for analyzing the time evolution of the geometrical discrepancies between the real Universe and its model. We find out a universal formula for the spectral distance between two very close Universes, which turns out to be independent of the detailed form of the spectral distance nor the gravity theory. Then we investigate its time evolution with the help of the spectral evolution equations. We also formulate the criteria for a good cosmological model in terms of the spectral distance.
---
ł
1.5 cm
Spectral Evolution of the Universe
1.0 cm
.2cm
*Institute of Cosmology*
*Department of Physics & Astronomy*
*Tufts University*
*Massachusetts 02155, USA [^1]*
\*
*Department of Physics, Fukui University*
*Fukui 910-8507, Japan [^2]*
\*
*Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics*
*Kyoto University*
*Kyoto 606-8224, Japan*
1.5cm
Introduction {#section:I}
============
The notion of [*closeness*]{} or [*distance*]{} plays an essential role in physics. We frequently encounter the concept in the course of constructing and applying a theory.
The first step of finding out a law of nature is often classifying the objects in question into several categories (e.g., Hubble’s classification of galaxies). For classification, we are tacitly assuming the concept of closeness between the objects to be classified. Next, when we judge the validity of a theory by experiment, we construct a suitable parameter space associated to the theory and check the closeness between the point predicted by the theory and the experimental data-point in the parameter space. Here some kind of distance in the parameter space should be assumed. Finally, when we try to explain an observed phenomenon by a certain model based on a more or less established theory, we need to compare the observational data with the predictions of the model (e.g. the relation between a signal of the gravitational wave and its templates; a comparison of the observational data with the results of numerical simulations based on a model). Again some notion of distance is required in a parameter space suitable for this purpose.
Here we find out a universal setting for comparing “theory and reality": There should be a parameter space equipped with the notion of closeness. We prepare a set of models (or templates). Each model corresponds to a point in the parameter space, so that the points corresponding to these models are distributed over the parameter space. Now, the observed data define another point in the parameter space. Then we try to find out the model-point that is closest to the data-point.
Thus we realize the significance of establishing a parameter space and a distance/closeness on it according to the problem we need to study.
The same situation occurs in cosmology and spacetime physics. Indeed, we often need to consider a set of Universes, rather than just only “our Universe": Cosmology itself is a trial for grasping overall, averaged nature of the complicated reality of our Universe in terms of models; when we question why our Universe emerged rather than other possibilities, we are considering a set of Universes. According to the above considerations, thus, it is essential to establish a space of all Universes and a distance/closeness between any two Universes among them.
In a series of investigations, it turned out that we can in fact construct a space of all compact Universes equipped with a sort of distance.
Let $Riem$ be the space of all $(D-1)$-dimensional, compact Riemannian geometries without boundaries[^3]. On $Riem$, we can introduce a measure of closeness in terms of the spectra, a set of eigenvalues of a certain elliptic operator [@MS-spectral]. Here we consider only the Laplacian $\Delta$ as an elliptic operator. For a given geometry ${\cal G} \in Riem $, we get the [*spectra*]{}, or a set of eigenvalues of the Laplacian $\{\l_n\}_{n=0}^\infty=$ $\{0=\l_0 < \l_1 \leq \l_2 \leq \cdots \leq \l_n \leq \cdots
\uparrow \infty \}$, numbered in an increasing order. Since $\l_n$ has dimension $[{\rm Length}^{-2}]$, the higher (lower) spectrum in general reflects the smaller (larger) scale properties of the geometry. Therefore the spectra are desirable quantities for describing the effective geometrical structures of the space at each observational scale, e.g. the scale-dependent topology [@Vis; @MS-scale]. Let us call this type of representation of geometry in terms of the spectra the [*spectral representation*]{} of geometrical structures [@MS-spectral].
Suppose $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$ are two spaces in $Riem$, and let $\{\l_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$ and $\{\l'_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$ be the spectra for $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$, respectively. By comparing $\{\l_n\}_{n=1}^N$ and $\{\l'_n\}_{n=1}^N$ in a suitable manner, we can introduce a measure of closeness between $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$ of order $N$ [@MS-spectral]. It compares two geometries up to the scale of order $O(\l_N^{-1/2})$, neglecting the smaller scale differences (we shall discuss more in detail on this topic in \[subsection:IV-2\] and \[subsection:IV-3\]).
However, it turns out that this measure of closeness $d_N({\cal G}, {\cal G}')$ does not satisfy the triangle inequality though it satisfies the other two axioms of distance [@MS-spectral]. Even though the triangle inequality is far from a [*must*]{} from the viewpoint of the general theory of point set topology, it is certain that the inequality makes several arguments concise and it makes the measure of closeness more compatible with our notion of closeness.
This problem has been resolved by realizing that the breakdown of the triangle inequality is a mild one in a certain sense, and proving that $Riem$ equipped with $d_N({\cal G}, {\cal G}')$ forms a metrizable space [@MS-space]. In other words, it has been justified to regard $d_N({\cal G}, {\cal G}')$ as a distance provided that a care is taken when the triangle inequality is required in the argument; we also found out the alternative of $d_N({\cal G}, {\cal G}')$ to be used when the triangle inequality is needed. (See \[subsection:IV-2\] and Ref.[@MS-space] for more details.) As an immediate consequence, we can even introduce a distance on $Slice({\cal M}, g)$, a space of all possible time-slices of a given spacetime $({\cal M}, g)$. (See Ref.[@MS-AVE] for more details on this point and its application to the averaging problem in cosmology [@AVE; @AVE2].) From now on, we call $d_N({\cal G}, {\cal G}')$ the [*spectral distance*]{}.
Following the arguments at the beginning of this section, we have established a parameter space and a distance on it appropriate for spacetime physics: The space of all spaces of order $N$, ${\cal S}_N$, which is a completion of $(Riem, d_N)/_\sim $ is what we had been searching for. (Here $/_\sim$ indicates the identification of isospectral manifolds [@CH]. We discuss a physical interpretation of the isospectral manifolds in Section \[section:V\]. See also Ref.[@MS-space; @MS-JGRG].) Because of its nice property, ${\cal S}_N$ can be regarded as a basic arena for the study of spacetime physics. For instance, we can define integral over ${\cal S}_N$ [@MS-space], which would be essential in quantum cosmology.
Being ${\cal S}_N$ at hand, we are now in a position to handle a set of Universes. For definiteness, let us focus on cosmological problems now. In cosmology, we need to judge to what extent a model reflects the real Universe. There is no guarantee whether cosmology is possible, viz. whether a model close to the reality at some instant of time, remains so all the time. From the viewpoint of the spectral representation, this fundamental problem can be visualized as follows: Let $\cal G$ be the real Universe at present with respect to a certain time-slicing. Let ${\cal G}'$ be a model located in the neighborhood of $\cal G$ in ${\cal S}_N~$[^4]. Then we should investigate the time evolution of $d_N({\cal G}, {\cal G}')$ and should analyze in what conditions $d_N({\cal G}, {\cal G}')$ remains small during a certain period of time.
This kind of investigation is now possible since the spectral distance is defined explicitly in terms of the spectra, which have a firm basis both physically and mathematically. What we now need is, thus, to analyze the time evolution of the spectra. In the spectral representation, the spectra $\{\l_n \}$ are placed in the most fundamental position. Thus, from the purely theoretical viewpoint, too, it is interesting to investigate the time evolution of the spectra in detail.
As a first step, we can understand how the time evolution of the spectra is induced by the evolution of geometry as follows: By evolving an initial $(D-1)$-dimensional geometry $(\Sigma , h)$ according to the Einstein equations (in the Hamiltonian form if necessary), we get a 1-parameter family of geometries $(\Sigma , h(t))$. In principle, then, we can get the spectra for each geometry $(\Sigma , h(t))$. In this manner, we get a 1-parameter family of sets of spectra $\{\l_n(t)\}$.
It is more preferable both theoretically and practically, however, if the time evolution of $\{\l_n(t)\}$ is described (1) solely in terms of spectral quantities, without any explicit reference to the metrical information behind them, and (2) in the form of differential equations of $\{\l_n(t)\}$ with respect to time.
The key procedure for achieving this goal is to investigate the response of $\{\l_n \}$ to the change of the spatial metric $h$. Since the latter is controlled by the Einstein equations, we thus expect to obtain the spectral version of the Einstein equations. The main aim of this paper is to obtain the fundamental evolution equations for the spectra, by putting this program into practice.
In section \[section:II\], we prepare several formulas that are needed in the subsequent investigations. In section \[section:III\], which is the main part of this paper, we derive the spectral evolution equations. As basic applications of the results we obtained, we discuss three topics in section \[section:IV\]. In \[subsection:IV-1\], we study the spectral evolution of the closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universe. In \[subsection:IV-2\], we study the spectral distance between two Universes that are very close to each other in ${\cal S}_N$. We find out its universal expression in the leading order, which is independent of the detailed form of the spectral distance nor the gravity theory. In \[subsection:IV-3\], we investigate the time evolution of the spectral distance between two very close Universes. Section \[section:V\] is devoted for discussions.
Basic formulas for the spectra {#section:II}
==============================
Let $(\Sigma, g)$ be a $(D-1)$-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold without boundaries. We set an eigenvalue problem for the Laplacian $\Delta$ on $({\cal M}, g)$, $\Delta f = -\l f$. Let $\{ \l_n \}_{n=0,1,2,\cdots}$ $:= \{ 0=\l_0 < \l_1 \leq \l_2 \leq \cdots \leq \l_n$$
\leq \cdots \uparrow \infty \}$ be the set of eigenvalues, or [*spectra*]{} hereafter, arranged in an increasing order. For simplicity of formulas, we assume that there is no degeneracy in the spectra throughout this paper. Let $\{ f_n \}_{n=0,1,2,\cdots}$ be the set of real-valued eigenfunctions that are normalized as $$(f_m,\ f_n):=\int_\Sigma\ f_m \ f_n \ \/ = \d_{mn}\ \ ,
\label{eq:normalization}$$ where the natural integral measure on $(\Sigma, g)$ is implied by $\sqrt{}:=\sqrt{\det (g_{ab})}$. Let us note that a set $\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\l_n}} \partial_a f_n \}_{n=1}^\infty$ forms an orthonormal subset of 1-forms on $(\Sigma, g)$, $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{\l_m \l_n}}
\int_\Sigma\
\partial_a f_m \ g^{ab}\
\partial_b f_n \ \/ = \d_{mn}\ \ .
\label{eq:normalization-1form}$$
Spectral components of functions and tensors
--------------------------------------------
Let $A$ and $A_{ab}$ be any function and any symmetric tensor field, respectively, on $(\Sigma , g)$. It is useful to introduce diffeomorphism invariant quantities $\< A {\>_{}}_{mn}$ and $\< A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\< A {\>_{}}_{mn}
&:=& \int_{\Sigma}\ f_m \ A \ f_n \ \/ \ \ , \\
\< A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}
&:=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{\l_m \l_n}}\int_{\Sigma} \
\ \partial^af_m \ A_{ab} \ \partial^b f_n \ \/ \ \ . \end{aligned}$$ Here, for a quantity of type $\< A_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}$, we always understand that $n, m \geq 1$ unless otherwise stated. We note that Eqs.(\[eq:normalization\]) and (\[eq:normalization-1form\]) can be expressed as $$\<1{\>_{}}_{mn}=\d_{mn}\ , \ \ \<g_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}=\d_{mn} \ \ .
\label{eq:identity}$$ We also employ an abbreviated notation $$\< A {\>_{}}_{n}:=\< A {\>_{}}_{nn} \ ,
\ \< A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{n}:=\< A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{nn}\ \ .$$ For later uses, we develop these notations to $$\begin{aligned}
\< A {\>_{}}_{lmn}:&=&\< A f_l {\>_{}}_{mn}\ \ , \ \
\< A {\>_{}}_{klmn}:=\< A f_k {\>_{}}_{lmn}\ , \cdots \ \ , \\
\< A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mn}:&=&\< A_{ab} f_l {\>_{}}_{mn}\ \ , \ \
\< A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{kl,mn}:=\< A_{ab} f_k {\>_{}}_{l,mn}\ , \cdots \ \ . \end{aligned}$$
We note that, for arbitrary functions $A$ and $B$ $$\<AB{\>_{}}_{mn}= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \<A{\>_{}}_{mk}\<B{\>_{}}_{kn} \ \ .
\label{eq:<AB>}$$ To show this formula, we insert the $\d$-function into the integral expression of $\<AB{\>_{}}_{mn}$, noting that $\d (x,y)\/_y^{-1} = \sum _{k=0}^\infty f_k(x)f_k(y) $.
The following formula is also useful, which relates $\<A g_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}$ with $\<A{\>_{}}_{mn}$: $$\<A g_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}
= \frac{\l_m + \l_n}{2\sqrt{\l_m \l_n}} \<A {\>_{}}_{mn}
+ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\l_m \l_n}} \<\Delta A {\>_{}}_{mn}\ \ .
\label{eq:<Ag>}$$ To show this formula, one modifies the defining equation for $\<A g_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}$ with the help of partial integrals, noting that the R.H.S. (right-hand side) should be symmetric in $m$ and $n$ .
Setting $m=n$ in Eq.(\[eq:<Ag>\]), we get $$\<A g_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}
= \<A {\>_{}}_{n}
+ \frac{1}{2 \l_n} \<\Delta A {\>_{}}_{n}\ \ .
\label{eq:<Ag>-2}$$
The variation formulas
----------------------
We frequently consider the variation $\d Q$ of a certain quantity $Q$ below. Here we treat $\d$ as a general variation for the time being. In later applications, the time-derivative (the Lie derivative along a time-flow vector $t^a$ in a spacetime picture) is mostly considered as the variation operator $\d$.
Now, noting that $\Delta f= \frac{1}{\/}\partial_a(\/\ g^{ab}\partial_b f)$ for an arbitrary function $f$, the variation of $\Delta$ is represented as[^5] $$\d \Delta f = \frac{1}{2}\partial_a (g\cdot \d g)\partial^a f
-\frac{1}{\/} \partial_a (g^{ab} \d g_{bc}\partial^c f\/) \ \ .$$
Thus, employing the same kind of notation as $\<A{\>_{}}_{mn}$, we can introduce the quantity $$\<\d \Delta{\>_{}}_{mn}:= \int\ f_m\ \d \Delta\ f_n\ \/
= \frac{1}{2}\int f_m \partial_a (g\cdot \d g) \partial^a f_n \/
- \int f_m \partial_a (g^{ab} \d g_{bc}\partial^c f_n \/)\ \ ,$$ where we note that the variation is taken only for the operator $\Delta$, and not for the eigenfunctions $f_n$, $f_m$. We should also keep in mind that $\<\d \Delta {\>_{}}_{mn}$ is [*not*]{} symmetric in $m$ and $n$, unlike $\<A {\>_{}}_{mn}$, because $\Delta$ is an operator, and not a function. Noting that $f_0$ is a constant function (see [*Appendix*]{} \[section:Appendix A\]), it is evident that $\<\d \Delta {\>_{}}_{m0}=0$ and $\<\d \Delta {\>_{}}_{0m}=\frac{\l_m}{2}\<g\cdot \d g{\>_{}}_{0m}$ ($m=0,1,2, \cdots$).
With these preliminaries, we now investigate the variations of spectral quantities. We start with the variation of the spectra. From Eq.(\[eq:B-10\]) in [*Appendix*]{} \[section:Appendix B\], it follows that $$\d \l_n = - \<\d \Delta {\>_{}}_{n} \ \ ,
\label{eq:dlambda}$$ which is a basic result of the perturbation theory (“Fermi’s golden rule”).
Now let us investigate the variation of the eigenfunctions. We have a general formula Eq.(\[eq:B-11\]) with Eq.(\[eq:B-12\]) (see [*Appendix*]{} \[section:Appendix B\]) for the perturbation of eigenvectors. Here we need to specify the factor $c_n^{(1)}$ in Eq.(\[eq:B-12\]). For this purpose, we take the variation of the both sides of Eq.(\[eq:normalization\]) for $m=n$. Noting that $\d \/ = \frac{1}{2}g\cdot \d g \/$, we get $$( f_n , \ \d f_n ) =-\frac{1}{4}\<g\cdot \d g {\>_{}}_{n}\ \ .
\label{eq:df-f}$$ In the standard perturbation analysis in quantum mechanics, the inner-product is fixed, and not perturbed, while the eigenfunctions are perturbed. Thus, $\d f_n$ should be perpendicular to $f_n$ if $f_n$ is normalized. In our case, on the other hand, the inner-product is also subject to the variation because of the presence of the integral measure $\/$. Thus $\d f_n$ is not in general perpendicular to $f_n$, as is clear in Eq.(\[eq:df-f\]). Combining Eq.(\[eq:df-f\]) with Eqs.(\[eq:B-11\]) and Eq.(\[eq:B-12\]), we see that $c_n^{(1)}$ in Eq.(\[eq:B-12\]) should be chosen as $c_n^{(1)}=-\frac{1}{4}\<g\cdot \d g {\>_{}}_{n}$ in the present case. Thus, we get $$\d f_n = \sum_{k=0}^\infty f_k\ \mu_{kn} \ \ ,
\label{eq:df}$$ where $$\mu_{mn}:=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\< \d \Delta {\>_{}}_{mn}}{\l_m - \l_n} \ \
& \mbox{for}\ \ m \neq n \nonumber \\
-\frac{1}{4}\<g \cdot \d g \>_m \ \
& \mbox{for}\ \ m = n\ \ . \\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:mu}$$ Taking the inner-product of the both sides of Eq.(\[eq:df\]) with $f_m$, we get $$\mu_{mn}= (f_m, \ \d f_n) \ \ ,
\label{eq:fdf}$$ which gives a clear interpretation of the quantity $\mu_{mn}$ as the projection of $\d f_n$ to the direction of $f_m$.
With the help of Eq.(\[eq:df\]), it is now straightforward to show that $$\d \< A {\>_{}}_{mn} = \<\d A{\>_{}}_{mn}
+ \frac{1}{2}\<A\ g\cdot \d g{\>_{}}_{mn}
+\sum_k \< A{\>_{}}_{mk}\ \mu_{kn }
+\sum_k \< A{\>_{}}_{nk}\ \mu_{km }\ \ .
\label{eq:d<A>}$$ In particular, for the case of $m=n$, we get $$\d \< A {\>_{}}_{n} = \<\d A{\>_{}}_{n}
+ \frac{1}{2}\<A\ g\cdot \d g{\>_{}}_{n}
+2 \sum_k \< A{\>_{}}_{nk}\ \mu_{kn } \ \ .
\label{eq:d<A>-2}$$
Introducing $\Gamma_{mn}:= -\mu_{mn} - \frac{1}{4}\<g \cdot \d g {\>_{}}_{mn} $ (note that $\Gamma_{nn}=0 $), Eq.(\[eq:d<A>\]) is also represented as $$\d \< A {\>_{}}_{mn}
= \<\d A{\>_{}}_{mn}
-\sum_k \< A{\>_{}}_{mk} \Gamma_{kn}
-\sum_k \< A{\>_{}}_{nk} \Gamma_{km }\ \ .$$ It is interesting that this expression is in a similar form as the covariant derivative of a symmetric tensor.
In the same manner, we get a formula for $\d \<A_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\d \< A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}
&=& \<\d A_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}
-(\d \ln \sqrt{\l_m \l_n}\ ) \< A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}
+ \frac{1}{2}\<A_{ab}\ g\cdot \d g{\>_{}}_{mn}
-\< A_a^{\ c}\d g_{cb} + A_b^{\ c}\d g_{ca} {\>_{}}_{mn}
\nonumber \\
&&\ \ \ +\sum_k \sqrt{\frac{\l_k}{\l_n}}\< A_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mk}\ \mu_{kn}
+\sum_k \sqrt{\frac{\l_k}{\l_m}}\< A_{ab}{\>_{}}_{nk}\ \mu_{km}\ \ ,
\label{eq:d<Aab>}\end{aligned}$$ and for the case of $m=n$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\d \< A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{n}
&=& \<\d A_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}
-(\d \ln \l_n ) \< A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{n}
+ \frac{1}{2}\<A_{ab}\ g\cdot \d g{\>_{}}_{n}
-2\< (A\d g)_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n} \nonumber \\
&&\ \ \ + 2\sum_k \sqrt{\frac{\l_k}{\l_n}}\< A_{ab}{\>_{}}_{nk}\ \mu_{kn}
\ \ .
\label{eq:d<Aab>-2}\end{aligned}$$
Basic identities {#subsection:II-3}
----------------
We obtain important relations by taking the variation of the basic identities Eq.(\[eq:identity\]).
First, we take the variation of the both sides of $\d_{mn}=\<1{\>_{}}_{mn}$. Then, with the help of Eq.(\[eq:d<A>\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
0= \frac{1}{2}\<g\cdot \d g {\>_{}}_{mn} + \mu_{mn} + \mu_{nm} \ \ , \end{aligned}$$ which implies an identity, $$\<g\cdot \d g {\>_{}}_{mn} = -2 (\mu_{mn} + \mu_{nm}) \ \ .
\label{eq:<gdg>1}$$ Thus, with the help of Eq.(\[eq:mu\]), we get $$\<g\cdot \d g {\>_{}}_{mn}
= -\frac{2}{\l_m - \l_n}
(\<\d \Delta {\>_{}}_{mn}-\<\d \Delta {\>_{}}_{nm})\ \ {\rm for}\ \
m \neq n \ \ .
\label{eq:<gdg>2}$$ On the other hand, no condition is imposed on $\<g\cdot \d g {\>_{}}_{n}$ except for $$\<g\cdot \d g\>_{{}_{0}}= 2 \frac{\d V}{V}\ \ ,
\label{eq:<gdg>0}$$ which follows by an independent argument (see [*Appendix*]{} \[section:Appendix A\]).
Now we take the variation of the both sides of $\d_{mn}=\<g_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}$ for $m,n \geq 1$. Then, with the help of Eq.(\[eq:d<Aab>\]), we get $$0= - \<\overline{\d g}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn} - (\d \ln \l_n) \d_{mn}
+ \sqrt{\frac{\l_m}{\l_n}}\ \mu_{mn}
+ \sqrt{\frac{\l_n}{\l_m}}\ \mu_{nm} \ \ ,$$ where $\overline{A}_{ab}:= A_{ab}-\frac{1}{2}A_\cdot^{\ \cdot} g_{ab}$ for any symmetric tensor $A_{ab}$.
Thus, we get $$\<\overline{\d g}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\sqrt{\frac{\l_m}{\l_n}}\ \mu_{mn}
+ \sqrt{\frac{\l_n}{\l_m}}\ \mu_{nm}
& {} \\
\qquad
= \frac{1}{\l_m - \l_n}
\left( \sqrt{\frac{\l_m}{\l_n}}\ \<\d \Delta {\>_{}}_{mn}
- \sqrt{\frac{\l_n}{\l_m}}\ \<\d \Delta {\>_{}}_{nm}
\right)
& \ \ {\rm for} \ \ m \neq n \\
- \d \ln \l_n \ - \frac{1}{2}\<g\cdot \d g \>_n \ \
& \ \ {\rm for} \ \ m = n \ \ . \\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:<dg>-bar}$$ The fact that $\<\d \Delta {\>_{}}_{m0}=0$ ($m=0,1,2,\cdots$) suggests us to formally define that $\<\overline{\d g}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{m0}=0$ ($m=0,1,2,\cdots$). We adopt this formal definition here for a notational neatness (see Eq.(\[eq:<dDelta>\]) below).
From Eqs.(\[eq:<gdg>2\]) and (\[eq:<dg>-bar\]), we obtain a formula for $\< \d \Delta {\>_{}}_{mn}$, $$\< \d \Delta {\>_{}}_{mn}
= \frac{\l_n}{2}\<g\cdot \d g {\>_{}}_{mn}
+ \sqrt{\l_m \l_n}\<\overline{\d g}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}\ \ .
\label{eq:<dDelta>}$$ We can also derive Eq.(\[eq:<dDelta>\]) directly from the definition of $\< \d \Delta {\>_{}}_{mn}$.
We note that Eq.(\[eq:<dDelta>\]) is valid for the case of $m=n$ also, due to Eq.(\[eq:dlambda\]) and the second equation of Eq.(\[eq:<dg>-bar\]). Furthermore, we realize that this formula is also valid for $m=0$ or $n=0$ on account of the formal definition $\<\overline{\d g}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{m0}=0$ ($m=0,1,2,\cdots$).
We now investigate a different type of identities.
We pay attention to the second equation in Eq.(\[eq:<dg>-bar\]), $$\d \ln \l_n = -\<\overline{\d g}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}
-\frac{1}{2}\<g\cdot \d g {\>_{}}_{n} \ \ .
\label{eq:dloglambda}$$ From this relation, it is straightforward to show a formula $$\int A_{ab} \frac{\d \ln \l_n}{\d g_{ab}}
= -\<\overline{A}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}
- \frac{1}{2}\<A_\cdot^{\ \cdot} {\>_{}}_{n}\ \ ,
\label{eq:identityAab}$$ where $A_{ab}$ is any symmetric tensor field.
Let $u^a$ be any vector field. Substituting $A_{ab}={\cal L}_{\vec{u}}\ g_{ab}$, the L.H.S. (left-hand side) of Eq.(\[eq:identityAab\]) vanishes because of the diffeomorphism invariance of the spectra, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\<{\cal L}_{\vec{u}}\ g_{ab} {\>_{}}_{n}
&=& \< \vec{D}\cdot \vec{u}\ g_{ab}\ {\>_{}}_{n}
-\< \vec{D}\cdot \vec{u}{\>_{}}_{n} \ \ , \nonumber \\
\<\overline{D_{(a} u_{b)}}{\>_{}}_{n}
&+& \frac{1}{2}\< \vec{D}\cdot \vec{u} {\>_{}}_{n}=0 \ \ .
\label{eq:identityDU}\end{aligned}$$
We now note another identity. Using the basic properties of the covariant derivative $D_a$, it is easily shown that $$\Delta D_a f = D_a \Delta f + \mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{ab}D^b f \ \ ,$$ where $f$ is any smooth function. In particular, choosing $f_n$ as $f$, we get $$(g_{ab} \Delta - \mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{ab})\partial^b f_n
= -\l_n \partial_a f_n \ \ ,
\label{eq:delf}$$ i.e. $\partial_a f_n$ turns out to be an eigenfunction of $g_{ab} \Delta - \mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{ab}$ with the eigenvalue $\l_n$. Taking the inner-product of Eq.(\[eq:delf\]) with $\partial_a f_m$, we get $$\int D_aD_bf_m \ D^aD^b f_n \/
= -\sqrt{\l_m \l_n} \<\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}
+ \l_n^2 \d_{mn}\ \ ,
\label{eq:<R>}$$ or $$\< \mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}
= \< g_{ab} \Delta {\>_{}}_{mn} + \l_n \d_{mn}\ \ .
\label{eq:<R>2}$$
Evolution equations for the spectral quantities {#section:III}
===============================================
Now we investigate the time evolution of the spectra of a space. We have prepared in the previous section basic formulas regarding the responses of the spectral quantities with respect to a change $\d g_{ab}$. When we let $\d g_{ab}$ be of a dynamical origin, thus, we automatically obtain the evolution equations for the spectral quantities.
We consider $(\Sigma, h)$, a $(D-1)$-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold without boundaries, as a mathematical model of the spatial section of the Universe. For the present purpose, we interprete a quantity $\d Q$ as $\frac{d}{d \a}_{|_\a=0} Q(\a)$, and identify the latter quantity with $\dot{Q}:={\cal L}_{\vec{t}}\ Q $, where $\vec t$ is a time-flow vector[^6]. In particular, we replace $\d g_{ab}$, $g \cdot \d g$ and $\overline{\d g}_{ab}$ in the previous section with corresponding quantities as $$\begin{aligned}
\d g_{ab} &\longmapsto& \dot{h}_{ab}= 2 N K_{ab}+ 2 D_{(a}N_{b)}\ \ ,
\nonumber \\
g \cdot \d g &\longmapsto& h^{ab}\dot{h}_{ab}
= 2NK + 2 \vec{D}\cdot \vec{N}\ \ ,
\nonumber \\
\overline{\d g}_{ab} &\longmapsto& \overline{\dot{h}}_{ab}
= 2N\overline{K}_{ab} + 2 \overline{D_{(a}N_{b)}}\ \ .
\label{eq:mapsto} \end{aligned}$$ Here $K_{ab}$ is the extrinsic curvature and $K:=K_\cdot^{\ \cdot}$; $N$ and $N_a$ are the lapse function and the shift vector, respectively.
Evolution equation for $\{ \l_n \}$
-----------------------------------
First, Eq.(\[eq:dloglambda\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\l}_n &=& -\left(
2 \<N \overline{K}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}
+\<NK {\>_{}}_{n}
\right) \l_n
\nonumber \\
&=& -2 \<N K_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}\l_n
+\frac{1}{2} \<\Delta (NK) {\>_{}}_{n} \ \ ,
\label{eq:lambda-dot} \end{aligned}$$ where we used the identity Eq.(\[eq:identityDU\]) in the first line, and Eq.(\[eq:<Ag>-2\]) in the second line. We note that the shift vector $N_a$ does not appear in Eq.(\[eq:lambda-dot\]), reflecting the spatial diffeomorphism invariance of $\l_n$.
Now, Eqs.(\[eq:<gdg>1\]) and (\[eq:<dg>-bar\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&& \<NK {\>_{}}_{mn} + \<\vec{D}\cdot \vec{N} {\>_{}}_{mn}
= -(\mu_{mn}+\mu_{nm})\ \ \nonumber \\
&& \<N \overline{K}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn} + \frac{1}{2}(\ln \l_n \dot{)}\ \d_{mn}
+ \< \overline{D_{(a}N_{b)}} {\>_{}}_{mn}
= \frac{1}{2}
\left(\sqrt{\frac{\l_m}{\l_n}}\ \mu_{mn}
+ \sqrt{\frac{\l_n}{\l_m}}\ \mu_{nm}\right) \ ,
%\label{eq:<NK><NKab>} \end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_{mn}$ is given by Eq.(\[eq:mu\]) with $\< \d \Delta {\>_{}}_{mn}$ replaced by $\< \dot{\Delta} {\>_{}}_{mn}$.
Eq.(\[eq:<dDelta>\]) becomes $$\< \dot{\Delta} {\>_{}}_{mn}
= \l_n \<NK {\>_{}}_{mn}
+ 2\sqrt{\l_m\l_n}\<N \overline{K}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}
+\l_n \<\vec{D}\cdot \vec{N} {\>_{}}_{mn}
+2\sqrt{\l_m\l_n}\< \overline{D_{(a}N_{b)}}{\>_{}}_{mn} \ \ .
\label{eq:<Delta-dot>}$$
Ultimately we are only interested in the dynamics of the spectra $\{ \l_n \}$, which is invariant under the spatial diffeomorphism. The coordinate dependence of other subsidiary variables like $\mu_{mn}$, which can dependent on the shift vector $N_a$, should not have any influence on the dynamics of $\{ \l_n \}$. Hence we can set $N_a=0$ from the very beginning to make formulas simpler. For simplicity we also set $N=1$ hereafter.
Now let us investigate the evolution equations for the spectra, Eq.(\[eq:lambda-dot\]), in detail. At this stage, it is useful to develop notations. First, we note that we can expand any scalar function $A(\cdot)$ in terms of $\{ f_n \}_{n=0}^\infty$: $$A(\cdot)=\sum_{l=0}^\infty A_n\ f_n(\cdot) \ \ .
\label{eq:fourier}$$ Then, it follows that $$\Delta A(\cdot)= -\sum_{l=1}^\infty \l_n A_n\ f_n(\cdot) \ \ ,$$ where we see that the homogeneous component of $A$, $A_0$, does not appear in the summation.
The homogeneous component $A_0$ is related to the spatial average of $A$ over the spatial section $\Sigma$, $A_{\rm av}:=\frac{1}{V}\int_{{}_\Sigma} A \/ $, as $$A_{\rm av}=A_0/\sqrt{V}\ \ .
\label{eq:average}$$
Next, let us introduce the quantity $$(l\ m\ n):= \<f_m {\>_{}}_{ln}=\<1 {\>_{}}_{mln}=\int\ f_l\ f_m\ f_n \/ \ \ .
\label{eq:(lmn)}$$ Note that $(l\ m\ n)$ is totally symmetric in $l$, $m$ and $n$. We can also introduce a similar quantity $(l\ m\ n\ k):=\int\ f_l\ f_m\ f_n\ f_{k}\ \/$ , and similarly $(l\ m\ n\ k\ h)$, and so on. However, the quantities of the type $(l\ m\ n)$ are sufficient since other quantities can be expressed in terms of $(l\ m\ n)$. For instance, $$(l\ m\ n\ k)=\frac{1}{3}\sum_{l'}
\left\{(l\ m\ l')(l'\ n\ k) + (m\ n\ l')(l'\ k\ l)
+ (n\ k\ l')(l'\ l\ m) \right\}\ \ ,$$ due to Eq.(\[eq:<AB>\]).
We note that the quantity of the form $\<A {\>_{}}_{lmn\cdots}$ is represented in terms of $A_l$ and $(l\ m\ n)$ since $$\<A {\>_{}}_{lmn\cdots} = \sum_{l'} A_{l'} (l'\ l\ m\ n\ \cdots)\ \ .$$ In the same manner, the quantities of the form $\<A_{ab}{\>_{}}_{kl\cdots,mn}$ is represented in terms of $\<A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mn}$ and $(l\ m\ n)$ because of the relation $$\<A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{kl\cdots,mn}=\sum_{l'}
\<A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l',mn}(l'\ k\ l\ \cdots)\ \ .$$ In particular, the quantity of the form $\<A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}$ can be represented in terms of $\<A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{0,mn}$ as $$\<A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn} = \<A_{ab} {\>_{}}_{0,mn}\sqrt{V}\ \ .$$
Keeping the applications to cosmology in mind, it is also useful to introduce the quantities $\e_{ab}$ and $r_{ab}$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\e_{ab} &:=& K_{ab}-\frac{1}{D-1}K h_{ab} \ \ ,\ \ \nonumber \\
r_{ab} &:=&
\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{ab}- \frac{1}{D-1}\mbox{\boldmath $R$}h_{ab} \ \ .
\label{eq:e/r} \end{aligned}$$ Note that $\e_\cdot^{\ \cdot} = r_\cdot^{\ \cdot} =0$. The quantities $\e_{ab}$ and $r_{ab}$ characterize the deviation of the spatial geometry $(\Sigma, h)$ from the isotropic geometry.
Now, we note that $$\<K{\>_{}}_{mn}=\sum_l K_l \ (l\ m\ n)\ \ ,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\< \overline{K}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}
&=& -\frac{D-3}{2(D-1)} \< K h_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn} + \< \e_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn} \\
&=& -\frac{D-3}{4(D-1)} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\l_m \l_n}}
\sum_l (\l_m + \l_n - \l_l)\ K_l\ (l\ m\ n)
+ \< \e_{ab}{\>_{}}_{mn}\ \ . \end{aligned}$$ Here Eq.(\[eq:fourier\]) has been applied to $K$ and we have used Eq.(\[eq:<Ag>\]).
Thus, Eq.(\[eq:lambda-dot\]) is represented as $$\dot{\l}_n
= -\frac{2}{D-1} \sum_{l} (\l_n + \frac{D-3}{4}\l_l)\ K_l \ (l\ n\ n)
- 2\l_n \<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{n} \ \ .
\label{eq:dlambda-2}$$ This equation is also valid for $n=0$, viz. it is compatible with $\l_0 \equiv 0$.
Looking at the R.H.S. of Eq.(\[eq:dlambda-2\]), it turns out that we further need the equations for $(l\ m\ n \dot{)\ }$, $\dot{K}_l$ and $\<\e_{ab} \dot{{\>_{}}_{n}}$ . We investigate them one by one below.
Evolution equation for $(l\ m\ n)$
----------------------------------
Applying Eq.(\[eq:d<A>\]) along with Eq.(\[eq:df\]) to $\<f_l {\>_{}}_{mn}=(l\ m\ n)$, we get $$(l\ m\ n \dot{)\ }=\sum_{l'}
\left\{ (l\ m\ l')\ \mu_{l'n} + (m\ n\ l')\ \mu_{l'l} +
(n\ l\ l')\ \mu_{l'm} \right\}
+ \sum_{l'} (l\ m\ n\ l')K_{l'}\ \ .
\label{eq:d(lmn)}$$ Here, from Eq.(\[eq:mu\]) with Eq.(\[eq:<Delta-dot>\]) ($N=1$, $N_a=0$), $\mu_{mn}$ is given by $$\mu_{mn}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{D+1}{2(D-1)} \frac{1}{\l_m - \l_n}
\sum_l \left(\l_n - \frac{D-3}{D+1}(\l_m - \l_l)\right)K_l (l\ m\ n)
+\frac{2\sqrt{\l_m\l_n}}{\l_m - \l_n}\<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}
& \mbox{for}\ \ m \neq n \nonumber \\
& \nonumber \\
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_l K_l (l\ m\ m) \ \
& \mbox{for}\ \ m = n\ \ . \\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:mu_mn}$$
Evolution equation for $K_l$
----------------------------
Now, since $K_l=(K,\ f_l)$, we get $\dot{K}_l=(\dot{K}, \ f_l)+(K, \dot{f}_l)
+ (K, \ f_l \ K)$, resulting in $$\dot{K}_l = (\dot{K})_l
+ \sum_{l'} K_{l'} \mu_{l'l} + \sum_{l'l''} K_{l'}K_{l''} (l'\ l''\ l) \ \ ,
\label{eq:Kl-dot}$$ where Eq.(\[eq:fdf\]) has been applied. To get the detailed expression for the first term $(\dot{K})_l$, we recall basic formulas of the canonical Einstein equations. We note $$\dot{K} =-\frac{1}{2\a}\frac{D-1}{D-2}p
-\frac{D-3}{2(D-2)}
(\mbox{\boldmath $R$}+ K^2+ \frac{D-1}{D-3}K \cdot K)
+\frac{D-1}{D-2} \Lambda \ \ ,
\label{eq:K-dot}$$ along with the constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{\boldmath $R$}- K \cdot K + K^2
- \frac{1}{\a} \rho - 2\Lambda &=& 0 \ \ , \nonumber \\
D^b K_{ab}-D_a K + \frac{1}{2\a} J_a &=& 0 \ \ ,
\label{eq:constraints} \end{aligned}$$ where $\a:=\frac{c^3}{16\pi G}$ and $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant. Here we define the quantities $\rho$, $p$, $J_a$ and $S_{ab}$ in connection with the above equations: With the help of the normal unit vector $n^\a$ of the spatial section, the energy-momentum tensor of matter $T^{\a \b}$ can be decomposed into three components: $T^{\a \b} = T_{{}_{\perp \perp}}^{\ \a \b}+T_{{}_{\| \perp}}^{\ \a \b}+
T_{{}_{\| \|}}^{\ \a \b} $, where each term has the following form, $$T_{{}_{\perp \perp}}^{\ \a \b}= \rho n^\a n^\b \ \ , \ \
T_{{}_{\| \perp}}^{\ \a \b} = J^\a n^\b + J^\b n^\a \ \ , \ \
T_{{}_{\| \|}}^{\ \a \b} = S^{\a \b}\ \ .$$ (The suffix $\perp$ implies “perpendicular to the space” and $\|$ implies “along the space".) Here $J^\a$ and $S^{\a\b}$ are spatial quantities and they are uniquely identified to their spatial counterparts, $J^a$ and $S^{ab}$, respectively. Then $\rho$, $J_a$ and $S_{ab}$ are interpreted as the energy density, the momentum density and the stress tensor of matter, respectively, and $p:=\frac{1}{D-1}S_a^{\ a}$ defines the pressure of matter. (The vector and tensor indices of spatial quantities in this context are lowered and raised by, respectively, the spatial metric $h_{ab}$ and its inverse $h^{ab}$.)
Now, Eq.(\[eq:K-dot\]) can be modified by means of the first constraint equation (Hamiltonian constraint) in Eq.(\[eq:constraints\]). In particular, the following two forms would be useful for our purposes. First, by eliminating $\mbox{\boldmath $R$}$ from Eq.(\[eq:K-dot\]), we get $$\dot{K} =-\frac{1}{2\a}\frac{D-3}{D-2}(\rho + \frac{D-1}{D-3}p)
- K \cdot K +\frac{2}{D-2} \Lambda \ \ .
\label{eq:K-dot2}$$ Second, by eliminating the term $K \cdot K$ from Eq.(\[eq:K-dot\]), we get $$\dot{K} =\frac{1}{2\a}\frac{D-1}{D-2}(\rho - p)
- K^2 - \mbox{\boldmath $R$} +\frac{2(D-1)}{D-2} \Lambda \ \ .
\label{eq:K-dot3}$$
Thus, we obtain the equation for $(\dot{K})_l$ based on Eq.(\[eq:K-dot2\]), $$(\dot{K})_l=-\frac{1}{2\a}\frac{D-3}{D-2}(\rho_l + \frac{D-1}{D-3}p_l)
-\frac{1}{D-1}\sum_{l'l''}K_{l'}K_{l''}(l'\ l''\ l)
+\frac{2 \Lambda \sqrt{V}}{D-2}\d_{l0}
-(\e\cdot\e)_l\ \ .
\label{eq:(K-dot)l1}$$ In the same manner, based on Eq.(\[eq:K-dot3\]), we get $$(\dot{K})_l = \frac{1}{2\a}\frac{(D-1)}{(D-2)}
(\rho_l - p_l)-\sum_{l'l''}K_{l'}K_{l''}(l'\ l''\ l)
\ \ +\frac{2 (D-1) \Lambda \sqrt{V}}{D-2}\d_{l0}
-\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_l \ \ .
\label{eq:(K-dot)l2}$$
We also note that, from Eqs.(\[eq:<gdg>0\]), (\[eq:average\]) and (\[eq:A-2\]), $$\frac{\dot{V}}{V}=K_0 / \sqrt{V}=K_{\rm av} \ \ .
\label{eq:Vdot}$$
The first constraint equation in Eq.(\[eq:constraints\]) is translated into $$\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_l + \frac{D-2}{D-1} \sum_{l'l''}K_{l'}K_{l''}(l'\ l''\ l)
-\frac{1}{\a} \rho_l -2\Lambda \sqrt{V}\d_{0l} -(\e \cdot \e)_l =0\ \ .
\label{eq:Hamiltonian-constraint}$$ We also note that, taking the inner-product with $\frac{1}{\l_l} D_a f_l$ ($l \neq 0$), the Bianchi identity $D^b \mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{ab} -\frac{1}{2}D_a \mbox{\boldmath $R$} =0 $ turns to $$\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_l
+ \frac{2(D-1)}{(D-3)}\frac{1}{\l_l}(D^aD^b r_{ab})_l=0
\ \ (l\neq 0)\ \ .
\label{eq:Bianchi}$$ Now, taking the inner-product with $\frac{1}{\l_l} D_a f_l$ ($l \neq 0$), the second constraint equation in Eq.(\[eq:constraints\]) (momentum constraint) turns to $$K_l
+ \frac{D-1}{D-2}\frac{1}{\l_l} \left\{
(D^a D^b \e_{ab})_l + \frac{1}{2\a}(\vec{D}\cdot \vec{J})_l
\right\} =0 \ \ (l\neq 0)\ \ .
\label{eq:momentum-constraint}$$
Finally, noting that $$\dot{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}
= -\mbox{\boldmath $R$}^{ab}\dot{h}_{ab}
+ D^a\left(D^b \dot{h}_{ab} - D_a(h^{cd}\dot{h}_{cd})\right)\ \ ,$$ we get $$\dot{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_l
=\frac{D-3}{D-1}\sum_{l'l''}K_{l'}\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{l''}(l'\ l''\ l)
+ \sum_{l'}\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{l'}\mu_{l'l} \nonumber
-\frac{1}{\a}(\vec{D}\cdot\vec{J})_l - 2(\e \cdot r)_l \ \ ,
\label{eq:Rl-dot}$$ where we used the momentum constraint Eq.(\[eq:momentum-constraint\]) to reach the final form.
Evolution equation for $\<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mn}$ and $\< r_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mn}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we derive the evolution equations for $\e_{ab}$ and $r_{ab}$ ($N=1$, $N_a=0$), $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\e}_{ab} &=&
\frac{1}{2\a} (S_{ab}-p h_{ab})
- \frac{D-3}{D-1}K\e_{ab} -r_{ab} +2 (\e \cdot \e)_{ab} \ \ ,
\label{eq:e-dot} \\
\dot{r}_{ab} &=&
-\frac{1}{D-1}\left\{\Delta K h_{ab}+(D-3) D_aD_b K \right\}
+\frac{1}{\a}\frac{1}{D-1} \vec{D}\cdot \vec{J} h_{ab}
\nonumber \\
&& -\Delta \e_{ab} -\frac{2}{D-1}\mbox{\boldmath $R$} \e_{ab}
+2 D^c D_{(a} \e_{b)c}
+\frac{2}{D-1} \e \cdot r h_{ab} \ \ .
\label{eq:r-dot} \end{aligned}$$
From Eq.(\[eq:e-dot\]) along with Eqs.(\[eq:df\]) and (\[eq:d<Aab>\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\<\e_{ab} \dot{{\>_{}}}_{l,mn}&=&
\frac{1}{2\a}\< (S_{ab}-ph_{ab}) {\>_{}}_{l,mn}
-\left(\ln\sqrt{\l_m\l_n}\right)^\cdot \<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mn}
-\frac{2}{D-1}\sum_{l'l''}K_{l'}(l'\ l\ l'') \<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l'',mn}
\nonumber \\
&& + \sum_k \sqrt{\frac{\l_k}{\l_n}}\<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mk} \mu_{kn}
+ \sum_k \sqrt{\frac{\l_k}{\l_m}}\<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,nk} \mu_{km}
\nonumber \\
&& + \sum_k \<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{k,mn} \mu_{kl}
- \< r_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mn}
-2\< (\e \cdot \e)_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mn} \ \ .
\label{eq:<e>-dot} \end{aligned}$$
In the same manner, we get from Eq.(\[eq:r-dot\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\<r_{ab} \dot{{\>_{}}}_{l,mn}&=&
\< \dot{r}_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mn}
-\left(\ln\sqrt{\l_m \l_n} \right)^\cdot \<r_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mn}
-\frac{5-D}{D-1}\sum_{l'l''}K_{l'}(l'\ l\ l'') \< r_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l'',mn}
\nonumber \\
&& + \sum_k \sqrt{\frac{\l_k}{\l_n}}\<r_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mk} \mu_{kn}
+ \sum_k \sqrt{\frac{\l_k}{\l_m}}\<r_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,nk} \mu_{km}
\nonumber \\
&& + \sum_k \< r_{ab} {\>_{}}_{k,mn} \mu_{kl}
-4\< \e^c_{\ (a} r_{b)c} {\>_{}}_{l,mn} \ \ ,
\label{eq:<r>-dot} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\< \dot{r}_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mn}
&=& \frac{1}{D-1}\sum_{l'l''}\l_{l'}K_{l'}(l'\ l\ l'')
\< h_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l'',mn}
-\frac{D-3}{D-1}\sum_{l'} K_{l'} \< D_aD_b f_{l'} {\>_{}}_{l,mn}
\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{1}{\a}\frac{1}{D-1}\sum_{l'l''}
(\vec{D}\cdot \vec{J})_{l'}(l'\ l\ l'')\< h_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l'',mn}
-\frac{2}{D-1}\sum_{l'l''}\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{l'}(l'\ l\ l'')
\< \e_{ab}{\>_{}}_{l'',mn}
\nonumber \\
&& - \< \Delta \e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l,mn}
+2 \< D^c D_{(a} \e_{b)c} {\>_{}}_{l,mn}
\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{2}{D-1}\sum_{l'l''}(\e \cdot r)_{l'}(l'\ l\ l'')
\< h_{ab} {\>_{}}_{l'',mn}\ \ .
\label{eq:<r-dot>} \end{aligned}$$
For convenience, we also present the formulas Eq.(\[eq:<e>-dot\]) and Eq.(\[eq:<r>-dot\]) especially for $l=0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\<\e_{ab} \dot{{\>_{}}}_{mn}&=&
\frac{1}{2\a}\< (S_{ab}-ph_{ab}) {\>_{}}_{mn}
-\left(\ln\sqrt{\l_m\l_n}\right)^\cdot \<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}
-\frac{2}{D-1}\sum_{k}K_{k} \<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{k,mn}
\nonumber \\
&& + \sum_k \sqrt{\frac{\l_k}{\l_n}}\<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mk} \mu_{kn}
+ \sum_k \sqrt{\frac{\l_k}{\l_m}}\<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{nk} \mu_{km}
- \< r_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}
\nonumber \\
&& -2\< (\e \cdot \e)_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn} \ .
\label{eq:<e>-dot2} \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\<r_{ab} \dot{{\>_{}}}_{mn}&=&
\< \dot{r}_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}
-\left(\ln\sqrt{\l_m \l_n} \right)^\cdot \<r_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}
-\frac{5-D}{D-1}\sum_{k}K_{k} \< r_{ab} {\>_{}}_{k,mn}
\nonumber \\
&& + \sum_k \sqrt{\frac{\l_k}{\l_n}}\<r_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mk} \mu_{kn}
+ \sum_k \sqrt{\frac{\l_k}{\l_m}}\<r_{ab} {\>_{}}_{nk} \mu_{km}
\nonumber \\
&& -4\< \e^c_{\ (a} r_{b)c} {\>_{}}_{mn} \ \ ,
\label{eq:<r>-dot2} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\< \dot{r}_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}
&=& \frac{1}{D-1}\sum_{k} \l_k K_{k} \< h_{ab} {\>_{}}_{k,mn}
-\frac{D-3}{D-1}\sum_{k} K_{k} \< D_aD_b f_{k} {\>_{}}_{mn}
\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{1}{\a}\frac{1}{D-1}\sum_{k}
(\vec{D}\cdot \vec{J})_{k} \< h_{ab} {\>_{}}_{k,mn}
-\frac{2}{D-1}\sum_{k}\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{k}
\< \e_{ab}{\>_{}}_{k,mn}
\nonumber \\
&& - \< \Delta \e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{mn}
+2 \< D^c D_{(a} \e_{b)c} {\>_{}}_{mn}
+\frac{2}{D-1}\sum_{k}(\e \cdot r)_{k}
\< h_{ab} {\>_{}}_{k,mn}\ \ .
\label{eq:<r-dot>2}\end{aligned}$$ Eqs. (\[eq:dlambda-2\])-(\[eq:Kl-dot\]), (\[eq:(K-dot)l1\]) (or (\[eq:(K-dot)l2\])), (\[eq:Vdot\])-(\[eq:Rl-dot\]), and (\[eq:<e>-dot\])-(\[eq:<r-dot>\]) are the fundamental equations for the investigation of the spectral evolution of the Universe.
They form hierarchy equations and we can continue to get equations for higher hierarchies. This hierarchical property is a reasonable consequence since we are looking at the global quantities, and not the local ones. In practical applications, thus, we need to make a suitable truncation. Typically, we get equations of higher order in $\e_{ab}$ and $r_{ab}$ when we continue to go into further hierarchies. We can often regard $\e_{ab}$, $r_{ab}$, and their spatial derivatives are small in cosmological applications. In such cases, the truncation becomes a reasonable approximation procedure.
Basic applications of the spectral equations {#section:IV}
============================================
The Friedman-Robertson-Walker Universe {#subsection:IV-1}
--------------------------------------
As a basic example, let us consider a closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universe.
We set $\e_{ab}=0$ and $r_{ab}=0$. We also set $\vec{J}=0$. From Eqs. (\[eq:Bianchi\]) and (\[eq:momentum-constraint\]), we get $\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_l=0$ and $K_l=0$ ($l\neq 0$). Then, we get $\rho_l=0$ ($l\neq 0$) from Eq.(\[eq:Hamiltonian-constraint\]), noting that $(0\ 0\ l)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}\d_{0l}$. Eq.(\[eq:Kl-dot\]) along with Eq.(\[eq:(K-dot)l1\]) imply that $p_l=0$ ($l\neq 0$), noting that $\mu_{mn}= - \frac{1}{2}\d_{mn} K_0/\sqrt{V}$ in the present case (Eq.(\[eq:mu\_mn\])).
Now, Eq.(\[eq:dlambda-2\]) with Eq.(\[eq:Vdot\]) yield $$\dot{\l}_n= - \frac{2}{D-1}\l_n \frac{\dot{V}}{V}\ \ ,$$ thus, $$\l_n(t)={\left(\frac{V(0)}{V(t)}\right)}^{\frac{2}{D-1}}\l_n (0)\ \ .$$ It is a simple scaling behavior expected from the dimensionality of $\l_n$.
Noting that $\mu_{l0}= - \frac{1}{2}\d_{l0} K_0/\sqrt{V}$ (Eq.(\[eq:mu\_mn\])), we get from Eq.(\[eq:Rl-dot\]) for $l=0$ with Eq.(\[eq:Vdot\]), $$\dot{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_0
= -\frac{5-D}{2(D-1)}
\frac{\dot{V}}{V} \mbox{\boldmath $R$}_0 \ \ .$$ Thus, $$\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_0(t)
= \left(\frac{V(0)}{V(t)}\right)^{\frac{5-D}{2(D-1)}}
\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_0(0)\ \ ,$$ or, noting Eq.(\[eq:average\]), $$\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{\rm av}(t)
= \left(\frac{V(0)}{V(t)}\right)^{\frac{2}{D-1}}
\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{\rm av}(0)\ \ .$$ It is also a simple scaling behavior expected from the dimensionality of $\mbox{\boldmath $R$}$.
On the other hand, from Eq.(\[eq:Hamiltonian-constraint\]) for $l=0$ with Eq.(\[eq:Vdot\]), we get $$\frac{D-2}{D-1} \left(\frac{\dot{V}}{V}\right)^2
+ \mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{\rm av}
-\frac{1}{\a} \rho_{\rm av} - 2\Lambda = 0\ \ ,$$ or in a more familiar form, $$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 + \frac{k}{a^2}
- \frac{1}{(D-1)(D-2)}\frac{1}{\a} \rho_{\rm av}
- \frac{2}{(D-1)(D-2)}\Lambda =0 \ \ ,$$ where we introduced the scale factor $a$ as $V \propto a^{D-1}$ and the curvature index $k:=\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{\rm av}(0)a(0)^2$.
It can be solved once the matter content is specified.
A universal formula for the spectral distance between two Universes that are geometrically close to each other {#subsection:IV-2}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The spectral evolution equations developed in the previous sections are of essential significance for the study of spacetime physics along the line of the spectral representation of geometrical structures.
We have the spectral distance $d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ as a measure of closeness between two spatial geometries $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$ [@MS-spectral]. It measures the difference between $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$ as the difference of “sounds" of them, i.e. the difference of the spectra.
Then we are given a basic arena for spacetime physics, i.e. the “space of all spaces" ${\cal S}_N$; it is basically a space of all compact Riemannian geometries equipped with $d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ [@MS-space].
Since we now have the spectral evolution equations developed in the previous sections, we can investigate the time evolution of $d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$. The fundamental importance of such an investigation becomes clear when we take $\cal G$ as the real Universe and ${\cal G}'$ as a model Universe which is expected to be “close" to $\cal G$ [@MS-JGRG; @MS-AVE]. There is no guarantee that the model Universe remains a good model for the real Universe in the future also [@AVE; @AVE2]. Stated in terms of the spectral distance, there is no guarantee that $d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ remains small in the future. The detailed investigations along this line would be done separately. Here we only look at some basic features of the evolution of $d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ when $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$ are very close initially in ${\cal S}_N$.
In this subsection, we derive a universal formula for $d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ when $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$ are geometrically close in ${\cal S}_N$, which is valid independently of the detailed form of $d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ nor the gravity theory. In the next subsection, we discuss its time evolution.
First, it is appropriate to recall basic settings of the spectral representation [@MS-spectral].
We set the eigenvalue problem on each manifold $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$, $$\Delta f =-\l f \ \ ,$$ then the set of eigenvalues (numbered in increasing order) is obtained; $\{\l_m \}_{m=0}^\infty$ for $\cal G$ and $\{\l'_n \}_{n=0}^\infty$ for ${\cal G}'$.
Now the spectral distance between $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$ is defined as [@MS-space; @MS-AVE] $$d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')= \sum_{n=1}^N {\cal F}
\left( \frac{\l'_n}{\l_n} \right)\ \ ,
\label{eq:d_N_general}$$ where ${\cal F}(x)$ ($x>0$) is a smooth function which satisfies ${\cal F} \geq 0$, ${\cal F}(1/x)={\cal F}(x)$, ${\cal F}(y)>{\cal F}(x)$ if $y > x \geq 1$ and ${\cal F}(1)=0$. Then, it follows that ${\cal F}''(1) \geq 0$. However, in order to let $d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ detect a fine difference between ${\cal G}$ and ${\cal G}'$ when they are very close to each other in ${\cal S}_N$, we further postulate that ${\cal F}''(1)>0$. (See Eq. (\[eq:d\_N-close\]).)
In particular, it is convenient to choose as ${\cal F}$, ${\cal F}_1(x)=\frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{x}+1/\sqrt{x}) $. Then we get [@MS-spectral] $$d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')
=\frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=1}^N \ln \frac{1}{2}
\left(
\sqrt{\frac{\l_n'}{\l_n}}
+\sqrt{\frac{\l_n}{\l'_n}}
\right)\ \ .
\label{eq:d_N}$$ It turns out that $d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ does not satisfy the triangle inequality. However, it does not cause a serious problem. Let $Riem$ be the space of all $(D-1)$-dimensional, compact Riemannian geometries without boundaries. Then it is proved that the space $(Riem, d_N)/_\sim $, where $d_N$ is given by Eq.(\[eq:d\_N\]), is a metrizable space [@MS-space]. (Here $_\sim$ indicates identification of isospectral manifolds [@CH].) It justifies to regard $d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ as a distance, provided that we are careful when the triangle inequality matters in the argument.
The above property is shown in the following way. Since the breakdown of the triangle inequality turns out to be a mild one in a certain sense [@MS-space], it is expected that one can make a slight modification of ${\cal F}_1$ to recover the inequality. Indeed we can find ${\cal F}_0(x):=\frac{1}{2}\ln\max(\sqrt{x},1/\sqrt{x})$ as a modification of ${\cal F}_1$. In this case, Eq.(\[eq:d\_N\_general\]) becomes $$\bar{d}_N({\cal G}, {\cal G}')
=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{N}
\ln\max\left(\sqrt{\frac{\l_n'}{\l_n}},
\sqrt{\frac{\l_n}{\l_n'}} \right) \ \ .$$ It is easy to show that $\bar{d}_N({\cal G}, {\cal G}')$ satisfies all of the axioms of distance, so that it is a distance. Now, one can show that $(Riem, d_N)/_\sim $ and $(Riem, \bar{d}_N)/_\sim $ are homeomorphic to each other. Thus, $(Riem, d_N)/_\sim $ is a metrizable space since $(Riem, \bar{d}_N)/_\sim $ is a metric space. Let ${\cal S}_N$ be a completion of $(Riem, d_N)/_\sim $. The definition for $d_N$ has a more convenient form than the one for $\bar{d}_N$ since the latter includes $max$ symbol. Thus, in the actual applications, $d_N$ is more useful than $\bar{d}_N$. On the other hand, when we need to discuss mathematical properties of ${\cal S}_N$ precisely, $\bar{d}_N$ is appropriate.
Let us consider the situation that ${\cal G}$ and ${\cal G}'$ possess the same topological structure and that they are very close in ${\cal S}_N$. One can imagine that ${\cal G}'=(\Sigma, h')$ represents the real Universe at some instant of time, and ${\cal G}=(\Sigma, h)$ is a model Universe corresponding to ${\cal G}'=(\Sigma, h')$. We introduce the difference in the spatial metric $$\gamma_{ab}:=h'_{ab}-h_{ab} \ \ ,
\label{eq:gamma}$$ and we treat $\gamma_{ab}$ as a small quantity.
We regard the model Universe as a reference point, based on which we evaluate several quantities. In particular, we make use of the time-slicings of the model and investigate the time evolutions with respect to them.
Now, from Eq.(\[eq:dloglambda\]), we get $$\d \ln \l_n =\frac{\l_n'-\l_n}{\l_n}
= -\<\overline{\gamma}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}
-\frac{1}{2}\<\gamma {\>_{}}_{n} \ \ ,
\label{eq:dloglambda-distance}$$ where $\gamma:=h^{ab}\gamma_{ab}$.
Looking at Eq.(\[eq:d\_N\_general\]), we see that $${\cal F} \left( \frac{\l_n'}{\l_n} \right)
= {\cal F} \left( 1-\left(\<\overline{\gamma}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}
+\frac{1}{2}\<\gamma {\>_{}}_{n}\right) \right)
= \frac{1}{2}{\cal F}''(1)
\left(\<\overline{\gamma}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}
+\frac{1}{2}\<\gamma {\>_{}}_{n}\right)^2 + O(\varepsilon^3) \ \ .$$ Here we note that ${\cal F}(1)={\cal F}'(1)=0$, and $\varepsilon$ indicates a small quantity in the same order as $\gamma$.
Leaving only the leading term, we thus get $$d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')
= \frac{1}{2}{\cal F}''(1) \sum_{n=1}^{N}
\left(\<\overline{\gamma}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n} +
\frac{1}{2}\<\gamma {\>_{}}_{n}\right)^2 \ \ .
\label{eq:d_N-close}$$ Here we note the postulation ${\cal F}''(1) > 0$.
It would be also helpful to view Eq.(\[eq:d\_N-close\]) as $$d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')
=\frac{1}{2}{\cal F}''(1)
\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}
\cdot\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}} \ \ ,
\label{eq:d_N-close2}$$ where $\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}$ is a vector in $\mbox{\boldmath $R$}^N$ whose $n$-th component is $\<\overline{\gamma}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n} + \frac{1}{2}\<\gamma {\>_{}}_{n}$, and a standard Euclidean inner-product is implied.
Hence, we get a universal result on $d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ when $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$ are very close in ${\cal S}_N$: [*The leading behavior of the spectral distance $d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ is given by Eq.(\[eq:d\_N-close\]) (or Eq.(\[eq:d\_N-close2\])), irrespective of the detailed form of the spectral distance nor of the gravity theory.*]{}
In the case of Eq.(\[eq:d\_N\]), we have chosen as $\cal F$, ${\cal F}_1(x)=\frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{x}+1/\sqrt{x}) $, hence ${\cal F}''(1)=\frac{1}{8}$. Thus, we get $$d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')
= \frac{1}{16} \sum_{n=1}^{N}
\left(\<\overline{\gamma}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n} +
\frac{1}{2}\<\gamma {\>_{}}_{n}\right)^2 \ \ ,
\label{eq:d_N-close3}$$ or $$d_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')
=\frac{1}{16}
\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}
\cdot\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}} \ \ ,
\label{eq:d_N-close4}$$ where $\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}$ is the same vector as in Eq.(\[eq:d\_N-close2\]).
Time evolution of a small geometrical discrepancy between the real and a model Universes {#subsection:IV-3}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we investigate the time evolution of the spectral distance for the two ‘nearby’ Universes as described in the previous subsection. Taking the time derivative of the both sides of Eq.(\[eq:d\_N\]), we get $$\dot{d}_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}') =
\frac{1}{4}\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\frac{\l'_n}{\l_n}-1}{\frac{\l'_n}{\l_n}+1}
\left(\ln \frac{\l'_n}{\l_n}\right)^\cdot \ \ .
\label{eq:d_N-dot1}$$
Now Eq.(\[eq:dlambda-2\]) can be represented as $$(\ln \l_n)^\cdot= -\frac{2}{D-1}
\sum_{l} (1 + \frac{D-3}{4}\frac{\l_l}{\l_n})\ K_l \ (l\ n\ n)
- 2 \<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{n} \ \ .$$ In the cosmological problems, it is often useful to separate the term for $l=0$ from the terms for $l\geq 1$ in the summation like in the above equation: This separation is useful when the Universe is described by a homogeneous geometry plus small perturbations. Noting Eq.(\[eq:Vdot\]), we thus get $$(\ln \l_n)^\cdot = -2\left(\frac{1}{D-1}\frac{\dot{V}}{V}
+\frac{1}{D-1} \<K- K_{\rm av}{\>_{}}_{n}
-\frac{D-3}{4(D-1)}\frac{1}{\l_n} \< \Delta K {\>_{}}_{n}
+ \< \e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{n} \right) \ \ .
\label{eq:lnlambda_n-dot}$$ Let us define $$\begin{aligned}
H:&=&\frac{1}{D-1} \frac{\dot{V}}{V} \ \ , \nonumber \\
\iota_n:&=&\frac{1}{D-1} \sum_{l \geq 1}
(1 + \frac{D-3}{4}\frac{\l_l}{\l_n})\ K_l \
(l\ n\ n) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{D-1} \<K- K_{\rm av}{\>_{}}_{n}
-\frac{D-3}{4(D-1)}\frac{1}{\l_n} \< \Delta K {\>_{}}_{n}
\ \ ,
\label{eq:parameters} \\
\a_n:&=& \< \e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{n} \ \ . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $H$ is an analogous quantity to the Hubble constant; $\iota_n$ is attributed to the inhomogeneity while $\a_n$ is to the anisotropy of the geometry. Then, the formula (\[eq:lnlambda\_n-dot\]) can be represented more concisely as $$(\ln \l_n)^\cdot=-2H_n \ \ ,
\label{eq:lnlambda_n-dot2}$$ where $$H_n:= H + \iota_n + \alpha_n \ \ .
\label{eq:Hubble_n}$$ The quantity $H_n$ can be interpreted as the effective Hubble constant observed at the scale $\l_n^{-1/2}$ since it determines the rate of change of $\l_n$. Thus, Eq.(\[eq:Hubble\_n\]) describes the modification of the [*effective*]{} Hubble parameter [*at the scale*]{} $\l_n^{-1/2}$ due to inhomogeneity and anisotropy of the Universe [*at that scale*]{}.
Leaving only the leading terms in Eq.(\[eq:d\_N-dot1\]) with the help of Eqs.(\[eq:lnlambda\_n-dot2\]) and (\[eq:Hubble\_n\]), we thus get $$\dot{d}_N({\cal G},{\cal G}')=\frac{1}{4}\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}
\cdot \d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}\ \ ,
\label{eq:d_N-dot2}$$ where $\d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}$ denotes a vector in $\mbox{\boldmath $R$}^N$ whose $n$-th component is $\d H_n := H'_n - H_n$.[^7] On the other hand, from Eq.(\[eq:lnlambda\_n-dot2\]) with Eq.(\[eq:dloglambda-distance\]), we can derive $\dot{\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}= 2 \d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}$, which is compatible with Eqs.(\[eq:d\_N-close4\]) and (\[eq:d\_N-dot2\]).
From Eq.(\[eq:d\_N-dot2\]), we get $$\ddot{d}_N({\cal G},{\cal G}')=
\frac{1}{2}\d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}\cdot
\d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}
+ \frac{1}{4}\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}\cdot
\d \dot{\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}}
\ \ .
\label{eq:d_N-2dot}$$ Let us introduce $q_n:=-(1 + \frac{\dot{H}_n}{H_n^2})$, which can be interpreted as the effective deceleration parameter at the scale $\l_n^{-1/2}$. Then, $\dot{H}_n=-(1+q_n)H_n^2$, so that $$\d \dot{H}_n= -2(1+q_n)H_n\d H_n - H_n^2\d q_n \ \ .
\label{eq:delta H_n-dot}$$ Since $\d \dot{H}_n$ appears in Eq.(\[eq:d\_N-2dot\]) only in the form of $\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}\cdot
\d \dot{\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}}$, it suffices to estimate $\d \dot{H}_n$ by leaving only the leading terms in Eq.(\[eq:delta H\_n-dot\]). First, using Eq.(\[eq:Hubble\_n\]), we note that $$q_n \simeq (1-\frac{2}{H}(\iota_n+\a_n))q
-\frac{2}{H}(\iota_n + \a_n)
- \frac{1}{H^2}(\dot{\iota_n} + \dot{\a}_n) \ \ ,$$ where $q:= -(1 + \frac{\dot{H}}{H^2})$.
Next, it is also straightforward to get estimations $$\begin{aligned}
(1+q_n)H_n \d H_n & \simeq &
\left[(1+q)\{H - (\iota_n + \a_n)\} -\frac{1}{H}(\dot{\iota_n} + \dot{\a_n})
\right] \d H
+ (1+q)H \d \{\iota_n + \a_n \}
\ \ , \\
H_n^2 \d q_n & \simeq &
H^2 \d q + 2\{(1+q)(\iota_n + \a_n)
+ \frac{1}{H}(\dot{\iota_n} + \dot{\a_n}) \} \d H \\
&& -2(1+q)H \d \{ \iota_n + \a_n \}
- \d \{ \dot{\iota_n} + \dot{\a_n} \} \ \ . \end{aligned}$$
Looking at Eq.(\[eq:delta H\_n-dot\]), we thus estimate $$\d \dot{H}_n \simeq -\d \{ (1+q)H^2 \} + \d \{\iota_n + \a_n \dot{\}\ } \ \ .$$ Finally, we reach the estimation $$\ddot{d}_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}') \simeq
\frac{1}{2}\d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}\cdot \d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}
-\frac{1}{4}(\sum_{n=1}^N \gamma_n) \d \{ (1+q)H^2 \}
+ \frac{1}{4} \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}\cdot
\d \{ \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\iota$}} + \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\a$}}\dot{\} \ }
\ \ ,
\label{eq:ddot d_N}$$ where $\gamma_n:=\<\overline{\gamma}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}
+ \frac{1}{2}\<\gamma {\>_{}}_{n}$ is the $n$-th component of $\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}$, and $\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\iota$}}$ and $\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\a$}}$ are vectors whose $n$-th components are $\iota_n$ and $\a_n$, respectively. We note once again the definition of $\d Q$, the difference of $Q$ in $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$, in this subsection (see the footnote just after Eq.(\[eq:d\_N-dot2\])). The difference in metric, $\gamma_{ab}$, is also defined in the same manner (Eq.(\[eq:gamma\])). Thus, Eq.(\[eq:ddot d\_N\]) is symmetric in $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$, as it should be.
To make a detailed study, we need to investigate $\<\e_{ab} \dot{{\>_{}}}_{n}$ and $\<r_{ab} \dot{{\>_{}}}_{n}$ also. It is helpful to note that $\mu_{mn}$ in Eq.(\[eq:mu\_mn\]) gets simplified in the present case as $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{mn}&=& -\frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{V}}{V} \d_{mn} + O(\varepsilon) \nonumber \\
&=& - \frac{D-1}{2} H \d_{mn} + O(\varepsilon) \ \ .
\label{eq:mu_mn-distance} \end{aligned}$$ Now, we set $m=n$ in Eq.(\[eq:<e>-dot2\]). First, let us omit the first and the last terms on the R.H.S. of Eq.(\[eq:<e>-dot2\]). Next, we leave only the $k=0$ part in the third term, which gives $-\frac{2}{D-1} \frac{\dot{V}}{V} \<\e_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n} $ $=-2H \<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{n}$ with the help of Eq.(\[eq:Vdot\]). Next, with the help of Eq.(\[eq:mu\_mn-distance\]), the fourth and the fifth terms on the R.H.S. in Eq.(\[eq:<e>-dot2\]) are approximated together as $-\frac{\dot{V}}{V} \<\e_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}$ $=-(D-1)H\<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{n}$. Finally, with the help of Eqs.(\[eq:lnlambda\_n-dot2\]) and (\[eq:Hubble\_n\]), the second term in Eq.(\[eq:<e>-dot2\]) yields $2H\<\e_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}$ within the order of magnitude discussed now. Thus, we estimate $$\<\e_{ab} \dot{{\>_{}}}_{n}
\simeq -(D-1)H \<\e_{ab} {\>_{}}_{n} - \<r_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}\ \ .
\label{eq:<e>-dot-approx}$$ In a similar manner, we can estimate $\<r_{ab} \dot{{\>_{}}}_{n}$ by Eqs.(\[eq:<r>-dot2\]) and (\[eq:<r-dot>2\]). We set $m=n$ in these equations. Among all the terms in Eq.(\[eq:<r-dot>2\]), it is a reasonable approximation to leave only the $k=0$ part of the fourth term on the R.H.S., which gives $-\frac{2}{D-1} \frac{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}_0}{\sqrt{V}}
\<\e_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}$. (This approximation is especially effective when we discuss the large-scale behaviors (low-lying spectra) such as $\l_n^{-1/2}>> c_s \tau$, where $c_s$ is the sound velocity of the matter and $\tau$ is the typical cosmological time-scale of interest.) In Eq.(\[eq:<r>-dot2\]), we omit the last term on the R.H.S. The third term can be estimated as $-\frac{5-D}{D-1} \frac{\dot{V}}{V} \<r_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}$ $=-(5-D)H\<r_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}$, while the fourth and the fifth terms together are estimated as $- \frac{\dot{V}}{V} \<r_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}$ $= -(D-1)H\<r_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}$. Finally, the second term yields $2H\<r_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}$. Thus, we can estimate as $$\<r_{ab} \dot{{\>_{}}}_{n} \simeq
-2H \<r_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}
-\frac{2}{D-1} \mbox{\boldmath $R$}_{\rm av}\<\e_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}\ \ .
\label{eq:<r>-dot-approx}$$
Now, we can estimate $\ddot{d}_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ further based on Eq.(\[eq:ddot d\_N\]). First, $\dot{\alpha_n}$ is given by Eq.(\[eq:<e>-dot-approx\]), $$\dot{\alpha_n} \simeq -(D-1)H \alpha_n - \<r_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}\ \ .
\label{eq:alpha-dot}$$ Second, regarding $\dot{\iota_n}$, we go back to the definition of $\iota_n$ (Eq.(\[eq:parameters\])). With the help of Eqs.(\[eq:d(lmn)\]), (\[eq:Kl-dot\]), (\[eq:(K-dot)l1\]), (\[eq:lnlambda\_n-dot2\]) and (\[eq:mu\_mn-distance\]), it is straightforward to get estimations $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\l_l}{\l_n}\right)^\cdot &=& O(\varepsilon)\ \ , \\
(l\ n\ n \dot{)} &=& -\frac{D-1}{2}H (l\ n\ n) + O(\varepsilon)\ \ , \\
\dot{K}_l &=& -\frac{5-D}{2}HK_l
-\frac{D-3}{2(D-2)}\frac{1}{\a}(\rho_l + \frac{D-1}{D-3}p_l)
+ O(\varepsilon^2) \ \ . \end{aligned}$$ Thus we get $$\dot{\iota_n} \simeq -2H \iota_n -\frac{D-3}{2(D-2)}\frac{1}{\a} {\cal M}_n\ \ ,
\label{eq:iota-dot}$$ where $${\cal M}_n :=
\frac{1}{D-1}\{ \<\rho - \rho_{\rm av}{\>_{}}_{n} +
\frac{D-1}{D-3}\<p - p_{\rm av}{\>_{}}_{n} \}
-\frac{D-3}{4(D-1)}\frac{1}{\l_n}
\{ \< \Delta \rho {\>_{}}_{n}
+\frac{D-1}{D-3} \< \Delta p {\>_{}}_{n} \} \ \ .$$ With the help of Eqs.(\[eq:alpha-dot\]) and (\[eq:iota-dot\]), Eq.(\[eq:ddot d\_N\]) can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{d}_N ({\cal G},{\cal G}') \simeq &&
\frac{1}{2}\d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}\cdot \d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}
-\frac{1}{4}(\sum_{n=1}^N \gamma_n) \d \{(1+q)H^2 \} \nonumber \\
&& -\frac{1}{4} \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}\cdot
\d \left\{ 2H \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\iota$}}
+(D-1)H \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\a$}}
+ \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $c$}}
+\frac{(D-3)}{2(D-2)}\frac{1}{\a} \vec{\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal M}$}}\right\}
\ \ ,
\label{eq:ddot d_N2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $c$}}$ and $\vec{\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal M}$}}$ are vectors whose $n$-th components are, respectively, $\<r_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}$ and ${\cal M}_n$.
Eqs. (\[eq:d\_N-close4\]), (\[eq:d\_N-dot2\]) and (\[eq:ddot d\_N2\]) give us an idea on the factors that influence the validity of a cosmological model.
First, a particular combination $\gamma_n:=\<\overline{\gamma}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}
+ \frac{1}{2}\<\gamma {\>_{}}_{n}$ determines the spectral distance $d_N({\cal G},{\cal G}')$. Second, $\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}\cdot \d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}$ determines the rate of change of $d_N({\cal G},{\cal G}')$, $\dot{d}_N({\cal G},{\cal G}')$. Whether $d_N({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ decreases or not is governed by the relative directions of $\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}$ and $\d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}$ in $\mbox{\boldmath $R$}^N$: One of the criteria for a good cosmological model would be that it makes the quantity $\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}\cdot \d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}$ negative, or non-negative and small at least. Third, the acceleration, $\ddot{d}_N({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ is determined by several factors: The difference in the effective Hubble parameter, $\d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}$, has always a repulsive effect. Even though $\vec{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}=0$ initially, so that $d_N=\dot{d}_N=0$ initially, the spectral distance increases if $\d \vec{\mbox{\boldmath $H$}}\neq 0$. It is required that the other terms in Eq.(\[eq:ddot d\_N2\]) as a whole should be negative or at least non-negative and small in order to get a good model.
Let $\tau$ be the typical time-scale with which we want to discuss the evolution of the Universe. Then we can summarize the criteria for a good cosmological model as follows:
[(C1)]{} $d_N({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ is small.
[(C2)]{} $\tau \dot{d}_N({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ is negative, or at least, non-negative and small.
[(C3)]{} $\tau^2 \ddot{d}_N({\cal G},{\cal G}')$ is negative, or at least, non-negative and small.
Discussion {#section:V}
==========
In this paper, we have derived the spectral evolution equations of the Universe. A set of these equations forms one of the essential elements of the general scheme of spectral representation [@MS-spectral]: Now we have a space of all spaces [@MS-space], ${\cal S}_N$, equipped with the spectral distance [@MS-spectral], $d_N$, and the evolution equations on ${\cal S}_N$.
The spectral evolution equations are expected to be useful for studying the time evolution of the global geometrical structures of the Universe, since the spectra are especially suitable for describing global properties of a space.
The significance of the spectral evolution equations becomes prominent in situations when we need to handle a set of spaces rather than just one space, e.g. the comparison between the real Universe and its model, the relation between the underlying topological structures and its low energy behavior (scale-dependent topology [@Vis; @MS-scale]), and so on.
As one of the important applications of the spectral evolution equations, we can now investigate a fundamental problem in cosmology: Whether cosmology is possible, viz. under what conditions and to what extent a model reflects the real spacetime faithfully (“The averaging/model-fitting problem in cosmology [@AVE; @AVE2]).
As the first step in this direction, we have investigated in §\[section:IV\] the spectral distance between two very close Universes and its time evolution. It is interesting that the spectral distance in this situation is universally determined by the quantity $\gamma_n:=$ $\<\overline{\gamma}_{ab}{\>_{}}_{n}$$+ \frac{1}{2}\<\gamma {\>_{}}_{n}$ at each scale $n$, irrespective of the detailed form of the spectral distance nor the gravity theory (Eq.(\[eq:d\_N-close2\])). Even though it is a special case when two geometries are very close to each other in ${\cal S}_N$, this result would still provide us with a basic understanding about what kind of geometrical discrepancies would matter in the context of the validity of a cosmological model for the real Universe. More systematic studies along this line are certainly required, which would be presented elsewhere [@MS-apply].
Finally, we make some remarks on the spectral scheme in general. It is a different way of viewing geometrical structures from the standard way of describing them. In this scheme, the geometrical information on a space is represented by a collection of the whole of the spectral information measured by all available elliptic operators on the space [@MS-spectral; @MS-JGRG; @MS-AVE]. In ordinary cosmological observations, we use a particular observational apparatus so that we naturally get only a portion of the whole geometrical information on the space, according to which apparatus (or mathematically, which elliptic operators corresponding to the apparatus) has been utilized. Thus, it can happen that the geometry of the space cannot be fully identified by using just a single apparatus (some particular elliptic operators). This consideration provides us with a physical interpretation of the isospectral manifolds. From this viewpoint, there is no surprise in the existence of the isospectral manifolds. The spectral scheme describes the scale- and apparatus-dependent geometry of a space in a natural manner. According to what this scheme suggests us, there is no absolute model for the real Universe, rather a good model for reality depends on the observational scale which we are interested in, and on the observational apparatus which we rely on. The smaller scale we pay attention to and the more variety of apparatus we utilize, the closer the model Universe constructed from the data approaches the real Universe.
The author thanks the Ministry of Education, the Government of Japan for financial support. He also thanks Inamori Foundation, Japan for encouragement as well as financial support.
addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{}
**APPENDIX**
The zero mode {#section:Appendix A}
=============
In our theory, the zero-mode $f_0$ of the Laplacian $\Delta$ is more important than in a usual mathematical context: It is directly related to the spatial volume (Eq.(\[eq:A-2\]) below), so that it is a dynamical object just as other modes. Hence it is essential to note the basic facts on the zero-mode here for the development of our theory.
Since $\Delta f_0=0$, it follows that $0=\int f_0 \Delta f_0 \/
= - \int \left(\partial f_0 \right)^2 \/$, implying that $\partial_a f_0 \equiv 0$. Thus, $$\mbox{ The zero-mode of $\Delta$ is a constant function, hence there
is no degeneracy.}
\label{eq:A-1}$$ Now, from Eq.(\[eq:normalization\]) for $m=n=0$, it follows that $1=(f_0, f_0)=f_0^2 V$ on account of (\[eq:A-1\]). Here $V$ is the $(D-1)$-volume of the space. Thus[^8] $$f_0=1/\sqrt{V}\ \ .
\label{eq:A-2}$$ Hence $\int f_0 \/ = \sqrt{V}$. From Eq.(\[eq:normalization\]) for $n=0$ with Eq.(\[eq:A-2\]), we get $$\int f_m \/ = \sqrt{V} \d_{m0}\ \ .
\label{eq:A-3}$$ Eq.(\[eq:A-2\]) can be represented as $f_0=(\int \/)^{-1/2}$. Taking the variation of the both sides of this equation, we easily get $\d f_0 = - \frac{1}{4V^{3/2}}\int g\cdot \d g \/$. With the help of Eq.(\[eq:A-2\]), we thus get $$\d f_0 = -\frac{1}{4}\<g \cdot \d g\>_{{}_0}f_0 \ \ .
\label{eq:A-4}$$ This formula is of the fundamental importance to develop the perturbation theory suitable for our purpose (see [*Appendix*]{} \[section:Appendix B\] and §§\[subsection:II-3\]).
On the other hand, taking the variation of Eq.(\[eq:A-2\]) directly, we obtain $$\d f_0 = -\frac{1}{2}V^{-3/2}\d V \ \ .
\label{eq:A-5}$$ Comparing Eqs.(\[eq:A-4\]) and (\[eq:A-5\]) to each other, we get Eq.(\[eq:<gdg>0\]) in §\[section:II\], $$\<g\cdot \d g\>_{{}_{0}}= 2 \frac{\d V}{V}\ \ .$$
Basic results of the perturbation theory {#section:Appendix B}
========================================
The perturbation theory is helpful to to analyze the dynamical evolution of the spectra $\{\l_n\}_{n=0,1,2,\cdots}$. In the present case, however, we need to pay special attentions to the zero-mode as is explained in [*Appendix*]{} \[section:Appendix A\]. We here derive basic formulas of the perturbation theory, taking care of the zero-mode. (Up to Eq.(\[eq:B-7\]) below, we mostly follow the argument in Ref.[[@JJS]]{}.)
We consider an Hermitian operator[^9] $\Delta$ parameterized by $\a$ which is analytic in $\a$ in the neighborhood of $\a =0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta &=& \Delta_0 + \a \Delta_1 + \a^2 \Delta_2 + \cdots
\nonumber \\
&=:& \Delta_0 + \a \d_\a \Delta \ \ .
\label{eq:B-1} \end{aligned}$$ The operator $\Delta$ can be arbitrary although we choose it to be the Laplacian in the application.
Let $\{ (\l_n^{(\a)},\ |n {\>_{}}_\a )\}_{n=0,1,2,\cdots}$ and $\{ (\l_n ^{(0)},\ |n^{(0)} \> )\}_{n=0,1,2,\cdots}$ be the set of spectra and eigenvectors for $\Delta$ and $\Delta_0$, respectively: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta |n {\>_{}}_\a &=& - \l_n^{(\a)} |n {\>_{}}_\a \ \ , \nonumber \\
\Delta_0 |n^{(0)} \> &=& - \l_n^{(0)} |n^{(0)} \> \ \ .
\label{eq:B-2}\end{aligned}$$ We understand that $\{ |n^{(0)}\> \}_{n=0,1,2, \cdots}$ is the normalized set of eigenvectors. On the other hand, we do not specify the normalization of $\{ |n {\>_{}}_\a \}_{n=0,1,2, \cdots}$ at this stage (see after Eq.(\[eq:B-7\]) below).
We assume that both $\l_n^{(\a)}$ and $|n {\>_{}}_\a$ are analytic in $\a$ in the neighborhood of $\a =0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\l_n^{(\a)} &=& \l_n^{(0)} + \a \l_n^{(1)} + \a^2 \l_n^{(2)}
+ \cdots \nonumber \\
&=:& \l_n^{(0)} + \a \d_\a \l_n \ \ , \nonumber \\
|n {\>_{}}_\a &=& |n^{(0)} \> + \a |n^{(1)} \> + \a^2 |n^{(2)} \>
+ \cdots \ \ .
\label{eq:B-3} \end{aligned}$$ We introduce a projection operator $P_n$ which projects any vector to the sector perpendicular to $|n^{(0)}\>$: $$P_n := 1 - |n^{(0)} \>\<n^{(0)}|
= \sum_{k \neq n} | k^{(0)}\>\< k^{(0)}| \ \ .
\label{eq:B-4}$$ With the help of Eqs.(\[eq:B-1\]) and (\[eq:B-3\]), the first equation in (\[eq:B-2\]) can be represented as $$(\l_n^{(0)} + \Delta_0 )|n {\>_{}}_{\a}
= - \a (\d_\a \l_n + \d_\a \Delta ) |n {\>_{}}_{\a}\ \ .
\label{eq:B-5}$$ The L.H.S. vanishes when multiplied by $\<n^{(0)}|$, indicating that the R.H.S. of Eq.(\[eq:B-5\]) is perpendicular to $|n^{(0)}\>$. Thus, Eq.(\[eq:B-5\]) can be represented as $$(\l_n^{(0)} + \Delta_0 )|n {\>_{}}_{\a}
= - \a P_n (\d_\a \l_n + \d_\a \Delta ) |n {\>_{}}_{\a}\ \
\label{eq:B-6}$$ Due to the presence of $P_n$, which removes the zero-mode of the operator $\l_n^{(0)} + \Delta_0 $, Eq.(\[eq:B-6\]) can be expressed as $$|n {\>_{}}_{\a} = C_n (\a)|n^{(0)}\>
- \frac{\a}{\l_n^{(0)} + \Delta_0}
P_n (\d_\a \l_n + \d_\a \Delta)|n {\>_{}}_{\a} \ \ .
\label{eq:B-7}$$ From here, we need to proceed in a different way from the standard perturbation theory in quantum mechanics. Noting that $\{ |n {\>_{}}_\a \}_{n=0,1,2, \cdots}$ forms an orthogonal set of bases due to Eq.(\[eq:B-2\]), we can interpret $C_n (\a)=\<n^{(0)} |n{\>_{}}_\a$ as the factor characterizing the normalization of $\{ |n {\>_{}}_\a \}_{n=0,1,2, \cdots}$. It should be analytic in $\a$ around $\a=0$ with $C(\a) \rightarrow 1$ as $\a \rightarrow 0$: $$C_n(\a)= 1+\a c_n^{(1)} + \a^2 c_n^{(2)} + \cdots \ \ .
\label{eq:B-8}$$ In the standard perturbation theory in quantum mechanics, the inner-product of the states is not perturbed. Thus any normalized state $|A \>$ and its perturbation $\d |A \>$ are always perpendicular to each other, so that usually we can set $C_n(\a)\equiv 1$ [@JJS]. In our case, on the other hand, the inner-product itself is perturbed through the integral-measure $\/$, when we regard $(f_m,\ f_n)$ in Eq.(\[eq:normalization\]) as the inner-product of the “states" $f_m$ and $f_n$. Thus we should tread $C_n(\a)$ with care (see the argument after Eq.(\[eq:df-f\])).
Since $\<n^{(0)}|(\d_\a \l_n + \d_\a \Delta ) |n {\>_{}}_{\a}=0 $, we get $$C_n(\a) \d_\a \l_n = -\<n^{(0)}|\d_\a \Delta |n{\>_{}}_\a\ \ .
\label{eq:B-9}$$ Eq.(\[eq:B-9\]) indicates that the both sides should match as analytic functions around $\a=0$. Hence, taking into account Eqs.(\[eq:B-1\]), (\[eq:B-3\]) and (\[eq:B-8\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\l_n^{(1)}&=& -\<n^{(0)}| \Delta_1 |n^{(0)}\> \ \ , \nonumber \\
\l_n^{(2)}&=& -\<n^{(0)}| \Delta_1 |n^{(1)}\>
- \<n^{(0)}| \Delta_2 |n^{(0)}\> -c_n^{(1)} \l_n^{(1)}\ \ ,
\nonumber \\
&\cdots&
\label{eq:B-10} \\
\l_n^{(l)}&=& -\<n^{(0)}| \Delta_1 |n^{(l-1)}\>
-\<n^{(0)}| \Delta_2 |n^{(l-2)}\> - \cdots
-\<n^{(0)}| \Delta_l |n^{(0)}\> \nonumber \\
&& \qquad -c_n^{(l-1)} \l_n^{(1)} - c_n^{(l-2)} \l_n^{(2)}
-\cdots -c_n^{(1)} \l_n^{(l-1)}\ \ , \nonumber \\
&\cdots& \ \ . \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Now, the R.H.S. of the second equation in (\[eq:B-3\]) and the R.H.S. of Eq.(\[eq:B-7\]) should match as vector-valued analytic functions around $\a=0$. Hence, taking into account Eq.(\[eq:B-8\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
|n^{(1)}\>&=&\sum_k |k^{(0)}\> \mu^{(1)}_{kn}\ \ , \nonumber \\
|n^{(2)}\>&=&\sum_k |k^{(0)}\> \mu^{(2)}_{kn}\ \ ,
\label{eq:B-11} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^{(1)}_{mn}&:=&
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\< \Delta_1 {\>_{}}_{mn}}{\l_m^{(0)} - \l_n^{(0)}} \ \
& \mbox{for}\ \ m \neq n \\
c_n^{(1)} \ \
& \mbox{for}\ \ m = n\ \ . \\
\end{array}
\label{eq:B-12}
\right. \\
\mu^{(2)}_{mn}&:=&
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{\l_m^{(0)} - \l_n^{(0)}}
\left(\< \Delta_2 {\>_{}}_{mn}
+ \l_n^{(1)} \mu^{(1)}_{mn}
+ \sum_{k} \< \Delta_1 {\>_{}}_{mk}\mu^{(1)}_{kn}
\right) \ \
& \mbox{for}\ \ m \neq n \\
c_n^{(2)} \ \
& \mbox{for}\ \ m = n\ \ . \\
\end{array} \nonumber
\right. \end{aligned}$$ We note that Eq.(\[eq:B-9\]) can be expressed as $$\d_\a \l_n
= -\frac{ \<n^{(0)}|\d_\a \Delta |n{\>_{}}_\a }{ \<n^{(0)}|n{\>_{}}_\a }\ \ .
\label{eq:B-13}$$ Thus $\d_\a \l_n$ should be independent of the normalization factor $C_n(\a)$. For example, with the help of Eq.(\[eq:B-11\]), the formula for $\l_n^{(2)}$ in Eq.(\[eq:B-10\]) turns out to be $$\begin{aligned}
\l_n^{(2)}
&=& -\sum_{k \neq n} (\l_n - \l_k)\mu^{(1)}_{nk}\mu^{(1)}_{kn}
-\< \Delta_2 {\>_{}}_{n} \nonumber \\
&=& -\sum_{k \neq n}
\frac{\< \Delta_1 {\>_{}}_{nk}\< \Delta_1 {\>_{}}_{kn} }
{\l_k^{(0)} - \l_n^{(0)}}
-\< \Delta_2 {\>_{}}_{n} \ \ ,
\label{eq:B-14}\end{aligned}$$ which is independent of $c_n^{(l)}$ ($l=1,2,\cdots $).
Mostly $\a$ is identified with a time-function $t$ in this paper. When we interpret the variation $\d Q$ of any quantity $Q$ to be a derivative of a corresponding function $Q(\a)$ at $\a=0$, only the terms of order $O(\a)$ (quantities with superscript indices $(0)$ and $(1)$) in the above formulas are important.
[99]{} M. Seriu, Phys. Rev. D[**53**]{}, 6902 (1996). M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D[**41**]{}, 1116 (1990). M. Seriu, Phys. Let. B[**319**]{}, 74 (1993); Vistas in Astronomy [**37**]{}, 637 (1993). M. Seriu, Comm. Math. Phys. [**209**]{}, 393 (2000). See e.g., I. Chavel, [*Eigenvalues in Riemannian Geometry*]{} (Academic Press, Orland, 1984). M. Seriu, in [*“Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on General Relativity and Gravitation"*]{} (K.Oohara et. al. (eds.), Niigata University, 1999). M. Seriu, [*“Spectral Representation and the Averaging Problem in Cosmology"*]{}, gr-qc/0001014, to appear in Gen. Rel. Grav. For instance, G.F.R. Ellis, in [*“Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation”*]{}, edited by B. Bertotti, F. De Felice and A. Pascolini (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984); H. Sato, [*ibid*]{}. See also, A. Krasi[ń]{}ski, [*Inhomogeneous Cosmological Models*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997), Chapter 8, and the references therein. M. Seriu, in preparation. J. J. Sakurai, [*Modern Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1985), Chapter 5.
[^1]: Present address. E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Permanent address. E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: Throughout this paper, $D$ represents the spacetime dimension, so that the spatial section is always $(D-1)$-dimensional.
[^4]: Here a model means a spacetime (usually it possesses much simpler geometrical structures than reality) along with a certain fixed time-slicing. We here regard an identical spacetime with different time-slicings as two different models.
[^5]: To avoid trivial indices, we flexibly adopt notations such as $\vec{u}:=u^a$, $A \cdot B := A_{ab}B^{ab}$, $\vec{u}\cdot \vec{v}:=u_a\ v^a$ and $A_\cdot^{\ \cdot}:=A_a^{\ a}$ . We also flexibly choose symbols for the derivative of a function $f$, such as $D_a f=\vec{D}f =\partial_a f$. (Here $D_a$ and $\vec{D}$ denote the covariant derivative.)
[^6]: See the argument at the end of [*Appendix*]{} [\[section:Appendix B\]]{} also.
[^7]: In this subsection, $\d Q$ denotes the difference in a quantity $Q$ for two spaces $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}'$, defined as $Q$ for ${\cal G}'$ (the second entry of $d_N(\cdot, \cdot)$) minus $Q$ for ${\cal G}$ (the first entry of $d_N(\cdot, \cdot)$). Wherever necessary, we employ the notation $\d \{\ \cdot \ \}$ (rather than $\d (\ \cdot \ )$) to avoid any confusion with the $\d$-function.
[^8]: Here we choose the positive squre-root. There is no essential difference even when we choose the negative squre-root instead. For instance, Eq.(\[eq:<gdg>0\]) in §\[section:II\] remains same.
[^9]: It can also be regarded as an Hermitian-operator-valued function of $\a$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Jordan Lovrod and Hassan Safouhi[^1]\
Mathematical Division\
Campus Saint-Jean, University of Alberta\
8406 91 Street, Edmonton (AB) T6C 4G9, Canada
title: 'Double Exponential Transformation For Computing Three-Centre Nuclear Attraction Integrals'
---
.
Three-centre nuclear attraction integrals, which arise in density functional and *ab initio* calculations, are one of the most time-consuming computations involved in molecular electronic structure calculations. Even for relatively small systems, millions of these laborious calculations need to be executed. Highly efficient and accurate methods for evaluating molecular integrals are therefore all the more vital in order to perform the calculations necessary for large systems. When using a basis set of $B$ functions, an analytical expression for the three-centre nuclear attraction integrals can be derived via the Fourier transform method. However, due to the presence of the highly oscillatory semi-infinite spherical Bessel integral, the analytical expression still remains problematic. By applying the $S$ transformation, the spherical Bessel integral can be converted into a much more favorable sine integral. In the present work, we then apply two types of double exponential transformations to the resulting sine integral, which leads to a highly efficient and accurate quadrature formulae. This method facilitates the approximation of the molecular integrals to a high predetermined accuracy, while still keeping the calculation times low. The fast convergence properties analyzed in the numerical section illustrate the advantages of the method.
[**Keywords**]{}.
Numerical integration; Oscillatory integrals; Molecular multi-centre integrals; double exponential transformation; Trapezoidal rule; Bessel functions.
Introduction
============
The Schrödinger equation, first published in Schrödinger’s 1926 paper, was a ground-breaking development that provided new insight into the behavior of the electrons in a given system [@Schrodinger]. Solutions to the Schrödinger equation yield valuable details regarding the electron placement, total energy, and other properties of the system. Nevertheless, *ab initio* calculations, that is to say calculations that use the positions of the nuclei and the number of electrons to solve the Schrödinger equation, still present significant computational difficulties. Although the Schrödinger equation can be solved analytically for hydrogen and other atomic nuclei with only one electron, the inter-electron interaction involved in systems comprised of more complex atoms makes the process of analytically solving the Schrödinger equation extremely laborious, if not impossible.
Three-centre nuclear attraction integrals are the rate determining step of *ab initio* and density functional theory (DFT) molecular structure calculations. Three-centre integrals, one of the most common types of molecular multi-centre integrals, arise when each of the three nuclei occupy a different position in space.
A common approach for calculating molecular orbitals (MOs) is to build each MO as a linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO), where atomic orbitals (AOs) are the solutions to the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom or a hydrogen-like ion. This technique is often referred to as the LCAO-MO method. The complexity of the three-centre nuclear attraction integrals, as well as that of other multi-centre integrals, can be mitigated by strategically choosing the basis of atomic orbitals with which to perform the calculations. It has been shown that a suitable atomic orbital basis should satisfy two conditions for analytical solutions to the Schrödinger equation: exponential decay at infinity [@Agmon-85] and a cusp at the origin [@Kato-10-151-57].
One choice for the basis functions are the exponential type functions (ETFs) which behave like $\exp(-x)$. ETFs are appropriate wave functions in that they satisfy the aforementioned conditions for analytical solutions to the Schrödinger equation. Generally, ETFs are a better suited basis than Gaussian type functions (GTFs) [@Boys-200-542-50; @Boys-201-125-50], which are AOs that behave like $\exp(-x^2)$. That being said however, GTFs are commonly used for chemical calculations [@Boys-258-402-60]. Unfortunately, these functions display neither exponential decay at infinity nor a cusp at the origin. In order to compensate, a relatively large basis set of GTFs is required. ETFs are more favorable than GTFs therefore, since a smaller basis set can be used to obtain results that are just as accurate [@Safouhi39].
The most common ETFs are the Slater type functions (STFs) [@Slater-42-33-32]. Despite the relative simplicity of their analytical expression, however, the fact that multi-centre integrals over STFs can be extremely problematic for polyatomic molecules has averted the use of STFs as a basis set.
$B$ functions are another class of ETFs, and their use for this particular purpose was proposed by Shavitt due to their remarkably simple Weierstrass transform [@Shavitt-63]. $B$ functions involve reduced Bessel functions and, in fact, they can be expressed as linear combinations of STFs [@Filter-Steinborn-18-1-78]. Compared to other ETFs, $B$ functions are much better adapted to the evaluation of multi-centre integrals [@Filter-Steinborn-18-1-78; @Filter-Steinborn-19-79-78; @Weniger-Steinborn-28-2026-83; @Weniger-1125-70-05]. This is in part due to their exceptionally straightforward Fourier transform [@Weniger-Steinborn-78-6121-83; @Niukkanen-25-941-84].
The Fourier transformation method introduced by Bonham *et al* in 1964 [@Bonham-Peacher-Cox-40-3083-64], generalized by Trivedi *et al* in 1983 [@Trivedi-Steinborn-27-670-83], and further generalized by Grotendorst *et al* in 1988 [@Grotendorst-Steinborn-38-3875-88], is one of the most successful approaches yet for the evaluation of multi-centre integrals. This particular method is especially suitable for a basis of $B$ functions. In particular, the Fourier transformation method allows for the development of an analytical expression for three-centre nuclear attraction integrals.
The challenge, however, is that these analytical expressions involve semi-infinite spherical Bessel integrals, which are highly oscillatory due to the presence of the spherical Bessel function $j_{\lambda}(vx)$. Approximating oscillatory integrals can be problematic, especially when the oscillatory part is a spherical Bessel function rather than a simple trigonometric function. Moreover, as $\lambda$ and $v$ become large, the zeros of the integrand become closer and the oscillations become stronger, thus further complicating the numerical evaluation of the integral. It is possible to rewrite such integrals as slowly convergent infinite series of integrals of alternating sign. It may then seem appropriate to apply series convergence acceleration techniques, such as Wynn’s Epsilon Method [@Wynn-10-91-56] or Levin’s $u$ transform [@Levin-B3-371-73]. In the case where $\lambda$ and $v$ are large, however, the excessive calculation times prevent this approach from rendering accurate results.
As shown in previous work by Safouhi [@Safouhi9], through a reformalized integration by parts with respect to $x \mathrm{d}x$, the semi-infinite spherical Bessel integral involved in the analytical expression of the three-centre nuclear attraction integrals can be transformed into an integral involving the simple sine function. This transformation, called the $S$ transformation, results in a sine integral that has equidistant zeros, thus making it much more numerically favorable than the initial spherical Bessel integral [@Safouhi9; @Safouhi18].
The $S$ transformation supplies remarkable theoretical and computational power in computing spherical Bessel integrals. It applies considerable pressure on the envelope of oscillatory integrals in the asymptotic limit. While this method is highly accurate and efficient, there are some ranges of parameters where either failure is inevitable or the computation becomes extremely heavy.
In this work, after utilizing the Fourier transformation method to obtain an analytical expression, followed by the $S$ transformation to simplify the integrand to a sine function, a double exponential transformation (or DE transformation) is applied. The DE transformations introduced by Ooura *et al* in 1991 [@Ooura-Mori-38-353-91] and refined by Ooura *et al* in 1999 [@Ooura-Mori-112-229-99], map the interval $(0,\infty)$ onto $(-\infty,\infty)$ and are such that the transformed integrand decays double exponentially at both infinities. The trapezoidal formula with an equal mesh size is then applied to the integral, and the resulting summation can be truncated at some moderate positive and negative values. The final result is a highly efficient quadrature formula in which relatively few function evaluations are required in order to obtain highly accurate approximations. Both the original and the refined DE transformations are applied to the spherical Bessel integral involved in the three-centre molecular integral, and their efficiency for this particular problem is compared in the discussion section. The numerical results illustrate the high accuracy of these algorithms applied to three-center nuclear attraction integrals over $B$ functions with a miscellany of different parameters.
General definitions and properties
==================================
The spherical Bessel function $j_\lambda(x)$ of order $\lambda \in \mathbb{N}_0$ is defined by [@Arfken-Weber-95; @Abramowitz-Stegun-65]: $$j_\lambda(x) = (-1)^\lambda x^\lambda \left(\frac{\mathrm{d}}{x \mathrm{d}x}\right)^\lambda j_0(x)
= (-1)^\lambda x^\lambda \left(\frac{\mathrm{d}}{x \mathrm{d}x}\right)^\lambda\left(\frac{\sin{x}}{x}\right).$$
The reduced Bessel function $\hat{k}_{n+\frac{1}{2}}(z)$ is defined by [@Shavitt-63; @Steinborn-Filter-38-273-75]: $$\hat{k}_{n+\frac{1}{2}}(z) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} z^{n+\frac{1}{2}} K_{n+\frac{1}{2}}(z)
= z^n \, e^{-z} \, \sum_{j=0}^{n} \frac{(n+j)!}{j! \,(n-j)!} \frac{1}{(2\,z)^{j}},$$ where $n \in \mathbb{N}$, and where $K_{n+\frac{1}{2}}(z)$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind [@Watson-44].
The $B$ functions are defined by [@Steinborn-Filter-38-273-75; @Filter-Steinborn-18-1-78]: $$\label{B_functions}
B_{n,l}^{m} (\zeta, \vec{r}) = \frac{(\zeta r)^l}{2^{n+l}(n+l)!} \hat{k}_{n-\frac{1}{2}}(\zeta r) Y_l^m (\theta_{\vec{r}}, \varphi_{\vec{r}}),$$ where $n, l, m$ are the quantum numbers and $Y_l^m (\theta, \varphi)$ denotes the surface spherical harmonic, which is defined using the Condon-Shortley phase convention [@Condon-Shortley-51]: $$Y_l^m (\theta, \varphi) = \textnormal{i}^{m+\abs{m}} \left[\frac{(2l+1)(l-\abs{m})!}{4\pi(l+\abs{m})!}\right] ^{1/2}
P_l^{\abs{m}} (\cos{\theta}) \textnormal{e}^{\textnormal{i}m\varphi},$$ where $P_l^{m}(x)$ is the associated Legendre polynomial of the $l$th degree and $m$th order.
The Fourier transform $\bar{B}_{n,l}^m(\zeta, \vec{p})$ of $B_{n,l}^{m} (\zeta, \vec{r})$ is given by [@Weniger-Steinborn-78-6121-83] $$%ARTICLE 4
\bar{B}_{n,l}^m = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \zeta^{2n+l-1} \frac{(-\textnormal{i} \abs{p})^l}{(\zeta^2 + \abs{p}^2)^{n+l+1}} Y_l^m (\theta_{\vec{p}}, \varphi_{\vec{p}}).$$
The Gaunt coefficients are defined by [@Gaunt-228-151-29; @Homeier-Steinborn-368-31-96; @Weniger-Steinborn-25-149-82; @Xu-139-137-98]: $$\left\langle l_1m_1 \vert l_2m_2 \vert l_3m_3 \right\rangle = \int_{\theta=0}^{\pi} \int_{\varphi=0}^{2\pi} \left[Y_{l_1}^{m_1} (\theta, \varphi)\right]^* Y_{l_2}^{m_2} (\theta, \varphi) Y_{l_3}^{m_3} (\theta, \varphi) \sin(\theta) \mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\varphi.$$
The Gaunt coefficients linearize the product of two spherical harmonics: $$\left[Y_{l_1}^{m_1} (\theta, \varphi)\right]^* Y_{l_2}^{m_2} (\theta, \varphi)=\sum_{l = l_{\min}, 2}^{l_1+l_2} \left\langle l_2,m_2 \vert l_1,m_1 \vert l, m_2-m_1 \right\rangle Y_{l}^{m_2-m_1} (\theta, \varphi),$$ where the subscript $l=l_{\min, 2}$ implies that the summation index $l$ runs in steps of 2 from $l_{\min}$ to $l_1+l_2$, and where the constant $l_{\min}$ is given by: $$\label{lmin}
l_{\min} =
\begin{cases}
\max(\abs{l_1-l_2}, \abs{m_2-m_1}), & l_1+l_2+\max(\abs{l_1-l_2}, \abs{m_2-m_1}) \textnormal{ even,}\\
\max(\abs{l_1-l_2}, \abs{m_2-m_1}) + 1, & l_1+l_2+\max(\abs{l_1-l_2}, \abs{m_2-m_1}) \textnormal{ odd.}\\
\end{cases}$$
The three-centre nuclear attraction integral over $B$ functions is given by: $${\cal I}_{n_1,l_1,m_1}^{n_2,l_2,m_2} =
\int
\left[B_{n_1,l_1}^{m_1} \left(\zeta_{1},\vec{R}-\vv{OA}\right)\right]^{*}
\frac{1}{|\vec{R} - \vv{OC}|}
B_{n_2,l_2}^{m_2} \left(\zeta_{2},\vec{R}-\vv{OB}\right) \mathrm{d}\vec{R},
\label{EQATTRSLATER0}$$ where $A$, $B$ and $C$ are three arbitrary points of the euclidian space ${\cal E}_3$, while $O$ is the origin of the fixed coordinate system. $n_1$ and $n_2$ stand for the principal quantum numbers.
After performing a translation of vector $\vv{OA}$, we can write the integral ${\cal I}_{n_1,l_1,m_1}^{n_2,l_2,m_2}$ as follows: $$\label{three-centre}
I_{n_1,l_1,m_1}^{n_2,l_2,m_2} (\zeta_1, \zeta_2, \vec{R}_1, \vec{R}_2)
= \int \left[B_{n_1,l_1}^{m_1}(\zeta_1, \vec{r})\right]^*
\frac{1}{\abs{\vec{r}-\vec{R}_1}}
B_{n_2,l_2}^{m_2}(\zeta_2, \vec{r} - \vec{R}_2)
\mathrm{d}\vec{r},$$ where $\vec{r}=\vv{R}-\vv{OA}$, $\vec{R}_1=\vv{AC}$ and $\vec{R}_2=\vv{AB}$.
Double exponential transformation for the computation of semi-infinite integrals
================================================================================
For more details on the DE transformations and their applications, we refer the readers to the work done by Ooura *et al* [@Ooura-Mori-38-353-91; @Ooura-Mori-112-229-99]. The double exponential (DE) transformations present a particularly efficient method for computing semi-infinite integrals of the form: $$\label{slowly_decaying_and_sin}
\int_{0}^{\infty} f_1(x)\sin(vx) \mathrm{d}x,$$ where $f_1(x)$ is a slowly decaying function and $v$ is a constant.
We will denote the semi-infinite integral we wish to evaluate by: $$I = \int_{0}^{\infty} f_0(x) \mathrm{d}x.$$
Suppose that $f_0$ is a function such that for some $\theta,\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ and for all $n \in \mathbb{N}, n \geq n_0$, where $n_0$ is some large natural number: $$f_0(\lambda n +\theta) = 0.$$
In other words, after some large $x$ value, $f_0(x)$ has infinite equidistant zeros occurring every $\lambda$, with a shift of $\theta$ with respect to the origin. Now provided that $f_0(x)$ is of the form of the integrand in , it can easily be determined that $\lambda = \pi \, v$ and $\theta = 0$.
Now let $\phi(t)$ be a function such that: $$\label{phi_condition_12}
\phi(t) \sim t \quad \textrm{~as} \quad t \rightarrow \infty \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad
\phi(t) \sim 0 \quad \textrm{~as} \quad t \rightarrow -\infty.$$
Let $M$ be a large positive constant. Applying the variable transformation $x = M\phi(t)$ to the integral $I$, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{introduce_M}
I & = & \int_{\phi^{-1}(0)}^{\phi^{-1}(\infty)} f_0( M\phi(t)) M \phi'(t) \mathrm{d}t \\
& = & M \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f_0(M\phi(t))\phi'(t) \mathrm{d}t.\end{aligned}$$
Now applying the trapezoidal rule with a mesh size of $h$ and a shift of $\dfrac{\theta}{M}$ with respect to the origin, we obtain the approximation: $$I \approx Mh \sum_{n = -\infty}^{\infty} f_0\left(M\phi\left(nh+\frac{\theta}{M}\right)\right)\phi'\left(nh+\frac{\theta}{M}\right).
\label{summation}$$
Let $M$ and $h$ be such that: $$\label{mh=lambda}
M h = \lambda,$$ and consider $f_0\left(M\phi\left(nh+\frac{\theta}{M}\right)\right)$ for large $n$: $$\begin{aligned}
f_0\left(M\phi\left(nh+\frac{\theta}{M}\right)\right) & \sim & f_0\left(M\left(nh+\frac{\theta}{M}\right)\right)
\nonumber\\ & = & f_0(Mnh + \theta)
\nonumber\\ & = & f_0(\lambda n + \theta)
\nonumber\\ & = & 0.
\label{zero_at_large_n}\end{aligned}$$
Given the equation , we can truncate the summation in at some positive $N_+\in\mathbb{Z}$. Furthermore, since by , $\phi(t)$ tends to zero as $t \rightarrow -\infty$, it follows that we can also truncate the summation in at some negative $N_-\in\mathbb{Z}$.
As a result, we obtain the approximation: $$\label{final_summation}
I \approx Mh \sum_{n = N_-}^{N_+} f_0\left(M\phi\left(nh+\frac{\theta}{M}\right)\right)\phi'\left(nh+\frac{\theta}{M}\right),$$ for some $N_-, N_+ \in \mathbb{Z}$.
A DE transformation
-------------------
One transformation that satisfies the conditions in is given by [@Ooura-Mori-38-353-91]: $$\label{phi_1}
\phi_1(t) = \frac{t}{1-\exp(-K \sinh{t})},$$where $K$ is some positive constant.
;
;
coordinates [(0,0.16666666666)]{}; ; (0,0) – (0,0.16666666666-.03);
Notice that $\phi_1(t)$ encounters a singularity when $t = 0$. By Taylor expansion, the behaviour of $\phi_1(t)$ about zero can be determined. More precisely: $$\phi_1(t) \sim
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
0 & \quad \textrm{as} \quad & t \rightarrow -\infty\\[0.15cm]
\dfrac{1}{K} & \quad \textrm{as} \quad & t \rightarrow 0\\[0.15cm]
t & \quad \textrm{as} \quad & t \rightarrow \infty.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Similarly, $\phi_1'(t)$ also encounters a singularity when $t = 0$. By the same method, it can be easily found that: $$\phi_1'(t) \sim
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
0 & \quad \textrm{as} \quad & t\rightarrow -\infty\\[0.15cm]
\dfrac{1}{2} & \quad \textrm{as} \quad & t\rightarrow 0\\[0.15cm]
1 & \quad \textrm{as} \quad & t\rightarrow \infty.
\end{array}
\right.$$
A more robust DE transformation
-------------------------------
A second transformation that satisfies the conditions in is given by [@Ooura-Mori-112-229-99]: $$\label{phi_2}
\phi_2(t) = \frac{t}{1-\exp(-2x-\alpha(1-\textnormal{e}^{-t})-\beta (\textnormal{e}^t - 1))}$$ where $\alpha, \beta$ are constants such that: $$\label{alpha-beta_conditions}
\beta = O(1), \quad \alpha = O((M \log{M})^{-1/2}) \quad \textrm{and} \quad 0 \leq \alpha \leq \beta \leq 1.$$
Some assignments that satisfy the constraints in are given by [@Ooura-Mori-112-229-99]: $$\label{alpha/beta_assignments}
\alpha = \frac{\beta}{\sqrt{1+M\log(1+M)/4\pi}} \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad \beta = \frac{1}{4}.$$
(-2,0.5) – (3, 0.5);
;
;
coordinates [(0 , 1/2.472266319066)]{};
; (0,0) – (0, 1/2.472266319066 -.04);
In a similar fashion to $\phi_1(t)$, $\phi_2(t)$ and $\phi_2'(t)$ both have singularities when $t = 0$. By Taylor expansion, it can be determined that: $$\phi_2(t) \sim
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
0 & \quad \textrm{as} \quad & t\rightarrow -\infty\\[0.15cm]
\dfrac{1}{2+\alpha+\beta} & \quad \textrm{as} \quad & t\rightarrow 0\\[0.15cm]
t & \quad \textrm{as} \quad & t\rightarrow \infty,\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ and that: $$\phi_2'(t) \sim
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
0 & \quad \textrm{as} \quad & t\rightarrow -\infty\\[0.15cm]
\dfrac{(\alpha+\beta+2)^2+(\alpha-\beta)}{2(\alpha+\beta+2)^2} & \quad \textrm{as} \quad & t\rightarrow 0\\[0.15cm]
1 & \quad \textrm{as} \quad & t\rightarrow \infty.\\
\end{array}
\right.$$
The three-centre nuclear attraction integrals
=============================================
Using the Fourier transform method, an analytical expression for three-centre nuclear attraction integrals over $B$ functions can be found [@Trivedi-Steinborn-27-670-83; @Grotendorst-Steinborn-38-3875-88]: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}_{n_1, l_1, m_1}^{n_2, l_2, m_2} & = & \frac{8(4\pi)^2(-1)^{l_1+l_2}(2l_1+1)!!(2l_2+1)!!(n_1+l_1+n_2+l_2+1)!\zeta_1^{2n_1+l_1-1}\zeta_2^{2n_2+l_2-1}}{(n_1+l_1)!(n_2+l_2)!} \nonumber\\
& \times & \sum_{l'_1 = 0}^{l_1} \sum_{m'_1 = -l'_1}^{l_1'} \textnormal{i}^{l_1+l'_1} (-1)^{l'_1} \frac{\left\langle l_1m_1 \vert l'_1m'_1 \vert l_1 - l'_1m_1 - m'_1\right\rangle }{(2l'_1+1)!![2(l_1-l'_1)+1]!!} \nonumber\\
& \times & \sum_{l'_2 = 0}^{l_2} \sum_{m'_2 = -l'_2}^{l_2'} \textnormal{i}^{l_2+l'_2} (-1)^{l'_2} \frac{\left\langle l_2m_2 \vert l'_2m'_2 \vert l_2 - l'_2m_2 - m'_2\right\rangle }{(2l'_2+1)!![2(l_2-l'_2)+1]!!} \nonumber\\
& \times & \sum_{l = l'_{\min}, 2}^{l'_2+l'_1} \left\langle l'_2 m'_2 \vert l'_1 m'_1 \vert l m'_2 - m'_1 \right\rangle R_2^l Y_l^{m'_2-m'_1}(\theta_{\vec{R}_2}, \varphi_{\vec{R}_2}) \nonumber\\
& \times & \sum_{\lambda = l''_{\min}, 2}^{l_2-l'_2+l_1-l'_1} (-\textnormal{i})^\lambda \left\langle l_2-l'_2m_2-m'_2 \vert l_1 - l'_1m_1 - m'_1 \vert \lambda\mu \right\rangle \nonumber\\
& \times & \sum_{j = 0}^{\Delta l} \binom{\Delta l}{j} \frac{(-1)^j}{2^{n_1+n_2+l_1+l_2-j+1}(n_1+n_2+l_1+l_2-j+1)!} \nonumber\\
& \times & \int_{s = 0}^{1} s^{n_2+l_2+l_1-l'_1}(1-s)^{n_1+l_1+l_2-l'_2} Y_\lambda^\mu(\theta_{\vec{v}}, \varphi_{\vec{v}})\nonumber\\
& \times & \left[ \int_{x = 0}^{+ \infty} x^{n_x} \frac{\hat{k}_\nu \left[R_2 \gamma(s, x)\right]}{\left[\gamma(s,x)\right]^{n_\gamma}} j_\lambda(vx) \mathrm{d}x\right] \mathrm{d}s,
\label{three-centre_analytical}\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $l_{\min}$ is defined in and: $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma(s, x) &=& \sqrt{(1-s)\zeta_1^2+s\zeta_2^2 + s(1-s)x^2} \\
\vec{v} &=& (1-s)\vec{R}_2 - \vec{R}_1, \quad v \,=\, \lVert \vec{v} \rVert \quad \textrm{and} \quad
R_2\,=\, \Vert \vec{R}_2 \rVert \\
n_x &=& l_1-l'_1+l_2-l'_2 \\
n_\gamma &=& 2(n_1+l_1+n_2+l_2) - (l'_1+l'_2) - l+1 \\
\nu &=& n_1+n_2+l_1+l_2-l-j+ \frac{1}{2} \\
\mu &=& (m_2-m'_2) - (m_1-m'_1) \\
\Delta l &=& \left[(l'_1+l'_2-l)/2\right].\end{aligned}$$
The semi-infinite integral in , which will from now on be referred to as $\mathcal{I}(s)$, is defined by: $$\label{I(s)}
\mathcal{I}(s) = \int_{0}^{+ \infty} x^{n_x} \frac{\hat{k}_\nu \left[R_2 \gamma(s, x)\right]}{\left[\gamma(s,x)\right]^{n_\gamma}} j_\lambda(vx) \mathrm{d}x.$$
The challenge of evaluating is mainly caused by the presence of the semi-infinite integral $\mathcal{I}(s)$ , whose integrand is highly oscillatory due to the presence of the spherical Bessel function. This is especially the case when $\lambda$ and $v$ are large. Notice also that when the value of $s$ is close to $0$ or $1$, the oscillation of the integrand become sharp. Indeed, if we make the substitution $s = 0$ or $s = 1$ in the integrand, the exponentially decaying part of the integrand: $$\frac{\hat{k}_\nu \left[R_2 \gamma(s, x)\right]}{\left[\gamma(s,x)\right]^{n_\gamma}},$$ becomes constant, and the integrand can be reduced to $x^{n_x}j_\lambda(vx)$. As a result, the oscillations of $j_\lambda(vx)$ cannot be restrained, and the evaluation of $\mathcal{I}(s)$ becomes most laborious. In Figure \[Integrand\_I(s)\], the highly oscillatory nature of the integrand can be observed.
coordinates [ ( 0.000, +0.0000) ( 0.143, +0.0054) ( 0.286, +0.0747) ( 0.429, +0.2972) ( 0.571, +0.6528) ( 0.714, +0.9367) ( 0.857, +0.8553) ( 1.000, +0.2543) ( 1.143, -0.6862) ( 1.286, -1.4668) ( 1.429, -1.5396) ( 1.571, -0.6884) ( 1.714, +0.7396) ( 1.857, +1.9501) ( 2.000, +2.1477) ( 2.143, +1.0594) ( 2.286, -0.8097) ( 2.429, -2.3954) ( 2.571, -2.6858) ( 2.714, -1.3702) ( 2.857, +0.8926) ( 3.000, +2.7962) ( 3.143, +3.1476) ( 3.286, +1.6195) ( 3.429, -0.9833) ( 3.571, -3.1444) ( 3.714, -3.5271) ( 3.857, -1.8067) ( 4.000, +1.0769) ( 4.143, +3.4333) ( 4.286, +3.8204) ( 4.429, +1.9333) ( 4.571, -1.1684) ( 4.714, -3.6584) ( 4.857, -4.0269) ( 5.000, -2.0027) ( 5.143, +1.2532) ( 5.286, +3.8177) ( 5.429, +4.1489) ( 5.571, +2.0200) ( 5.714, -1.3274) ( 5.857, -3.9116) ( 6.000, -4.1916) ( 6.143, -1.9917) ( 6.286, +1.3876) ( 6.429, +3.9428) ( 6.571, +4.1622) ( 6.714, +1.9249) ( 6.857, -1.4317) ( 7.000, -3.9161) ( 7.143, -4.0696) ( 7.286, -1.8274) ( 7.429, +1.4584) ( 7.571, +3.8375) ( 7.714, +3.9240) ( 7.857, +1.7068) ( 8.000, -1.4672) ( 8.143, -3.7143) ( 8.286, -3.7356) ( 8.429, -1.5703) ( 8.571, +1.4586) ( 8.714, +3.5541) ( 8.857, +3.5148) ( 9.000, +1.4244) ( 9.143, -1.4336) ( 9.286, -3.3649) ( 9.429, -3.2713) ( 9.571, -1.2749) ( 9.714, +1.3938) ( 9.857, +3.1545) (10.000, +3.0143) (10.143, +1.1266) (10.286, -1.3414) (10.429, -2.9302) (10.571, -2.7515) (10.714, -0.9834) (10.857, +1.2785) (11.000, +2.6984) (11.143, +2.4898) (11.286, +0.8481) (11.429, -1.2074) (11.571, -2.4651) (11.714, -2.2346) (11.857, -0.7228) (12.000, +1.1305) (12.143, +2.2350) (12.286, +1.9902) (12.429, +0.6087) (12.571, -1.0500) (12.714, -2.0121) (12.857, -1.7598) (13.000, -0.5065) (13.143, +0.9678) (13.286, +1.7994) (13.429, +1.5456) (13.571, +0.4162) (13.714, -0.8856) (13.857, -1.5992) (14.000, -1.3488) (14.143, -0.3376) (14.286, +0.8050) (14.429, +1.4129) (14.571, +1.1700) (14.714, +0.2700) (14.857, -0.7270) (15.000, -1.2415) (15.143, -1.0091) (15.286, -0.2127) (15.429, +0.6527) (15.571, +1.0852) (15.714, +0.8658) (15.857, +0.1646) (16.000, -0.5827) (16.143, -0.9440) (16.286, -0.7390) (16.429, -0.1248) (16.571, +0.5174) (16.714, +0.8174) (16.857, +0.6277) (17.000, +0.0923) (17.143, -0.4572) (17.286, -0.7048) (17.429, -0.5308) (17.571, -0.0660) (17.714, +0.4020) (17.857, +0.6052) (18.000, +0.4469) (18.143, +0.0451) (18.286, -0.3520) (18.429, -0.5176) (18.571, -0.3747) (18.714, -0.0287) (18.857, +0.3069) (19.000, +0.4412) (19.143, +0.3130) (19.286, +0.0161) (19.429, -0.2665) (19.571, -0.3747) (19.714, -0.2604) (19.857, -0.0066) (20.000, +0.2306) (20.143, +0.3172) (20.286, +0.2159) (20.429, -0.0004) (20.571, -0.1989) (20.714, -0.2678) (20.857, -0.1784) (21.000, +0.0054) (21.143, +0.1709) (21.286, +0.2254) (21.429, +0.1469) (21.571, -0.0088) (21.714, -0.1464) (21.857, -0.1891) (22.000, -0.1205) (22.143, +0.0109) (22.286, +0.1251) (22.429, +0.1583) (22.571, +0.0986) (22.714, -0.0121) (22.857, -0.1065) (23.000, -0.1322) (23.143, -0.0805) (23.286, +0.0127) (23.429, +0.0905) (23.571, +0.1102) (23.714, +0.0654) (23.857, -0.0126) (24.000, -0.0767) (24.143, -0.0916) (24.286, -0.0531) (24.429, +0.0123) (24.571, +0.0649) (24.714, +0.0760) (24.857, +0.0429) (25.000, -0.0116) (25.143, -0.0547) (25.286, -0.0629) (25.429, -0.0346) (25.571, +0.0108) (25.714, +0.0461) (25.857, +0.0520) (26.000, +0.0278) (26.143, -0.0100) (26.286, -0.0387) (26.429, -0.0429) (26.571, -0.0223) (26.714, +0.0091) (26.857, +0.0325) (27.000, +0.0353) (27.143, +0.0178) (27.286, -0.0082) (27.429, -0.0272) (27.571, -0.0290) (27.714, -0.0142) (27.857, +0.0073) (28.000, +0.0227) (28.143, +0.0238) (28.286, +0.0113) (28.429, -0.0065) (28.571, -0.0189) (28.714, -0.0195) (28.857, -0.0090) (29.000, +0.0057) (29.143, +0.0158) (29.286, +0.0160) (29.429, +0.0071) (29.571, -0.0050) (29.714, -0.0131) (29.857, -0.0130) (30.000, -0.0056) (30.143, +0.0044) (30.286, +0.0109) (30.429, +0.0106) (30.571, +0.0044) (30.714, -0.0038) (30.857, -0.0090) (31.000, -0.0087) (31.143, -0.0034) (31.286, +0.0033) (31.429, +0.0075) (31.571, +0.0071) (31.714, +0.0027) (31.857, -0.0028) (32.000, -0.0062) (32.143, -0.0057) (32.286, -0.0021) (32.429, +0.0024) (32.571, +0.0051) (32.714, +0.0047) (32.857, +0.0016) (33.000, -0.0021) ]{};
Application of the $S$ transformation
-------------------------------------
We shall now reiterate a theorem which is stated and proven by Safouhi [@Safouhi9].
[@Safouhi9] \[S-traformation\_theorem\] Suppose that $f(x)$ is a function integrable on [\[0, $\infty$\[]{.nodecor} and of the form: $$f(x) = g(x)j_\lambda(x),$$ where $g(x) \in C^2$ [(\[0, $\infty$\[)]{.nodecor}, which is the set of all twice continuously differentiable functions defined on the interval [\[0, $\infty$\[]{.nodecor}. Now if $g(x)$ is such that $\left(\frac{d}{xdx}\right)^l (x^{\lambda-1}g(x))$ for $l=0, 1, 2, \ldots, \lambda$ are definied and: $$\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 0} x^{l-\lambda+1} \left(\frac{d}{xdx}\right)
\left(x^{\lambda-1} g(x)\right)
j_{\lambda-l-1}(x) & = & 0\nonumber\\
\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow \infty} x^{l-\lambda+1} \left(\frac{d}{xdx}\right)
\left(x^{\lambda-1} g(x)\right)
j_{\lambda-l-1}(x) & = & 0,
\end{aligned}$$ holds true for all $l=0, 1, 2, \ldots, \lambda-1$, then: $$\int_{0}^{\infty} f(x) \mathrm{d}x = \int_{0}^{\infty}
\left[\left(\frac{d}{xdx}\right)^\lambda (x^{\lambda-1}g(x))\right] \sin(x) \mathrm{d}x.$$
In short, this transformation, called the $S$ transformation, can simplify spherical Bessel integrals into integrals involving the sine function. As such, the integral $\mathcal{I}(s)$ can be rewritten as: $$\label{simplification_tilde_I}
\mathcal{I}(s) = \frac{1}{v^{\lambda+1}} \int_{0}^{+ \infty} \left[\left( \frac{d}{xdx}\right) ^\lambda \left( x^{n_x+\lambda-1} \frac{\hat{k}_\nu \left[R_2 \gamma(s, x)\right]}{\left[\gamma(s,x)\right]^{n_\gamma}}\right)\right] \sin(vx)dx.$$
coordinates [ (0.000, +1.09507) (0.100, +1.03928) (0.200, +0.88226) (0.300, +0.65272) (0.400, +0.39139) (0.500, +0.14209) (0.568, +0.00000) (0.600, -0.05738) (0.700, -0.18271) (0.800, -0.22693) (0.808, -0.22716) (0.900, -0.20015) (1.000, -0.12540) (1.100, -0.03193) (1.135, +0.00000) (1.200, +0.05222) (1.300, +0.10665) (1.389, +0.12228) (1.400, +0.12206) (1.500, +0.10100) (1.600, +0.05528) (1.700, +0.00144) (1.703, +0.00000) (1.800, -0.04438) (1.900, -0.07068) (1.960, -0.07498) (2.000, -0.07314) (2.100, -0.05466) (2.200, -0.02362) (2.270, +0.00000) (2.300, +0.00936) (2.400, +0.03465) (2.500, +0.04627) (2.526, +0.04680) (2.600, +0.04303) (2.700, +0.02816) (2.800, +0.00776) (2.838, +0.00000) (2.900, -0.01144) (3.000, -0.02413) (3.089, -0.02782) (3.100, -0.02777) (3.200, -0.02290) (3.300, -0.01249) (3.400, -0.00062) (3.406, +0.00000) (3.500, +0.00894) (3.600, +0.01385) (3.645, +0.01435) (3.700, +0.01365) (3.800, +0.00959) (3.900, +0.00389) (3.973, +0.00000) (4.000, -0.00121) (4.100, -0.00420) (4.171, -0.00480) (4.200, -0.00471) (4.300, -0.00339) (4.400, -0.00148) (4.500, -0.00018) (4.541, +0.00000) (4.553, +0.00001) (4.565, +0.00000) (4.600, -0.00014) (4.700, -0.00122) (4.800, -0.00264) (4.900, -0.00337) (4.905, -0.00340) (5.000, -0.00262) (5.100, -0.00025) (5.108, +0.00000) (5.200, +0.00309) (5.300, +0.00623) (5.400, +0.00785) (5.420, +0.00790) (5.500, +0.00705) (5.600, +0.00373) (5.676, +0.00000) (5.700, -0.00129) (5.800, -0.00650) (5.900, -0.01014) (5.972, -0.01100) (6.000, -0.01088) (6.100, -0.00824) (6.200, -0.00284) (6.243, +0.00000) (6.300, +0.00376) (6.400, +0.00953) (6.500, +0.01260) (6.533, +0.01280) (6.600, +0.01192) (6.700, +0.00758) (6.800, +0.00081) (6.811, +0.00000) (6.900, -0.00634) (7.000, -0.01169) (7.096, -0.01360) (7.100, -0.01357) (7.200, -0.01138) (7.300, -0.00575) (7.379, +0.00000) (7.400, +0.00161) (7.500, +0.00847) (7.600, +0.01277) (7.661, +0.01350) (7.700, +0.01321) (7.800, +0.00972) (7.900, +0.00337) (7.946, +0.00000) (8.000, -0.00388) (8.100, -0.00984) (8.200, -0.01277) (8.226, -0.01290) (8.300, -0.01185) (8.400, -0.00744) (8.500, -0.00095) (8.514, +0.00000) (8.600, +0.00563) (8.700, +0.01035) (8.792, +0.01190) (8.800, +0.01187) (8.900, +0.00984) (9.000, +0.00498) (9.081, +0.00000) (9.100, -0.00115) (9.200, -0.00671) (9.300, -0.01006) (9.358, -0.01060) (9.400, -0.01032) (9.500, -0.00754) (9.600, -0.00269) (9.649, +0.00000) (9.700, +0.00273) (9.800, +0.00707) (9.900, +0.00913) (9.924, +0.00922) (10.000,+0.00842) (10.100,+0.00528) (10.200,+0.00078) (10.217,+0.00000) (10.300,-0.00369) (10.400,-0.00683) (10.490,-0.00780) (10.500,-0.00778) (10.600,-0.00642) (10.700,-0.00328) (10.784,+0.00000) (10.800,+0.00062) (10.900,+0.00407) (11.000,+0.00611) (11.056,+0.00643) (11.100,+0.00624) (11.200,+0.00455) (11.300,+0.00166) (11.352,+0.00000) (11.400,-0.00149) (11.500,-0.00397) (11.600,-0.00511) (11.622,-0.00515) (11.700,-0.00468) (11.800,-0.00294) (11.900,-0.00049) (11.919,+0.00000) (12.000,+0.00189) (12.100,+0.00352) (12.188,+0.00400) (12.200,+0.00399) (12.300,+0.00327) (12.400,+0.00167) (12.487,+0.00000) (12.500,-0.00025) (12.600,-0.00191) (12.700,-0.00286) (12.753,-0.00299) (12.800,-0.00289) (12.900,-0.00209) (13.000,-0.00078) (13.054,+0.00000) (13.317,+0.00214) (13.622,+0.00000) (13.880,-0.00142) (14.190,+0.00000) (14.439,+0.00085) (14.757,+0.00000) (14.985,-0.00039) (15.325,+0.00000) (15.464,+0.00007) (15.648,+0.00000) (15.777,-0.00004) (15.892,+0.00000) (16.223,+0.00025) (16.460,+0.00000) (16.764,-0.00043) (17.028,+0.00000) (17.321,+0.00055) (17.595,+0.00000) (17.884,-0.00062) (18.163,+0.00000) (18.448,+0.00065) (18.730,+0.00000) ]{};
Now, let the part of the integrand not involving the sine function be referred to as $f(x)$, i.e. let: $$\label{define_f(x)}
f(x) = \left( \frac{d}{xdx}\right) ^\lambda \left( x^{n_x+\lambda-1} \frac{\hat{k}_\nu \left[R_2 \gamma(s, x)\right]}{\left[\gamma(s,x)\right]^{n_\gamma}}\right).$$ Notice that $f(x)$ is a decaying function and is therefore of the same form as the function $f_1(x)$, which was introduced in . The integrand of $\mathcal{I}(s)$ is hence a suitable candidate for a DE variable transformation, such as $\phi_1(t)$ or $\phi_2(t)$ .
Applying the DE transformation $\phi(t)$ to the equation for $\mathcal{I}(s)$ in , we obtain the approximation: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}(s) & = & \frac{1}{v^{\lambda+1}} \int_{x = 0}^{+ \infty} f(x) \sin(vx)dx \nonumber\\
& \approx & \frac{Mh}{v^{\lambda+1}} \sum_{n = N_-}^{N_+} f\left(M\phi\left(nh+\frac{\theta}{M}\right)\right)\phi'\left(nh+\frac{\theta}{M}\right) \nonumber\\
& = & \mathcal{I}_M(s).
\label{approximation}\end{aligned}$$
Numerical results and discussion
================================
Table \[table:with\_phi12\] lists values for $\mathcal{I}(s)$ obtained using the the approximation with the transformations $\phi_1(t)$ and $\phi_2(t)$ . In this first table, we restrict the variable assignments to values that can be handled by a MATLAB built-in numerical integration function that uses global adaptive quadrature set to an accuracy of $15$ correct digits. In Table \[table:using\_phi12\], we restrict the variable assignments to values that cannot be handled by the MATLAB integration function. For more problematic variable assignments, particularly when $\lambda$ and/or $v$ are large, the MATLAB automatic integrator fails to provide results to the same accuracy efficiently. We therefore opted to use the same algorithm in Python which, with the help of the symbolic computation package SymPy, was able to complete the approximations significantly faster. The relative errors corresponding to the approximations using each transformation are listed in Table \[table:using\_phi12\] as $\varepsilon_M^{\phi_1}$ and $\varepsilon_M^{\phi_2}$, respectively.
As shown by Ooura *et al* [@Ooura-Mori-38-353-91; @Ooura-Mori-112-229-99], the relative error for the approximation $\mathcal{I}_M(s)$ using a DE transformation can be written: $$\label{error}
\varepsilon_M \approx \exp\left(-\frac{c}{h}\right),$$ where $c$ is a constant. Ooura *et al* argue that we can assume that the relative error is approximately given by [@Ooura-Mori-112-229-99]: $$\varepsilon_M \, \approx \, \exp\left(\frac{-A}{h}\right) \,=\, \exp\left(\frac{-AM}{v \, \pi}\right),$$ where $A$ is a constant. For the transformation $\phi_1(t)$ , we use $A = 2$, and for the transformation $\phi_2(t)$ , we use $A = 5$.
Effect of collocation points
----------------------------
For the variable assignments used in Figure \[collocation\_points\_phi1\] for the transformation $\phi_1(t)$ , in our present integrator, an optimal value for $M$ was found to be $M \approx 54.25338$. Over the course of our calculations for Figure \[collocation\_points\_phi1\], therefore, we assigned said value to $M$ in order to preserve the behaviour of the approximation that was conducted by the integrator.
In our integrator, we first took the summation in over positive $n$ values, until the addition of higher terms stopped significantly contributing to the overall approximation. Similarly, we then took the summation over negative $n$ values, again truncating the summation once the contributions of each term became less significant than the predetermined error tolerance. Using this method, for the variable assignments in Figure \[collocation\_points\_phi1\] and while using transformation $\phi_1(t)$, the summation in was truncated at -96 and at 41.
In particular, it is worth noting that the number of collocation points needed to approximate the portion of the integral below zero is often higher than the number of collocation points needed to approximate the portion of the integral above zero. This is due to the asymmetry of the transformed integrand which is represented by the summation in , that is to say of the integrand of $\mathcal{I}(s) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f\left(M\phi(t)\right) \cdot M\phi'(t) \mathrm{d} t$. This asymmetric behavior can be observed in Figure \[Transformed\_Integrand\].
coordinates [ (-6.000000, 0.000000) (-5.979967, 0.000000) (-5.959933, 0.000000) (-5.939900, 0.000000) (-5.919866, 0.000000) (-4.898164, 0.000000) (-4.878130, 0.000000) (-4.858097, 0.000000) (-4.838063, 0.000001) (-4.818030, 0.000001) (-4.797997, 0.000001) (-4.777963, 0.000001) (-4.757930, 0.000002) (-4.737896, 0.000002) (-4.717863, 0.000002) (-4.697830, 0.000003) (-4.677796, 0.000004) (-4.657763, 0.000005) (-4.637730, 0.000006) (-4.617696, 0.000008) (-4.597663, 0.000010) (-4.577629, 0.000012) (-4.557596, 0.000015) (-4.537563, 0.000018) (-4.517529, 0.000022) (-4.497496, 0.000027) (-4.477462, 0.000033) (-4.457429, 0.000040) (-4.437396, 0.000048) (-4.417362, 0.000058) (-4.397329, 0.000070) (-4.377295, 0.000084) (-4.357262, 0.000100) (-4.337229, 0.000118) (-4.317195, 0.000140) (-4.297162, 0.000165) (-4.277129, 0.000195) (-4.257095, 0.000229) (-4.237062, 0.000268) (-4.217028, 0.000313) (-4.196995, 0.000364) (-4.176962, 0.000423) (-4.156928, 0.000490) (-4.136895, 0.000567) (-4.116861, 0.000653) (-4.096828, 0.000751) (-4.076795, 0.000862) (-4.056761, 0.000987) (-4.036728, 0.001128) (-4.016694, 0.001286) (-3.996661, 0.001462) (-3.976628, 0.001660) (-3.956594, 0.001880) (-3.936561, 0.002125) (-3.916528, 0.002397) (-3.896494, 0.002699) (-3.876461, 0.003033) (-3.856427, 0.003402) (-3.836394, 0.003809) (-3.816361, 0.004257) (-3.796327, 0.004749) (-3.776294, 0.005289) (-3.756260, 0.005880) (-3.736227, 0.006527) (-3.716194, 0.007234) (-3.696160, 0.008004) (-3.676127, 0.008843) (-3.656093, 0.009754) (-3.636060, 0.010744) (-3.616027, 0.011816) (-3.595993, 0.012978) (-3.575960, 0.014233) (-3.555927, 0.015589) (-3.535893, 0.017051) (-3.515860, 0.018625) (-3.495826, 0.020319) (-3.475793, 0.022139) (-3.455760, 0.024092) (-3.435726, 0.026186) (-3.415693, 0.028428) (-3.395659, 0.030827) (-3.375626, 0.033390) (-3.355593, 0.036126) (-3.335559, 0.039043) (-3.315526, 0.042151) (-3.295492, 0.045459) (-3.275459, 0.048977) (-3.255426, 0.052713) (-3.235392, 0.056679) (-3.215359, 0.060885) (-3.195326, 0.065340) (-3.175292, 0.070057) (-3.155259, 0.075047) (-3.135225, 0.080319) (-3.115192, 0.085888) (-3.095159, 0.091763) (-3.075125, 0.097958) (-3.055092, 0.104484) (-3.035058, 0.111355) (-3.015025, 0.118583) (-2.994992, 0.126181) (-2.974958, 0.134162) (-2.954925, 0.142540) (-2.934891, 0.151327) (-2.914858, 0.160537) (-2.894825, 0.170184) (-2.874791, 0.180281) (-2.854758, 0.190840) (-2.834725, 0.201876) (-2.814691, 0.213402) (-2.794658, 0.225429) (-2.774624, 0.237970) (-2.754591, 0.251036) (-2.734558, 0.264639) (-2.714524, 0.278788) (-2.694491, 0.293494) (-2.674457, 0.308763) (-2.654424, 0.324602) (-2.634391, 0.341016) (-2.614357, 0.358008) (-2.594324, 0.375579) (-2.574290, 0.393727) (-2.554257, 0.412447) (-2.534224, 0.431731) (-2.514190, 0.451566) (-2.494157, 0.471937) (-2.474124, 0.492822) (-2.454090, 0.514194) (-2.434057, 0.536019) (-2.414023, 0.558257) (-2.393990, 0.580860) (-2.373957, 0.603770) (-2.353923, 0.626921) (-2.333890, 0.650234) (-2.313856, 0.673621) (-2.293823, 0.696979) (-2.273790, 0.720192) (-2.253756, 0.743127) (-2.233723, 0.765637) (-2.213689, 0.787555) (-2.193656, 0.808696) (-2.173623, 0.828855) (-2.153589, 0.847807) (-2.133556, 0.865303) (-2.113523, 0.881072) (-2.093489, 0.894823) (-2.073456, 0.906239) (-2.053422, 0.914983) (-2.033389, 0.920695) (-2.013356, 0.922998) (-1.993322, 0.921498) (-1.973289, 0.915789) (-1.953255, 0.905457) (-1.933222, 0.890085) (-1.913189, 0.869265) (-1.893155, 0.842605) (-1.873122, 0.809738) (-1.853088, 0.770339) (-1.833055, 0.724141) (-1.813022, 0.670947) (-1.792988, 0.610655) (-1.772955, 0.543277) (-1.752922, 0.468963) (-1.732888, 0.388023) (-1.712855, 0.300954) (-1.692821, 0.208462) (-1.672788, 0.111485) (-1.652755, 0.011213) (-1.632721, -0.090902) (-1.612688, -0.193133) (-1.592654, -0.293486) (-1.572621, -0.389713) (-1.552588, -0.479342) (-1.532554, -0.559723) (-1.512521, -0.628103) (-1.492487, -0.681707) (-1.472454, -0.717860) (-1.452421, -0.734118) (-1.432387, -0.728433) (-1.412354, -0.699322) (-1.392321, -0.646060) (-1.372287, -0.568858) (-1.352254, -0.469044) (-1.332220, -0.349197) (-1.312187, -0.213244) (-1.292154, -0.066474) (-1.272120, 0.084536) (-1.252087, 0.232119) (-1.232053, 0.367838) (-1.212020, 0.482962) (-1.191987, 0.569059) (-1.171953, 0.618722) (-1.151920, 0.626355) (-1.131886, 0.588969) (-1.111853, 0.506910) (-1.091820, 0.384387) (-1.071786, 0.229724) (-1.051753, 0.055185) (-1.031720, -0.123686) (-1.011686, -0.289270) (-0.991653, -0.423599) (-0.971619, -0.510489) (-0.951586, -0.537872) (-0.931553, -0.500019) (-0.911519, -0.399266) (-0.891486, -0.246836) (-0.871452, -0.062395) (-0.851419, 0.127893) (-0.831386, 0.294810) (-0.811352, 0.410707) (-0.791319, 0.454673) (-0.771285, 0.417286) (-0.751252, 0.303844) (-0.731219, 0.135005) (-0.711185, -0.055846) (-0.691152, -0.228579) (-0.671119, -0.344838) (-0.651085, -0.377417) (-0.631052, -0.318133) (-0.611018, -0.181747) (-0.590985, -0.004045) (-0.570952, 0.166393) (-0.550918, 0.281304) (-0.530885, 0.307388) (-0.510851, 0.237876) (-0.490818, 0.096578) (-0.470785, -0.068212) (-0.450751, -0.199208) (-0.430718, -0.250499) (-0.410684, -0.205472) (-0.390651, -0.084676) (-0.370618, 0.060926) (-0.350584, 0.170183) (-0.330551, 0.197940) (-0.310518, 0.135759) (-0.290484, 0.016700) (-0.270451, -0.099729) (-0.250417, -0.156642) (-0.230384, -0.128877) (-0.210351, -0.036434) (-0.190317, 0.066389) (-0.170284, 0.121600) (-0.150250, 0.101080) (-0.130217, 0.022939) (-0.110184, -0.060426) (-0.090150, -0.096204) (-0.070117, -0.065499) (-0.050083, 0.005110) (-0.030050, 0.063474) (-0.010017, 0.069741) ( 0.010017, 0.024720) ( 0.030050, -0.032727) ( 0.050083, -0.057437) ( 0.070117, -0.033741) ( 0.090150, 0.013753) ( 0.110184, 0.043122) ( 0.130217, 0.031782) ( 0.150250, -0.005395) ( 0.170284, -0.032195) ( 0.190317, -0.025671) ( 0.210351, 0.003688) ( 0.230384, 0.024915) ( 0.250417, 0.018539) ( 0.270451, -0.005216) ( 0.290484, -0.019775) ( 0.310518, -0.011417) ( 0.330551, 0.007613) ( 0.350584, 0.015178) ( 0.370618, 0.004720) ( 0.390651, -0.009215) ( 0.410684, -0.010143) ( 0.430718, 0.000929) ( 0.450751, 0.008905) ( 0.470785, 0.004657) ( 0.490818, -0.004549) ( 0.510851, -0.006352) ( 0.530885, 0.000278) ( 0.550918, 0.005301) ( 0.570952, 0.002388) ( 0.590985, -0.003166) ( 0.611018, -0.003347) ( 0.631052, 0.001129) ( 0.651085, 0.003150) ( 0.671119, 0.000295) ( 0.691152, -0.002423) ( 0.711185, -0.001056) ( 0.731219, 0.001605) ( 0.751252, 0.001319) ( 0.771285, -0.000918) ( 0.791319, -0.001285) ( 0.811352, 0.000430) ( 0.831386, 0.001114) ( 0.851419, -0.000126) ( 0.871452, -0.000906) ( 0.891486, -0.000041) ( 0.911519, 0.000712) ( 0.931553, 0.000116) ( 0.951586, -0.000552) ( 0.971619, -0.000136) ( 0.991653, 0.000427) ( 1.011686, 0.000127) ( 1.031720, -0.000333) ( 1.051753, -0.000103) ( 1.071786, 0.000263) ( 1.091820, 0.000075) ( 1.111853, -0.000209) ( 1.131886, -0.000048) ( 1.151920, 0.000168) ( 1.171953, 0.000023) ( 1.191987, -0.000134) ( 1.212020, -0.000003) ( 1.232053, 0.000105) ( 1.252087, -0.000013) ( 1.272120, -0.000080) ( 1.292154, 0.000024) ( 1.312187, 0.000059) ( 1.332220, -0.000030) ( 1.352254, -0.000040) ( 1.372287, 0.000032) ( 1.392321, 0.000024) ( 1.412354, -0.000031) ( 1.432387, -0.000011) ( 1.452421, 0.000027) ( 1.472454, 0.000001) ( 1.492487, -0.000021) ( 1.512521, 0.000006) ( 1.532554, 0.000015) ( 1.552588, -0.000009) ( 1.572621, -0.000009) ( 1.592654, 0.000010) ( 1.612688, 0.000003) ( 1.632721, -0.000009) ( 1.652755, 0.000001) ( 1.672788, 0.000007) ( 1.692821, -0.000003) ( 1.712855, -0.000004) ( 1.732888, 0.000004) ( 1.752922, 0.000002) ( 1.772955, -0.000004) ( 1.792988, 0.000000) ( 1.813022, 0.000003) ( 1.833055, -0.000001) ( 1.853088, -0.000002) ( 1.873122, 0.000002) ( 1.893155, 0.000000) ( 1.913189, -0.000002) ( 1.933222, 0.000000) ( 1.953255, 0.000001) ( 1.973289, -0.000001) ( 1.993322, -0.000001) ( 2.013356, 0.000001) ( 2.033389, -0.000000) ( 2.053422, -0.000001) ( 2.073456, 0.000000) ( 2.093489, 0.000000) ( 5.919866, -0.000000) ( 5.939900, -0.000000) ( 5.959933, 0.000000) ( 5.979967, 0.000000) ( 6.000000, -0.000000) ]{};
Now in order see a pattern in our data regarding the effect of the collocation points on the accuracy of the approximation, for our first point on the graph, a moderate number of median collocation points was taken in order to ensure sufficient proximity to the exact result. More precisely, for the first point on the graph in Figure \[collocation\_points\_phi1\], we took the summation in over 70 collocation points, with a lower bound of -62 and an upper bound of 7. From then on, the upper and lower bounds of the summation were each extended by one. We proceeded to extend the bounds of the summation in this manner – increasing the number of collocation points by two at a time until we reached 138 collocation points, which was the necessary amount of collocation points originally determined by our integrator (see Table \[table:with\_phi12\]).
For the variable assignments used $\phi_2(t)$ , our present integrator found $M \approx 21.70135 $ to be an optimal value for $M$; we therefore assigned said value to $M$ to collect our data points. Furthermore, while using transformation $\phi_2(t)$ and the variable assignments in Figure \[collocation\_points\_phi1\] to approximate $\mathcal{I}(s)$, our present integrator truncated the summation in at -63 and at 33. In a similar way as was done for transformation $\phi_1(t)$, for our first point of data, we took the summation over 45 collocation points, with a lower bound of -37 and an upper bound of 7. From then on, the upper and lower bounds of the summation were each extended by one until we reached a total of 97 collocation points, which was the number of collocation points evaluated by our integrator.
Notice that the graphs in Figure \[collocation\_points\_phi1\] both rapidly decrease and approach zero as the number of collocation points increase. Whether our integrator uses transformation $\phi_1(t)$ or transformation $\phi_2(t)$ , the behaviour of the absolute error for the approximation of $\mathcal{I}(s)$ based on the number of collocation points is strikingly similar. In fact, after a certain number of collocation points, both graphs follow a pattern of double exponential decay.
With the particular variable assignments used in Figure \[collocation\_points\_phi1\], it is clear that using transformation $\phi_2(t)$ , less collocation points are needed for the absolute error to converge to zero. This is representative of all possible variable assignments for the evaluation of $\mathcal{I}(s)$; with the variable assignments we selected, there are always more collocation points evaluated when using transformation $\phi_1(t)$ (see Table \[table:with\_phi12\] ).
That being said however, the parameter $M$ is perhaps just as significant in determining the efficiency of our integrator. The consequences of $M$ on our integrator’s efficiency will be addressed in the following subsection.
coordinates [ ( 70 , 9.0536631055156000 ) ( 72 , 6.7534468717278000 ) ( 74 , 4.3834695556151000 ) ( 76 , 2.6067419485517000 ) ( 78 , 1.4594331718510000 ) ( 80 , 0.7813259587446000 ) ( 82 , 0.4036299741182000 ) ( 84 , 0.2022535532329000 ) ( 86 , 0.0985796446472000 ) ( 88 , 0.0467965523463000 ) ( 90 , 0.0216423238195000 ) ( 92 , 0.0097475071905000 ) ( 94 , 0.0042717829315000 ) ( 96 , 0.0018193468960000 ) ( 98 , 0.0007518764540000 ) ( 100 , 0.0003009694622000 ) ( 102 , 0.0001164571307000 ) ( 104 , 0.0000434617228000 ) ( 106 , 0.0000156061203000 ) ( 108 , 0.0000053777356000 ) ( 110 , 0.0000017733258000 ) ( 112 , 0.0000005579431000 ) ( 114 , 0.0000001668497000 ) ( 116 , 0.0000000473684000 ) ( 118 , 0.0000000128455000 ) ( 120 , 0.0000000033455000 ) ( 122 , 0.0000000010591000 ) ( 124 , 0.0000000000533000 ) ( 126 , 0.0000000003047000 ) ( 128 , 0.0000000004656000 ) ( 130 , 0.0000000008434000 ) ( 132 , 0.0000000005251000 ) ( 134 , 0.0000000003654000 ) ( 136 , 0.0000000003654000 ) ( 138 , 0.0000000003654000 ) ]{}; ;
coordinates [ (45 , 9.1299410861758) (47 , 6.5887323478478) (49 , 4.1089337309503) (51 , 2.3289067750621) (53 , 1.2306408562994) (55 , 0.6142337344385) (57 , 0.2912613390752) (59 , 0.1313711904183) (61 , 0.0562518282602) (63 , 0.0227676830275) (65 , 0.0086559227693) (67 , 0.0030660276641) (69 , 0.0010016713957) (71 , 0.0002981777609) (73 , 0.0000797112179) (75 , 0.0000188132527) (77 , 0.0000038409399) (79 , 0.0000006642113) (81 , 0.0000000930942) (83 , 0.0000000116265) (85 , 0.0000000002727) (87 , 0.0000000000000) (97 , 0.0000000000000) ]{}; ;
Effect of $M$
-------------
In Figure \[figure:M\_error\], it can easily be seen that the absolute error converges to zero much more quickly using $\phi_2(t)$ . In other words, for a given set of variable assignments, a smaller mesh size is required using transformation $\phi_1(t)$ to obtain results that are as accurate as the results using $\phi_2(t)$ .
The challenge is to find a value for $M$ that is large enough such that the error converges to zero, yet small enough so as to not make $h$, the mesh size, prohibitively small. Clearly, given , as $M$ increases in size, $h$ decreases. For this reason, it would be counterproductive to let $M$ be excessively large, as quite a number of collocation points in the summation would be needed to compensate for the unnecessarily small mesh size. Yet if $M$ is too small, as shown in Figure \[figure:M\_error\], the error of the approximation will not approach zero. This is what is meant by finding an “optimal value” for $M$.
Our present integrator finds an optimal value for $M$ by first letting $M$ be a relatively small positive constant, say $M_1$, based on the relative error tolerance input by the user and according to the following formula [@Ooura-Mori-112-229-99]: $$M_1 \,=\, \frac{-\pi}{A} \, \log\left(\sqrt{\varepsilon_0}\right),$$ and $\varepsilon_0$ denotes the relative error tolerance. For the transformation $\phi_1(t)$ , we use $A = 2$, and for the transformation $\phi_2(t)$ , we use $A = 5$. For details regarding the selection of each subsequent $M_i$, we direct the reader to the algorithm in [@Ooura-Mori-112-229-99].
The integrator then calculates $\mathcal{I}_{M_1}(s)$ using equation , with the value of $M_1$ assigned to $M$. The result is not a viable approximation in the sense that it is quite far away from the desired result due to the fact that the value assigned to $M$ is too small to expect the error to converge to zero. Rather, $\mathcal{I}_{M_1}(s)$ serves as a value to which a second, more accurate approximation can be compared for the purpose of determining a relative error.
For the second evaluation of , we assign a larger and more suitable value to $M$, say $M_2$. The ensuing approximation, $\mathcal{I}_{M_2}(s)$, often times meets the user’s relative error tolerance requirements, at which point the integrator outputs the value of $\mathcal{I}_{M_2}(s)$ as its final result. Otherwise, the process must be repeated with another value assigned to $M$, until a result of sufficient accuracy is found. This could take up to a maximum of four different assignments to $M$, each of which is larger than the previous.
coordinates [ (10.0000 , 13.900000000000000) (10.1667 , 11.956722253380000) (10.3333 , 10.286919976090000) (10.5000 , 8.7689369761600000) (10.6667 , 7.4023778378400000) (10.8333 , 6.1833575998400000) (11.0000 , 5.1054436206200000) (11.1667 , 4.1604288943600000) (11.3333 , 3.3389570499900000) (11.5000 , 2.6310201417700000) (11.6667 , 2.0263525057200000) (11.8333 , 1.5147294603700000) (12.0000 , 1.0861980382400000) (12.1667 , 0.7312399180000000) (12.3333 , 0.4408870991500000) (12.5000 , 0.2067976321700000) (12.6667 , 0.0212962255700000) (12.8333 , 0.1226070925000000) (13.0000 , 0.2312203035600000) (13.1667 , 0.3101867255100000) (13.3333 , 0.3645130047300000) (13.5000 , 0.3986055520100000) (13.6667 , 0.4163097066900000) (13.8333 , 0.4209551117100000) (14.0000 , 0.4153996768400000) (14.1667 , 0.4020750433200000) (14.3333 , 0.3830297750600000) (14.5000 , 0.3599731631700000) (14.6667 , 0.3343134452200000) (14.8333 , 0.3071968278000000) (15.0000 , 0.2795407737000000) (15.1667 , 0.2520669992600000) (15.3333 , 0.2253297950900000) (15.5000 , 0.1997419752300000) (15.6667 , 0.1755976388700000) (15.8333 , 0.1530926924300000) (16.0000 , 0.1323442373300000) (16.1667 , 0.1134036105100000) (16.3333 , 0.0962723487600000) (16.5000 , 0.0809116225500000) (16.6667 , 0.0672537994300000) (16.8333 , 0.0552093995900000) (17.0000 , 0.0446740659500000) (17.1667 , 0.0355352148900000) (17.3333 , 0.0276753795600000) (17.5000 , 0.0209753204300000) (17.6667 , 0.0153186892400000) (17.8333 , 0.0105927643500000) (18.0000 , 0.0066895794500000) (18.1667 , 0.0000000000000000) (19.0000 , 0.0000000000000000) ]{}; coordinates [ (4.0000 , 12.463989799841600) (4.1667 , 7.7757229544406900) (4.3333 , 4.5491581368605100) (4.5000 , 2.4615009949393000) (4.6667 , 1.1720618816384600) (4.8333 , 0.4064313871690200) (5.0000 , 0.0287978410720500) (5.1667 , 0.2613450731975300) (5.3333 , 0.3710286416950800) (5.5000 , 0.4048283336320200) (5.6667 , 0.3902869913687600) (5.8333 , 0.3455580198948600) (6.0000 , 0.2845421883385000) (6.1667 , 0.2183537209075900) (6.3333 , 0.1553744801215600) (6.5000 , 0.1011632908284700) (6.6667 , 0.0585438500004900) (6.8333 , 0.0279676909853700) (7.0000 , 0.0081577171094500) (7.1667 , 0.0031140772444400) (7.3333 , 0.0083313459623500) (7.5000 , 0.0097445478809800) (7.6667 , 0.0091104331295400) (7.8333 , 0.0076231745995100) (8.0000 , 0.0059803684521400) (8.1667 , 0.0045112217227200) (8.3333 , 0.0033177004424000) (8.5000 , 0.0023879334519900) (8.6667 , 0.0016699673601800) (8.8333 , 0.0011147489405300) (9.0000 , 0.0006864156274100) (9.1667 , 0.0003640877169500) (9.3333 , 0.0001336245843800) (9.5000 , 0.0000177898987700) (9.6667 , 0.0000000000000000) (19.0000 , 0.0000000000000000) ]{};
Clearly, with this type of integrator, it is ideal to find an optimal value for $M$ on the second attempt, and highly undesirable to not find an optimal value until the fourth attempt, because the approximation would need to be calculated four times over, meaning that numerous time-consuming computations would have to be executed. It is for this reason that $M$ also holds significant weight while comparing the efficiency of our algorithm using transformations $\phi_1(t)$ and $\phi_2(t)$ . For instance, by solely comparing the collocation points in Table \[table:with\_phi12\], it may appear as though $\phi_2(t)$ is without fail the more efficient transformation to use. That being said, since the value $n_M$, which we are using to denote the total number of values that are assigned to $M$ before successfully completing the approximation for $\mathcal{I}(s)$, also gives valuable insight into the efficiency of each transformation. A high $n_M$ value signifies that our integrator had to complete the approximation several times before finding an optimal value for $M$ and successfully approximating the integral, thus multiplying the total number of calculations that needed to be computed by the integrator.
Observing the sixth row in Table \[table:with\_phi12\], for example, it can be seen that although the summation in is truncated with 81 collocation points using transformation $\phi_1(t)$ , and only 72 collocation points using transformation $\phi_2(t)$ , the values for $n_M$ are found to be 2 and 4, using transformation $\phi_1(t)$ and $\phi_2(t)$ , respectively. In this particular case, therefore, it can be argued that our present integrator is more efficient in its approximation using transformation $\phi_1(t)$ . Generally speaking, however, the two-parameter transformation, $\phi_2(t)$ lends itself to a more efficient approximation of the semi-infinite spherical Bessel integrals.
Conclusion
==========
The presence of the semi-infinite spherical Bessel integral in the analytical expression for three-centre nuclear attraction integrals causes the rapid and accurate numerical evaluation of the integrals to be extremely challenging. The $S$ transformation, introduced by Safouhi, is able to transform the spherical Bessel integrals into considerably simpler sine integrals. The zeros of the integrand become equidistant, which significantly increases our ability to apply various extrapolation and transformation methods. Nevertheless, due to its slow convergence, the semi-infinite sine integrals still pose substantial computational difficulties.
In the present work, we presented an efficient way of treating the arduous sine integrals that result from the $S$ transformation. Utilizing the slowly decaying, highly oscillatory nature of the integrands, we applied two distinct double exponential transformations. These transformations each rendered highly efficient quadrature formulae that spanned from negative to positive infinity. That being said, we were able to truncate the summations at relatively small positive and negative integers. It was found that remarkably few collocation points were required to obtain sufficiently accurate results. This was especially the case for the second transformation. In our numerical section, it can be seen that by using the second transformation, the semi-infinite spherical Bessel integral can be approximated with a high predetermined accuracy in under 100 collocation points. The numerical tests served to further verify the precision and demonstrate the significance of the method.
Numerical tables
================
[@ccccccccccccccccccc]{}\
$s$ & $\nu$ & $n_\gamma$ & $n_x$ & $\lambda$ & $R_1$ & $\zeta_1$ & $R_2$ & $\zeta_2$ &$\mathcal{I}(s)^{\textrm{Matlab}}$ & $n^{\phi_1}$ & $\max^{\phi_1}$ & $n_M^{\phi_1}$ & $\varepsilon_M^{\phi_1}$ & $n^{\phi_2}$ & $\max^{\phi_2}$ & $n_M^{\phi_2}$ & $\varepsilon_M^{\phi_2}$\
\
0.99 & $\sfrac{5}{2}$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 24.00 & 1.5 & 2.0 & 1 & .113 874 170 637 205( 0) & 142 & 45 & 2 & .1(-16) & 93 & 34 & 2 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.01 & $\sfrac{5}{2}$ & 5 & 0 & 0 & 6.31 & 1.0 & 2.0 & 1 & .638 243 453 884 443( 0) & 138 & 41 & 2 & .1(-16) & 97 & 33 & 2 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.99 & $\sfrac{5}{2}$ & 5 & 0 & 0 & 4.50 & 2.0 & 1.5 & 1 & .701 581 269 512 308( 0) & 139 & 42 & 2 & .1(-16) & 97 & 33 & 2 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.99 & $\sfrac{5}{2}$ & 5 & 1 & 0 & 3.00 & 1.5 & 3.5 & 2 & .242 778 918 544 382(-3) & 78 & 41 & 2 & .1(-16) & 78 & 37 & 4 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.99 & $\sfrac{9}{2}$ & 9 & 1 & 1 & 6.00 & 2.0 & 3.5 & 1 & .183 138 910 224 195( 1) & 139 & 42 & 2 & .1(-16) & 97 & 33 & 2 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.01 & $\sfrac{9}{2}$ & 9 & 2 & 1 & 8.50 & 2.0 & 3.5 & 2 & .248 336 723 989 982(-3) & 81 & 44 & 2 & .1(-16) & 72 & 35 & 4 & .5(-18)\
\[+.25em\] 0.01 & $\sfrac{7}{2}$ & 3 & 2 & 1 & 3.00 & 2.0 & 5.0 & 1 & .285 091 100 421 789(-2) & 85 & 41 & 3 & .1(-16) & 81 & 37 & 3 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.99 & $\sfrac{7}{2}$ & 5 & 2 & 2 & 4.00 & 2.5 & 5.5 & 1 & .112 567 767 257 153( 0) & 139 & 42 & 2 & .1(-16) & 92 & 33 & 2 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.01 & $\sfrac{9}{2}$ & 7 & 2 & 2 & 9.00 & 2.0 & 3.5 & 1 & .183 269 571 025 263(-2) & 141 & 44 & 2 & .1(-16) & 97 & 33 & 2 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.01 & $\sfrac{13}{2}$ & 9 & 3 & 2 & 4.00 & 2.5 & 5.5 & 1 & .167 566 737 865 368(-1) & 91 & 37 & 3 & .1(-16) & 92 & 36 & 3 & .1(-16)\
- $\mathcal{I}(s)^{\textrm{Matlab}}$ are obtained by means of a MATLAB built-in numerical integration function that uses global adaptive quadrature.
- $\varepsilon_M^{\phi_1}$ stand for the relative errors obtained by using the approximation with the transformation $\phi_1(t)$ .
- $\varepsilon_M^{\phi_2}$ stand for the relative errors obtained by using the approximation with the transformation $\phi_2(t)$ .
- $n^{\phi_1}$ and $n^{\phi_2}$ represent the number of collocation points needed to approximate the integral using with transformations $\phi_1(t)$ and $\phi_2(t)$ , respectively.
- $n_M^{\phi_1}$ and $n_M^{\phi_2}$ represent the total number of values that are assigned to $M$ before successfully completing the approximation with transformations $\phi_1(t)$ and $\phi_2(t)$ , respectively.
- $\max^{\phi_1}$ and $\max^{\phi_2}$ represent the upper limit of the summation in with transformations $\phi_1(t)$ and $\phi_2(t)$ , respectively.
- The approximation was implemented in Python with symbolic computation package, SymPy
- The error tolerance of $\varepsilon = 10^{-15}$ was used in our calculation.
- Calculations were completed using IEEE 754 double precision
- Numbers in parentheses represent powers of 10.
[@ccccccccccccccccccccccccc]{}\
$s$ & $\nu$ & $n_\gamma$ & $n_x$ & $\lambda$ & $R_1$ & $\zeta_1$ & $R_2$ & $\zeta_2$ &$\mathcal{I}(s)^{\phi_1}$ & $n^{\phi_1}$ & $\max^{\phi_1}$ & $n_M^{\phi_1}$ & $\varepsilon_M^{\phi_1}$& $\mathcal{I}(s)^{\phi_2}$ & $n^{\phi_2}$ & $\max^{\phi_2}$ & $n_M^{\phi_2}$ & $\varepsilon_M^{\phi_2}$\
\
0.99 & $\sfrac{9}{2}$ & 9 & 2 & 1 & 35 & 2.5 & 3.5 & 0.5 & .737 829 982 455 112( 0) & 82 & 45 & 2 & .1(-16) & .737 829 982 455 148( 0) & 84 & 41 & 4 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.01 & $\sfrac{9}{2}$ & 3 & 2 & 2 & 45 & 1.5 & 2.0 & 1.0 & .103 851 188 766 556(-2) & 142 & 45 & 2 & .1(-16) & .103 851 188 766 626(-2) & 93 & 34 & 2 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.99 & $\sfrac{13}{2}$ & 5 & 3 & 3 & 50 & 1.5 & 2.0 & 1.0 & .317 648 310 603 089(-1) & 141 & 44 & 2 & .1(-16) & .317 648 310 603 304(-1) & 93 & 34 & 2 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.01 & $\sfrac{15}{2}$ & 6 & 4 & 3 & 55 & 1.5 & 2.0 & 1.0 & .989 261 101 060 361(-3) & 83 & 46 & 2 & .1(-16) & .989 261 101 060 357(-3) & 86 & 42 & 4 & .5(-20)\
\[+.25em\] 0.99 & $\sfrac{15}{2}$ & 6 & 4 & 4 & 55 & 1.5 & 2.0 & 1.0 & .366 551 897 499 993(-1) & 141 & 44 & 2 & .1(-16) & .366 551 897 500 241(-1) & 93 & 34 & 2 & .5(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.01 & $\sfrac{17}{2}$ & 9 & 5 & 4 & 55 & 1.5 & 2.0 & 1.0 & .698 018 626 122 216(-3) & 83 & 46 & 2 & .1(-16) & .698 018 626 122 213(-3) & 82 & 40 & 4 & .2(-19)\
\[+.25em\] 0.99 & $\sfrac{23}{2}$ & 21 & 6 & 5 & 55 & 1.5 & 2.0 & 1.5 & .564 022 921 688 577(-2) & 81 & 44 & 2 & .1(-16) & .564 022 921 688 556(-2) & 84 & 41 & 4 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.01 & $\sfrac{27}{2}$ & 29 & 6 & 6 & 60 & 1.5 & 2.0 & 1.0 & .414 131 181 249 046( 0) & 142 & 45 & 2 & .1(-16) & .414 131 181 249 327( 0) & 93 & 34 & 2 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.01 & $\sfrac{29}{2}$ & 25 & 7 & 6 & 55 & 2.0 & 3.0 & 2.0 & .284 952 750 728 949(-2) & 82 & 45 & 2 & .1(-16) & .284 952 750 728 952(-2) & 82 & 40 & 4 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.01 & $\sfrac{31}{2}$ & 23 & 7 & 7 & 55 & 2.5 & 2.0 & 1.0 & .107 097 615 409 941(-1) & 143 & 45 & 2 & .1(-16) & .107 097 615 410 016(-1) & 93 & 34 & 2 & .1(-16)\
\[+.25em\] 0.01 & $\sfrac{33}{2}$ & 33 & 7 & 7 & 65 & 2.0 & 2.0 & 1.0 & .167 421 970 712 946(-1) & 143 & 45 & 2 & .1(-16) & .167 421 970 713 064(-1) & 93 & 34 & 2 & .1(-16)\
- $\mathcal{I}(s)^{\textrm{Matlab}}$ are obtained by means of a MATLAB built-in numerical integration function that uses global adaptive quadrature.
- $\varepsilon_M^{\phi_1}$ stand for the relative errors obtained by using the approximation with the transformation $\phi_1(t)$ .
- $\varepsilon_M^{\phi_2}$ stand for the relative errors obtained by using the approximation with the transformation $\phi_2(t)$ .
- $n^{\phi_1}$ and $n^{\phi_2}$ represent the number of collocation points needed to approximate the integral using with transformations $\phi_1(t)$ and $\phi_2(t)$ , respectively.
- $n_M^{\phi_1}$ and $n_M^{\phi_2}$ represent the total number of values that are assigned to $M$ before successfully completing the approximation with transformations $\phi_1(t)$ and $\phi_2(t)$ , respectively.
- $\max^{\phi_1}$ and $\max^{\phi_2}$ represent the upper limit of the summation in with transformations $\phi_1(t)$ and $\phi_2(t)$ , respectively.
- The approximation was implemented in Python with symbolic computation package, SymPy
- The error tolerance of $\varepsilon = 10^{-15}$ was used in our calculation.
- Calculations were completed using IEEE 754 double precision
- Numbers in parentheses represent powers of 10.
[10]{}
E. Schrödinger. An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules. , 28:1049–1070, 1926.
S. Agmon. . in S. Graffi (editor), [Schrödinger]{} operators. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.
T. Kato. On the eigenfunctions of many-particle systems in quantum mechanics. , 10:151–177, 1957.
S.F. Boys. Electronic wave functions. [I]{}. a general method of calculation for the stationary states of any molecular system. , 200:542–554, 1950.
S.F. Boys. Electronic wave functions. [II]{}. a calculation for the ground state of the [Beryllium]{} atom. , 201:125–137, 1950.
S.F. Boys. The integral formulae for the variational solution of the molecular many-electron wave equation in terms of gaussian functions with direct electronic correlation. , 258:402–411, 1960.
R.M. Slevinsky, T. Temga, M. Mouattamid, and H. Safouhi. One- and two-center [ETF]{}-integrals of first order in relativistic calculation of [NMR]{} parameters. , 43:225202, 2010.
J.C. Slater. Analytic atomic wave functions. , 42:33–43, 1932.
I. Shavitt. . edited by B. Alder, S. Fernbach, M. Rotenberg, Academic Press, New York, 1963.
E. Filter and E.O. Steinborn. Extremely compact formulas for molecular one-electron integrals and [Coulomb]{} integrals over [Slater]{}-type orbitals. , 18:1–11, 1978.
E. Filter and E.O. Steinborn. The three-dimensional convolution of reduced [Bessel]{} functions of physical interest. , 19:79–84, 1978.
E.J. Weniger and E.O. Steinborn. Numerical properties of the convolution theorems of ${B}$ functions. , 28:2026–2041, 1983.
E.J. Weniger. The spherical tensor gradient operator. , 70:1125–1271, 2005.
E.J. Weniger and E.O. Steinborn. The [Fourier]{} transforms of some exponential-type functions and their relevance to multicenter problems. , 78:6121–6132, 1983.
A.W. Niukkanen. transforms of atomic orbitals. [I]{}. reduction to fourdimensional harmonics and quadratic transformations. , 25:941–955, 1984.
R.A. Bonham, J.L. Peacher, and H.L. Cox. On the calculation of multicenter two-electron repulsion integrals involving [Slater]{} functions. , 40:3083–3086, 1964.
H.P. Trivedi and E.O. Steinborn. transform of a two-center product of exponential-type orbitals. application to one- and two-electron multicenter integrals. , 27:670–679, 1983.
J. Grotendorst and E.O. Steinborn. Numerical evaluation of molecular one- and two-electron multicenter integrals with exponential-type orbitals via the [Fourier]{}-transform method. , 38:3857–3876, 1988.
P. Wynn. On a device for computing the $e_m({S}_n)$ transformation. , 10:91–96, 1956.
D. Levin. Developement of non-linear transformations for improving convergence of sequences. , B3:371–388, 1973.
H. Safouhi. The properties of sine, spherical [Bessel]{} and reduced [Bessel]{} functions for improving convergence of semi-infinite very oscillatory integrals: The evaluation of three-center nuclear attraction integrals over ${B}$ functions. , 34:2801–2818, 2001.
L. Berlu and H. Safouhi. An extremely efficient and rapid algorithm for a numerical evaluation of three-center nuclear attraction integrals over [Slater]{} type functions. , 36:11791–11805, 2003.
T. Ooura and M. Mori. The double exponential formula for oscillatory functions over the infinite interval. , 38:353–360, 1991.
T. Ooura and M. Mori. A robust double exponential formula for fourier-type integrals. , 112:229–241, 1999.
G.B. Arfken and H.J. Weber. . Academic Press, Fifth edition, 1995.
M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun. . Dover, New York, 1965.
E.O. Steinborn and E. Filter. Translations of fields represented by spherical-harmonics expansions for molecular calculations. [III]{}. [Translations]{} of reduced [Bessel]{} functions, [Slater]{}-type s-orbitals, and other functions. , 38:273–281, 1975.
G.N. Watson. . Cambridge University Press, Second Edition, Cambridge, England, 1944.
E.U. Condon and G.H. Shortley. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1951.
J.A. Gaunt. The triplets of helium. , A. 228:151–196, 1929.
H.H.H. Homeier and E.O. Steinborn. Some properties of the coupling coefficients of real spherical harmonics and their relation to [Gaunt]{} coefficients. , 368:31–37, 1996.
E.J. Weniger and E.O. Steinborn. Programs for the coupling of spherical harmonics. , 25:149–157, 1982.
Yu-Lin Xu. Efficient evaluation of vector translation coefficients in multiparticle light-scattering theories. , 139:137–165, 1998.
[^1]: Corresponding author: [email protected]. The corresponding author acknowledges the financial support for this research by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) - Grant RGPIN-2016-04317.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Cyclic Pancharatnam-Berry (PB) and adiabatic noncyclic geometric (ANG) effects are investigated in a single electron orbital system connected to two metal contacts with externally driven chemical potential and/or temperatures. The PB contribution doesn’t affect the density matrix evolution, but has quantitative effect on the statistics (fluctuations) of electron transfer. The ANG contribution, on the other hand, affects the net flux across the junction. Unlike the PB, the ANG contribution is non-zero when two parameters are identically driven. Closed analytical expressions are derived for the ANG contribution to the flux, and the PB contribution to the first two leading order fluctuations. Fluctuations can be modified by manipulating the relative phases of the drivings. Interestingly, we find that the fluctuations of the pumped charge do not satisfy the steady state fluctuation theorem in presence of nonzero geometric contribution, but can be recovered for a vanishing geometric contribution even in presence of the external driving.'
author:
- 'Himangshu Prabal Goswami$^{1}$'
- 'Bijay Kumar Agarwalla$^{2}$'
- 'Upendra Harbola$^{1}$'
bibliography:
- 'BerrySRL.bib'
title: 'Geometric effects in non-equilibrium electron transfer statistics in adiabatically driven quantum junctions'
---
Introduction
============
A parametric modulation of a system Hamiltonian in an adiabatic fashion adds a phase change in system state. This phase results from holonomy of the parameter space and is known as the geometric phase [@griffiths2005introduction; @bohm2013geometric]. The geometric phase is quantified by the area traced in the parameter space. At least two independent parameters in the Hamiltonian should be subjected to time modulation. When the parametrization is cyclic, it is commonly referred to as the Pancharatnam-Berry (PB) phase[@pancharatnam1956generalized; @berry1984quantal]. For noncyclic evolution of the parameters, the acquired phase is known as adiabatic noncyclic geometric (ANG) phase[@pati; @PhysRevLett.60.2339]. The geometric phases realized in systems with no degeneracy in the eigenspace are usually referred to as abelian. In presence of degeneracy, the holonomies do not commute and give rise to non-abelian geometric phases [@anandan1988non; @aharonov1987phase; @budich2012all; @duan2001geometric].
Over the years, the effect of geometric phase has been studied in several systems such as solids[@taguchi2001spin], condensed matter systems[@zhang2005experimental] and quantum qubits [@leek2007observation] which can affect both the physical [@xiao2010berry] and chemical[@lu2010blowing] properties of quantum systems. There have been several attempts to understand the role of geometric phases in open quantum systems [@carollo2003geometric; @sarandy2006abelian; @calvani2014open; @ren2010berry; @hu2014berry; @PhysRevLett.Ross]. However due to the complexity of non-equilibrium quantum systems, the exact role of geometric phase remains a mystery. A special type of non-equilibrium systems are quantum junctions where heat and electron transport are the key dynamic processes. These systems are made up of a quantum system which is coupled to reservoirs (bosonic or fermionic) at different thermodynamic states. Such junctions are realized in molecular break junctions[@reed1997conductance; @huang2015break], quantum heat engines [@kosloff2013quantum; @goswami2013thermodynamics], single molecules sandwiched between a Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM) tip and metal surface[@reecht2014electroluminescence; @latha] as well as single molecule electronic devices [@song2011single; @sun2014single; @fuzi]. Most of the literature on quantum junctions focuses on the steady-state transport properties. In recent years it has been recognized that a time dependent probe (optical or electronic) coupled to transport measurements can lead to better characterization of the junction [@harbola2014frequency; @goswami2015electroluminescence; @shamai; @vahid]. Such probes are usually fast (comparable to relaxation of the system). Here we explore the other extreme when the external driving is slow and the geometric phase is well defined. The geometric phase is known to create charge pumping in open quantum dots [@brower; @switkes] and interference in spin currents through single-molecule magnets [@smm]. However its role in affecting electron transfer statistics has not been explored so far, although theoretical methods exist to explore the dynamics and statistics of such non-equilibrium quantum systems [@uhpr; @dharheat; @ward; @nazarov; @nit; @uhrmp].
In this work, we study the geometric effects due to cyclic (PB) and noncyclic (ANG) adiabatic parametrization on electron transfer statistics induced by time-dependent adiabatic change in thermodynamic equilibrium of electronic leads. We formulate a general theory of the geometric effects for non-equilibrium electron transport in weakly coupled systems and apply it to a single resonant level model. We find that the time-evolution of the reduced density matrix is not affected by the PB contribution but leads to a quantitative change in the statistics. On the other hand, the ANG part globally affects the dynamics. The PB contribution can be manipulated to alter the electron transfer statistics from antibunched to bunched by manipulating the phase-difference between the two drivings. It was recently shown that in case of bosonic reservoirs coupled to quantum system, pumping was possible by modulating the reservoir temperatures periodically[@ren2010berry]. We however find that for electron transfer, PB contribution does not affect the average electronic flux. The ANG part however affects the evolution of the density matrix and therefore contributes to the total electronic flux. In presence of geometric contributions (cyclic or noncyclic), fluctuations in the electrons exchanged between leads do not satisfy the standard fluctuation theorem (FT), $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\ln [P(q,t)/P(-q,t)]=q\mathfrak F$[@uhrmp], where $P(q,t)$ is the probability distribution function (PDF) for the net number ($q$) of electrons exchanged between leads in a measurement time $t$, and $\mathfrak F$ is the thermodynamic force associated to the electron-flux. Similar violation of the fluctuation theorem or the Gallovoti-Cohen (GC) symmetry [@gal; @dhar2] was also reported in case of heat transport [@ren2010berry]. However, unlike results of Ren et al[@ren2010berry], for a vanishing geometric contribution, we recover the steady state FT for any phase difference between the drivings.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\[gc\], we formulate a general interpretation of geometric contributions in weakly coupled quantum junction using Liouville space formalism [@uhpr]. In Sec. \[srl\], we present a driven quantum master equation (QME) for a single level system and analytically evaluate the PB contribution that arises due to a periodic time modulation of the thermodynamic equilibrium of the electronic reservoirs. In Sec. \[stats\], we discuss the effect of PB contribution in electron transfer statistics. In Sec.\[SSFT\], we show the violation of the steady-state fluctuation theorem, which is recovered for a vanishing geometric part. In Sec. \[NCE\] we discuss the effect of ANG contribution on the dynamics of electron transport and then we conclude in Sec.\[conc\].
The geometric curvature {#gc}
========================
Geometric effects can be realized in systems with adiabatic external driving. A weakly coupled system dynamics in the Liouville space is governed by the quantum-Liouville equation [@njp; @PhysRevA.93.032118], $$\label{qLiouville}
|\dot\rho(t)\rangle\rangle=\hat{\mathcal L}(t)|\rho(t)\rangle\rangle,$$ where $|\dot\rho(t)\rangle\rangle$ is the time rate of change of the reduced density vector for the system. $\hat{\mathcal L}(t)$ is the Liouvillian superoperator containing the time dependent driving. Equation (\[qLiouville\]) is valid for systems with no degenerate energy levels that get mixed due to the interaction with the baths (leads). The lead correlations decay much faster than the system relaxation. We assume that $\hat{\mathcal L}(t)$ is diagonalizable, has a single zero eigenvalue to guarantee the existence of a well defined steady state, and contains well-separated eigenvalues. $$\Lambda(t)=U^{-1}(t) \hat{\mathcal L}(t)U(t).$$ Here, $U(t)(U^{-1}(t))$ is a matrix composed of the instantaneous right (left) eigenvectors of $\hat{\mathcal L}(t)$ and diagonalizes $\hat{\mathcal L}(t)$ to $\Lambda(t)$. This defines a new basis (eigenbasis of $\hat{\mathcal L}$), where $$\label{eigenbasis}
|\varrho(t)\rangle\rangle=U(t)^{-1} |\rho(t)\rangle\rangle.$$ Equation of motion in this new basis is $$\begin{aligned}
|\dot\varrho(t)\rangle\rangle&=&[\Lambda(t)-U^{-1}(t)\dot U(t)]|\varrho(t)\rangle\rangle.
\label{der-U}\end{aligned}$$ In the adiabatic limit, the external driving is assumed to be much slower as compared to the internal system relaxations such that there are no transitions between the eigen states. This amounts to neglecting the off-diagonal terms of $U^{-1}(t)\dot U(t)$ in Eq.(\[der-U\]). We denote $B_d(t)=\text{diag}\{U^{-1}(t)\dot U(t)\}$ and write the solution of Eq. (\[der-U\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5}
|\varrho(t)\rangle\rangle&=&e^{\int_0^t dt'\Lambda(t')-\int_0^t dt'B_d(t')}|\varrho(0)\rangle\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The adiabatic approximation is considered only for the system evolution. The system evolution is adiabatic with respect its relaxation to the steady state determined by the coupling to the leads. There are three time scales: bath relaxation ($\tau_B$), system relaxation ($\tau_s$) due to coupling with the bath, and the time period ($t_p$) of the external driving. The present formulation assumes that $\tau_B\ll\tau_s\ll t_p$. Faster the relaxation of the lead correlations, better is the approximation.
Using Eqs. (\[eigenbasis\]) and (\[5\]), we get, $$\label{berryEq}
|\rho(t)\rangle\rangle=U(t)e^{\int_0^t dt'\Lambda(t')}e^{-\int_0^tdt'B_d(t')}U^{-1}(0)|\rho(0)\rangle\rangle.$$ The first exponential is the usual ’dynamic’ contribution to the time evolution. The second exponential is an additional part acquired due to the external driving and has a geometric interpretation. In the absence of driving, $B_d=0$. Let $\textbf{x}$ represent a vector space corresponding to any two parameters, say $x$ and $y$, that are being modulated externally and periodically in time. We can then convert the time integral of the second exponential in Eq.(\[berryEq\]) to a line integral along a contour $\mathcal C$, representing the instantaneous $x$ and $y$ values in the parameter space,
$$\label{gen-berry1984quantal}
\displaystyle\int_0^t dt'B_d(t')=\int_{\mathcal C} d{\bf x}.B_d({\bf x}).$$
Equation (7) is a general expression valid for systems with adiabatic driving. If the time dependence is entirely due to the internal dynamics, i.e the system is prepared in the nonequilibrium state and evolves towards the steady state, then one cannot be sure that such an evolution will be adiabatic. In this case, separation between dynamic and geometric parts is not possible. So, Eq. (\[5\]) will not be a solution of Eq. (\[der-U\]). The externally controlled driving allows the evolution to be adiabatic such that Eq. (\[5\]) is valid and hence separation between dynamic and geometric parts is possible.
Assuming the contour in Eq. (\[berryEq\]) to be closed (a fixed time period) and piecewise smooth, we can use Stokes’ theorem and rewrite the contour integral as a surface integral over the surface $\mathcal S$ enclosed by the contour. This makes the factor geometric in nature. Note that, the dynamic part can not be given a geometric interpretation because there is no explicit time derivative which can be converted to a parametric integral. Equation (\[gen-berry1984quantal\]) then becomes, $$\label{gen-curve}
\int_{\mathcal C} d{\bf x}.B_d({\bf x})
=\displaystyle\oint_{\mathcal C} d{\bf x}.B_d({\bf x})=\oiint_{\mathcal S}\big(\nabla\times B_d({\bf x})\big).dS.$$ Here, $dS=dxdy$. The surface integrand $\nabla\times B_d({\bf x})$ is equivalent to the geometric curvature where $B_d({\bf x})$ represents the geometric vector potential. Note that, unlike the case of an isolated quantum dynamics of wavefunction, Eq. (\[gen-curve\]) cannot be interpreted as a phase factor because it affects the probability associated with an observable. Equation (\[gen-curve\]) represents a geometric contribution to the time evolution of the density matrix. In this reduced system dynamics, $\oiint_{\mathcal S}(\nabla\times B_d({\bf x})).dS$ is analogous to the Pancharatnam-Berry phase in isolated quantum dynamics and is not a phase as such, but is geometric in nature. This PB contribution is a direct manifestation of adiabatic and cyclic evolution of (at least) two parameters over a full time period of the drivings.
Equation (\[gen-berry1984quantal\]) is a general expression for the acquired geometric contribution due to adiabatic modulation of two parameters. If the modulation is periodic, the contour $\mathcal C$ is closed in the parameter space and the resultant contribution, Eq. (\[gen-curve\]), is termed as the PB part. For non-periodic driving $\mathcal C$ is an open contour with a geometric interpretation, called the ANG part, which we shall discuss in section \[NCE\].
Model Calculation {#srl}
==================
We consider a single electronic orbital coupled to two electronic reservoirs kept at different chemical potentials as shown in Fig.(\[scheme\]). The Hamiltonian for this system is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}&=\hat{H}_s+\hat{H}_l+\hat{H}_r+\hat{H}_{s\nu}\nonumber\\
&=\epsilon_s\hat{c}_s^\dag \hat{c}_s^{}+\displaystyle\sum_l\epsilon_l\hat{c}_l^\dag \hat{c}_l
+\displaystyle\sum_r\epsilon_r\hat{c}^\dag_r
\hat{c}_r\nonumber\\&+\sum_{\nu\in l,r}(T_{s\nu}\hat{c}_s^\dag \hat{c}_\nu+h.c.),\end{aligned}$$ where $s$, $l$, $r$, are the system, the right and the left lead orbitals, respectively. $\hat H_{s\nu}$ is the system-lead coupling Hamiltonian such that $T_{s\nu}$ is the coupling between the system and leads with $\nu=l,r$, and $\hat{c}_s^\dag( \hat{c}_s^{})$, $\hat{c}_l^\dag( \hat{c}_l^{})$ and $\hat{c}_r^\dag( \hat{c}_r^{})$ represent the electronic creation(annihilation) operators for the system, left and right leads, respectively. The leads have no interactions and are always in equilibrium (they act as reservoirs) and exchange spinless charges with the system.
![Schematics of the driven single resonant level model. The leads are metallic and spinless charge transfer occurs between the single orbital and leads. The Fermi distributions of the metal leads in resonance with the orbital’s energy, $\epsilon_s$, are driven periodically in time. $\Gamma_{l(r)}^{}$ is the coupling of the orbital with the left (right) lead.[]{data-label="scheme"}](Fig1.eps){width="7.5cm"}
We consider the case when the thermodynamic equilibrium of the electronic reservoirs is modulated in time by altering the temperature or the chemical potential. A possible way to experimentally visualize the driven quantum junction would be to connect the metal contacts (electronic reservoirs) to a time varying thermostat. This would allow control on the Fermi-functions of the metal leads through the time dependent temperatures. Or one may use a time varying gate-voltage to modulate energy of the orbital or use voltage pulses to control chemical potential of the leads. All these in turn will change the Fermi distribution of the leads.
The driven quantum master equation for the reduced system dynamics is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f-qme}
\dot\rho(t)&=&
[\Gamma_l\tilde f_l(t)+\Gamma_r\tilde f_r(t)]
[\hat{c}_s\rho(t)\hat{c}_s^\dag- \hat{c}_s^\dag\hat{c}_s\rho(t)]
\nonumber\\
&+&[\Gamma_lf_l(t)+\Gamma_rf_r(t)]
[\hat{c}_s^\dag\rho(t)\hat{c}_s-\rho(t)\hat{c}_s\hat{c}_s^\dag].\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Gamma_X=\pi n_X(\epsilon_s)|T_{sX}|^2$ with $n_X$ representing the density of states of lead $X$. The adiabatic limit is valid for $t_p(\Gamma_l+\Gamma_r)\gg 1$ and $\tau_s\approx (\Gamma_l+\Gamma_r)^{-1}$. The time dependent Fermi-functions for the leads is $f_X(t)=(e^{\bar\beta_X(\epsilon_s-\mu_X)}+1)^{-1}$, and $\tilde f_X(t)=1-f_X(t)$. $\mu_X$ and $\bar\beta_X$ is the chemical potential and inverse temperature of the $X\in l,r$-th lead, respectively. The Fermi-functions depend on both temperature and the chemical potential. Changing either of these inherently affects the Fermi functions of the leads. So we choose the driving protocol in terms of the Fermi distributions for simplicity. This implicit dependence on time either via the inverse temperatures $\bar\beta_X (t)=(k_BT(t))^{-1}$ or the chemical potential of the $X$th lead, $\mu_X \rightarrow\mu_X(t)$ is arbitrary as long as the bath correlations die fast. For the model considered here, the density vector contains only two elements $\rho_{11}$ and $\rho_{00}$ representing the population of the many-body state with 1 and 0 electrons, respectively. Coherences do not couple to populations and die off exponentially. Since we are interested in the steady-state dynamics (adiabatic driving), coherences will be ignored. We define $|\rho(t)\rangle\rangle
=\{\rho_{11},\rho_{00}\}$. The time dependent Liouvillian in Eq. (\[qLiouville\]) is then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{liouvillian}
\hat{\mathcal{L}}(t)&=&2\begin{pmatrix}
-\alpha(t)&\beta(t)\\
\alpha(t)&-\beta(t)\\
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha(t)=\Gamma_l\tilde f_l(t)+\Gamma_r\tilde f_r(t)$ and $\beta(t)=\Gamma_lf_l(t)+\Gamma_rf_r(t)$ are the system to leads and leads to system electron transfer rates, respectively. As we shall discuss below, for the single resonant level case that we consider here, when the Fermi functions are adiabatically modulated (i.e the parameter space, [**x**]{} is composed of the time-dependent parameters $f_l(t) $ and $ f_r(t)$), the vector potential, $B_d(f_l,f_r)$ is non-zero. However, the overall PB contribution vanishes (Sec.\[NCE\]). This happens because the curvature is zero, $\nabla\times B_d(f_l,f_r)=0$, as a result of the periodic driving. So, $B_d(f_l,f_r)$ is a conservative or irrotational field in the parameter space. Thus, for a two parameter periodic and adiabatic evolution, the PB contribution doesn’t affect the dynamics of the reduced density-matrix of the single resonant level, although it does influence the statistics of the electron transfer between the system and leads.
Electron transfer statistics {#stats}
=============================
To quantify the effect of PB contribution on the statistics of electron transfer, we consider probability distribution function, $P(q,t)$ for the net, $q$, number of electrons transferred between system and leads . We define a generating function $G(\lambda,t)$ corresponding to $P(q,t)$ [@uhrmp] $$\label{G-lam}
G(\lambda,t)=\displaystyle\sum_qP(q,t)e^{\lambda q}\equiv\langle\langle\boldsymbol{1}
|\rho(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle.$$ Here $|\boldsymbol{1}\rangle\rangle$ is the identity vector and $|\rho(\lambda,t\rangle\rangle$ is the $\lambda$-dependent density vector obeying the equation of motion (appendix), $$\label{M}
|\dot\rho(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle=\hat M(\lambda,t)|\rho(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle.$$ $\hat{M}(\lambda,t)$ is the $\lambda$-dependent Liouvillian (appendix) given by $$\label{char-L}
\hat M(\lambda,t)=2\begin{pmatrix}
-\alpha(t)&\beta_l(t)e^{\lambda}+\beta_r(t)\\
\alpha_l(t)e^{-\lambda}+\alpha_r(t)&-\beta(t)\\
\end{pmatrix}.\\[2mm]$$ Here $\alpha_X=\Gamma_X\tilde f_X(t)$ and $\beta_X=\Gamma_Xf_X(t), X\in l,r$. For $\lambda=0$, Eq. (\[M\]) reduces to Eq. (\[liouvillian\]) and $|\rho(\lambda=0,t)\rangle\rangle=|\rho(t)\rangle\rangle$.
Since we are interested in the steady state fluctuations, we define a scaled cumulant generating function[@uhrmp; @max-uh], $$\label{full S}
S(\lambda)=\lim_{t \rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{t}\ln G(\lambda,t).$$
In the long time limit, it can be shown that scaled cumulant generating function is additively separable into two parts[@ren2010berry; @sin] (appendix), viz. dynamic, $S_d(\lambda)$, and a geometric, $S_g(\lambda)$); i.e $S(\lambda,t)=S_d(\lambda,t)+S_g(\lambda,t)$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s-dyn}
S_d(\lambda)&=&\frac{1}{t_p}\displaystyle\int_0^{t_p}dt'\zeta_+(\lambda,t'),\\
\label{s-geo}
S_g(\lambda)&=&\frac{-1}{t_p}\displaystyle\int_0^{t_p}dt'\langle\langle L_+(\lambda,t')
|\frac{\partial}{\partial t'}| R_+(\lambda,t')\rangle\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ $|R_+(\lambda,t')\rangle\rangle [\langle\langle L_+(\lambda,t')|]$ denote the instantaneous right \[left\] eigenvectors of $\hat M(\lambda,t')$ corresponding to the instantaneous smaller eigenvalue $\zeta_+(\lambda,t')$. The eigenvalues of $\hat{M}(\lambda,t)$ in Eq. (\[char-L\]) are,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{zetaP}
\zeta_\pm(\lambda,t)&=&-\!\Gamma\!
\pm\!\sqrt{\Gamma^2\!+\!4(\alpha_r(t)\beta_l(t)(e^\lambda\!-\!1)\!+\!\alpha_l(t)\beta_r(t)(e^{-\lambda}\!-\!1))}
\nonumber\\
\end{aligned}$$
Here $\Gamma=\Gamma_l+\Gamma_r$. Also, the measurement time, $t=\nu t_p$, where $\nu$ is the number of cycles and $t_p$ is the time-period of the driving such that $\Gamma t_p\gg 1$. We can write $S_g$ as a line integral over a closed contour $\mathcal C$ defined in the parameter space such that, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{berry1984quantal-t}
S_g(\lambda)&=&\frac{-1}{t_p}\oint_{\mathcal C} d{\bf x}.\langle\langle L_+({\lambda, \bf x})
|\partial_{{\bf x}}|R_+({\lambda,
\bf x})\rangle\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Here, vector ${\bf x}$ contains system parameters modulated by the external driving. For $\lambda=0$, the integrand in Eq. (\[berry1984quantal-t\]) is equivalent to $B_d({\bf x})$ in Eq. (\[berryEq\]). We can now convert the line integral to a surface integral over the contour area, $\mathcal S$, for a closed $\mathcal C$. Equation (\[berry1984quantal-t\]), can be recast as, $$\label{Berry S}
S_g(\lambda)=\frac{1}{t_p}\oiint_{\mathcal S}dxdy\mathfrak{B}^\lambda(x,y)$$ with $\mathfrak{B}^\lambda(x,y)=\mathfrak{B}^\lambda_{xy}-\mathfrak{B}^\lambda_{yx}$ being equivalent to the Pancharatnam-Berry curvature in the parametric space of $x$ and $y$ (appendix), where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BC}
\mathfrak B_{xy}^\lambda&=&\frac{\langle\langle L(\zeta_-)|\partial_{x}\hat M(\lambda)
|R(\zeta_+)\rangle\rangle\langle\langle L(\zeta_+)|\partial_{y}\hat M(\lambda) |R(\zeta_-)\rangle\rangle }
{-(\zeta_+-\zeta_-)^2}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ When $\lambda=0$, $\mathfrak B^{\lambda=0}(x,y)\equiv \nabla\times B_d(x,y)$. Note that, the Pancharatnam-Berry curvature (Eq. (\[BC\])) is identically zero if only a single parameter is changed in periodic manner. This is because $\mathfrak B^\lambda(x,y)=0$. If two mutually dependent parameters are changed, $\mathfrak B_{xy}^\lambda=\mathfrak B_{yx}^\lambda$, resulting in vanishing curvature, $\mathfrak B^\lambda(x,y)=0$.
Here we choose to modulate the Fermi functions of the leads, $i.e.$, $x=f_l(t),y=f_r(t)$. The $\lambda$-dependent PB curvature, $\mathfrak B^\lambda(f_l,f_r)$, simplifies to, $$\label{b-curve-f}
\mathfrak B^\lambda(f_l,f_r)=\frac{e^{-\lambda}(e^\lambda-1)^2\Gamma_l\Gamma_r(\Gamma_l-\Gamma_r)}
{\{\Gamma_l^2+\Gamma_r^2+2\Gamma_l\Gamma_r(\tilde f_l-f_l)(\tilde f_r-f_r)+\mathfrak{Z}_\lambda^{}\}^{\frac{3}{2}}}$$ with $$\mathfrak{Z}_\lambda^{}= 4\Gamma_l\Gamma_r(f_l\tilde f_r e^\lambda+f_r\tilde f_l e^{-\lambda}).$$ When, $\Gamma_l=\Gamma_r$, the PB curvature in Eq. (\[b-curve-f\]) is zero. This happens because $\langle\langle L_+(\lambda,t')|\dot R_+(\lambda,t')\rangle\rangle$ in Eq. (\[s-geo\]), becomes a total time derivative which integrated over the time period $t_p$ becomes zero. So, under a symmetric coupling, $\Gamma_l=\Gamma_r$, the Pancharatnam-Berry contribution is zero and the statistics is governed solely by the dynamic part, $S_d(\lambda)$. Below we shall always consider the case when $\Gamma_l\ne\Gamma_r$, so that we have a finite geometric (PB) contribution. From Eq. (\[BC\]), we also note that when $\lambda=0$, $\mathfrak B^{\lambda=0}(f_l,f_r)=0$. That is the dynamics of the reduced density matrix of the single resonant level is not affected by the geometric (PB) contribution. However the statistics of electron transfer is influenced by the geometric part, as we discuss below.
We focus on the $i$th cumulants of the net probability distribution function $P(q,t)$ which are obtained from the $i$th $\lambda$-derivatives of the scaled cumulant generating function, $$\begin{aligned}
C^{(i)}
&=&\frac{d^i}{d\lambda^i} S_d(\lambda)\big|_{\lambda=0}+\frac{d^i}{d\lambda^i}S_g(\lambda)\big|_{\lambda=0}.\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[b-curve-f\]) can be substituted in Eq. (\[Berry S\]) to compute $S_g(\lambda)$ from which the geometric correction to cumulants, $\frac{d^i}{d\lambda^i} S_g(\lambda)|_{\lambda=0}$, can be evaluated. We find that the correction to the first cumulant (average flux) is zero as reported earlier [@hayakawa]. The PB contribution has no effect on the average electronic flux between the system and leads. $$C^{(1)}_g=\frac{1}{t_p}\displaystyle\oiint_{\mathcal S}\bigg(
\frac{d}{d\lambda}\mathfrak B^\lambda(f_l,f_r)\big|_{\lambda=0}\bigg)df_ldf_r=0.$$ Note that the average flux is $j=Tr\{\hat I\rho(t)\}$, where $\hat I$ is current operator. Since $|\rho(t)\rangle\rangle$ doesn’t have a PB part, $j$ is also independent of it. In fact, the expectation value of all single time observables will be unaffected from the PB contribution. The PB part, however, contributes to higher cumulants through higher order correlation functions of time dependent observables. The contributions to fluctuation (second cumulant) and skewness (third cumulant) from the geometric parts are calculated as, $$\begin{aligned}
C^{(2)}_g&=\frac{1}{t_p}\displaystyle\oiint_{\mathcal S}
\frac{d^2}{d\lambda^2}\mathfrak B^\lambda(f_l,f_r)\big|_{\lambda=0}
df_l~df_r \\
\label{fluc}
&=\frac{1}{t_p}\frac{2C_A\Gamma_l\Gamma_r(\Gamma_l-\Gamma_r)}{(\Gamma_l+\Gamma_r)^3},\\
C^{(3)}_g&=\frac{1}{t_p}\displaystyle\oiint_{\mathcal S} \bigg(\frac{d^3}{d\lambda^3}
\mathfrak B^\lambda(f_l,f_r)\big|_{\lambda=0}
df_l~df_r\bigg)\\
\label{skew}
&=\frac{1}{t_p}\frac{36\Gamma_l^2\Gamma_r^2(\Gamma_l-\Gamma_r)}{(\Gamma_l+\Gamma_r)^5}
\displaystyle\oiint_{\mathcal S}(f_l-f_r)df_ldf_r.\end{aligned}$$ Here $C_A=\oiint_{\mathcal S}df_ldf_r$ is the contour area in the parameter space of $f_l$ and $f_r$, $0\le f_l,f_r\le 1$. We give analytical expressions of $C_A$ for a sinusoidal driving in the appendix. Therefore, the PB contribution has a quantitative effect on the statistics of electron transfer through the second and higher order cumulants. The PB corrections to the second and third cumulants as given in Eqs. (\[fluc\]) and (\[skew\]), can be positive or negative depending on the relative values of $\Gamma_l$ and $\Gamma_r$.
The statistics of electron transfer is usually quantified using the Fano-factor ($F$) [@Fano01; @cox; @Fano5] and is defined as the ratio between the second and first cumulants. When $F>1 (F<1)$, the transferred electrons between system and leads are correlated (anti-correlated) and gives rise to bunched [@silverman; @ab1](antibunched, [@Kondo-bunch; @zarchin-bunch]) statistics. In the present case, $F$ is obtained as, $$\begin{aligned}
F&=\frac{C_d^{(2)}+C^{(2)}_g}{C_d^{(1)}}\\
&=\frac{C_d^{(2)}}{C_d^{(1)}}+\frac{2C_A\Gamma_l\Gamma_r(\Gamma_l-\Gamma_r)}
{t_p(\Gamma_l+\Gamma_r)^3C_d^{(1)}},
\end{aligned}$$ where the first term is due to the dynamic part with
$$\begin{aligned}
C_d^{(1)}&=&\frac{1}{t_p}\displaystyle\int_0^{t_p}dt
\frac{2[\alpha_r(t) \beta_l(t) - \alpha_l(t) \beta_r(t))]}
{
\sqrt{(\alpha(t)-\beta(t))^2 + 4 (\alpha_r(t) \beta_l(t) + \alpha_l(t) \beta_r(t))}},\\
C_d^{(2)}&=& \frac{2}{t_p}\displaystyle\int_0^{t_p}dt\frac
{(\alpha_r(t) \beta_l(t) ((\alpha(t)-\beta(t))^2 + 2 \alpha_r(t) \beta_l(t)) + \alpha_l(t)\beta_r(t)
[(\alpha(t) - \beta(t))^2 + 6 \alpha_r(t) \beta_l(t)] +
4 \alpha_l^2(t) \beta_r^2(t))}
{\sqrt{((\alpha(t)-\beta(t))^2 + 4 (\alpha_r(t) \beta_l(t) + \alpha_l(t) \beta_r(t)))}^{3}}.\nonumber\\
\end{aligned}$$
Since $C_d^{(2)}$ is symmetric with respect to interchange of $l$ and $r$, while $C^{(2)}_g$ is antisymmetric and can be positive, negative, or zero, depending on the relative values of $\Gamma_l$ and $\Gamma_r$, the statistics of the net electron transfer can be changed by tuning the fluctuations via PB contribution alone. Choosing $\Gamma_l>\Gamma_r (\Gamma_l<\Gamma_r)$, the PB part enhances (suppresses) the fluctuations. This effect is shown in Fig.(\[Fano\]) for sinusoidal drivings: $f_l(t)=f_l(1-m^2 \cos^2(kt)), f_r(t)=f_r(1-m^2 \cos^2(kt+\phi))$. Here, $k=\pi/t_p$ is the driving frequency, $\phi$ is the phase difference between the two drivings and $0\le m<1$. Here, the quantities $f_l$ and $f_r$ are the Fermi functions of the left and the right leads respectively, evaluated at the energy $\epsilon_s$, in the absence of driving ($m=0$). As shown in Fig. (\[Fano\]), the Fano factor can be increased beyond unity by tuning $\Gamma_r$ or by changing the phase difference between the two drivings. For $\phi=0$, the PB contribution is zero (appendix). For nonzero $\phi$, the statistics is bunched for small values of $\Gamma_r$ and tends to become antibunched as $\Gamma_r$ is increased. Over a range of small values of $\phi$, statistics is always bunched.
![The Fano factor ($F$) contour plot for $\Gamma_r$ and $\phi$. The PB contribution is introduced by changing the Fermi-functions as $f_l(t)=f_l(1-m^2\cos^2(kt)),
f_r(t)=f_r(1-m^2 \cos^2(kt+\phi))$. $k=\pi/t_p$ is the driving frequency, $t_p$ is the driving time period, $\phi$ is the phase difference between the two drivings and $0<m<1$. Simulation parameters are $ m=0.9, k=1,\nu=10,f_l=0.9,f_r=0.2.$ $\Gamma_l=0.9. $ Second curve from the top-right represent the boundary between $F>1$ and $F<1$.[]{data-label="Fano"}](Fig2.eps){width="7.5cm"}
![The net interpolated PDF in presence of PB contribution ($\phi\ne 0$), simulated at $f_l=0.75,f_r=0.25,k=1,\nu=20,k=1,m=0.9,\phi=\frac{\pi}{4}, \Gamma_r=0.25$ and $\Gamma_l=1$. The inset shows the difference between the PDFs in presence and absence of PB part. []{data-label="berry1984quantal-pdf"}](Fig3.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Steady-state fluctuation theorem {#SSFT}
=================================
For a non-driven case, it is known that the generating function satisfies a linear symmetry, $G(\lambda)=G(-\lambda-\mathfrak F)$[@uhrmp], where $\mathfrak F$ is the thermodynamic affinity (nonequilibrium force). This is reflected in the fluctuation symmetry, also referred to as GC symmetry, in $P(q,t)$ as[@uhrmp], $$\label{ft}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\ln \frac{P(q,t)}{P(-q,t)}=q\mathfrak F,$$ where $\mathfrak F=\ln \{f_r(1-f_l)/f_l(1-f_r)\}$ for the resonant level model.
For the driven case, the full probability distribution function is computed by inverting Eq. (\[G-lam\]) after analytic continuation, $$\label{pdf}
P(q,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\displaystyle\int_0^{2\pi}d\lambda~ G(i\lambda,t)e^{-i\lambda q}.$$ We evaluate Eq. (\[pdf\]) numerically for a fixed measurement time $t=\nu t_p$. In Fig.(\[berry1984quantal-pdf\]), we compare the distributions in presence and in absence of PB contribution. The mean of both the distributions is the same but the fluctuations are different. This is highlighted in the inset of Fig.(\[berry1984quantal-pdf\]), which shows the difference in the values of the PDFs in presence and absence of PB part, $\Delta P=P_o(q,t)-P(q,t)$, where $P_o(q,t)$ is the PDF without the PB contribution. Since the average flux is independent of PB, $\int q\Delta P~dq=0$, also due to normalization of $P(q,t)$ and $P_o(q,t)$, $\int\Delta Pdq=0$.
The distribution, $P(q,t)$, can also be evaluated using the Gartner-Ellis/Varadhan theorem[@touchette2009large], valid at large measurement times, where we can write, $$\label{ldf-q}
P(y)\approx N(t) e^{-t\mathfrak{L}(y)},$$ where, $y=q/t$ is the rate of electron transfer and $N(t)$ is a time dependent normalization constant. The $"\approx``$ sign indicates that the result is valid only at long times. $\mathfrak{L}(y)$ is the Legendre-Fenchel transformation of the scaled cumulant generating function known as the large deviation function[@varadhan1966asymptotic; @touchette2009large] (LDF) defined as, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{legendre}
\mathfrak{L}(y)&=\operatorname{ext}_\lambda(y\lambda-S(\lambda)),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mbox{ext}$ represents the extremum value(supremum or infimum). The full cumulant generating function for the driven case, $S(\lambda)$, is obtained by combining Eqs. (\[s-dyn\]) and (\[Berry S\]), where $\zeta_+(\lambda,t)$ and $\mathfrak B^\lambda(f_l,f_r)$ are given by Eqs. (\[zetaP\]) and (\[BC\]), respectively. The large deviation method is based on the saddle point approximation [@orszag1978advanced] and is reliable only when Eq. (\[legendre\]) is strictly convex or concave and a well defined extremum value for $\lambda$ exists[@touchette2009large].
![The steady state driven fluctuation theorem, Eq.(\[driven-ft\]). All curves are simulated at $\Gamma_l=\Gamma_r=0.25,
f_l=0.75,f_r=0.25,k=1,\nu=20,k=1,m=0.9$. The three curves with different slopes ($R$) correspond to $\phi=0(R=1.38),\frac{\pi}{3}(1.61),\frac{\pi}{4}(1.53)$. The bottom-right inset shows results for $\Delta\mathfrak{L}$, Eq. (\[driven-ldf\]), at $\phi=0,\Gamma_l=0.75,\Gamma_r=0.25$. As $f_l$ increases the slope ($R$) increases, $f_l=0.9(R=1.69),0.6(1.07), 0.4 (0.55)$. All other parameters are the same as in the main figure. The top left inset represents the decay of Eq. (\[T2\]), fitted with a power law: $t^{-0.49}$ for $q=9$, $\phi=\pi/4,m=0.2,\Gamma_l=0.75$ and $\Gamma_r=0.25$ The time axis has been rescaled by a factor of $10^{-2}.$ []{data-label="FTplot"}](Fig4.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Using Eq. (\[full S\]), in the long time limit, Eq. (\[pdf\]) can be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pqt}
P(q,t)\approx\frac{1}{2\pi}\displaystyle\int_0^{2\pi}d\lambda e^{-i\lambda q+tS(i\lambda)}.
\end{aligned}$$ We expand the function, $i\lambda q-tS(i\lambda)$ in Eq. (\[pqt\]) around its extremum value $\lambda^*_q$ (the saddle point), and retain the first two leading order terms to get, $$\begin{aligned}
P(q,t)&\approx&e^{-t\mathfrak{L}(y)}T^{(2)}\end{aligned}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T2}
T^{(2)}&=&\frac{1}{2\pi}\displaystyle\int_0^{2\pi} d\lambda\exp\bigg\{
\frac{-t}{2t_p}\int_0^{t_p}d\tau\frac{d^2\zeta_+(i\lambda,\tau)}{d(i\lambda)^2}(i\lambda-\lambda_q^*)^2\bigg\}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ We evaluate the term $ T^{(2)}$ numerically and find that it asymptotically goes to zero as a power law $1/\sqrt{t}$, as shown in the top left inset of Fig. (\[FTplot\]). At long times, $(1/t)\log T^{(2)}$ therefore, decays as an inverse power law, $1/t$. Thus, at large measurement times, the cumulant generating function can be approximated using the large deviation result, Eq.(\[ldf-q\]).
![The dynamic cumulant generating function, $S_d(\lambda)$ (solid) and linearly shifted, $S_d(-\lambda-R)$ (dotted). The curves are indistinguishable due to the GC symmetry, $S_d(\lambda)=S_d(-\lambda-R)$ where, $R$ is the thermodynamic force given in Eq. (\[TF\]). All curves are simulated at $\Gamma_l=0.75, \Gamma_r=0.25,
f_l=0.75,f_r=0.25,k=1,\nu=20,k=1,\phi=\pi/4$. The two curves, red, blue are evaluated for $m=0.2(R=2.153),0.5(1.92)$ respectively. The inset is evaluated at $\phi=0,\Gamma_l=0.75,\Gamma_r=0.25$. The two curves (red, green) represent $m=0.2(2.145),0.5 (1.9)$ respectively. []{data-label="Slambda"}](Fig5.eps){width="7.5cm"}
![The asymmetric geometric cumulant generating function. $\Gamma_l=1$ (higher peak), 0.75 (lower peak). All other parameters are same as in Fig. (\[Slambda\]). Because of the asymmetric behavior of $S_g(\lambda)$, the linear symmetry, $S(\lambda)=S(-\lambda-R)$, does not hold in the presence of the geometric contribution, resulting in violation of the FT, Eq. (\[driven-ft\]). []{data-label="Sgeolambda"}](Fig6.eps){width="7.5cm"}
In the case of heat transfer between two thermal baths, it was reported by Ren et al[@ren2010berry], that the scaled cumulant generating function does not satisfy the usual symmetry, $S(\lambda)=
S(-\lambda-\mathfrak F)$ , even in the absence of the PB contribution. In the present case, however, we find that such a symmetry is preserved, as we discuss below.
The LDF obtained from Eq. (\[legendre\]) is of the form, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ldf-lam}
\mathfrak{L}(q,t)=\frac{q}{t}\lambda^*_q-S(\lambda^*_q),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_q^*$ is the value of $\lambda$ at fixed time $t$ which satisfies the RHS of Eq.(\[legendre\]). We numerically evaluate Eq.(\[ldf-lam\]) for the case when the PB contribution is zero which can be achieved by choosing either $\phi=0$ or $\Gamma_l=\Gamma_r$. We find that the following equality is satisfied, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{driven-ldf}
\Delta\mathfrak{L}=\mathfrak{L}(-q,t)-\mathfrak{L}(q,t)=q\frac{R}{t},\end{aligned}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TF}
R&=&\displaystyle\ln\frac{\int_0^{t_p}d\tau f_r(\tau)(1-f_l(\tau))}{\int_0^{t_p}d\tau f_l(\tau)(1-f_r(\tau))},\end{aligned}$$ which reduces to $\mathfrak F$ (Eq. (\[ft\])) in absence of the drivings. Although Eq. (\[driven-ldf\]) is numerically verified (bottom-right inset of Fig. (\[FTplot\])), its validity can be justified. When $R=0$, $\Delta\mathfrak L=0 $, giving $P(q,t)=P(-q,t)$ at long time, i.e equilibrium is attained. As the system moves out of equilibrium, $R$ in non-zero and a flux develops in the system. The average flux is given below in Eq. (\[avg j\]) where $R$ is analytically identified as the thermodynamic force. For the non-driven case, Eq. (\[driven-ldf\]) is always valid and $R\rightarrow \mathfrak F$. $\mathfrak F$ is the thermodynamic force for the non driven case. So the basic structure of Eq. (\[driven-ldf\]) for the driven (without geometric part) and non-driven case remain the same. Thus identification of the thermodynamic force by $R$ as given in Eq. (\[TF\]) is consistent with the definition of equilibrium ($P(q,t)=P(-q,t)$) and the flux, both for the driven (without the geometric part) and non-driven system.
Equations (\[driven-ldf\]) and (\[TF\]) together lead to a driven steady-state fluctuation theorem of the type[@NESSuh], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{driven-ft}
\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{P(q,t)}{P(-q,t)}=e^{qR},\end{aligned}$$ preserving the GC type of symmetry in the absence of geometric term. As long as $f_l>f_r$, $R$ is a positive quantity and is the thermodynamic force driving the flux in the system. In Figs.(\[FTplot\]) and (\[Slambda\]), we show the validity of the GC symmetry and the steady-state driven fluctuation theorem in absence of the geometric term . In Fig. (\[Slambda\]), we show the symmetry, $S(\lambda)=S(-\lambda-R)$, where $R$ is defined by Eq. (\[TF\]).
For the case when the geometric contribution is nonzero, $\mathfrak B^\lambda(f_l,f_r)\ne 0$, Eqs. (\[driven-ldf\]) and (\[driven-ft\]) are not valid. This is because $S_g(\lambda)$ does not possess the same linear (translational) symmetry as the dynamic part, $S_d(\lambda)=S_d(-\lambda-R)$. Lack of this symmetry in presence of the PB part results in the breaking of the steady state FT. We further observe that the symmetry is broken only near low values of $\lambda$ where the effect of PB is most prominent as shown in Fig. (\[Sgeolambda\]). As $\lambda$ increases $S_g(\lambda)$ goes to zero and the linear symmetry in $S(\lambda)$ is recovered for large $\lambda$, implying that, in the limit of large $q$, the FT will be violated, however Eqs. (\[driven-ldf\]) and (\[driven-ft\]) should be recovered for small $q$ values.
Note that, adiabatic drivings with $\phi\ne0$ give rise to geometric contributions that results in the break-down of FT. However, it is to be emphasized that mere presence of the phase-different drivings doesn’t violate the FT, since the geometric contribution may still be zero. For example, in the present case, the geometric contribution is zero for all $\phi$ if $\Gamma_l=\Gamma_r$, and the FT remains valid.
Effect of Noncyclic evolutions {#NCE}
==============================
Adiabatic non-cyclic geometric (ANG) phases [@pati; @PhysRevLett.60.2339] arise when the adiabatic parametrization takes place in a noncyclic way, i.e. the curve traced in the parameter space is not closed. It has been experimentally observed in the evolution of spatial degrees of freedom of neutrons using interferometry [@PhysRevA.72.021602]. Equation (\[gen-berry1984quantal\]) is a general expression for the acquired geometric contribution due to adiabatic modulation of two parameters. When the contour $\mathcal C$ is cyclic, we arrived at Eq. (\[gen-curve\]), the PB contribution. In principle, geometric nature of Eq. (\[gen-berry1984quantal\]) can be extended to cases when $\mathcal C$ is noncyclic and leads to the noncyclic adiabatic contributions which also has a geometric interpretation [@mukunda1993quantum; @sjoqvist2000geometric].
Equation (\[berryEq\]) is equivalent to (appendix): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhoR}
|\rho(t)\rangle\rangle&=&\displaystyle\sum_{m=+,-}a_m(0)|R_m(t)
\rangle\rangle
e^{-\int_0^tdt'\chi_m(t')
-\zeta_m(t')},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_m(t')=\langle\langle L_m(t')|\dot R_m(t'\rangle\rangle$ is the diagonal element ($m=+,-$) of the matrix $B_d(t')$ in Eq. (\[berryEq\]). Equation(\[rhoR\]) is simply an expansion of $|\rho(t)\rangle\rangle$ in terms of the right eigenvector of $\hat{\mathcal L}(t)$ with the initial expansion coefficient $a_m(0)$. Similarly, $\langle\langle\rho(t)|$ can be expanded in terms of the left eigenvectors, $\langle\langle L_m(t)$ such that $\langle\langle\rho(0)|=\sum_{m=\pm}b_m(0)\langle\langle L_m(t)|$. As discussed in Sec.(\[gc\]), we can write, $$\label{new1}
\displaystyle\int_0^tdt'\chi_m(t)=\int_\mathcal{C}\chi_m({\bf x}).d{\bf x},$$ where $\mathcal C$ is now an open contour in the parameter space, ${\bf x}$. Note that, unlike for the case of cyclic driving with closed contour $\mathcal C$, for noncyclic evolution, $\int_\mathcal{C}\chi_m({\bf x}).d{\bf x}$ is not gauge invariant as we discuss below. In order to extract a gauge invariant geometric contribution we project Eq.(\[rhoR\]) with the initial density vector $\langle\langle\rho(0)|$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{projection}
\langle\langle \rho(0)|\rho(t)\rangle\rangle&=&\sum_{m=\pm}\Xi_m (t)\exp\big\{{\int_0^tdt'\zeta_m(t')}\big\},\end{aligned}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ncp}
\Xi_m (t)&=&a_m(0)\langle\langle \rho(0)|R_m(t)\rangle\rangle
e^{-\int_\mathcal{C}\chi_m({\bf x}).d{\bf x}}.\end{aligned}$$ $\Xi_m(t)$ is independent of parametrization of path $\mathcal C$ in the parameter space. $\Xi_m(t)$ is also invariant under a local gauge transformation, $|R_m(t)\rangle\rangle\rightarrow \exp(i\eta(t))|R_m(t)\rangle\rangle$, $\langle\langle L_m(t)|
\rightarrow \langle\langle L_m(t)|\exp\{-i\eta(t)\}$ where $\eta(t)$ is an arbitrary differentiable function. Both these factors together guarantee the geometric nature[@mukunda1993quantum; @polavieja1998extending] of $\Xi_m(t)$. The geometric nature of phases during noncyclic evolutions has also been shown by closing the open contour using geodesics and parallel transport law arguments [@PhysRevLett.60.2339]. Equation (\[ncp\]) is the general expression for an adiabatic, noncyclic geometric contribution (ANG) which reduces to Eq. (\[gen-berry1984quantal\]) for a cyclic driving over the closed contour $\mathcal C$. Note that, although, the integral in Eq. (\[ncp\]) is reparametrization independent but it is not gauge invariant and hence not an observable for open contour $\mathcal C$.
For an arbitrary driving, in the long time limit , only $m=+$ term dominates. The steady state density matrix is given by $|\rho_s(t)\rangle\rangle=
\{\beta(t)/\Gamma,\alpha(t)/\Gamma\}$ and $a_m(0)$ is obtained by solving $|\rho(0)\rangle\rangle=\sum_{m=\pm}a_m(0)|R_m(0)\rangle\rangle$. So, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ini}
a_+(0)\langle\langle \rho(0)|R_+(t)\rangle\rangle&=&\frac{\alpha(0)^2+\beta(0)^2}
{\Gamma^2\alpha(0)\alpha(t)}\nonumber\\
&\times&
(\alpha(0)\alpha(t)+\beta(0)\beta(t)^2),\\
\label{chi}
\chi_+(t)&=& - \frac{d}{dt}\ln\frac{{\alpha(t)}}{\alpha(0)}, \end{aligned}$$
Substituting Eqs.(\[ini\]) and (\[chi\]) in (\[ncp\]), we find for the generalized ANG contribution $$\label{+ncp}
\Xi_+ (t)=\frac{\alpha(0)^2+\beta(0)^2}{\Gamma^2\alpha(t)^2}(\alpha(0)\alpha(t)+\beta(0)\beta(t)),$$ for an arbitrary modulation of the thermodynamic equilibrium of the leads. For noncyclic driving, $t\ne t_p$, the evolution of the density matrix is influenced by the geometric contribution and therefore, unlike the cyclic case, the flux in the junction is also affected by the geometric (ANG) part.
Taking a time-derivative in Eq. (\[berryEq\]), we get, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{splitJ}
|\dot\rho (t)\rangle\rangle&=&(\hat{\mathcal{L}}_d(t)+\hat{\mathcal{L}}_g(t))|\rho(t)\rangle\rangle
\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{d(g)}(t)$ is the dynamic (geometric) Liouvillian given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{L}}_d(t)&=&U(t)\Lambda(t)U^{-1}(t)\\
\hat{\mathcal{L}}_g(t) &=&\dot U(t)U^{-1}(t).
\end{aligned}$$ The steady state electronic flux between the system and left lead is defined as $j(t)=e\langle\langle \hat N|\hat{\mathcal L}^{(l)}(t)|\rho_s(t)\rangle\rangle$ [@uhqme], where $\hat N=\{1,0\}$ and $\hat{\mathcal L}^{(l)}(t)$ is the Liouvillian containing only the terms from the left lead and $|\rho_s(t)\rangle\rangle$ is the steady state density matrix. Following Eq. (\[splitJ\]), we can split, $\hat{\mathcal L}^{(l)}(t)=\hat{\mathcal L}^{(l)}_d(t)+\hat{\mathcal L}^{(l)}_g(t)$, corresponding to the dynamic and the geometric Liouvillians. Since there exists a time dependent driving, the steady state is changing with respect to the external driving. At each instant of driving steady state is well defined. So the flux, $j(t)$, is time dependent and represents the flux at each instant in time during the adiabatic change. The dynamic contribution is given by,
$$\label{jt srl}
j_d(t)=I^{SN}_o(f_l(t)-f_r(t)),$$
where $I_{o}^{SN}=2e\Gamma_l\Gamma_r/\Gamma$ is the steady state current in absence of driving in the shot noise limit ($T=0K$). The geometric (ANG) contribution is, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jg}
j_g(t)&=&e\langle\langle\hat N|\hat{\mathcal L}^{(l)}_g(t)|\rho_s(t)\rangle\rangle\\
&=&e\displaystyle\sum_{m=\pm}\langle\langle\hat N|\hat{\mathcal L}^{(l)}_g(t)|R_m(0)\rangle\rangle
\langle\langle L_m(0)|\rho_s(t)\rangle\rangle
\end{aligned}$$ Here, in the second line, we have used the resolution of unity in terms of $|R_m(t)\rangle\rangle$ and $\langle\langle L_m(t)|$. Since, $\langle\langle L_-(t)|\rho_s(t)\rangle\rangle=0$, we can write, $$\begin{aligned}
j_g(t)
&=&e\langle\langle\hat N|\hat{\mathcal L}^{(l)}_g(t)|R_+(0)\rangle\rangle
\langle\langle L_+(0)|\rho_s(t)\rangle\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ Using $\langle\langle \rho(0)|=\sum_{m=\pm}b_m(0)\langle\langle L_m(0)|$, we get
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{jg2}
j_g(t)&=&\frac{e}{b_+(0)}\langle\langle\hat N|\hat{\mathcal L}^{(l)}_g(t)|R_+(0)
\rangle\rangle\langle\langle \rho(0)|\rho_s(t)\rangle\rangle,
\end{aligned}$$
where, $\langle\langle \rho(0)|\rho_s(t)\rangle\rangle$ is given by Eq. (\[projection\]) at the steady state and contains information about the ANG contribution as given by Eq. (\[+ncp\]). Following Eq. (\[jg2\]), we can substitute the initial and the steady state values and write down the geometric flux as, $$\begin{aligned}
j_g(t)=\frac{e\beta(t)}{\Gamma}\chi_+^{(l)}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_+^{(l)}(t)$ is given by Eq. (\[chi\]) with only the left lead’s contribution. For cyclic driving, $\chi_+(t)=0$, since $t$ is an integral multiple of of $t_p$ giving $j_g(t)=0$.
We can define average dynamic flux per measurement time, $\mathcal{T}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle j_d\rangle&=&\frac{1}{\mathcal{T}}\displaystyle\int_0^{\mathcal{T}} j_d(t)dt\\
&=&I_o^{SN}\frac{e^{-R}-1}{\mathcal{T}}\displaystyle\int_0^{\mathcal{T}}f_r(t)(1-f_l(t))dt,
\label{avg j}
\end{aligned}$$ where, $R$ is defined by Eq. (\[TF\]) and acts as thermodynamic force that drives the flux. For the chosen sinusoidal drivings, Eq. (\[avg j\]) becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qd}
\langle j_d^{}\rangle&=& I_o\big(1-\frac{m^2}{2}\big)+I^{SN}_o\frac{m^2}{n\pi} f(n,\phi),
\end{aligned}$$ with, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fracq}
f(n,\phi)=-\frac{1}{4}[f_l\sin(2n\pi)-f_r\{\sin(2n\pi+2\phi)-\sin(2\phi)\}],\nonumber\\
\end{aligned}$$ and $I_o=I_o^{SN}(f_l-f_r)$, is the steady state current in the absence of driving. Here, we have used, $\mathcal{T}=nt_p$. For the cyclic case, $n$ is an integer which represents the number of cycles during the driving and $f(n,\phi)=0$. For the noncyclic case, $0<n<1$ and $f(n,\phi)\ne 0$.
The average geometric flux in a measurement window can be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle j_g\rangle&=&\frac{1}{nt_p}\displaystyle\int_0^{nt_p} j_g(t)dt\\
&=&-\frac{e}{nt_p~\Gamma}\displaystyle\int_0^{nt_p}\frac{\beta(t)\dot\alpha_l(t)}{\alpha_l(t)}dt.
\end{aligned}$$ For the chosen sinusoidal drivings, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jgint}
\langle j_g\rangle&=&-\frac{e}{nt_p~\Gamma}\bigg\{\Delta[\beta(nt_p)\log(\tilde f_l(nt_p))]
+2m^2\Gamma_rf_r\big\{
\nonumber\\
&&f_l\cos^2(\phi)\Delta[\tilde f_l(nt_p)\log(f_l(nt_p))]+k \sin(2\phi)A_n\big\}
\bigg\}\nonumber\\
\end{aligned}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
A_n&=&\sin(2knt_p)\bigg\{
4\sqrt{\tilde f_l}\sqrt{\tilde f_l(0)}\arctan\bigg(
\frac{\sqrt{\tilde f_l\tan(knt_p)}}{\sqrt{\tilde f_l(0)}}
\bigg)\nonumber\\
&-&2knt_p(\tilde f_l+\tilde f_l(0))
-m^2f_l(\log(\tilde f_l(nt_p))-1)
\bigg\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used $\Delta[ X(nt_p)]=X(nt_p)-X(0)$. Equation (\[jgint\]) vanishes for both $n\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $m=0$. Note that $\langle j_g\rangle\ne 0$ when $\phi=0$. This tells us that for noncyclic evolutions, even if the system parameters are identically driven, there is always a geometric contribution to the total flux. We show the behavior of $\langle j_g\rangle$ in Fig.(\[jg plot\]) as a function of $n$ for two different time-periods. As can be seen, the flux gradually increases from $n=0$ and reaches a maximum and then goes to zero as $n$ approaches 1 (cyclic case).
![The average geometric flux (Eq. (\[jgint\])) as a function of $n$. The upper (lower) curve is simulated for $t_p=10\pi (5\pi)$. It is zero at $n=0,1$. Simulation parameters used are $m=0.9,f_l=0.9,f_r=0.1,\Gamma_l=1.25,\Gamma_r=0.75,\phi=\pi/4$. []{data-label="jg plot"}](Fig7.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Conclusion {#conc}
===========
We have analyzed the effects of cyclic (PB) and noncyclic (ANG) geometric contributions in an adiabatically driven current carrying quantum junction. Time evolution of the reduced density matrix for a resonant level is shown to be unaffected by the PB contribution arising due to periodic, adiabatic driving. A generating function formalism was used to compute the statistics of the net electron transfered through the junction. The PB contribution to the first cumulant is found to be zero. However the higher order cumulants (fluctuations) were affected by the PB contribution. We derived analytic expressions for the geometric contributions to fluctuations. The phase difference between the drivings could be tuned to alter the statistics of the net electron-transfer from antibunched to bunched. We also observed that the fluctuation theorem (or GC symmetry) is violated in presence of a nonzero geometric (PB or ANG) contribution. However, we recover a driven steady-state FT when the geometric contribution vanishes. In this case, we identified a thermodynamic force and showed that the GC symmetry is preserved.
In case of noncyclic evolutions, the geometric contribution (ANG) affects the density matrix of the system which in turn influences the net flux across the junction. Unlike the PB contribution, ANG contribution is non-zero even when the phase difference between the drivings is zero.
We note that, performing a similar analysis for the case when, instead of the Fermi functions, couplings $\Gamma_l$ and $\Gamma_r$ are modulated periodically in time, the PB curvature vanishes altogether in the QME framework, preserving the FT. This happens because the coupling induced lifetime is neglected in the QME analysis, which is essential to observe geometric effects due to such modulations. Such effects are usually incorporated using non-equilibrium Greens function technique [@hari1]. We also observe that in single electron counting measurements, where one keeps track of only the incoming or outgoing electron transfer processes between the leads and system, the geometric curvature is zero.
[*Acknowledgments:*]{} HPG acknowledges the financial support from University Grants Commission, New Delhi under the Senior Research Fellowship Scheme. HPG also thanks Ross H. Mckenzie and Hari K. Yadalam for interesting discussions. BKA thanks the hospitality from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. UH acknowledges the support from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
{#app}
[**Derivation of the Pancharatnam-Berry generating function:**]{} \[BerryDer\] \[appsys\] We can re-write Eq. (\[f-qme\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial\rho(\tau)}{\partial{\tau}}&=&\alpha(\tau)\hat{c}_s\rho(\tau)\hat{c}_s^\dag
-\beta(\tau)\rho(\tau)\hat{c}_s\hat{c}_s^\dag\nonumber\\
&-&\alpha(\tau)\hat{c}_s^\dag\hat{c}_s\rho(\tau)+\beta(\tau)\hat{c}_s^\dag\rho(\tau)\hat{c}_s,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha(\tau)=\alpha_l(\tau)+\alpha_r(\tau)$ and $\beta(\tau)=\beta_l(\tau)+\beta_r(\tau)$ are the system to leads and leads to system electron transfer rates respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_X(\tau)&=&\Gamma_X(1-f_X(\epsilon_s,\tau)),\\
\beta_X(\tau)&=&\Gamma_X f_X(\epsilon_s,\tau).
\label{rate}\end{aligned}$$
A quantum master equation for such a system is $|\dot\rho(t)\rangle\rangle=\hat{\mathcal L}(t)|\rho(t)\rangle\rangle$, $|\rho(t)\rangle\rangle=\{\rho_{11},\rho_{00}\}$ is the reduced density vector for the system containing the population only. $\hat{\mathcal L}$ is the Liouvillian in the many body space. We do not include the coherences ($\rho_{01},\rho_{10}$) because they exponentially die out and are decoupled from populations.
In this driven case, we can obtain the eigenbasis (Eq.(\[eigenbasis\])) as, $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(\tau)&=&\Lambda(0)=\begin{pmatrix}
0&0\\
0&-2(\Gamma_l+\Gamma_r),\\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$ and $U(\tau)$, that diagonalizes $\hat{\mathcal{L}}(t)$, is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
U(\tau)&=&\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\beta(\tau)}{\alpha(\tau)}&-1\\
1&1\\
\end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$ The term, $B_d(\tau)=\text{diag}[U^{-1}(\tau)\dot U(\tau)]$ which when integrated over a time-period, $t=t_p=\pi/k$ is zero. Also $\nabla\times B_d(f_l,f_r)=0$. This indicates the field is conservative and leaves the dynamics of the density matrix unaffected as it doesn’t acquire any geometric contribution during its time evolution. To quantify the statistics of electron transfer, we start by defining a moment generating function, $G(\lambda,t)$ for the PDF corresponding to the net number of particles, $q$ transferred between left lead and system. The equation of motion for $G(\lambda,t)$ is $$\label{M-app}
\dot G(\lambda,t)=\langle\langle \boldsymbol 1| M(\lambda,t)|\rho(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle.$$ $M(\lambda,t)$ is the characteristic counting Liouvillian. We have denoted the time and counting-field dependent density vector as $|\rho(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle$. We can expand it in the basis of the right eigenvector of $M(\lambda,t)$ with time dependent expansion coefficients $a_n(t)$[@ren2010berry], $$\label{rev basis}
|\rho(\lambda,t\rangle\rangle=
\displaystyle\sum_{n=\pm}a_n(t)e^{\int_0^t\zeta_n(\lambda,t')dt'} |R_n(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle.$$
The instantaneous eigen values, $\zeta_\pm(\lambda,t)$ of $M(\lambda,t)$ matrix can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{\pm}(\lambda,t)&=&-\alpha(t)-\beta(t)\\&\pm&
\sqrt{\big(\alpha(t)-\beta(t)\big)^2+4(\alpha_\lambda(t)\beta_\lambda(t))}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Here $\zeta_+(\zeta_-)$ is the smaller (larger eigenvalue) with $\alpha_\lambda(\tau)=\alpha_l(\tau)e^{-\lambda}+\alpha_r(\tau)$ and $
\beta_\lambda(\tau)=\beta_l(\tau)e^{\lambda}+\beta_r(\tau)$. Substituting Eq.(\[rev basis\]) in Eq.(\[M\]), time evolution of the expansion coefficients can be written as, we get, $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\sum_n\dot a_n(t)&e^{\int_0^t\zeta_n(\lambda,t')dt'}|R_n(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle\nonumber\\
&=-\displaystyle\sum_na_n(t)e^{\int_0^t\zeta_n(\lambda,t')dt'}|\dot R_n(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$
Left multiplying by $\langle\langle L_m(\lambda,t|$ and using $\langle\langle L_m(\lambda,t|R_n(\lambda,t\rangle\rangle=\delta_{mn}$ gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{amtf}
\dot a_m(t)&=&-a_m(t)\langle\langle L_m(\lambda,t)|\dot R_m(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle\nonumber\\
&
-&\displaystyle\sum_{m\ne n}a_n(t)e^{\int_0^t(\zeta_n(\lambda,t')-\zeta_m(\lambda,t'))dt'}\nonumber
\\
&\times&
\langle\langle L_m(\lambda,t)|\dot R_n(\lambda,t\rangle\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Left and right eigenvectors together form an orthonormal set. In the adiabatic limit, since the eigenstates of the system do not mix, the inner product of the time derivative of the right eigen vector and the left eigenvector corresponding to different eigenvalues vanishes, i.e $\langle\langle L_m(\lambda,t)|\dot R_n(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle=0$. The solution of Eq.(\[amtf\]) can now be written down as, $$\begin{aligned}
a_m(t)&=a_m(0)\exp\bigg{\{}-\int_0^tdt'\langle\langle L_m(\lambda,t')|\dot R_m(\lambda,t'\rangle\rangle\bigg{\}}.
\label{amt}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting Eq. (\[amt\]) in Eq. (\[rev basis\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
|\rho(\lambda,t\rangle\rangle&=\displaystyle\sum_{m=+,-}a_m(0)|R_m(\lambda,t)
\rangle\rangle\nonumber\\
&\times
\exp\bigg\{-\displaystyle\int_0^tdt'\langle\langle L_m(\lambda,t')|\dot R_m(\lambda,t'\rangle\rangle
-\zeta_m(\lambda,t')\bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ The generating function is given by the trace of the counting density-matrix, $G(\lambda,t)=\langle\langle {\bf 1}|\rho(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle$. So, $$\begin{aligned}
G(\lambda,t)&=\displaystyle\sum_{m=+,-}a_m(0)\langle\langle {\bf 1}|R_m(\lambda,t)
\rangle\rangle\nonumber\\
&\times
\exp\bigg\{-\int_0^tdt'\langle\langle L_m(\lambda,t')|\dot R_m(\lambda,t'\rangle\rangle-\zeta_m(\lambda,t)\bigg\},
\end{aligned}$$ where the left and the right eigenvectors of $M(\lambda)$ are obtained as, $$\begin{aligned}
|R_{\pm}(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle&=&\{u_\pm(t),1\}\\
\langle\langle L_{\pm}(\lambda,t)|&=&\frac{1}{u_+(t)-u_-(t)}{}\{\pm 1,\mp u_\mp(t)\},
\label{eigenvectors}\end{aligned}$$ with,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Uval}
u_{\pm}(t)&=&\frac{-(\alpha(t)-\beta(t))\pm\sqrt{(\alpha(t)-\beta(t))^2
+4\alpha_\lambda(t)\beta_\lambda(t)}}{2\alpha_\lambda(t)}.\nonumber\\
\end{aligned}$$
We denote the time period of evolution by $t_p$ and assume that the total measurement time can be expressed as multiple of the periodic modulation and write $t=n t_p$, when $n>>1,n\in\Re$. So we get, $$\begin{aligned}
G(\lambda,t)&=-\displaystyle\sum_{m=+,-}a_m(0)
\langle\langle {\bf 1}|R_m(\lambda,nt_p)
\rangle\rangle\nonumber\\
&\times
{n\int_0^{t_p}dt'[\langle\langle L_m(\lambda,t')|\dot R_m(\lambda,t'\rangle\rangle-\zeta_m(\lambda,t')]}
\end{aligned}$$ At long times, the contribution from the eigenvalue ,$\zeta_-$ is exponentially suppressed. Hence, at large times, $$\begin{aligned}
G(\lambda,t)&\approx a_+(0)\langle\langle \boldsymbol{1}|R_+(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle\nonumber\\
&
e^{\frac{t}{t_p}\int_0^{t_p}(\zeta_+(\lambda,t')
-\langle\langle L_+(\lambda,t'|\dot R_+(\lambda,t'\rangle\rangle)dt'}.\end{aligned}$$
At the steady state, it is more convenient to work with the scaled cumulant generating function defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cum}
S(\lambda)&=&\displaystyle\lim_{t \rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{t}\ln G(\lambda,t)\\
&=& \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n t_p}
[\ln a_+(0)\langle\langle \boldsymbol{1}|R_+(\lambda,nt_p)\rangle\rangle]\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{1}{t_p} \int_0^{t_p}\zeta_+(\lambda,t')dt'\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{1}{t_p}\int_0^{t_p}\langle\langle L_+(\lambda,t')|\dot R_+(\lambda,t')\rangle\rangle dt'.
\label{factored}\end{aligned}$$ The first term in Eq. (\[factored\]) is constant and goes to zero when $n$ is an integer and $n \rightarrow\infty$, since $|R_+(\lambda,nt_p)\rangle\rangle=|R_+(\lambda,0)\rangle\rangle$. For non integer, $n$, $|R_+(\lambda,nt_p)\ne |R_+(\lambda,0)\rangle\rangle$, the term will survive.
So, for integer values on $n$, the scaled cumulant generating function can be expressed as a sum of a dynamic ($S_d(\lambda)$)and geometric ($S_g(\lambda)$) scaled cumulant generating functions given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{split}
S(\lambda)&=& S_d(\lambda)+S_g(\lambda),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
S_d(\lambda)&=&\frac{1}{t_p} \int_0^{t_p}\zeta_+(\lambda,t')dt',\\
S_g(\lambda)&=& \frac{-1}{t_p}\int_0^{t_p}\langle\langle L_+(\lambda,t')|\dot R_+(\lambda,t')\rangle\rangle dt'.\end{aligned}$$ The first and second $\lambda $ derivatives of Eq. (\[split\]) evaluated at $\lambda=0$ give the flux and steady state fluctuation. Replacing the line integral as a contour integral we recover Eq. (\[berry1984quantal-t\]).
We now proceed to derive Eqs. (\[Berry S\]) and (\[BC\]), i.e express the Berry potential, $\langle\langle L_+({\lambda, \bf x})
|\partial_{{\bf x}}|R_+({\lambda,
\bf x})\rangle\rangle$ in terms of the parameter derivatives of the counting Liouvillian $M(\lambda)$. Here, $\bf x$ is a vector with two parameters $x$ and $y$. For the right eigenvector of $\hat M(\lambda)$ corresponding to the $i$-th eigenvalue ($i=+,-$) we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat M(\lambda) |R_i(\lambda,t\rangle\rangle&=\zeta_i|R_i(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle\\
\implies \partial_{y}\hat M(\lambda)|R_i(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle
&=\partial_{y}\zeta_i |R_i(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle\\
\implies \partial_{y}(\hat M(\lambda)-\zeta_i)|R_i(\lambda,t\rangle\rangle &=(\zeta_i-\hat M(\lambda))|\partial_{y}
R_i(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
Taking the projection with the left eigenvector $\langle\langle L_j(\lambda,t)|$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{left}
\langle\langle L_j(\lambda,t)| \partial_{y}R_i(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle
=\frac{\langle\langle L_j(\lambda,t)|\partial_{y}\hat M(\lambda)|R_i(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle}{(\zeta_i-\zeta_j)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly steps can be done with the left eigenvector and taking projection with $|R_j(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{right}
\langle\langle \partial_{x}L_i(\lambda,t)|R_j(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle
=\frac{\langle\langle L_i(\lambda,t)|\partial_{x}\hat M(\lambda)|R_j(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle}{(\zeta_i-\zeta_j)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The Pancharatnam-Berry potential in the two parameter vector space ${\bf x}$ is given by $\langle\langle L_+({\lambda, \bf x})|\partial_{{\bf x}}|R_+({\lambda,
\bf x})\rangle\rangle$, whose curl gives the curvature, $\mathfrak{B}^\lambda(x,y)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{par}
\mathfrak B^\lambda(x,y)&=\langle\langle \partial_{x}L_+(\lambda)|\partial_{y}R_+(\lambda)\rangle\rangle
-\langle\langle \partial_{y}L_+(\lambda)|\partial_{x}R_+(\lambda)\rangle\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
Substituting Eq. (\[left\]) and Eq.(\[right\]) in Eq. (\[par\]) and using $\sum_{i=\pm}|R_i(\lambda,t)\rangle\rangle\langle\langle L_i(\lambda,t)|={\bf 1}$, we can recover Eq. (\[BC\]).
[**Evaluation of Contour area, $C_A$**]{}:
\[appC\] The parametric dependence on time $\tau$ for the Fermi functions can be recast as an equation of ellipse. Let $f_l(\tau)$ and $f_r(\tau)$ represent the time dependent Fermi-functions such that $$\begin{aligned}
f_l(\tau)&=&f_l(1-m^2\cos^2(k\tau))\\
f_r(\tau)&=&f_r(1-m^2\cos^2(k\tau+\phi)).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $0<m<1$, and $\phi$ is the phase difference. These two equations can be recast as a single ellipse equation of the form, $A f_l(\tau)^2+Bf_r^2(\tau)+Cf_l(\tau)f_r(\tau)+D f_l(\tau)+E f_r(\tau)+F=0$, where, $$\begin{aligned}
A&=&\frac{1}{f_l^2},\\
B&=&\frac{1}{f_r^2},\\
C&=&\frac{-2\cos(2\phi)}{f_lf_r},\\
D&=&\frac{(m^2-2)}{f_l}(\sin^2(2\phi)-2\sin^2(\phi)\cos(2\phi)),\\
E&=&\frac{m^2-2}{f_r}\sin^2(\phi),\\
F&=&(1-m^2)\sin^2(2\phi)+(2-m^2)^2\sin^4(\phi).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $C^2<4AB$ preserving the ellipse at all times. The centers of the ellipse is at $\{x_o,y_o\}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
x_o&=&\frac{EC-2BD}{4AB-C^2},\\
y_o&=&\frac{DC-2AE}{4AB-C^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The major ($a_M$) and minor ($a_m$) axes are given by $$\begin{aligned}
a_M&=&\frac{-F_o}{A\cos^2(\theta_R)+B\sin^2(\theta_R)-0.5\sin^2(\theta_R)},\\
a_m&=&\frac{-F_o}{A\sin^2(\theta_R)+B\cos^2(\theta_R)-0.5\sin^2(\theta_R)},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
F_o&=&Cx_oy_o+Dx_o+Ey_o+Ax_o^2+By_o^2+F,\end{aligned}$$ and $\theta_R$ is the angle of rotation of the ellipse given by $$\theta_R=\frac{1}{2}\arctan\big(\frac{C}{A-B}\big).$$
The contour area is given by $C_A=\oiint f_lf_r=\pi a_M a_m.$ For $\phi=0$, $D=E=F=0$ and as a consequence, $C_A=0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a detailed study of chemical freeze-out in nucleus-nucleus collisions at beam energies of 11.6, 30, 40, 80 and 158$A$ GeV. By analyzing hadronic multiplicities within the statistical hadronization approach, we have studied the strangeness production as a function of centre of mass energy and of the parameters of the source. We have tested and compared different versions of the statistical model, with special emphasis on possible explanations of the observed strangeness hadronic phase space under-saturation. We show that, in this energy range, the use of hadron yields at midrapidity instead of in full phase space artificially enhances strangeness production and could lead to incorrect conclusions as far as the occurrence of full chemical equilibrium is concerned. In addition to the basic model with an extra strange quark non-equilibrium parameter, we have tested three more schemes: a two-component model superimposing hadrons coming out of single nucleon-nucleon interactions to those emerging from large fireballs at equilibrium, a model with local strangeness neutrality and a model with strange and light quark non-equilibrium parameters. The behaviour of the source parameters as a function of colliding system and collision energy is studied. The description of strangeness production entails a non-monotonic energy dependence of strangeness saturation parameter $\gs$ with a maximum around 30$A$ GeV. We also present predictions of the production rates of still unmeasured hadrons including the newly discovered $\Theta^+(1540)$ pentaquark baryon.'
author:
- 'F. Becattini'
- 'M. Gaździcki'
- 'A. Keränen'
- 'J. Manninen'
- 'R. Stock'
title: 'Chemical equilibrium study in nucleus-nucleus collisions at relativistic energies'
---
Introduction
============
The main goal of the ultra-relativistic nucleus-nucleus (A-A) collisions programme is to create in terrestrial laboratories a new state of matter, the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP). The existence of this phase, where quarks and gluons are deconfined, i.e. can freely move over several hadronic distances, is a definite prediction of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). In a search for QGP signals A-A collisions at different centre of mass energies per nucleon-nucleon (NN) pair have been studied: from few GeV to several hundreds of GeV recently attained in Au-Au collisions at RHIC.
Recently, accurate measurements of hadron production in central Pb-Pb collisions at 40, 80 and 158$A$ GeV of beam energy became available [@Af2002mx] and also preliminary data at 30$A$ GeV have been presented [@Alt2003rn] following an energy scan programme carried out by the experiment NA49 at CERN SPS. This programme is motivated by the hypothesis [@Gaz1998vd] that the threshold for creation of QGP in the early stage of Pb-Pb collisions might be located in the low SPS energy range, roughly between 20 and 40$A$ GeV of beam energy.
One of the main results of the study of high energy A-A collisions is a surprising success of the statistical-thermal models in reproducing essential features of particle production [@csatz; @sollf; @bgs; @pbm; @yen; @beca01; @pbmrhic; @flork]. This model succeeds also in describing particle multiplicities in many kinds of elementary collisions [@beca; @beca2; @becapt], suggesting that statistical production is a general property of the hadronization process itself [@beca2; @vari]. Furthermore, the statistical hadronization model (SHM) supplemented with the hydrodynamical expansion of the matter, to a large extent also reproduces transverse momentum spectra of different particle species [@marco].
Hence, the SHM model proves to be a useful tool for the analysis of soft hadron production and particularly to study strangeness production, whose enhancement has since long been proposed as a signature of QGP formation. Furthermore, anomalies in the energy dependence of strangeness production have been predicted as a signature of deconfinement and have been indeed observed experimentally [@anomalies], suggesting that the onset of the phase transition could be located around 30$A$ GeV. It is thus important to make a systematic analysis, within the framework of SHM, of the presently available hadronic multiplicities measured in Pb-Pb collisions at 30, 40 and 80$A$ GeV, which - to our knowledge - is done here for the first time.
Along with these intriguing questions, our work is also motivated by issues related to the application of statistical model itself. In fact, different versions of this model have been used in the past by different authors leading to somewhat different results and conclusions. These mainly stem from the alternative use of midrapidity and full phase space multiplicities, from the allowance of non-equilibrium abundances of hadrons, from the assumption of exact local vanishing strangeness etc. Therefore, we consider the comparison of these different approaches a worthwhile step. This has been made it possible by now by the availability of an accurate and large multiplicity sample in Pb-Pb collisions at 158$A$ GeV as well as the corresponding data for pp interactions.
The paper is organized as follows: a brief description of our main version of the SHM is given in Sect. 2. The experimental data selected for the analysis are summarized in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4 the results of the analysis using the main version and alternative schemes of the SHM are given. Finally, in Sect. 5 we present and discuss the energy dependence of the chemical freeze-out stage. Summary and conclusions are drawn in Sect. 6.
The Statistical Hadronization Model
===================================
The main idea of the SHM is that hadrons are emitted from regions at statistical equilibrium, called clusters or fireballs. No hypothesis is made about how statistical equilibrium is achieved; this can be a direct consequence of the hadronization process. In a single collision event, there might be several clusters with different collective momenta, different overall charges and volumes. However, Lorentz-invariant quantities like particle multiplicities are independent of clusters momenta, while they depend on charges and volumes. If final state interactions among formed hadrons occur, particle multiplicities are frozen when inelastic interactions cease (chemical freeze-out). Thus, by analyzing measured hadron abundances, a snapshot is taken of clusters at that particular stage of the evolution, which may significantly precede the final kinetic freeze-out stage, when also elastic interactions cease. However, it should be pointed out that chemical and kinetic freeze-out may depend on the hadron species and the assumption of a single chemical freeze-out is certainly an approximation. Most calculations in SHM are carried out in the framework of the ideal hadron-resonance gas, that is handling resonances as free particles: this amounts to take a considerable part of the hadronic interactions between strongly stable hadrons into account [@hage].
As has been mentioned, final multiplicities depend on the distribution of initial conserved charges (baryon number, strangeness and electric charge) among the produced clusters. This distribution is determined by the dynamics of the collision and is thus needed as an external input to the statistical model. However, most analyses, including ours, are carried out by assuming a single fireball. This is possible provided that one of the two conditions below is fulfilled:
1. all clusters are large enough to allow a grand-canonical description and all of them have the same values of relevant intensive parameters, i.e. temperature and chemical potentials;
2. clusters are small and must be treated canonically (i.e. counting those states having exactly the same charges as the cluster itself), yet they have the same temperature and the distribution governing fluctuations of charges is the same as that obtained by splitting one large cluster - the [*equivalent global cluster*]{} EGC - having as volume the sum of all clusters rest frame volumes and charges the sum of all clusters charges (see Appendix A). In this case the overall particle multiplicities turn out to be those calculated in the canonical, perhaps grand-canonical, ensemble of the equivalent global cluster [@beca2]. The reduction to EGC could be achieved even for micro-canonical clusters with additional requirement on mass fluctuations [@becapt].
The first condition sets stronger requirements and applies in the Bjorken’s boost-invariant scenario, where all clusters are to have the same parameters independently of their rapidity. The second condition is altogether weaker and leaves room for the compatibility between the single fireball analysis and a variation of net baryon number density in rapidity. This has been discussed in detail in ref. [@bgs]. The argument can be summarized as follows: particle multiplicities, being Lorentz invariants, are unaffected by a shift in rapidity of the clusters; therefore, clusters arising from the splitting of the EGC can be ordered in rapidity according to their net baryon number without affecting fully integrated particle multiplicities and, at the same time, giving rise to an effective variation of the baryon density profile. Although the second condition is certainly more appropriate in the examined energy range, from AGS to SPS, it must be pointed out that this should not be expected to precisely match physical reality, as well as the first condition in its domain of applicability. In other words, discrepancies (hopefully small) between calculations based on this model and measurement are to be expected, so that these analyses shall not provide perfect fits even though the statistical model was the underlying true model.
In this paper we will stick to the picture outlined in the second condition, which implicitely requires the use of full phase space multiplicities in order to (hopefully) integrating out correlations between clusters’ momenta and charges. Besides their general fitness, $4\pi$ multiplicities also allow to safely enforce overall strangeness neutrality. As has been mentioned, if the second condition applies, the multiplicity of any hadron $j$ can be calculated in the canonical ensemble of the EGC. Hence, as the EGC has a much larger volume than single clusters’, the grand-canonical ensemble, where charges are conserved on average, can be a good approximation (see Appendix A). This is the case for the collisions examined in this paper [@kerabeca]. In this case the mean [*primary*]{} multiplicity of the $j^{\rm th}$ hadron with mass $m_j$ and spin $J_j$ reads: $$\label{mean}
\left< n_j \right> = \frac{(2J_j+1) V }{(2\pi)^3} \int \d^3 {\rm p} \;
\left[ \e^{\sqrt{{\rm p}^2+m_j^2}/T-\muvs\cdot\qj/T} \pm 1 \right]^{-1}$$ where $T$ is the temperature, $V$ the EGC volume, $\qj = (Q_j,B_j,S_j)$ is a vector having as components the electric charge, baryon number and strangeness of the hadron and $\muv = (\mu_Q,\mu_B,\mu_S)$ is a vector of the corresponding chemical potentials; the upper sign applies to fermions, the lower to bosons. In order to correctly reproduce the data, it is also necessary to introduce at least one non-equilibrium parameter suppressing hadrons containing valence strange quarks, $\gamma_S \neq 1$ [@gammas]. With this supplementary parameter, hadron multiplicity is as in Eq. (\[mean\]) with the replacement: $$\label{fuga2}
\exp[\muv\cdot\qj/T] \rightarrow \exp[\muv\cdot\qj/T] \gamma_S^{n_s}$$ where $n_s$ stands for the number of valence strange quarks [*and*]{} anti-quarks in the hadron $j$.
The abundances of resonances is calculated convoluting (\[mean\]) with a relativistic Breit-Wigner distribution over a mass interval $[m-\delta m, m+\delta m]$, where $\delta m = \min[m-m_{\mathrm{threshold}},\ 2\Gamma]$. The minimum mass $m_{\mathrm{threshold}}$ is needed to open all decay modes. Finally, the overall multiplicity to be compared with the data, is calculated as the sum of primary multiplicity (\[mean\]) and the contribution from the decay of heavier hadrons: $$\label{branching}
\langle n_j \rangle = \langle n_i \rangle^{\mathrm{primary}} +
\sum_k \mathrm{Br}(k\rightarrow j) \langle n_k \rangle,$$ where the branching ratios are taken from the latest issue of the Review of Particle Physics [@pdg] and the summation runs over decays which contribute to the experimentaly measured multiplicity. Among the hadrons and resonances contributing to the sum in Eq. (\[branching\]), in this work all known states quoted in ref. [@pdg] up to a mass of 1.8 GeV are included (see discussion in Sect. 4).
What we have hitherto described is the main version of the SHM used for the data analysis, that will be henceforth referred to as SHM($\gs$). As has been mentioned in the Introduction, in this work we also test other schemes and versions of the SHM, which will be described in detail in Sect. 4.
Experimental Data Set
=====================
The bulk of the experimental data consists of measurements made by NA49 collaboration in central Pb-Pb collisions at beam momenta of 30, 40, 80 and 158$A$ GeV, corresponding to $\sqrt s_{NN} =$ 7.6, 8.8, 12.3 and 17.2 GeV respectively. The acceptance region in rapidity and transverse momentum covers a typical range from midrapidity to projectile rapidity and from 0 to 1.5 GeV/$c$ respectively. The overall hadron multiplicities, quoted in referenced papers, were obtained using forward-backward symmetry in rapidity and by extrapolating the yields to full phase space. All results were corrected for the feed-down from weak decays, e.g. $\pi^-$ multiplicity does not include pions produced in decays of $\Lambda$ hyperons and K$^0_S$ mesons.
Central collisions were selected by a trigger using information from a downstream calorimeter, which measured the energy of the projectile spectator nucleons. Whilst at 30, 40 and 80$A$ GeV all published results refer to the 7.2% most central collision sample, at 158$A$ GeV different centrality selections (5%, 10% and 20% most central collisions) were used to measure various hadronic species. In this analysis we have rescaled all published multiplicities at 158$A$ GeV to the corresponding ones at 5% most central collisions assuming that for the considered central collisions the hadron yield is proportional to the mean number of participant nucleona. The resulting scaling factors are 1.08 and 1.32 for 10% and 20% most central collisions respectively [@Af2002mx; @Af2002fk].
As far as AGS data at 11.6$A$ GeV is concerned, we have used both multiplicities measured by the experiments and extrapolations of measured rapidity distributions made in ref. [@beca01] at 3% top centrality. For $\Lambda$ we have made a weighted average of the multiplicities measured both at 5% top centrality by E896 [@lamb896] and E891 [@lamb891]. For the former, the quoted experimental error was only statistical so that we have added a 10% systematic error resulting in a value of 16.7$\pm$0.5$\pm$1.7. For the latter, we have used the extrapolated value in ref. [@beca01] of 20.34$\pm$2.74. The error on the weighted average has been rescaled by 1.25 (i.e. $\sqrt{\chi^2}$) according to the PDG weighting method in case of discrepancy between different measurements [@pdg]. The obtained average has been rescaled by a factor 1.02 to convert it from 5% to 3% top centrality by assuming a linear dependence on the number of participants and by using the tables in ref. [@protags]. Since the $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $\Lambda$ ratio has been measured only at midrapidity [@alamags], we have obtained a $\bar\Lambda$ 4$\pi$ multiplicity assuming that the double ratio $(\langle \bar{\Lambda}\rangle/\langle\Lambda\rangle)_{y=0}/(\langle
\bar{\Lambda} \rangle/\langle \Lambda \rangle)$ is the same at SPS and AGS energies. The final experimental multiplicities and ratios used in our analysis are shown in tables \[ags\], \[pbpb30\], \[pbpb40\], \[pbpb80\] and \[pbpb158\].
In order to test the effect of the cut in rapidity on the resulting statistical model parameters (discussed in detail in Sect. 4) we have also determined the yields integrated over limited ($\Delta y = 1$ and $\Delta y =2$) rapidity windows around midrapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at 158$A$ GeV. This has been done by fitting the rapidity distributions measured by NA49 to a Gaussian or the sum of two Gaussians, with area and width as a free parameters and central values set to zero. The results are shown in table \[yfit\]. The quality of the fits is quite good, except for pions due to a couple of points near midrapidity; yet, this discrepancy does not affect significantly the integrated yield. In fact, it must be stressed that the main goal of these fits is to estimate an integral and not to reproduce accurately the shape of the distributions over the full measured range. We have also checked that the extrapolations to full phase space are in good agreement with published measurements.
Analysis Results
================
The analysis has been carried out by looking for the minima of the $\chi^2$: $$\chi^2 = \sum_i \frac{(n_i^{\rm exp} - n_i^{\rm theo})^2}{\sigma_i^2}$$ where $n_i$ is the multiplicity of the $i^{\rm th}$ measured hadronic species and $\sigma_i$ is the sum in quadrature of statistical and systematic experimental error.
The theoretical multiplicities are calculated according to Eq. (\[branching\]) with the decay chain stopped to match the experimental definition of multiplicity to properly compare theoretical and experimental values. This occurs in Pb-Pb collisions after electromagnetic and strong decays and before weak decays, whilst in Au-Au collisions at AGS the weak decays of $\Lambda$, $\Sigma$, $\Xi$, $\Omega$ and K$^0_S$ are included.
The effect of the uncertainties on masses, widths and branching ratios of the involved hadrons on the fit parameters has been studied by the method described in ref. [@becapt] and found to be negligible throughout.
In order to cross-check our results and verify their robustness, we have performed the analysis with two independent numerical programs, henceforth referred to as A and B, which mainly differ with regard to the included resonances, their decay modes and branching ratios.
The fitted parameters within the main scheme SHM($\gs$) are shown in table \[parameters\], while the experimental and fitted multiplicities, along with the predicted yields of several hadron species are shown in tables \[ags\], \[pbpb30\], \[pbpb40\], \[pbpb80\] and \[pbpb158\] and figs. \[agsf\], \[pbpb40f\], \[pbpb80f\] and \[pbpb158f\]. We do not show any plot for the fit in Pb-Pb collisions at 30$A$ GeV because of the low number of data points. The quality of the fit is good throughout, as proved by the $\chi^2$’s values and we do not see any clear discrepancy between data and model, with the remarkable exception of the $\Lambda(1520)$ in Pb-Pb collisions at 158$A$ GeV. Due the 5$\sigma$ deviation from the statistical model prediction, the measured $\Lambda(1520)$ yield has been removed from the fitted data sample as it could have biased the fit itself. We argue that this disagreement owes to its short lifetime ($\Gamma = 15.6$ MeV) compared with all other used particles. If the kinetic freeze-out occurs after some suitable delay from the chemical freeze-out, one can indeed justify the low measured $\Lambda(1520)$ yield as the effect of the elastic reinteractions of its decay products. The quality of the fits is further illustrated in fig. \[sqrts\] where the measured and fitted ratios and are plotted as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$; these ratios have been chosen as it has been proposed that their energy depedence plays an important role in the search for deconfinement onset at SPS energies [@Gaz1998vd].
The observed differences in the fit parameters between A and B are of the order of the fit errors. They may be considered as an estimate of the systematic error due to uncertainties in the implementation of the model. The first set of parameters in table \[parameters\] have been obtained by using the full data, whilst the second set has been obtained by using the maximal common set of particles measured in the four collisions, that is $\pi^+$, K$^+$, K$^-$, $\Lambda$, $\bar\Lambda$ and the participant nucleons (net baryon number) $B$. By comparing fit results in the same analysis (A with A and B with B), it can be seen that the obtained parameters are in good agreement and only in one case a discrepancy larger than one standard deviation ($\gs$ in Pb-Pb at 158$A$ GeV) is observed; this demonstrates the robustness of the results.
We have also included in tables \[ags\], \[pbpb30\], \[pbpb40\], \[pbpb80\] and \[pbpb158\] the prediction for the yield of the recently discovered $\Theta^+$ pentaquark baryon (uudd$\bar{\rm s}$) by using as input mass $m=1540$ MeV and $J=1/2$. According to the SHM($\gs$) model, in the Boltzmann limit this simply reads: $$\label{theta}
\left< n_{\Theta^+} \right> = \frac{\gs V}{\pi^2} m^2 T
{\rm K}_2 \left(\frac{m}{T}\right) \exp[\mu_B/T+\mu_Q/T+\mu_S/T]$$ if we disregard feeding from possible excited states.
As the number of data points in Pb-Pb collisions at 30$A$ GeV was not sufficient to determine the four free parameters unambiguously, we have forced $T$ to lie on the parabolic chemical freeze-out curve (\[tmuparam\]) in Sect. 5, interpolating the other four points in the $\mu_B-T$ plane. This method has proved to be able to provide unambiguous solutions for the remaining three free parameters.
The first quoted error beside the best-fit value in table \[parameters\] is the error coming out from the fitting program (inferred from the analysis of the $\chi^2=\chi^2_{\rm min} +1$ level contours) whereas the second error is the fit error rescaled by a factor $\sqrt{\chi^2_{\rm min}/dof}$ where $dof$ is the number of degrees of freedom. We deem that the latter is a more realistic uncertainty on the parameters with respect to the fit error because of the “imperfect” $\chi^2_{\rm min}/dof$ values, expected to be 1 on average if the model correctly matched physical reality. The argument, which is the same used in the Particle Data Book [@pdg] when averaging discrepant data, is as follows: if $\chi^2_{\rm min}/dof \neq 1$, then the model cannot reproduce the data at the level of accuracy relevant to the experimental errors; on the other hand, this would be the case if experimental errors were larger and, particularly, if they were rescaled by a common factor $S$ so that: $$\chi^{2'} = \sum_i \frac{(n_i^{\rm exp} - n_i^{\rm theo})^2}{(S\sigma_i)^2}=
\frac{\chi^2}{S^2}$$ With this simple rescaling of the $\chi^2$, the best-fit parameters would be unchanged, whereas their relevant errors would scale up by a factor $S$. In fact, the new covariance matrix $C'$ for the parameter vector $X$ is related to the $\chi^{2'}$ around the minimum through: $$\chi^{2'}(X) = \chi^{2'}_{\rm min} + (X-X_0)^T {\sf C'}^{-1}(X-X_0)$$ Also: $$\chi^2(X) = \chi^2_{\rm min} + (X-X_0)^T {\sf C}^{-1} (X-X_0)$$ and, being $\chi^{2'}=\chi^2/S^2$, one finds ${\sf C}' = S^2 {\sf C}$. Therefore, since this covariance matrix would be the outcome of a standard quality fit, with $\chi^{2'}_{\rm min}/dof = 1$, the errors rescaled by $S$ can be regarded as the sensible minimal uncertainty on the parameters. These rescaled errors have indeed been used in all of the plots in this paper.
A major issue in the multiplicity fits is where to stop the inclusion of heavy light-flavoured resonances contributing to measured particle yields in Eq. (\[branching\]). The relevance of this cut-off is owing to the peculiar shape of the hadron mass spectrum, which rises almost exponentially between 1 and 1.7 GeV and drops thereafter probably due to the missing experimental information (see fig. \[spectr\]). Should the number of states keep on increasing exponentially, the problem is set of the physical meaning of the obtained parameters, which could be heavily affected by the ignorance of further hadronic states. In fact, although the production of resonances decreases exponentially with the mass, the effect on secondary light particles through the decay chain could be balanced and even exceeded by the increasing number of states. We have thus checked the stability of the obtained parameters in the four collisions by varying the cut-off on the mass spectrum in a range where we are reasonably confident on the complete experimental knowledge and the number of states apparently rises exponentially (i.e. up to 1.7-1.8 GeV) and repeating the fit. As shown in fig. \[stabil\], the fitted $T$, $\mu_B$ and $\gs$ in Pb-Pb at 158$A$ GeV are indeed fairly constant from 1.3 to 1.9 GeV. Furthermore, the outcoming primary yields of some measured particles tend to saturate at cut-off masses of about 1.8 GeV, implying that the contribution of resonance decays to secondaries (needed to keep the final multiplicity close to the measured value) settles down as well and the inclusion of heavier states yields a more and more negligible contribution. This is a clear indication of the significance of the fit results. A similar pattern occurs in all other examined collisions.
A major result of these fits is that $\gs$ is significantly smaller than 1 in almost all cases (with a possible exception at 30$A$ GeV, see table \[parameters\]), that is strangeness seems to be under-saturated with respect to a completely chemically equilibrated hadron gas. This confirms previous findings [@bgs; @beca01; @cley]. There is a considerable interest and ongoing investigations about this deviation of the data from the fully equilibrated hadron gas, particularly motivated by the fact that strangeness production is considered as a possible QGP signature. It is therefore worth to examine and test, with the presently available large data sample, different scenarios which have been put forward to account for the under-saturation of strangeness.
Full equilibrium and midrapidity ratios
---------------------------------------
As we have seen, fits to full phase space multiplicities within the SHM yield $\gs < 1$ in most cases. However, good tests of the same model without extra strangeness suppression (i.e. assuming $\gs = 1$) have been obtained by fitting ratios of hadronic yields within a limited rapidity range around midrapidity at top SPS energy [@pbm]. This is an appropriate method of estimating the parameters of the sources only if the boost-invariant Bjorken scenario holds, at least as a good approximation, over a large rapidity interval (say $\Delta y \simeq 6$) because, in this case, particle ratios at midrapidity are the same as in full phase space. However, rapidity distributions of hadrons at SPS energies do not feature boost-invariance [@Af2002mx; @Af2002fk; @Afuu; @Af2002ub; @Afuu; @Af2002he] and a cut at midrapidity can artificially enhance heavy particle yield with respect to light ones (see fig. \[rapid\]), as long as their kinetic freeze-out occurs at the same temperature and the leading baryon effect can be neglected. In the statistical model of a single fireball this can be easily understood, for the width of the rapidity distribution decreases as a function of mass according to (in the Boltzmann approximation): $$\frac{\d N}{\d y} \propto \left( m^2 T + \frac{2 m T^2}{\cosh y} + \frac{2 T^3}
{\cosh^2 y} \right) \exp[-m \cosh y/T]$$ Yet, it is worth testing the effect of the rapidity cut on measured distributions rather than using arguments based solely on the statistical model. Therefore, we have fitted, within the scheme A, the integrated yields over limited rapidity windows measured in central Pb+Pb collisions at 158$A$ GeV by NA49 (see Sect. 3 for details) and quoted in table \[deltay2\] as well as the yields measured by WA97 [@wa97] over a $\Delta y = 1$ window around midrapidity. We first note that, according to table \[deltay2\], the integrated yields over $\Delta y = 1$ measured by NA49 and WA97 are in good agreement with each other. Since the fit to the statistical model gave $\gs \simeq 1$ [@becasqm] for WA97 data, the same is expected for the integrated NA49 yields over the same rapidity window. This is indeed what we find, as shown in table \[deltay\]. While temperature and baryon-chemical potential are essentially unchanged, the best-fit value of $\gs$ is closer to 1 than that obtained in full phase space in fit A (see table (\[parameters\]) and it is also compatible with 1 within the error.
We then conclude that the superfluity of $\gs$ in analysis of midrapidity particle yields, at least at top SPS energy, is likely to owe to the artificial enhancement of strange particles with respect to lighter non-strange ones, induced by the cut on rapidity. The fact that $\gs \simeq 1$ for midrapidity yields is then not an indication of a fully equilibrated hadron gas at midrapidity; even if such equilibrated fireball existed at the estimated kinetic freeze-out temperature of $T \approx 125$ MeV [@kfo], the $\Delta y = 1$ window would be too narrow for a correct estimation of chemical freeze-out parameters (see fig. \[rapid\]) because lighter particles would be cut down significantly.
Strangeness correlation volume
------------------------------
To account for the observed under-saturation of strangeness, a picture has been put forward in which strangeness is supposed to be exactly vanishing over distances less than those implied by the overall volume $V$ [@redl]. We henceforth refer to this version of the statistical model as SHM(SCV). Following the description of the model in Sect. 2, this means that the produced clusters or fireballs emerge with $S=0$ and they are not allowed to share non-vanishing net strangeness. Assuming, for sake of simplicity, that all clusters have the same typical volume $V_c$ and that the equivalence of the set of clusters to a global fireball still applies for baryon number and electric charge (but not to strangeness) the following expression of the primary average multiplicities can be obtained (see Appendix B): $$\label{scanonical}
\langle n_j \rangle = \frac{V}{V_c} \frac{(2J_j+1)V_c}{(2\pi)^3}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \int \d^3 {\rm p} \;(\mp 1)^{n+1}
\exp[-n\sqrt{{\rm p}^2 + m_j^2}/T + n \mu_B B_j/T + n \mu_Q Q_j/T]
\frac{Z_c(-nS_j)}{Z_c(0)}$$ where $$Z_c = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int^\pi_{-\pi} \d \phi \; \exp \Big[ \sum _j
\frac{(2J_j+1)V_c}{(2\pi)^3} \int \d^3 {\rm p} \;
\log (1 \pm \e^{-\sqrt{{\rm p}^2 + m_j^2}/T + \mu_B B_j/T + \mu_Q Q_j/T
-\i \phi S_j})^{\pm 1} \Big]$$ is the so-called [*strange canonical partition function*]{} of a single cluster. As usual, in the above equations, the upper sign is for fermions and the lower for bosons.
If $V_c$ is sufficiently small, the multiplicities of strange hadrons turn out to be significantly suppressed with respect to the corresponding grand-canonical ones due to the enforcement of exact strangeness conservation in a finite system, an effect called [*canonical suppression*]{}. Furthermore, the suppression features hierarchy in strangeness, namely it is stronger for $\Omega$ ($S=3$) and $\Xi$ ($S=2$) than for kaons and $\Lambda$’s, so it can be argued that this can account for the actually observed hierarchical pattern of extra strangeness suppression which goes like $\gs^{|S|}$ for open strange particles. The discriminating difference between this picture and our main scheme SHM($\gs$) described in Sect. 2 is concerned with hidden strange particles such as $\phi$, which do not suffer canonical suppression, so that its theoretical multiplicity in SHM(SCV) turns out to be simply the same as in a cluster with volume $V$, that is given by the formula (\[mean\]) without $\gs^2$ suppression.
We have made a test of this model by fitting the data sample of full phase space multiplicities in Pb-Pb collisions at 158$A$ GeV fixing $\gs=1$ and determining the parameters $T$, $V$, $\mu_B$ and $f = V_c/V$ within the scheme A. The results are shown in tables \[models\] and \[pbpb158\]. The quality of the fit is worse with respect to the SHM($\gs$) model mainly because of the underestimated pion yield and the larger of $\phi$. The latter is expected, as has been mentioned. As far as pion discrepancy is concerned, the deviation stems from the very fact that they are the only non-strange particles in the fit. The minimization procedure tries to accommodate the relative ratios among strange hadrons by fixing $V_c$ and $T$, then it tries to set the overall normalization $V$ and at this stage a competition sets in between the set of strange and non-strange particles. Since pions are only two entries, the fit prefers to keep them low rather than raising the whole set of strange particles.
Our result suggests that, for the local strangeness correlation to be an effective mechanism, the cluster volume should be of the order of 2.5% of the overall volume. Otherwise stated, strange quarks should have not propagated beyond a distance of about 4 fm from the production point up to chemical freeze-out, if we take the overall volume of about 3 10$^3$ fm$^3$ as coming out from this fit where hadrons are pointlike particles.
Superposition of NN collisions with a fully equilibrated fireball
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this picture, henceforth referred to as SHM(TC), the observed hadron production is approximately the superposition of two components (TC): one originated from one large fireball at complete chemical equilibrium at freeze-out, with $\gs=1$, and another component from single nucleon-nucleon collisions. In fact, according to simulations based on transport models, a significant fraction of beam nucleons interacts only once with target nucleons [@urqmd]. With the simplifying assumption of disregarding subsequent inelastic collisions of particles produced in those primary NN collisions, the overall hadron multiplicity can be written then as: $$\langle n_j \rangle = \langle N_c \rangle \langle n_j \rangle_{NN} +
\langle n_j \rangle_V$$ where $\langle n_j \rangle_{NN}$ is the average multiplicity of the $j^{\rm th}$ hadron in a single NN collision, $\langle N_c \rangle$ is the mean number of single NN collisions giving rise to non-re-interacting particles and $\langle n_j
\rangle_V$ is the average multiplicity of hadrons emitted from the equilibrated fireball, as in Eq. (\[mean\]), with $\gs=1$. The $\langle n_j \rangle_{NN}$ term can be written in turn as: $$\langle n_j \rangle_{NN} = \frac{Z^2}{A^2} \langle n_j \rangle_{pp} +
\frac{(A-Z)^2}{A^2} \langle n_j \rangle_{nn} + \frac{2Z(A-Z)}{A^2}
\langle n_j \rangle_{np}$$ Since it is known that in NN collisions strangeness is strongly suppressed [@beca2] the idea is to ascribe the observed under-saturation of strangeness in heavy ion collisions to the NN component, leaving the central fireball at complete equilibrium, i.e. with $\gs=1$. Of course, this is possible provided that $\langle
N_c \rangle$ is sufficiently large. This production mechanism has probably some consequences on the final rapidity and momentum distributions of the different species, whose calculation goes certainly beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we have confined ourselves to integrated multiplicities and tried to fit $T$, $V$, $\mu_B$ of the central fireball and $\langle N_c \rangle$ by using NA49 data in Pb-Pb collisions at 158$A$ GeV within the scheme A.
To calculate $\langle n_j \rangle_{NN}$ we have used the statistical model and fitted pp full phase space multiplicities measured at $\sqrt s = 17.2$ GeV (i.e. the same beam energy) by the same NA49 experiment. For np and nn collisions, the parameters of the statistical model determined in pp are retained and the initial quantum numbers are changed accordingly. Theoretical multiplicities have been calculated in the canonical ensemble, which is described in detail in ref. [@becapt]. Instead of the usual $\gs$ parametrization, the new parametrization described in ref. [@becapt] has been used in which one assumes that some number of ßpairs, poissonianly distributed, hadronizes; the extra strangeness suppression parameter $\gs$ is thus replaced by the mean number of these ßpairs, $\ssb$.\
The results of the fit are shown in table \[pp160\] along with fitted and predicted hadron multiplicities, including the $\Theta(1540)$ pentaquark baryon, and in fig. \[pp160f\]. The temperature value is significantly higher than in pp and collisions at higher energy, an effect already observed for center-of-mass energies below 20 GeV [@beca2; @becapt]. We conjecture that this is a possible indication of a beginning inadequacy of the canonical ensemble at low energy, where exact conservation of energy and momentum should start to play a significant role. Perhaps this is the point where the microcanonical hadronization of each cluster is a more appropriate approach.
The results of the fit to Pb-Pb collisions are shown in table \[models\]. The fit quality, as well as the obtained values of $T$, $\mu_B$, are comparable to the main fit within the SHM($\gs$) model. The predicted number of “single” NN collisions is about 50 with a 16% uncertainty. Thus, only 260 nucleons out of 360 contribute to the formation of large equilibrated fireballs. The percentage of primary hadrons stemming from NN collisions varies from 14% for pions to 27% of $\rho$’s and protons and to 0.5% of $\Omega$’s. It should be pointed out that the fitted parameters are affected by a further systematic error owing to the uncertainty on the parameters of the statistical model in NN collisions, which are used as an input in the Pb-Pb fit. However, because of exceeding computing time needs, it has not been possible to assess these errors.
In a simple geometrical picture, the single-interacting nucleons are located in the outer corona of the portion of colliding nuclei corresponding to the observed number of participants. As the projected (on the collision’s transverse plane) radial nucleon density is: $$\frac{\d N}{\d r} = 4 \pi r \sqrt{R^2 - r^2} n_0$$ where $n_0 = 0.16$ fm$^{-3}$ is the nucleon density and $R \simeq 6.45$ fm is the radius of the portion of colliding nucleus corresponding to a participant number of 180, the 50 single-interacting nucleons should lie between 4.84 and 6.45 fm. This simple estimate is in approximate agreement with the calculations performed with the Glauber model [@urqmd]. Since the number of single-interacting nucleons is expected to be weakly dependent on center-of-mass energy, the fits to this two-component model should yield consistent values of $\langle N_c \rangle$ at 30, 40 and 80$A$ GeV collisions. However, no measurement of hadron production in NN collisions at those energies is available and this question cannot be tackled for the present.
Non-equilibrium of hadrons with light quarks
--------------------------------------------
An extension of the statistical model has been proposed where QGP hadronization is essentially a statistical coalescence of quarks occurring at an energy density value which does not correspond to a hadron gas at equilibrium [@rafe]. In this model two non-equilibrium parameters are introduced for the different types of quarks, $\gq$ for u, d quarks and $\gss$ for strange quarks (the difference between $\gss$ and $\gs$ is explained below). The multiplicity of each hadron thus reads: $$\label{meangq}
\langle n_j \rangle = \frac{(2J_j+1) V}{(2\pi)^3}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \gss^{n n_s} \gq^{n n_q}
\int \d^3 {\rm p} \; \exp[-n\sqrt{{\rm p}^2 + m_j^2}/T + n \muv \cdot \qj/T]$$ where $n_s$ is the number of valence s quarks and $n_q$ the number of valence u, d quarks; $\muv$ and $\qj$ are as in Eq. (\[mean\]). By defining: $$\label{transform}
\gs = \frac{\gamma_s}{\gq} \qquad \tilde V = V \gq^2$$ the Boltzmann limit of average multiplicity reads: $$\label{meangq2}
\langle n_j \rangle = \frac{(2J_j + 1) {\tilde V}}{(2\pi)^3}
\gs^{n_s} \gq^{|B_j|} \int \d^3 {\rm p} \; \exp[-\sqrt{{\rm p}^2+m_j^2}/T
+ \muv \cdot \qj/T]$$ where $B_j$ is the baryon number, as long as mesons have two and baryons have three valence quarks. By comparing this formula with the Boltzmann limit of Eq. (\[mean\]) it can be realized that the introduction of a light-quark non-equilibrium parameter amounts to introduce in the statistical model an overall enhancement (or suppression) of baryons with respect to mesons, unlike in the model SHM($\gs$). We henceforth refer to this model as SHM($\gs\gq$).
The parameter $\gq$ has a definite physical bound for bosons which can be obtained by requiring the convergence of the series $\sum_{N=0}^\infty (\gq^{n_q N}) \exp(-N \epsilon/T
+ N \muv \cdot \qj/T)$ for any value of the energy. If the number of u, d quarks to be hadronized is so large that $\gq$ is to attain its bounding value, a Bose condensation of particles in the lowest momentum state sets in. For low strangeness and electrical chemical potentials, such as those found in the present analysis, the bounding value is $\gq = \exp(m/2T)$ where $m$ is the neutral pion mass, e.g. $\gq \simeq 1.5$ for $T \simeq 160$ MeV.
With the introduction of $\gq$ as an additional free parameter, there are 5 parameters to be determined in the model. This makes the minimization procedure rather unstable because it becomes easier to be trapped in local minima. To avoid this, we have performed 4 parameter fits with fixed values of $\gq$ varying from 0.6 to 1.7 in steps of 0.1. This method allows a clearcut determination of the absolute minimum.
The results of these fits are shown in fig. \[gammaq\] in terms of the minimum $\chi^2$ obtained for fixed $\gq$. The round dots show the minimum $\chi^2$’s achieved by using the main sample of multiplicities in Pb-Pb collisions at 158$A$ GeV. We find a steady decreasing trend in the value of best-fit temperatures varying from $\simeq 187$ MeV at $\gq = 0.6$ to $\simeq 140$ MeV at $\gq=1.6$. The fitted temperature at $\gq=0.5$ reaches the upper limit of 200 MeV, which is the maximum allowed in the model to prevent from being critically dependent on the hadron mass spectrum cut-off. On the other hand, the best-fit values of $\mu_B/T$ and $\gs$ are rather stable and about the same found in the main fit with $\gq=1$. The number of terms in the series (\[meangq\]) has been truncated to 5 for all particles; the contribution of further terms has been found to be negligible throughout.
It is seen that the absolute $\chi^2$ minimum falls in the region of pion condensation, marked by a vertical line at $\gq \simeq 1.62$, with $\chi^2 \simeq 13$ and $T \simeq
140$ MeV. This finding is in agreement with what is found in ref. [@rafe]. However, there is also a local minimum at the lower edge $\gq = 0.6$, with a temperature of 187 MeV, which is only one unit of $\chi^2$ higher than the absolute minimum. This indicates that the absolute minimum could be rather unstable against variations of the input data and this is in fact what we find by varying down the pion multiplicities by only 1 $\sigma$. For this case, the minimum $\chi^2$s are shown in fig. \[gammaq\] as triangular dots and the absolute minimum now lies at $\gq = 0.6$ instead of at the pion condensation point.
In view of the instability of the fit, and of the small [*relative*]{} $\chi^2$ improvement in comparison with the main fit, we conclude that there is so far no evidence for the need of this further non-equilibrium parameter. However, it is interesting to note that this model predicts an enhanced (if $\gq > 1$) or suppressed (if $\gq < 1$) production of the $\Theta^+$ pentaquark baryon with respect to the other versions of the statistical model, even though they agree in reproducing the multiplicities of all other hadrons. This is owing to an additional $\gq^2$ factor for this special hadron having five valence quarks. From Eqs. (\[meangq\],\[transform\]) one gets, in the Boltzmann limit: $$\label{theta2}
\langle n_{\Theta^+} \rangle = \frac{\gq^3 \gs \tilde V}{\pi^2} m^2 T
{\rm K}_2 \left(\frac{m}{T}\right) \exp[\mu_B/T+\mu_Q/T+\mu_S/T]$$ In fact, as can be seen in table \[pbpb158\] the predicted yield of $\Theta^+$ at the global minimum $\gq \simeq 1.62$ is more than a factor 2 higher than for SHM($\gs$).
As a final remark, we stress that minimum $\chi^2$ fits are very useful tools to get information on the state of the source at chemical freeze-out, but, as already emphasized in Sect. 3, the simple multiplicity analysis with global parameters resides on an idealization of the collision (e.g. the assumed existence of an EGC) which cannot [*exactly*]{} fit physical reality and discrepancies are to be expected anyway. Thus, a new mechanism or of a modification of the basic scheme proves to be relevant only if it leads to a major improvement of the agreement with the data. Slight improvements of the $\chi^2$, whenever their significance is beyond its expected statistical fluctuations, cannot be seriously taken as a proof of the validity of a particular scheme.
Energy Dependence
=================
The statistical model does not make any prediction on the energy dependence of hadron production; its relevant parameters have to be determined separately for each energy and reaction type. Nevertheless, the analysis of the data within this model may help in the study of energy dependence of hadron production because it effectively reduces the full experimental information on numerous hadron yields to only few parameters. Clearly this reduction should be taken with care, were not for the approximate validity of some relevant assumptions, such as the reducibility to EGC (see Sect. 2). Furthermore, the reduction procedure may remove or dilute essential physical information. With these caveats in mind, in this section we discuss the energy dependence of the chemical freeze-out parameters extracted from the data (by using the full data sets) within our main SHM($\gs$) approach.
The chemical freeze-out points in the $\mu_B-T$ plane are shown in fig. \[tmu\]. The RHIC point at $\sqrt s_{NN} = 130$ GeV, obtained fitting particle yield ratios at midrapidity, has been taken from ref. [@flork]. The four points at beam energies of 11.6, 40, 80 and 158$A$ GeV have been fitted with a parabola: $$T = 0.167 - 0.153 \mu_B^2,
\label{tmuparam}$$ where $T$ and $\mu_B$ are in GeV. The Pb-Pb point at 30$A$ GeV has been forced to lie on the above curve, as has been mentioned in the previous section. The RHIC point calculated in ref. [@flork] is in good agreement with the extrapolation of the curve (\[tmuparam\]).
In the search for deconfinement phase transition, strangeness production is generally believed to be a major item, especially if an anomalous abrupt change was found as a function of centre-of-mass energy or other related quantities. A possible indication of it in Pb-Pb collisions at the low SPS energies was reported on the basis of the observed energy dependence of several observables [@anomalies]. Particularly, the ratio shows a peaked maximum at about 30$A$ GeV. One may expect that this anomaly should be reflected in the energy dependence of $\gs$ parameter fitted within SHM($\gs$) scheme. This dependence is plotted in fig. \[gs\] and in fact a maximum shows up at 30$A$ GeV. Although the error bars are large enough so as to make $\gs$ seemingly consistent with a constant as a function of centre-of-mass energy, it is important to note that the dominant systematic errors on experimental data at SPS energies are essentially common. Therefore, the errors on the model parameters at different SPS energies turn out to be strongly correlated, hence fitted $\gs$’s are expected to move up or down together.
In order to further study strangeness production features, we have also compared the the measured ratio (including the preliminary RHIC result at $\sqrt s_{NN}
= 200$ GeV [@jordre]) with the theoretical values in a hadron gas along the freeze-out curve (\[tmuparam\]) as a function of the fitted baryon-chemical potential for different values of $\gs$ (see fig. \[kpi\]). The calculated dependence of on $\mu_B$ is non-monotonic with a broad maximum at $\mu_B \simeq 400$ MeV (i.e. $E_{beam} \simeq 30A$ GeV) [@cleymax]. Taking into account that systematic errors at different energies in Pb-Pb collisions are fully correlated, we can conclude that the data points seem not to follow the constant $\gs$ lines.
In fact, the anomalous increase of relative strangeness production at 30$A$ GeV can be seen also in the Wroblewski variable $\ls = 2 \ssb/(\uub+\ddb)$, the estimated ratio of newly produced strange quarks to u, d quarks at primary hadron level, shown in fig. \[ls\] and table \[parameters\]. The calculation of newly produced quark pairs is performed by using the statistical model best fit values of the various hadron multiplicities, so the obtained $\ls$ values are somehow model-dependent. Nevertheless, this variable features a very similar behaviour as the ratio and attains a maximum value of 0.61 at 30$A$ GeV, very close to that predicted for $\gs=1$.
These deviations from a smooth behaviour of strangeness production are certainly intriguing, yet the analysis within the SHM will be more conclusive in this regard with a larger data sample at 30$A$ GeV and at the forthcoming 20$A$ GeV data.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
We presented a detailed study of chemical freeze-out conditions in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions at projectile momenta of 11.6 (Au-Au at AGS), 30, 40, 80 and 158$A$ (Pb-Pb at SPS) GeV, corresponding to nucleon-nucleon centre of mass energies of 4.8, 7.6, 8.8, 12.3, 17.2 GeV respectively. By analyzing hadronic multiplicities measured in full phase space within the statistical hadronization model, we have tested and compared different versions of this model, with special emphasis on possible explanations of the observed strangeness under-saturation at the hadron level.
It is found that version of the model referred to as SHM($\gs$), where a non-equilibrium population of hadron carrying strange valence quarks is allowed, fits all the data analyzed in this paper. We have also shown that the seeming full chemical equilibrium found for central Pb+Pb collisions at 158$A$ GeV by using particle yields integrated over a limited region around mid-rapidity is most likely an artefact of the kinematical cut.
We have tested a model (SHM(TC)) in which hadron production is pictured as stemming from two independent components: a fireball (or a set of fireballs) at full chemical equilibrium and single nucleon-nucleon interactions. This model can fit the data at 158$A$ GeV if the number of collisions is around 50 with a sizeable uncertainty. So far, it cannot be confirmed at other energies due to the lack of the precise data on NN interactions.
A model in which strangeness is assumed to vanish locally [@redl] yields a worse fit to the data with respect to SHM($\gs$) and SHM(TC).
Finally, we have also tested a model in which it is allowed a non-equilibrium population of hadrons carrying both strange and light valence quarks. We have found the present set of available data does not allow to establish whether a further non-equilibrium parameter is indeed needed to account for the observed hadron production pattern. A discriminating prediction of this model with respect to the SHM($\gs$) is an enhanced production of the recently discovered $\Theta^+$ pentaquark baryon due to the additional factor $\gamma_q^2$.
Energy dependence of chemical freeze-out parameters has been discussed based on the results obtained with our main version of the model SHM($\gs$). The evolution of the freeze-out temperature and baryon-chemical potential is found to be smooth in the AGS-SPS-RHIC energy range. The strangeness-suppression parameter $\gs$ is found to smaller than one ($\gs \simeq 0.8$) for most of the studied collisions which confirms previous findings [@bgs; @beca01; @cley], with an indication of a maximum at 30$A$ GeV, where $\gs$ is found to be close to one. The significance of this maximum is related to the correlation between errors on hadron yield measurements at different energies. The interpolated dependence of relative strangeness production on energy and baryon-chemical potential, as measured by the ratio and the Wroblewski factor $\ls$, features a broad maximum at about 30$A$ of beam energy. However, the experimental measurement of and the estimated $\ls$ value in Pb-Pb collisions at this energy seemingly exceed the expected values for a fixed $\gs$.
APPENDIX A - From canonical to grand-canonical ensemble {#appendix-a---from-canonical-to-grand-canonical-ensemble .unnumbered}
=======================================================
The canonical partition function of the $i^{\rm th}$ cluster can be written as a multiple integral over the interval $[-\pi,\pi]$ [@beca2]: $$\label{zcan}
Z_i(\Qi) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} \int \d^3 \phi \; \e^{\i \Qi \cdot \phivs}
\exp[F(\phiv)]$$ where $\Qi = (Q_i, B_i, S_i)$ is a vector having as components the electric charge, baryon number and strangeness of the cluster, $\phiv =
(\phi_Q,\phi_B,\phi_S)$ and $F(\phiv)$ reads: $$\label{func}
F(\phiv) = \sum_j \frac{(2J_j+1) V_i}{(2\pi)^3} \int \d^3 {\rm p} \;
\log (1\pm \e^{-\sqrt{{\rm p}^2 + m_j^2}/T - \i \phivs \cdot \qj})^{\pm 1}$$ $V_i$ is the volume and $T$ the temperature of the cluster; the sum runs over all hadronic species $j$ and $\qj$ the charge vector of the $j^{\rm th}$ hadron; the upper sign applies to fermions, the lower to bosons. The probability distribution required for the reduction to EGC to apply reads [@beca2; @bgs]: $$\label{weight}
w(\Q1,\ldots,\QN) = \frac{\prod_i Z_i (\Qi) \delta_{\sum_i \Qi, \Qz}}
{\sum_{\Q1,\ldots,\QN} \prod_i Z_i (\Qi) \delta_{\sum_i \Qi, \Qz}}$$ In this case, the overall multiplicity of the $j^{\rm th}$ hadron is given by [@beca2]: $$\label{canmean}
\langle n_j \rangle = \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda_j} \log Z (\Qz)
\Big|_{\lambda_j=1}$$ where $Z(\Qz)$ is the canonical partition function of the equivalent global cluster: $$\label{globz}
Z(\Qz) = \sum_{\Q1,\ldots,\QN} \prod_i Z_i (\Qi) \delta_{\sum_i \Qi, \Qz}$$ and $\lambda_j$ is a fictitious fugacity parameter. Formally, this turns out to be the same function as in Eq. (\[zcan\]) with $V=\sum_i V_i$ replacing $V_i$ and $\Qz = \sum_i \Qi$ replacing $\Qi$. If $V$ is large, the canonical partition function can be approximated by the leading term of an asymptotic saddle point expansion. Setting $\exp(-\i \phi_k) = z_k$, the canonical partition function can be written as: $$Z(\Qz) = \frac{1}{(2\pi\i)^3} \Big[ \prod_{k=1}^3 \oint \frac{\d z_k}{z_k} \Big]
\exp[F_c({\bf z})] \prod_{k=1}^3 z_k^{-Q_k}$$ where: $$\label{func2}
F_c({\bf z}) = \sum_j \frac{(2J_j+1) V_i}{(2\pi)^3} \int \d^3 {\rm p}
\; \log ( 1\pm \e^{-\sqrt{{\rm p}^2 + m_j^2}/T} \prod_{k=1}^3 z_k^{q_{jk}})^{\pm 1}$$ The saddle-point expansion is carried out by requiring the logarithmic derivative of the integrand to vanish: $$\label{saddle}
- \frac{Q_k}{z_k} + \frac{\partial F_c}{\partial z_k} = 0 \qquad k = 1, 2, 3$$ The solutions of this equation are indeed the grand-canonical fugacities $\lambda_k \equiv \exp(\mu_k/T)$. The function $F_c(\lambdav)$ coincides with the logarithm of the grand-canonical partition function $\log Z_{gc}$, therefore the equation (\[saddle\]) expresses the equality between the average charge in the grand-canonical ensemble $\lambda_k \partial
\log Z_{gc}/\partial \lambda_k$ and the initial value $Q_k$. The canonical partition function now becomes, at the second order of the expansion: $$\label{cantogc}
Z(\Qz) \simeq \exp[F_c(\lambdav)] \Big[ \prod_{k=1}^3 \lambda_k^{-Q_k} \Big]
\frac{1}{(2\pi\i)^3} \Big[ \prod_{k=1}^3 \oint \frac{\d z_k}{z_k} \Big]
\exp [-({\bf z}-\lambdav)^T {\sf H} \, ({\bf z}-\lambdav)/2]$$ where $\sf H$ is the Hessian matrix in $z_k = \lambda_k$. The first exponential factor is just the grand-canonical partition function $Z_{gc}$ calculated for the fugacities $\lambda_k$. The average multiplicity of the $j^{\rm th}$ hadron species can now be calculated by using Eq. (\[canmean\]) taking the approximated expression (\[cantogc\]) of the canonical partition function. Retaining only the dominant contribution, one just obtains the grand-canonical expression of the average multiplicity as expressed in Eq. (\[mean\]).
APPENDIX B - Proof of equation (\[scanonical\]) {#appendix-b---proof-of-equation-scanonical .unnumbered}
===============================================
The argument closely follows the previous one. The main difference is the request of vanishing strangeness for each cluster. Thus, the configurational probabilities (\[weight\]) $w$ turn to: $$w(\Q1,\ldots,\QN) = \frac{\prod_i Z_i (\Qi) \delta_{\sum_i \Qi, \Qz} \,
\delta_{S_i,0}}
{\sum_{\Q1,\ldots,\QN} \prod_i Z_i (\Qi) \delta_{\sum_i \Qi, \Qz} \,
\delta_{S_i,0}}$$ and the average multiplicity of the $j^{\rm th}$ hadron species now reads: $$\label{means}
\langle n_j \rangle = \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda_j}
\log \sum_{\Q1,\ldots,\QN} \prod_i Z(\Qi) \, \delta_{\Qz,\Sigma_i \Qi}
\, \delta_{S_i,0} \Big|_{\lambda_j=1}$$ where $\lambda_j$ is a fictitious fugacity. Let us now work out the expression: $$\label{global}
\zeta = \sum_{\Q1,\ldots,\QN} \prod_{i=1}^N Z_i(\Qi) \, \delta_{\Qz,\Sigma_i \Qi}
\, \delta_{S_i,0}$$ by assuming that all the clusters have the same volume $V_c$ and temperature $T$. This can be done rewriting the canonical partition functions $Z_i$ like in Eq. (\[zcan\]), using the integral representation of the Kronecker’s delta and eliminating the redundant strangeness conservation constraints. Thus, expanding the vector $\Qz$ in its components, the Eq. (\[global\]) becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{global2}
\zeta = && \sum_{B_1,Q_1,\ldots,B_N,Q_N} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{\d \phi_B}{2\pi}
\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{\d \phi_Q}{2\pi} \; \e^{\i B \phi_B + \i Q \phi_Q} \,
\e^{-\i \sum_i B_i \phi_B - \i \sum_i Q_i \phi_Q} \nonumber \\
&& \times \prod_{i=1}^N \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{\d \phi_{iB}}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}
\frac{\d \phi_{iQ}}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{\d \phi_{iS}}{2\pi} \;
\e^{\i B_i \phi_{iB} + \i Q_i \phi_{iQ}} \exp[F(\phi_{iB},\phi_{iQ},\phi_{iS})]\end{aligned}$$ where $F$ is the function in Eq. (\[func\]) with $V_c$ replacing $V_i$. Note that this function is the same for all clusters, being $T$ and $V_c$ constant. We can now carry out the sum over all the integers $B_i, Q_i$ in Eq. (\[global2\]) and get: $$\sum_{B_1,Q_1,\ldots,B_N,Q_N} \e^{-\i \sum_i B_i (\phi_B - \phi_{iB})
- \i \sum_i Q_i (\phi_Q - \phi_{iQ})} =
\prod_{i=1}^N (2 \pi)^3 \, \delta (\phi_B - \phi_{iB}) \,
\delta (\phi_Q - \phi_{iQ})$$ so that the integration over $\phi_{iB}$ and $\phi_{iQ}$ in Eq. (\[global2\]) can be easily done and one is left with: $$\label{global3}
\zeta = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{\d \phi_B}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}
\frac{\d \phi_Q}{2\pi} \; \e^{\i B \phi_B + \i Q \phi_Q} \prod_{i=1}^N
\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{\d \phi_{iS}}{2\pi} \; \exp[F(\phi_{B},\phi_{Q},\phi_{iS})]$$ As the function $F$ is the same for all clusters, this can be written also as: $$\label{global4}
\zeta = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{\d \phi_B}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}
\frac{\d \phi_Q}{2\pi} \; \e^{\i B \phi_B + \i Q \phi_Q} \left\{ \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}
\frac{\d \phi_{S}}{2\pi} \; \exp[F(\phi_{B},\phi_{Q},\phi_{S})] \right\}^{V/V_c}$$ being $V = \sum_i V_i = N V_c$. For large volumes, we can approximate $\zeta$ by means of the saddle-point expansion of the integrals over $\phi_B$ and $\phi_Q$ like in Appendix A. Thus, similarly to Eq. (\[cantogc\]): $$\label{final}
\zeta \propto \lambda_B^{-B} \lambda_Q^{-Q} \left\{ \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}
\frac{\d \phi_{S}}{2\pi} \; \exp \Big[ \sum_j \frac{(2J_j+1) V_c}{(2\pi)^3}
\int \d^3 {\rm p} \; \log (1\pm \lambda_B^{B_j} \lambda_Q^{Q_j}
\e^{-\sqrt{{\rm p}^2 + m_j^2}/T -i \phi_S S_j})^{\pm 1} \Big] \right\}^{V/V_c}$$ The function: $$\label{zscan}
Z_c \equiv \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}
\frac{\d \phi_{S}}{2\pi} \; \exp \Big[ \sum_j \frac{(2J_j+1) V_c}{(2\pi)^3}
\int \d3 {\rm p} \; \log (1\pm \lambda_B^{B_j} \lambda_Q^{Q_j}
\e^{-\sqrt{{\rm p}^2 + m_j^2}/T -i \phi_S S_j})^{\pm 1} \Big]$$ is defined as the [*strange canonical partition function*]{}. The multiplicity of the hadron $j$ can now be calculated by means of Eq. (\[means\]) by using Eqs. (\[global\]),(\[global4\]) and the definition (\[zscan\]). What is obtained is just Eq. (\[scanonical\])
We would like to thank Jens Ivar Jørdre for his help with ratio at RHIC. This work is part of INFN research project FI31.
[99]{}
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
S. V. Afanasiev [*et al.*]{}, NA49 Coll., Phys. Rev. C [**66**]{} (2002) 054902.
C. Alt [*et al.*]{}, NA49 Coll., nucl-ex/0305017.
M. Gazdzicki and M. I. Gorenstein, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**30**]{} (1999) 2705
J. Cleymans and H. Satz, Z. Phys. C [**57**]{} (1993) 135.
J. Sollfrank, M. Gaździcki, U. Heinz and J. Rafelski, Z. Phys. C [**61**]{} (1994) 659.
F. Becattini, M. Gaździcki and J. Sollfrank, Eur. Phys. J C [**5**]{} (1998) 143.
P. Braun-Munzinger, I. Heppe and J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. B [**465**]{} (1999) 15.
G. D. Yen and M. I. Gorenstein, Phys. Rev. C [**59**]{} (1999) 2788.
F. Becattini, J. Cleymans, A. Keränen, E. Suhonen, K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C [**64**]{} (2001) 024901.
P. Braun-Munzinger [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**518**]{} (2001) 41.
W. Florkowski, W. Broniowski and M. Michalec, Acta Phys. Pol. B [**33**]{} (2002) 761.
F. Becattini, Z. Phys. C [**69**]{}, 485 (1996).
F. Becattini, U. Heinz, Z. Phys. C [**76**]{} (1997) 269.
F. Becattini, G. Passaleva, Eur. Phys. J. C [**23**]{} (2002) 551.
R. Hagedorn, Nucl. Phys. B [**24**]{} (1979) 93;\
R. Stock, Phys. Lett. B [**456**]{} (1999) 277.
M. van Leeuwen et al., NA49 Coll., Nucl. Phys. [**A715**]{} (2003) 161c.
V. Friese et al., NA49 Coll., nucl-ex/0305017; M. Gazdzicki, hep-ph/0305176.
R. Hagedorn, CERN lectures [*Thermodynamics of strong interactions*]{} (1970); R. Hagedorn, CERN-TH 7190/94, in [*Hot Hadronic Matter*]{} (1994) 13.
A. Keränen and F. Becattini, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{} (2002) 044901.
P. Koch, B. Müller and J. Rafelski, Phys. Rep. [**142**]{} (1986) 167.
K. Hagiwara [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} (2002) 010001-1.
S. V. Afanasiev [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. A [**715**]{} (2003) 161.
S. Albergo [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{} (2002) 062301.
S. Ahmad [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**382**]{} (1996) 35.
L. Ahle [*et al.*]{}, E802 Coll., Phys. Rev. C [**60**]{} (1999) 064901.
B. B. Back [*et al.*]{}, E917 Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 242301.
J Cleymans, B. Kaempfer and S. Wheaton, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 027901 (2002).
S. V. Afanasiev [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. A [**715**]{} (2003) 453.
S. V. Afanasev [*et al.*]{}, NA49 Coll., Phys. Lett. B [**491**]{} (2000) 59.
S. V. Afanasiev [*et al.*]{}, NA49 Coll., Phys. Lett. B [**538**]{} (2002) 275.
F. Antinori [*et al.*]{}, WA97 Coll., Nucl. Phys. A [**661**]{} (1999) 130c;\
numerical values in http://wa97.web.cern.ch/WA97/Data/TableQM99.html
F. Becattini, J. Phys. G [**28**]{} (2002) 1553.
H. Appelshäuser [*et al.*]{}, NA49 Coll., Eur. Phys. J. C [**2**]{} (1998) 661.
S. Hamieh, K. Redlich and A. Tounsi, Phys. Lett. B [**486**]{} (2000) 61.
C. Höhne, private communication.
J. Letessier and J. Rafelski, Phys. Rev. C [**59**]{} (1999) 947.
D. Ouerdane, Ph. D. thesis, NBI Copenhagen (Denmark) 2003;\
J. I. Jørdre, BRAHMS Coll., talk given at EPS2003 Conference, Aachen (Germany) July 2003.
P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler and K. Redlich, Nucl. Phys. A [**697**]{} (2002) 902.
L. Ahle [*et al.*]{}, E-802 Coll., Phys. Rev. C [**60**]{} (1999) 044904.
L. Ahle [*et al.*]{}, E-802 Coll., Phys. Rev. C [**59**]{} (1999) 2173.
V. Friese, NA49 Coll., Nucl. Phys. A [**698**]{} (2002) 487.
J. Bachler [*et al.*]{}, NA49 Coll., Nucl. Phys. A [**661**]{} (1999) 45.
A. Billmeier, NA49 Coll., Ph. D. Thesis, University of Frankfurt (Germany) 2001.
S. V. Afanasev [*et al.*]{}, NA49 Coll., J. Phys. G [**27**]{} (2001) 367.
Reference Measurement Fit A Fit B
---------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------- --------------- ----------------
$N_P$ [@centrags] $363 \pm 10$ 361.7 360.6
$p/\pi^+$ [@protags; @beca01] $1.23 \pm 0.13$ 1.277 1.224
$\pi^+$ [@pionags; @beca01] $133.7 \pm 9.93$ 134.9 140.0
$\pi^-$ 176.9 182.2
$\pi^0$ 163.5 163.2
K$^+$ [@centrags] $23.7 \pm 2.86$ 18.80 18.81
K$^-$ [@centrags] $3.76 \pm 0.47$ 3.890 3.539
K$^0_S$ 11.68 11.68
$\eta$ 8.073 6.340
$\omega$ 4.870 3.659
$\phi$ 0.3287 0.3489
$\eta^{'}$ 0.2997 0.2437
$\rho^+$ 7.707 10.39
$\rho^-$ 9.164 12.55
$\rho^0$ 8.517 11.59
K$^{*+}$ 3.555 3.512
K$^{*-}$ 0.6179 0.5145
K$^{*0}$ 3.766 3.801
$\bar{\rm K}^{*0}$ 0.5555 0.4628
p 172.2 171.4
$\bar{\rm p}$ 0.02851 0.02465
$\Delta^{++}$ 25.39 24.51
$\bar\Delta^{--}$ 0.003071 0.00222
$\Lambda$ [@lamb891; @lamb896] see text $18.1 \pm 1.9$ 19.82 20.71
$\bar\Lambda$ $0.017 \pm 0.005$ 0.01601 0.01645
$\Sigma^+$ 4.840 4.784
$\Sigma^-$ 5.457 5.453
$\Sigma0$ 5.163 5.106
$\bar\Sigma^-$ 0.003445 0.00321
$\bar\Sigma^+$ 0.002793 0.00259
$\bar\Sigma^0$ 0.003115 0.00288
$\Xi^-$ 0.56067 0.5564
$\Xi^0$ 0.54670 0.5387
$\bar\Xi^+$ 0.002133 0.00248
$\bar\Xi^0$ 0.002392 0.00280
$\Omega$ 0.01352 0.01459
$\bar\Omega$ 0.0003569 0.00056
$\Lambda(1520)$ 0.7720 0.6601
$\Theta^+(1540)$ 1.86 2.20
$\bar\Theta^-(1540)$ $2.7 10^{-5}$ $1.87 10^{-5}$
: Comparison between measured and fitted particle multiplicities, in the framework of SHM($\gs$) model in central Au-Au collisions (3%) at a beam energy of 11.6$A$ GeV. Also shown the predicted multiplicities of the main hadron species.[]{data-label="ags"}
Reference Measurement Fit A Fit B
---------------------- -------------- ---------------------- --------- ---------
$N_P$ [@Alt2003rn] $349 \pm 1 \pm 5$ 350.5 350.5
$\pi^+$ [@Alt2003rn] $239\pm 0.7\pm 17$ 228.4 228.5
$\pi^-$ [@Alt2003rn] $275\pm 0.7\pm 20$ 256.5 256.8
$\pi^0$ 265.8 251.9
K$^+$ [@Alt2003rn] $55.3\pm 1.6\pm 2.8$ 49.83 48.83
K$^-$ [@Alt2003rn] $16.1\pm 0.2\pm 0.8$ 17.11 20.72
K$^0_S$ 33.57 34.85
$\eta$ 23.74 21.60
$\omega$ 15.45 12.99
$\phi$ 2.571 2.848
$\eta^{'}$ 1.411 1.341
$\rho^+$ 20.24 22.68
$\rho^-$ 23.09 26.05
$\rho^0$ 22.14 25.11
K$^{*+}$ 13.65 13.45
K$^{*-}$ 4.006 3.668
K$^{*0}$ 14.21 14.20
$\bar{\rm K}^{*0}$ 3.710 3.386
p 138.0 137.0
$\bar{\rm p}$ 0.3650 0.3803
$\Delta^{++}$ 26.90 25.23
$\bar\Delta^{--}$ 0.07781 0.07438
$\Lambda$ 38.02 40.25
$\bar\Lambda$ 0.3393 0.3901
$\Sigma^+$ 9.995 9.935
$\Sigma^-$ 10.91 10.89
$\Sigma^0$ 10.48 10.40
$\bar\Sigma^-$ 0.1005 0.1106
$\bar\Sigma^+$ 0.08620 0.09491
$\bar\Sigma^0$ 0.09334 0.1023
$\Xi^-$ 2.422 2.422
$\Xi^0$ 2.378 2.369
$\bar\Xi^+$ 0.07920 0.09332
$\bar\Xi^0$ 0.08446 0.09967
$\Omega$ 0.1587 0.1799
$\bar\Omega$ 0.02067 0.02959
$\Lambda(1520)$ 2.167 1.751
$\Theta^+(1540)$ 2.84 3.02
$\bar\Theta^-(1540)$ 0.0018 0.0019
: Comparison between measured and fitted particle multiplicities, in the framework of SHM($\gs$) model, in central Pb-Pb collisions (7.2%) at a beam energy of 30$A$ GeV. Also shown the predicted multiplicities of the main hadron species.[]{data-label="pbpb30"}
Reference Measurement Fit A Fit B
---------------------- ------------- ------------------------ --------- ---------
$N_P$ [@Af2002mx] $349 \pm 1 \pm 5$ 352.1 351.6
$\pi^+$ [@Af2002mx] $293 \pm 3 \pm 15$ 285.5 288.3
$\pi^-$ [@Af2002mx] $322 \pm 3 \pm 16$ 314.7 317.9
$\pi^0$ 330.4 314.9
K$^+$ [@Af2002mx] $59.1 \pm 1.9 \pm 3$ 51.22 50.61
K$^-$ [@Af2002mx] $19.2 \pm 0.5 \pm 1.0$ 20.52 20.33
K$^0_S$ 35.79 36.24
$\eta$ 30.48 26.59
$\omega$ 23.00 19.57
$\phi$ [@Af2002fk] $2.57 \pm 0.10$ 2.641 2.644
$\eta^{'}$ 1.858 1.621
$\rho^+$ 28.84 31.11
$\rho^-$ 32.36 35.01
$\rho^0$ 31.27 33.97
K$^{*+}$ 15.55 14.34
K$^{*-}$ 5.393 4.860
K$^{*0}$ 16.06 14.98
$\bar{\rm K}^{*0}$ 5.045 4.535
p 141.7 141.9
$\bar{\rm p}$ 0.9824 0.9784
$\Delta^{++}$ 29.05 27.03
$\bar\Delta^{--}$ 0.2181 0.1969
$\Lambda$ [@Af2002ub] $45.6 \pm 3.4$ 36.60 37.36
$\bar\Lambda$ [@Af2002ub] $0.74 \pm 0.06$ 0.7223 0.7297
$\Sigma^+$ 9.655 9.221
$\Sigma^-$ 10.40 9.938
$\Sigma^0$ 10.05 9.567
$\bar\Sigma^-$ 0.2116 0.2033
$\bar\Sigma^+$ 0.1853 0.1783
$\bar\Sigma^0$ 0.1985 0.1901
$\Xi^-$ 2.118 1.948
$\Xi^0$ 2.089 1.917
$\bar\Xi^+$ 0.1285 0.1207
$\bar\Xi^0$ 0.1358 0.1277
$\Omega$ 0.1364 0.1344
$\bar\Omega$ 0.02719 0.02788
$\Lambda(1520)$ 2.273 1.688
$\Theta^+(1540)$ 2.61 2.32
$\bar\Theta^-(1540)$ 0.0052 0.0045
: Comparison between measured and fitted particle multiplicities, in the framework of SHM($\gs$) model, in central Pb-Pb collisions (7.2%) at a beam energy of 40$A$ GeV. Also shown the predicted multiplicities of the main hadron species.[]{data-label="pbpb40"}
Reference Measurement Fit A Fit B
---------------------- ------------- ------------------------ --------- ---------
$N_P$ [@Af2002mx] $349 \pm 1 \pm 5$ 352.0 351.5
$\pi^+$ [@Af2002mx] $446 \pm 5 \pm 22$ 420.3 422.7
$\pi^-$ [@Af2002mx] $474 \pm 5 \pm 23$ 450.9 453.7
$\pi^0$ 485.2 457.6
K$^+$ [@Af2002mx] $76.9 \pm 2 \pm 4$ 70.72 69.87
K$^-$ [@Af2002mx] $32.4 \pm 0.6 \pm 1.6$ 35.96 35.96
K$^0_S$ 52.80 53.77
$\eta$ 49.37 43.47
$\omega$ 39.51 34.43
$\phi$ [@Af2002fk] $4.37 \pm 0.14$ 4.354 4.353
$\eta^{'}$ 3.196 2.786
$\rho^+$ 47.42 48.92
$\rho^-$ 51.74 53.54
$\rho^0$ 50.79 52.83
K$^{*+}$ 22.81 21.10
K$^{*-}$ 10.43 9.600
K$^{*0}$ 23.28 21.73
$\bar{\rm K}^{*0}$ 9.892 9.089
p 141.5 142.5
$\bar{\rm p}$ 3.379 3.649
$\Delta^{++}$ 30.07 28.05
$\bar\Delta^{--}$ 0.7623 0.7439
$\Lambda$ [@Af2002ub] $47.4 \pm 3.7$ 42.12 42.85
$\bar\Lambda$ [@Af2002ub] $2.26 \pm 0.35$ 2.171 2.328
$\Sigma^+$ 11.23 10.67
$\Sigma^-$ 11.82 11.23
$\Sigma^0$ 11.56 10.93
$\bar\Sigma^-$ 0.6265 0.6348
$\bar\Sigma^+$ 0.5643 0.5729
$\bar\Sigma^0$ 0.5961 0.6024
$\Xi^-$ 2.774 2.505
$\Xi^0$ 2.758 2.485
$\bar\Xi^+$ 0.3279 0.3154
$\bar\Xi^0$ 0.3428 0.3299
$\Omega$ 0.2154 0.2090
$\bar\Omega$ 0.06132 0.06332
$\Lambda(1520)$ 2.769 2.028
$\Theta^+(1540)$ 2.35 2.04
$\bar\Theta^-(1540)$ 0.022 0.021
: Comparison between measured and fitted particle multiplicities, in the framework of SHM($\gs$) model, in central Pb-Pb collisions (7.2%) at a beam energy of 80$A$ GeV. Also shown the predicted multiplicities of the main hadron species.[]{data-label="pbpb80"}
Particle Reference Measurement SHM($\gs$) fit A SHM($\gs$) fit B SHM(SCV) SHM(TC) SHM($\gamma_S, \gamma_q$)
---------------------- ------------- ---------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ---------- --------- ---------------------------
$N_P$ [@Af2002mx] $362 \pm 1 \pm 5$ 363.6 363.7 362.0 364.2 362.6
$\pi^+$ [@Af2002mx] $619 \pm 17 \pm 31$ 551.5 533.2 502.7 563.4 578.7
$\pi^-$ [@Af2002mx] $639 \pm 17 \pm 31$ 583.5 565.6 534.1 595.3 612.5
$\pi^0$ 638.2 576.2 585.4 661.9 661.6
K$^+$ [@Af2002mx] $103 \pm 5 \pm 5$ 103.5 103.9 106.7 99.98 102.3
K$^-$ [@Af2002mx] $51.9 \pm 1.9 \pm 3$ 59.57 59.35 59.54 59.23 57.77
$K^0_S$ [@Af2002ub] $81 \pm 4$ 80.31 81.13 81.65 78.19 78.61
$\eta$ 70.69 62.90 67.73 76.94 62.22
$\omega$ 54.93 45.34 48.75 58.75 43.01
$\phi$ [@Afuu] $7.6 \pm 1.1$ 8.136 8.676 10.07 9.088 7.084
$\eta^{'}$ 4.940 4.461 5.021 5.471 3.923
$\rho^+$ 64.56 61.67 57.26 67.18 54.12
$\rho^-$ 69.43 66.82 61.93 72.29 57.04
$\rho^0$ 68.86 66.84 61.44 73.14 57.00
K$^{*+}$ 34.43 32.05 35.51 32.63 27.90
K$^{*-}$ 18.10 16.47 17.79 17.61 14.79
K$^{*0}$ 34.93 32.81 36.12 33.07 27.99
$\bar{\rm K}^{*0}$ 17.29 15.69 16.96 16.84 14.17
p 143.71 142.9 138.51 147.7 144.4
$\bar{\rm p}$ 7.053 6.877 5.756 7.721 7.046
$\Delta^{++}$ 31.01 28.32 29.70 30.70 29.27
$\bar\Delta^{--}$ 1.595 1.393 1.295 1.716 1.472
$\Lambda$ [@Af2002ub] $53.0 \pm 5.0$ 53.88 56.22 57.06 49.53 53.38
$\bar\Lambda$ [@Af2002ub] $4.64 \pm 0.32$ 4.976 5.077 4.698 4.899 4.878
$\Sigma^+$ 14.45 14.11 15.28 13.21 14.57
$\Sigma^-$ 15.04 14.71 15.98 13.73 14.80
$\Sigma^0$ 14.78 14.39 15.67 13.57 14.73
$\bar\Sigma^-$ 1.424 1.375 1.348 1.392 1.396
$\bar\Sigma^+$ 1.301 1.256 1.224 1.277 1.288
$\bar\Sigma^0$ 1.364 1.313 1.288 1.344 1.345
$\Xi^-$ [@Af2002he] $4.45 \pm 0.22$ 4.4581 4.335 4.757 4.446 4.650
$\Xi^0$ 4.446 4.315 4.736 4.440 4.681
$\bar\Xi^+$ [@Af2002he] $0.83 \pm 0.04$ 0.8159 0.7931 0.8234 0.8186 0.8263
$\bar\Xi^0$ 0.8485 0.8264 0.8578 0.8508 0.8593
$\Omega$ [@Af2002fk] $0.62 \pm 0.09$ 0.4499 0.4906 0.4414 0.5165 0.4299
$\bar\Omega$ [@Af2002fk] $0.20 \pm 0.03$ 0.1702 0.1884 0.1690 0.1859 0.1535
$\Lambda(1520)$ [@Friese] $1.57 \pm 0.44$ 3.669 2.724 3.889 3.382 3.079
$\Theta^+(1540)$ 2.68 2.41 5.71
$\bar\Theta^-(1540)$ 0.061 0.053 0.13
: Comparison between measured and fitted particle multiplicities, in the framework of various versions of the SHM, in central Pb-Pb collisions (5%) at a beam energy of 158$A$ GeV. Also shown the predicted multiplicities of the main hadron species. The $\Lambda(1520)$ multiplicity was not used in the fits (see text). For the SHM($\gs,\gq$) model, the multiplicities are those calculated in the $\gq =1.6$ fit.[]{data-label="pbpb158"}
Particle Centrality Reference Fitting function $\Delta y = 2$ $\Delta y = 1$ $\chi^2$/dof
--------------- ------------ ------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------------- --------------
$\pi^-$ 5% [@Af2002mx] G+G 333.16 176.82 9.37
K$^+$ 5% [@Af2002mx] G+G 57.16 29.81 3.33
K$^-$ 5% [@Af2002mx] G+G 32.24 16.90 1.27
$\phi$ 5% [@Afuu] G 4.327 2.35 0.04
$\Lambda$ 10% [@Af2002ub] G 22.56 11.52 0.49
$\bar\Lambda$ 10% [@Af2002ub] G 3.039 1.723 0.58
$\Xi^-$ 10% [@Af2002he] G 2.75 1.484 1.2
$\Xi^+$ 10% [@Af2002he] G 0.571 0.3314 0.71
$\Omega$ 20% [@Af2002fk] G 0.3095 0.173 0.73
$\bar\Omega$ 20% [@Af2002fk] G 0.126 0.0789 2.70
: Integrated multiplicities over limited rapidity windows around midrapidity obtained by fitting the measured distributions with single (G) or double (G+G) gaussians The yields at 10% and 20% centrality have been then multiplied by 1.08 and 1.32 respectively to convert them at 5% centrality trigger condition..[]{data-label="yfit"}
[|c|c|c|c|c|]{} Parameters & Main analysis A & Main analysis B & Common set A & Common set B\
\
$T$ (MeV) & 118.1$\pm$3.5 (4.1) & 119.1$\pm$4.0 (5.4) & 119.2$\pm$2.1 (2.9) & 119.1$\pm$4.0 (6.6)\
$\mu_B$ (MeV) & 555$\pm$12 (13) & 578$\pm$15 (21) & 556$\pm$12 (17) & 576.9$\pm$17.2 (29)\
$\gs$ & 0.652$\pm$0.069 (0.079) & 0.763$\pm$0.086 (0.12) & 0.645$\pm$0.042 (0.058) & 0.761$\pm$0.090 (0.15)\
& 1.94$\pm$0.21 (0.24) & 1.487$\pm$0.18 (0.25) & 1.97$\pm$0.12 (0.17) & 1.494$\pm$0.21 (0.35)\
$\chi^2$/dof & 4.0/3 & 5.5/3 & 3.86/2 & 5.5/2\
$R$ (fm) & 9.31$\pm$0.69 (0.80) & 8.32$\pm$0.72 (0.97) & &\
$\ls$ & 0.381$\pm$0.053 (0.061) & 0.490$\pm$0.084 (0.11) & 0.401$\pm$0.053 (0.074) & 0.487$\pm$0.089 (0.15)\
\
$T$ (MeV) & 139.5 & 140.3 & &\
$\mu_B$ (MeV) & 428.6 & 428.7 & &\
$\gs$ & 0.938$\pm$0.078 (0.13) & 1.051$\pm$0.103 (0.16) & &\
& 6.03$\pm$0.50 (0.85) & 5.273$\pm$0.526 (0.80) & &\
$\chi^2$/dof & 5.75/2 & 4.6/2 & &\
$\ls$ & 0.611$\pm$0.037 (0.062) & 0.683$\pm$0.086 (0.13) & &\
\
$T$ (MeV) & 147.6$\pm$2.1 (4.0) & 145.5$\pm$1.9 (3.5) & 148.6$\pm$2.1 (4.7) & 146.1$\pm$2.0 (4.0)\
$\mu_B$ (MeV) & 380.3$\pm$6.5 (13) & 375.4$\pm$6.4 (12) & 393$\pm$10 (22) & 390$\pm$10 (21)\
$\gs$ & 0.757$\pm$0.024 (0.046) & 0.807$\pm$0.025 (0.047) & 0.874$\pm$0.064 (0.14) & 0.961$\pm$0.079 (0.16)\
& 8.99$\pm$0.37 (0.71) & 8.02$\pm$0.34 (0.63) & 8.09$\pm$0.55 (1.24) & 7.08$\pm$0.53 (1.1)\
$\chi^2$/dof & 14.7/4 & 13.6/4 & 10.1/2 & 8.1/2\
$R$ (fm) & 8.37$\pm$0.32 (0.61) & 8.37$\pm$0.31 (0.58) & &\
$\ls$ & 0.507$\pm$0.025 (0.049) & 0.505$\pm$0.026 (0.048) & 0.621$\pm$0.064 (0.14) & 0.626$\pm$0.071 (0.14)\
\
$T$ (MeV) & 153.7$\pm$2.8 (4.7) & 151.9$\pm$3.4 (5.4) & 154.6$\pm$3.3 (7.2) & 152.2$\pm$3.5 (7.5)\
$\mu_B$ (MeV) & 297.7$\pm$5.9 (9.8) & 288.9$\pm$6.8 (11) & 300.7$\pm$9.4 (21) & 292.8$\pm$9.0 (19)\
$\gs$ & 0.730$\pm$0.021 (0.035) & 0.766$\pm$0.026 (0.042) & 0.741$\pm$0.057 (0.13) & 0.782$\pm$0.061 (0.13)\
& 15.38$\pm$0.61 (1.0) & 14.12$\pm$0.65 (1.1) & 15.0$\pm$1.0 (2.3) & 13.7$\pm$0.95 (2.0)\
$\chi^2$/dof & 11.0/4 & 10.4/4 & 9.6/2 & 9.3/2\
$R$ (fm) & 9.03$\pm$0.41 (0.68) & 9.05$\pm$0.44 (0.71) & &\
$\ls$ & 0.455$\pm$0.020 (0.034) & 0.461$\pm$0.020 (0.032) & 0.482$\pm$0.053 (0.12) & 0.4568$\pm$0.044 (0.095)\
\
$T$ (MeV) & 157.8$\pm$1.4 (1.9) & 154.8$\pm$1.4 (2.1) & 156.6$\pm$2.3 (3.3) & 152.7$\pm$2.1 (3.2)\
$\mu_B$ (MeV) & 247.3$\pm$5.2 (7.2) & 244.5$\pm$5.0 (7.8) & 238.6$\pm$7.1 (10) & 232.4$\pm$7.7 (12)\
$\gs$ & 0.843$\pm$0.024 (0.033) & 0.938$\pm$0.027 (0.042) & 0.722$\pm$0.053 (0.077) & 0.764$\pm$0.065 (0.097)\
& 21.13$\pm$0.80 (1.1) & 18.46$\pm$0.69 (1.1) & 23.2$\pm$1.4 (2.0) & 21.1$\pm$1.4 (2.2)\
$\chi^2$/dof & 16.9/9 & 21.6/9 & 4.2/2 & 4.5/2\
$R$ (fm) & 9.41$\pm$0.26 (0.35) & 9.44$\pm$0.25 (0.39) & &\
$\ls$ & 0.506$\pm$0.018 (0.024) & 0.514$\pm$0.018 (0.028) & 0.426$\pm$0.037 (0.054) & 0.401$\pm$0.039 (0.058)\
Particle WA97 measured WA97 fitted NA49 measured NA49 fitted
----------------------- --------------- ------------- ----------------- -------------
h$^-$ 178$\pm$22 157.2
$\pi^-$ 176.8$\pm$9.8 151.8
K$^+$ 29.81$\pm$2.05 30.63
K$^-$ 16.90$\pm$1.16 18.24
K$^0_S$ 21.9$\pm$2.4 22.97
$\phi$ 2.35$\pm$0.34 2.900
$\Lambda$ 13.7$\pm$0.9 13.75 12.44$\pm$1.17 15.35
$\bar\Lambda$ 1.8$\pm$0.2 1.837 1.86$\pm$0.13 1.905
$\Xi^-$ 1.5$\pm$0.1 1.525 1.603$\pm$0.079 1.502
$\bar\Xi^+$ 0.37$\pm$0.06 0.3782 0.358$\pm$0.017 0.3585
$\Omega$ 0.228$\pm$0.033 0.1858
$\bar\Omega$ 0.104$\pm$0.016 0.08894
$\Omega$+$\bar\Omega$ 0.41$\pm$0.08 0.3136
: Fit results in Pb-Pb at 158$A$ GeV with particle yields in limited rapidity window.[]{data-label="deltay2"}
Parameters $\Delta y = 1$ $\Delta y = 2$ WA97 central
--------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----------------
$T$ (MeV) 162.7$\pm$2.7 (5.1) 161.0$\pm$2.6 (4.2) 161.3$\pm$5.4
$\mu_B$ (MeV) 229$\pm$12 (23) 223$\pm$13 (21) 218$\pm$19
$\gs$ 0.971$\pm$0.044 (0.083) 0.950$\pm$0.043 (0.070) 1.085$\pm$0.079
5.55$\pm$0.31 (0.58) 10.71$\pm$0.59 (0.96) 4.73$\pm$0.52
$\chi^2$/dof 21.1/6 16.0/6 2.7/3
: Fit results in Pb-Pb at 158$A$ GeV with particle yields in limited rapidity window.[]{data-label="deltay"}
Parameters SHM(SCV) SHM(TC) SHM($\gamma_S, \gamma_q$)
----------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------------
$T$ (MeV) 157.9$\pm$1.6 (3.3) 154.8$\pm$1.5 (1.9) 140.4$\pm$1.1 (1.3)
$\mu_B$ (MeV) 261.5$\pm$2.4 (4.9) 237.1$\pm$7.0 (8.6) 218.1$\pm$4.3 (5.2)
$\gs$ 1.0 (fixed) 1.0 (fixed) 0.929$\pm$0.027 (0.033)
18.62$\pm$0.52 (1.1) 15.50$\pm$0.54 (0.67) 16.82$\pm$0.59 (0.72)
$f$ 0.0253$\pm$ 0.0067 (0.014)
$\gq$ 1.6 (fixed)
$\langle N_c \rangle$ 52.0$\pm$7.8 (9.6)
$\chi^2$/dof 37.2/9 13.7/9 13.4/9
: Fit results in Pb-Pb at 158$A$ GeV with different models, as described in the text: SHM(SCV) (Strangeness Correlation Volume), SHM(TC) (Two Component model), SHM($\gamma_S, \gamma_q$) (light quark non-equilibrium model). Free fit parameters are quoted along with resulting minimum $\chi^2$’s. The re-scaled errors (see text) are quoted withing brackets. For the SHM($\gamma_S, \gamma_q$), the fit has been done by fixing $\gq = 1.6$ near the absolute $\chi^2$ minimum (see Section 3.2).[]{data-label="models"}
Parameter
-------------------- --------------- ------------------- ------------
$T$ (MeV)
$VT^3$
$\ssb$
$\chi^2$/dof
$\ls$
Particle Reference Measurement Fit
$\pi^+$ [@Bachler:hu] 3.15$\pm$0.16 3.257
$\pi^-$ [@Bachler:hu] 2.45$\pm$0.12 2.441
$\pi^0$ 3.317
K$^+$ [@Bachler:hu] 0.21$\pm$0.02 0.1901
K$^-$ [@Bachler:hu] 0.13$\pm$0.013 0.09981
$K^0_S$ [@Bachler:hu] 0.18$\pm$0.04 0.1382
$\eta$ 0.3918
$\omega$ 0.3514
$\phi$ [@Afuu] 0.012$\pm$0.0015 0.01593
$\eta^{'}$ 0.02576
$\rho^+$ 0.4736
$\rho^-$ 0.3118
$\rho^0$ 0.4254
K$^{*+}$ 0.07360
K$^{*-}$ 0.02976
K$^{*0}$ 0.06192
$\bar{\rm K}^{*0}$ 0.03383
p 1.126
$\bar{\rm p}$ [@Bachler:hu] 0.040$\pm$0.007 0.04364
$\Delta^{++}$ 0.2937
$\bar\Delta^{--}$ 0.007650
$\Lambda$ [@Billmeier] 0.115$\pm$0.012 0.1123
$\bar\Lambda$ [@Billmeier] 0.0148$\pm$0.0019 0.01453
$\Sigma^+$ 0.03480
$\Sigma^-$ 0.02310
$\Sigma^0$ 0.03004
$\bar\Sigma^-$ 0.003317
$\bar\Sigma^+$ 0.004384
$\bar\Sigma^0$ 0.003989
$\Xi^-$ 0.001874
$\Xi^0$ 0.002119
$\bar\Xi^+$ 0.0006902
$\bar\Xi^0$ 0.0006376
$\Omega$ 0.00003783
$\bar\Omega$ 0.00002908
$\Lambda(1520)$ [@Afqj] 0.012$\pm$0.003 0.009155
$\Theta^+$ 0.005224
$\bar\Theta^-$ 0.0001515
: Fitted parameters and multiplicities in pp collisions at a beam energy of 158 GeV, corresponding to $\sqrt s = 17.2$ GeV. The re-scaled errors (see text) are quoted withing brackets.[]{data-label="pp160"}
![Above: measured versus fitted multiplicities in the statistical model supplemented with $\gs$ parameter (SHM($\gs$)) in Au-Au collisions at a beam energy of 11.6$A$ GeV in the fit A; also quoted the best-fit parameters. Below: residual distribution. \[agsf\]](auau.eps)
![Above: measured versus fitted multiplicities in the statistical model supplemented with $\gs$ parameter in Pb-Pb collisions at a beam energy of 40$A$ GeV in the fit A; also quoted the best-fit parameters. Below: residual distribution. \[pbpb40f\]](pbpb40.eps)
![Above: measured versus fitted multiplicities in the statistical model supplemented with $\gs$ parameter in Pb-Pb collisions at a beam energy of 80$A$ GeV in the fit A; also quoted the best-fit parameters. Below: residual distribution. \[pbpb80f\]](pbpb80.eps)
![Above: measured versus fitted multiplicities in the statistical model supplemented with $\gs$ parameter in Pb-Pb collisions at a beam energy of 158$A$ GeV in the fit A; also quoted the best-fit parameters. Below: residual distribution. Note that the $\Lambda(1520)$ was not used in the fit (see text). \[pbpb158f\]](pbpb.eps)
![Comparison between measured and calculated (in fits A and B) and ratios as a function of the centre-of-mass energy in the examined collisions. For the SPS energy points the statistical errors are indicated with solid lines, while the contribution of the common systematic error is shown as a dotted line The lines connect the fitted values. \[sqrts\]](sqrts.eps)
![Spectrum of known light-flavoured hadronic species up to a mass of 1.8 GeV. \[spectr\]](massspectrum.eps)
![Left: primary yields of various particles as a function of the cut-off on the hadronic mass spectrum. Right: fitted $\gs$, baryon-chemical potential and temperature as a function of the cut-off on the hadronic mass spectrum. \[stabil\]](cut.eps)
![Rapidity distributions of $\pi^{\pm}$, K$^\pm$, $\phi$ and $\Omega$ emitted from a single fireball at rest at a kinetic freeze-out temperature of $T=125$ MeV. \[rapid\]](rapid.eps)
![Above: measured versus fitted multiplicities in the statistical model supplemented with strangeness suppression in pp collisions at a beam energy of 158 GeV corresponding to $\sqrt s = 17.2$ GeV; also quoted the best-fit parameters. Below: residual distribution. \[pp160f\]](pp160.eps)
![Minimum $\chi^2$ of multiplicity fits in Pb-Pb collisions at a beam energy of 158$A$ GeV as a function of a fixed light quark non equilibrium parameter $\gq$. The round dots are the $\chi^2$’s obtained with the main data sample, whilst triangular dots are those obtained with pion multiplicities lowered by one standard deviation and all others unchanged. The vertical dashed line indicates the condensation point. \[gammaq\]](gammaq.eps)
![Chemical freeze-out points in the $\mu_B-T$ plane in various heavy ion collisions. The full round dots refer to Au-Au at 11.6 and Pb-Pb collisions at 40, 80, 158$A$ GeV obtained in the analysis A, whilst the hollow square dot has been obtained in ref. [@flork] by using particle ratios measured at midrapidity in Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt s_{NN} = 130$ GeV. The hollow round dot without error bars refers to Pb-Pb collisions at 30$A$ GeV and has been obtained by forcing $T$ and $\mu_B$ to lie on the parabola fitted to the full round dots.\[tmu\]](tmu.eps)
![Strangeness non-equilibrium parameter $\gs$ as a function of the nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energy. Full dots refer to fit A, hollow dots to fit B.\[gs\]](gs.eps)
![Measured ratio as a function of the fitted baryon-chemical potential. The full square dot is a preliminary full phase space measurement in Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt s_{NN} = 200$ GeV [@jordre] and the error is only statistical; the arrow on the left signifies that its associated baryon chemical potential is lower than that estimated at $\sqrt s_{NN} = 130$ GeV [@flork] used here. For the SPS energy points the statistical errors are indicated with solid lines, while the contribution of the common systematic error is shown as a dotted line. Also shown the theoretical values for a hadron gas along the fitted chemical freeze-out curve shown in fig. \[tmu\], for different values of $\gs$. \[kpi\]](kpi.eps)
![$\ls$ estimated from the fits A (full dots) and B (hollow dots) as a function of the fitted baryon-chemical potential. Also shown the theoretical values for a hadron gas along the fitted chemical freeze-out curve shown in fig. \[tmu\], for different values of $\gs$. \[ls\]](ls.eps)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- '../stft.bib'
title: On spectrograms with determinantal zero sets
---
The zeros of the STFT of white noise are distributed according to the planar GAF. In that case, the kernel describing the covariance of the GAF cannot be easily recognized in the statistical properties of the zero set. In particular, the zero set is not a determinantal point process, although it shares properties with the Ginibre point process. In this note, we are investigating other localization operators than the STFT that lead to determinantal zero sets. There are at least two candidates, the band-pass localization operators of [@DaPa88] and the hyperbolic wavelet transform of [@SoScBo11].
The band-pass localization operator of [@DaPa88]
================================================
For $(a,b)\in\mathbb{R}_+^*\times\mathbb{R}$, i.e $z=b+ia$ in the complex upper-half plane, [@DaPa88] introduce the complex-valued function of a real variable $$h_z^+(x) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi a}} \frac{1}{\left( 1+i\frac{x-b}{a} \right)^2},$$ or equivalently its Fourier transform $$\widehat{h_z^+} (k) = 2a^{3/2}k e^{-i\bar{z}k} {\ensuremath{\mathbbm{1}}}_{k\geq 0}.$$
Now define, for $(p,q)\in \mathbb{R\times \mathbb{R}_+^*}$, $$\phi_{p,q}(x) = h^+_{q+i\frac{3}{2}p}(x).$$ Following [@DaPa88], we think of $\phi_{p,q}$ as a time-frequency atom. We also note that $\Vert \phi_{p,q}\Vert_2=1$. Letting $f\in H_2 = \{f\in
L^2(\mathbb{R}): \text{supp}\hat{f}\in\mathbb{R_+}\}$, and $S$ be a Borel set of $\mathbb{R\times \mathbb{R}_+^*}$, we define $$P_S f = \frac{2}{3\pi} \iint_S dp dq~ \phi_{p,q}\langle \phi_{p,q}, f \rangle.$$ $P_S$ is called a localization operator. The expression is supported by the fact that when $S=\mathbb{R\times \mathbb{R}_+^*}$, $P_S$ is the identity on $H_2$, so that restricing to a smaller $S$ is akin to filtering out some of the time-frequency content of $f$.
It turns out that for a specific choice of $S$, which cuts out both high and low frequencies, $P_S$ can be explicitely diagonalized, and that a complete set of orthonormal functions is given by $$\widehat{f_n^+}(k) \propto \frac{1}{\sqrt{(n+2)(n+1)}} k L_n^2(2k)e^{-k},$$ where $L_n$ stands for the $n$th Laguerre orthogonal polynomial, and the implicit normalization constant does not depend on $n$. To see a GAF appear, first note that $$\langle h_z^+,f_n^+ \rangle \propto \frac{1}{(1-iz)^3} \sqrt{(n+1)(n+2)} \left(
\frac{z-i}{z+i}\right)^n.
\label{e:cayley}$$ Now, we remark that $\gamma(z) = \frac{z-i}{z+i}$ is the Cayley transform, i.e., the unique homography that maps $(\infty, 1, -1)$ to $(1, -i, i)$, and thus maps the upper half of the projective complex plane to the unit disk, sending the real axis to the unit circle. Reparametrizing using $u = \gamma(z)$, the pole in $-i$ is sent to $\infty$, and it comes $$\langle h_z^+,f_n^+ \rangle = \sqrt{(n+1)(n+2)} u^n.$$ If we can define a white noise $w$ on $H_2$ , and decompose it into the orthonormal basis of the $f_n^+$, we would obtain a spectrogram with almost surely the same zeros as $$\sum_{n\geq 0} a_n \sqrt{(n+1)(n+2)} u^n,$$ where $(a_n)$ are i.i.d. unit Gaussians. But this is, up to a positive multiplicative factor, the hyperbolic GAF with parameter $L=3$. Its zeros are a DPP on the unit disk, with covariance kernel $K(u,v)=(1-u\bar{v})^{-3}$.
[@Abr07]’s rewriting of [@DaPa88]
=================================
[@Abr07] states the following isomorphisms of Hilbert spaces $$\begin{matrix}
L^2(\mathbb{R_+}) & \leftrightarrow & H^2(U) & \rightarrow& A_{\alpha+1}(U) &
\rightarrow& A_{\alpha+1}(D)\\
& \mathcal{F} && \Ber_{\alpha/2} & & T_{\alpha/2} &\\
\ell_n^{\alpha} & \leftrightarrow & S_n^{\alpha} & \rightarrow&
c_n^{\alpha/2}\Psi_n^{\alpha} & \rightarrow& c_n^{\alpha/2}z^n\\
\end{matrix}$$ where
- $c_n^{\alpha/2} =
(-1)^{\alpha/2+1}\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+1)\prod_{i=1}^n(\alpha+i)}{n!}$,
- The Bergman transform is defined as $$\text{Ber}_\alpha f(z) = \int_{0}^\infty t^\alpha e^{izt} \cF f (t) dt.$$
- $\ell_n^\alpha(x) = {\ensuremath{\mathbbm{1}}}_{\mathbb{R}_+}x^{\alpha/2} e^{-x/2} L_n^\alpha(x)$ are unnormalized Laguerre functions, and Laguerre polynomials are defined as $$L_n^{\alpha} = \frac{x^{-\alpha}e^x}{n!} \frac{dn}{dx^n} [x^{\alpha+n}e^{-x}].$$ In the sequel, we normalize the Laguerre functions in $L^2$ to obtain $$\tilde\ell_n^\alpha(x) = \sqrt{\frac{n!}{\Gamma(\alpha+1) \prod_{i=1}^n (\alpha+i)}}\ell_n^\alpha(x).$$
- Note that when $\alpha\in\mathbb{N}$, $$T_{\alpha/2} \circ \text{Ber}_{\alpha/2} \circ \mathcal{F}(\tilde \ell_n^\alpha) =
(-1)^{\alpha/2+1} \sqrt{\frac{(n+\alpha)!}{n!}}z^n.
\label{e:monomial}$$
More about the white noise
==========================
It seems that $$\mathcal{S} \cap \cH^2 \subset \cH^2 \subset (\mathcal{S}\cap \cH^2)'$$ is a Gelfand triplet (or *rigged Hilbert space*), see e.g. [@Gad17] and references therein. . Using Bochner-Minlos, we can thus defined a white noise as a random functional $\xi\sim \mu_1$ in $(\mathcal{S}\cap \cH^2)'$ with the right characteristic function.
Moreover, the Fourier transforms $(\tilde S_n^{\alpha})$ of the normalized Laguerre functions are Schwartz (because their spectrum is Schwartz), and a ON basis of $\cH^2$ [@Abr07]. By PW and [@Abr07 Eqn 3.2], $t \mapsto T_x
D_s \psi_{\alpha/2}(t) \in \cH^2$ for $\alpha>0$. So we can decompose our noise as $$\langle \xi, T_{-x} D_s \psi_{\alpha/2} \rangle \triangleq \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}
\sum_{n=0}^N \langle \xi, \tilde S_n^{\alpha} \rangle \langle \tilde S_n^{\alpha}, T_{-x} D_s
\psi_{\alpha/2} \rangle$$ where the limit in in $L^2(\mu_1)$. Now, letting $z=x+is$, $$\langle \tilde S_n^{\alpha}, T_{-x} D_s \psi_{\alpha/2}
\rangle = s^{(\alpha+1)/2} \Ber_{\alpha+2} \tilde S_n^{\alpha}(z) =
s^{(\alpha+1)/2}\sqrt{c_n^{\alpha/2}} \tilde \psi_n^{\alpha} (z).$$ Provided we can still use the argument of the first part of [@HKPV09 Lemma 2.2.3], we know that $\mu_1$-almost surely, the analytic wavelet transform of white noise $$x,s \mapsto \langle \xi, T_{-x} D_s \psi_{\alpha/2} \rangle$$ defines a holomorphic function in $A_{\alpha+1}(U)$ $$z\mapsto u \sqrt{\Gamma(\alpha+1)} \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_k \sqrt{\frac{(\alpha+1)...(n+\alpha)}{n!}}\tilde\psi_n^\alpha(z),$$ where $u$ is a complex number of unit modulus, and $a_k = \langle \xi,\tilde
S_n^\alpha \rangle$. Note that under $\mu_1$, $a_k$ are i.i.d. unit complex Gaussians. Reparametrizing using $T_{\alpha/2}$ and setting $\alpha\in
\mathbb{N}_+$, we see that the zeros are those of the hyperbolic GAF with $L=\alpha+1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We have employed the Giant Metre-wave Radio Telescope (GMRT) and the Very Large Array (VLA) to map the Lockman Hole. At 610 and 1,400MHz, we reach noise levels of 15 and 6$\mu$Jybeam$^{-1}$, respectively, with well-matched resolutions ($\sim$5arcsec). At this depth we obtained reliable detections for about half of the known submm galaxies (SMGs) in the field. For radio-identified SMGs, which are typically at $z\sim2$, we measure a mean radio spectral index of $\alpha^{\rm 1,400}_{\rm 610} = -0.75\pm0.06$ (where $S_{\nu}\propto
\nu^{\alpha}$) and standard deviation of $0.29$, between approximate rest-frame frequencies of 1.8 and 4.2GHz. The slope of their continuum emission is indistinguishable from that of local star-forming galaxies and suggests that extended optically-thin synchrotron emission dominates the radio output of SMGs. Cooling effects by synchrotron emission and Inverse Compton (IC) scattering off the cosmic microwave background (CMB) do not seem to affect their radio spectral energy distributions (SEDs). For those SMGs judged by [*Spitzer*]{} mid-infrared (-IR) colours and spectroscopy to host obscured active galactic nuclei (AGN), we find a clear deviation from the rest of the sample – they typically have steeper radio spectral indices $\alpha^{\rm 1,400}_{\rm 610} \ls -1.0$. These findings suggest these mid-IR-/AGN-selected SMGs may have an intrinsically different injection mechanism for relativistic particles, or they might reside in denser environments. This work provides a reliable spectral template for the estimation of far-IR/radio photometric redshifts, and will enable accurate statistical $K$-corrections for the large samples of SMGs expected with SCUBA-2 and [*Herschel*]{}.
bibliography:
- 'ibar.bib'
date: 'Accepted: 2009 November 9; Received: 2009 October 23; in original form: 2009 September 11'
title: 'Deep multi-frequency radio imaging in the Lockman Hole: II. The spectral index of submillimetre galaxies'
---
galaxies: high-redshift — Galaxies, galaxies: active, starburst — Galaxies, radio continuum — Sources as a function of wavelength, submillimetre
Introduction {#intro}
============
SMGs were discovered in the late 1990s [@Smail97] using the Submillimetre (submm) Common-User Bolometer Array [SCUBA – @Holland99] on the 15-m James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT). SCUBA had been designed to exploit the so-called “negative $K$-correction” in the submm waveband, allowing the detection of very distant dusty galaxies almost unbiased in redshift up to $z\sim\rm
10$. The discovery of these massive, rapidly star-forming galaxies (star-formation rate – SFR $\sim10^3\rm M_\odot\, yr^{-1}$), each potentially capable of creating a massive elliptical galaxy within 1Gyr, has provided a powerful motivation for improving models of galaxy formation and evolution (e.g. @Swinbank08). SMGs are believed by many to be the parent population of present-day elliptical galaxies and contribute ($S_{850\mu\rm m}>3{\rm mJy}$) for approximately 20per cent of the cosmic IR background (CIRB) at $850\,\mu$m (@Eales99). Understanding the nature of these galaxies has been extremely challenging, a situation influenced by the poor resolution of submm images and the resulting confusion at noise levels required to detect significant numbers of SMGs, and also by their intrinsically high redshifts (mean $z\approx2.2$ for radio-detected SMGs – @Chapman05b) and dusty nature which make optical detections difficult – radio and IR detections have been usually employed to address these issues (e.g. @Ivison07).
Radio imaging has played a key role in characterising SMGs [e.g. @Ivison02] providing a high-resolution proxy for the rest-frame far-IR emission via the far-IR/radio correlation [@Helou85; @Appleton04; @Ibar08]. The radio waveband is a relatively unexplored part of the SED where current studies have adopted a canonical power-law form, $S_{\nu}\propto \nu^{\alpha}$, based on local star-forming galaxies with $\alpha=\rm -0.7$ or $\rm
-0.8$ [@Condon92], and a relatively small dispersion, $\Delta\alpha\approx0.25$. However, @Hunt05 questioned this assumption for SMGs, arguing that the adoption of $\alpha=\rm -0.7$ is not based on any relevant observational evidence. Flatter radio SEDs – typical of blue compact dwarf galaxies or some powerful ultraluminous IR galaxies (ULIRGs, e.g. Arp220, with $\alpha_{\rm
1.5GHz}^{\rm 8.4GHz}=-0.41$; @Smith98) – were preferred in @Hunt05’s photometric redshift analyses of SMGs. Indeed, @Clemens08 recently measured a mean spectral index of $\alpha=\rm -0.5$ between 1.4 and 4.8GHz for a sample of local ULIRGs (the local ‘cousins’ of SMGs), although this steepens to $\alpha=\rm -0.7$ and $-0.8$ between 4.8–8.4 and 8.4–22.5GHz, respectively. The presence of dominant, compact, flat-spectrum, synchrotron-self-absorbed AGN cores in the SMG population cannot be ruled out either.
@Kovacs06 employed 350-$\mu$m observations of 15 radio-detected SMGs with known redshifts to constrain their characteristic temperatures. In doing so, they claimed to see the first signs of a deviation from the far-IR/radio correlation exhibited locally, $q_L =
{\rm log}\{L_{\rm FIR}/([{\rm 4.52\,THz}]L_{\rm 1,400MHz})\}\simeq\rm
2.3$ (where $L_{\rm FIR}$ is the total dust luminosity and $L_{\rm
1,400MHz}$ is the rest-frame radio luminosity), the ubiquity of which has surprised astronomers for decades. @Kovacs06 suggested that SMGs are over-luminous at radio frequencies with respect to the far-IR, finding a mean $q_L\approx\rm 2.14\pm 0.07$. Modelling by @Swinbank08 suggested that this value is not a result of sample selection but of [*real*]{} evolution of the far-IR/radio correlation. @Kovacs06 noted, however, that correcting the radio spectral indices by $\sim$0.35 would move SMGs back onto the far-IR/radio correlation (see §\[discu\]).
Theoretically, at the redshifts typical of SMGs we expect to observe steeper radio spectral indices due to the shift of the frequency break produced by ageing effects (e.g. @Carilli99), and/or IC scattering off the CMB – going as $(1+z)^4$ (e.g. @Klamer06). Indeed, bright radio samples selected on the basis of their steep ($\alpha\ls\rm -1.0$) spectral indices – so-called ultra-steep-spectrum (USS) sources – have been found to contain a large number of high-redshift galaxies [e.g. @DeBreuck00]. Given their high redshifts, their large masses and their probable relation to galaxy formation in proto-clusters, we might expect to find similarities in radio spectral indices between SMGs and USS sources. We note, however, that there are major differences between these populations: radio-identified SMGs are much fainter than typical USS radio galaxies and star formation (rather than AGN) clearly provides the majority of their power [@Frayer98]. The fraction of SMGs with obvious AGN is relatively small, although Compton-thick AGN may contribute significantly to the bolometric emission in some cases. Different approaches have been used to measure the actual AGN contribution; spectroscopic/photometric mid-IR diagnostics [e.g. @Menendez-Delmestre09], high resolution radio imaging (e.g. @Biggs08), X-ray detections/stacking (e.g. @Alexander03), and deviations from the FIR/radio correlation (e.g. @Kovacs06).
We thus have strong motives for exploring the radio spectral index of SMGs: to provide an independent description of their radio SEDs, to enable more accurate radio $K$-corrections, to better test whether the far-IR/radio correlation evolves, and to find possible new AGN diagnostics. Here, we report deep, dual-frequency, matched-resolution radio observations in the Lockman Hole that were designed to address these issues.
Multi-wavelength observations in the Lockman Hole
=================================================
Parent catalogue of submm galaxies {#submm_obs}
----------------------------------
As one of the SCUBA Half Degree Extragalactic Survey (SHADES) fields, 485arcmin$^2$ of the Lockman Hole was observed with SCUBA on JCMT at 850$\mu$m, producing images with a [fwhm]{} beamsize of 14.8arcsec. In this work, we use the catalogue provided by @Coppin06, comprising 57 sources detected with a signal-to-noise ratio, $\rm SNR \geq 3.5$ in more than one independent reduction of the data. The sample includes only sources with a low probability ($\le$5 per cent) that the true, deboosted flux density is lower than zero (i.e. that the source is entirely spurious).
The Lockman Hole was also observed using the Astronomical Thermal Emission Camera [AzTEC – @Wilson08] on JCMT at 1,100$\mu$m [@Austermann09]. This survey covers a large area: 1,115arcmin$^2$, to an r.m.s. of $\sim$0.9–1.3mJybeam$^{-1}$ ($\sim$18arcsec [fwhm]{}). In this work, we use the @Austermann09 sample of 51 sources with $\rm SNR \geq 3.5$ and $P(S_{\rm 1,100\mu m}\leq0\,\rm mJy)<0.05$, i.e. the same definition used by @Coppin06.
The MAx-Planck Millimeter BOlometer array [MAMBO-117 @Kreysa99] on the Instituto de Radioastronomia Milimétrica (IRAM) 30-m telescope has also been used to image the Lockman Hole. @Greve04 acquired data at 1,200$\mu$m, covering 197arcmin$^2$ down to an r.m.s. of 0.6mJybeam$^{-1}$ (11arcsec, [fwhm]{}). We use the @Greve04 catalogue which contains 23 sources with $\rm SNR \geq 3.5$.
The combination of AzTEC, SCUBA and MAMBO imaging makes the Lockman Hole the largest area of sky mapped at 850, 1,100 and 1,200$\mu$m. Combining the three samples results in an overall sample of 111 SMGs (20 of which were detected in more than one sample) which we have adopted for cross-matching with our radio catalogues. We opted not to use the Bolocam catalogue by @Laurent05 because of the confusion resulting from the large beam ($\sim$31arcsec [fwhm]{}).
### AGN in the sample {#agnes}
Spectroscopic analyses using [*Spitzer*]{}’s IR Spectrograph [IRS – @Houck04] to identify the mid-IR power source in SMGs [e.g. @Pope08; @Menendez-Delmestre09] have confirmed earlier indications that they are usually powered by extreme star formation rather than by AGN activity. Indeed, based on composite median template of a sample of 24 radio-identified SMGs, @Menendez-Delmestre09 find a typical AGN contribution of $<32\,$per cent to the bolometric mid-IR emission.
However, some of the AzTEC and SCUBA sources in the SHADES fields were selected for IRS observations using colour criteria designed to preferentially select highly obscured AGN (@Coppin06, in preparation). A sample of six such sources was targeted in the Lockman Hole, from which four have a dominant ($>$50-per-cent) AGN contribution to their mid-IR spectra. We use this sub-sample to find possible deviations in the behaviour of radio spectral indices (see §\[a\_smg\]).
GMRT and VLA imaging {#radio_maps}
--------------------
We have obtained deep radio observations in the Lockman Hole using the GMRT[^1] and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory’s (NRAO) VLA[^2], operated at 610 and 1,400MHz, respectively. The two image mosaics have r.m.s. noise levels in the central regions of 15 and 6$\mu$Jybeam$^{-1}$ and synthesised beams ([fwhm]{}) of $7.1\times6.5$ and $4.3\times4.2$arcsec$^2$, respectively (see a full description in @Ibar09).
In this work, we investigate the radio spectral indices of the SMG sample described in §\[submm\_obs\], exploiting our Lockman Hole radio data down to a peak-to-noise ratio, $\rm PNR \geq 3$ – where peak and noise refer to the maximum value of a 2-D Gaussian fit and the local r.m.s., respectively. Given the resolution of our radio imaging (4–7arcsec, [fwhm]{}) and the typical kpc scale of SMGs [e.g. @Biggs08], we have considered the SMG counterparts to be unresolved. We have extracted flux densities with the source size in the [sad]{} Gaussian fitting routine within the Astronomical Image Processing System[^3] ([[$\cal AIPS\/$]{}]{}) set to the size of the synthesised beam ([dowidth]{} = $-$1), which results in a less uncertain integrated flux density estimate because of the lower number of free parameters in the Gaussian fit. Monte Carlo simulations based on fake Gaussians injected in a residual map (with no $>$5-$\sigma$ peaks) using [immod]{} and extracted using [sad]{} show a clear improvement ($\sim$1.2$\times$ less scatter in the out:in flux density ratios at $\rm PNR < 5$) by fixing the synthesised beam in this way. Fewer outliers are seen as well.
There is an important caveat concerning the use of these faint, low-PNR sources: a very large fraction of the sources detected at faint flux densities are due to the background noise. To determine the prevalence of spurious sources in the samples, we inspected the number of $\geq$3-$\sigma$ sources extracted from the inverted residual map. The cumulative number of negative sources, $N_{\rm neg}($$>$$S)$, increased rapidly toward faint flux densities, overwhelming the number counts of the ’positive’ sources at $S_{\rm 1,400MHz}\ls40\,\mu$Jy and $S_{\rm 610MHz}\ls120\,\mu$Jy. This indicates that an extrapolation of the number counts to $S_{\rm 1,400MHz}\ls 100\,\mu$Jy ($S_{\rm
610MHz}\ls 300\,\mu$Jy), based on sources with higher flux densities, will thus underestimate the number of extracted sources in the field. This is relevant as we need to know the probability of random associations between SMGs and faint radio sources.
Radio identifications {#rad_id}
---------------------
Associating SMGs with radio counterparts has usually been accomplished using probabilistic arguments (e.g. @Ivison07). We have chosen to cross-match the parent SMG catalogue with our radio maps (§\[radio\_maps\]) using a $P<0.05$ selection criterion, meaning that the probability of a spurious association is less than 5 per cent (@Downes86). This probability has two dependencies – the radius within which we search for radio counterparts and the cumulative radio source number count distribution per surface unit, $N($$>$$S)$. The search radius was chosen to be 3$\times$ the uncertainty in the submm position (in Right Ascension or Declination), as estimated using Eq.B22 of @Ivison07, i.e. dependent on the submm SNR, with 12.0, 14.4 and 8.8arcsec for $\rm SNR=4$ SCUBA, AzTEC and MAMBO detections; we expect 1 per cent of the true counterparts to lie outside our search area. For the number count dependency, we used all $\geq$3-$\sigma$ radio detections to find the true probability of random association. Nevertheless, if the source was detected at both radio wavelengths (unlikely to be noise) we used a negative-subtracted cumulative radio source number count distribution instead, $N_{\rm sub}($$>$$S)=N($$>$$S)-N_{\rm
neg}($$>$$S)$, in order to give a better proxy for the number of real sources. We note, however, that the power of this $P$-identification procedure is lessened for very large submm beams and/or low SNRs because the purely statistical approach is unable to discriminate against unrelated radio-bright sources (preferentially radio-loud AGN) at large separations.
We adopted a conservative approach, eliminating from the analysis all SMGs with more than two radio sources that could affect the measurement of the radio spectral index, thus biasing our sample against close mergers. A final inspection by eye was used to eliminate sources with confused associations. The final sample comprised 44 SMGs (from a total of 111) with single and reliable radio counterparts in at least one radio waveband (41 and 37 detections by the VLA and GMRT, respectively).
The radio spectral index of SMGs {#a_smg}
================================
Observations
------------
In Fig. \[flux\_alpha\], we show the radio spectral indices of the 44 radio-selected SMGs as a function of flux density at 1,400MHz. The vast majority of these sources were detected at low flux densities, $S_{\rm 1,400MHz}\ls 150\,\mu$Jy, close to the detection limits of even the deepest radio imaging.
The study of the radio spectral index has a clear bias introduced by the detection threshold in each map. The solid black line in Fig. \[flux\_alpha\] shows the restriction for detecting flat-spectrum sources at faint 1,400-MHz radio fluxes, based on a minimum $3$-$\sigma$ source at $S_{\rm 610MHz}\approx 45\,\mu$Jy in the deepest region of the 610MHz image (note that noise varies within a factor of $\ls$2 with position in the maps). In order to reduce the effect of this bias, we have restricted the statistical analysis to those sources with $S_{\rm 1,400MHz}>40\,\mu$Jy only (see shaded area in Fig. \[flux\_alpha\]). From this sub-sample, 28 were detected at both radio wavelengths, while one and three were detected only by the VLA and GMRT, respectively. We find – for those SMGs detected at both radio frequencies – a bootstrapped median radio spectral index of $-0.71\pm0.04$, a mean of $-0.75\pm0.06$ and standard deviation of $0.29$. In the data, there is no clear correlation between $\alpha^{\rm 1,400}_{\rm 610}$, radio and submm flux densities, suggesting the radio spectral indices of the radio-identified SMGs shown in this work may provide a good template for SMGs below the current submm confusion limit.
By looking at the sample of four AGNs selected via mid-IR spectroscopic analysis (§\[agnes\]; @Coppin06, in preparation), we find all of them have a reliable $\alpha_{610}^{1,400}$ measurement (§\[rad\_id\]). Although a small sample, restricted to bright mid-IR fluxes, their radio properties clearly deviate from those of the other SMGs (filled black circles in Fig. \[flux\_alpha\]). One is a flat-spectrum source, $\alpha_{610}^{1,400}=-0.05$, while the other three present steep radio spectra, $\alpha_{610}^{1,400}\ls -1.0$.
The different nature of these sources is also evidenced by the detection of the steepest radio source (mid-IR AGN-dominated) in X-rays (@Brunner08) showing clear evidence of a highly obscured AGN – in agreement with @Coppin06’s criteria – we note this is the only SMG with a clear X-ray detection. Flat radio spectra are also related to blazar or powerful compact AGNs and are usually interpreted as the synchrotron self-absorbed base of a “young” expanding jet that fuels larger scale radio emission lobes.
Discussion {#discu}
==========
The observed radio spectral indices for SMGs, at approximately rest-frame 1.8 – 4.2GHz for $z\sim2$, are similar to either those found in local star-forming galaxies (@Condon92) and to the bulk of the sub-mJy radio sources found by @Ibar09. The flux density range at which the vast majority of the SMGs are found, $S_{\rm 1,400MHz}<150\,\mu$Jy, suggests they may compose a significant fraction of the radio population responsible for the flattening of the Euclidean radio number counts.
Assuming the physics of the synchrotron emission does not evolve as a function of redshift, these results suggest that non-thermal optically thin synchrotron emission dominates in the majority of SMGs. This suggests magnetic fields are large enough to retain cosmic rays (see @Thompson06) and contradicts the idea that flatter radio SEDs – such as those thermally dominated galaxies [@Hunt05] or in synchrotron self-absorbed sources – are more appropriate SEDs for these massive star-forming galaxies. Indeed, the lack of flat spectrum sources suggests that their emission is mostly dominated by extended rather than compact radio structures, in agreement with previous SMG high-resolution radio observations (@Chapmanmerlin [@Biggs08]) and the low mid-IR extinctions found by @Menendez-Delmestre09.
The lack of evidence for spectral steepening with respect to local star-forming galaxies suggests that $K$-correction effects in curved SEDs and IC scattering enhanced by a denser CMB radiation field at high redshift (@Klamer06 [@Miley08]) do not have a strong influence on the observed radio spectral index of these high-redshift galaxies. The possibility of intrinsic redshift evolution to flatter radio spectra, where curved SEDs (due to synchrotron and IC cooling) steepen them back to the observed values, cannot be ruled out.
The steeper radio spectral indices found for the mid-IR AGN-dominated sources are intriguing. Recent studies of USS samples (also at high redshift and mostly AGN) using multi-frequency radio observations have found no spectral curvature at higher frequencies in these samples. The power-law behaviour suggests steep radio spectra in high-redshift AGN are intrinsic, or a product of environment [@Bryant09]. The former relates to a different mechanism for the injection of the initial electron energy distribution [e.g. @Jaffe73; @Carilli99] which determine the reservoir of high-energy particles – we expect to observe steeper radio spectra if there is no continuous injection or re-acceleration of relativistic particles across the galaxy. On the other hand, if the source is embedded in a dense medium, some of the energy of the particles would be released into the environment and stronger magnetic fields may increase the cooling rate (@Thompson06), i.e. the radio SED would become steeper.
Based on the fact that we do not observe steeper radio spectral indices in the bulk of the SMGs, these findings may suggest that the synchrotron emission in AGN is fundamentally different to the emission seen in massive star-forming galaxies. If we assume the $\alpha$ vs redshift correlation found in brighter radio samples (@DeBreuck00), it is possible that the synchrotron radiation emitted by nuclear activity evolves differently as a function of cosmic time than that emitted due to star formation. Nevertheless, there are major differences between USS and SMGs as pointed out in §\[intro\].
We have checked the possibility for an overestimation of the radio luminosities in the sample analysed by @Kovacs06. From the 9 SMGs in the Lockman Hole (Table 1 from their paper), 5 of them have got a reliable estimate of radio spectral index, $\alpha_{\rm
610}^{\rm 1,400}=-0.68\pm0.26$ (bootstrapped median). Based on these detections, it seems that their sample is not particularly affected by peculiar radio $K$-corrections that may explain the observed deviation from the local far-IR/radio correlation.
A future analysis – using radio observations from the LOw Frequency ARray (LOFAR) and Expanded VLA to cover a wide range of frequency, for samples with well-constrained redshifts – will allow us to give a much better description of the synchrotron emission processes in massive star-forming galaxies and radio faint AGN. An independent assessment can also be obtained using high-resolution radio observations in order to determine the physical extent, morphology, luminosity and brightness temperature of their emitting regions.
Conclusions
===========
We have analysed the radio spectral indices, $\alpha_{\rm 610}^{\rm
1,400}$, based on well-matched observations with GMRT at 610MHz and the VLA at 1,400MHz, of a sample of SMGs selected in the Lockman Hole using the AzTEC, SCUBA, and MAMBO cameras.
We have created a sample of 44 SMGs (from a total of 111 unique SMGs) which have secure radio identifications and reliable estimates of radio spectral index. We report how deep GMRT observations have resulted in a detection rate similar to that usually accomplished with the VLA. We find a mean value of $\alpha_{\rm 610}^{\rm
1,400}=-0.75\pm0.06$ (see Fig. \[flux\_alpha\]), suggesting the majority of SMGs are dominated by optically thin synchrotron emission from extended radio structures; star-forming regions and/or AGN lobes. The distribution of spectral indices for SMGs is indistinguishable from that of local star-forming galaxies. This supports the idea that SMGs are dominated by processes typical of dusty star-forming galaxies rather than those seen in AGN. If we assume that there is no intrinsic redshift evolution for the synchrotron emission mechanism, we find that ageing effects and IC scattering off the CMB does not seem to largely affect – steepen – the bulk of the observed radio spectral indices. We do not observe any dependency of the radio spectral index on the submm/radio flux density ratio, or on submm or radio flux densities, which suggests the radio spectral properties found in this work should also be representative of the SMGs below the current confusion limits.
We have found that the radio spectral indices of SMGs with an AGN-dominated mid-IR spectrum deviate from the bulk of the sample. They typically have either steeper radio spectral indices, $\alpha^{\rm 1,400}_{\rm 610}\ls -1.0$ – similar to USS sources found in bright radio samples – or flat spectra. These findings suggest a different mechanism responsible for the synchrotron emission in these sources: either related to the injection mechanism of relativistic plasma, or a product of the environment. Their deviation to steeper spectral indices could be an evidence for a different cosmic radio evolution with respect to massive star-forming galaxies. Besides of the small sample of sources, radio spectral index thus represents a useful selection criterion for identifying AGN in high-redshift SMGs.
Looking to the future, these results can be used for statistical analyses of the large SMG samples anticipated from SCUBA-2 and from [*Herschel*]{}. Our parameterisation of the radio SED of SMGs will allow reliable $K$-corrections for flux densities in the $\sim$1-GHz regime, and will alleviate degeneracies faced by long-wavelength photometric redshift techniques.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This paper was supported by a Gemini research studentship. We thank the staff of the GMRT for making these observations possible. EI, RJI, PNB, KEKC, IRS and JSD acknowledge support from UK Science and Technology Research Council.
[^1]: GMRT is run by the National Centre for Radio Astrophysics of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research.
[^2]: NRAO is operated by Associated Universities Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Fundation.
[^3]: see http://www.aips.nrao.edu/cook.html for a description of tasks.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe two new packages and for the Magma computer algebra system for working with $p$-adic numbers exactly, in the sense that numbers are represented lazily to infinite $p$-adic precision. This has the benefits of increasing user-friendliness and speeding up some computations, as well as forcibly producing provable results. The two packages use different methods for lazy evaluation, which we describe and compare in detail. The intention is that this article will be of benefit to anyone wanting to implement similar functionality in other languages.'
author:
- |
Christopher Doris\
University of Bristol\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
date: April 2017
title: |
: An exact representation\
of $p$-adic numbers
---
=1
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Locally generated polynomial ${\cal C}^1$-splines
over triangular meshes
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L.L. STACHÓ</span>
[. Introduction]{}
By a [*triangular mesh*]{} we mean a finite family of closed non-degenerate triangles on the plane $\RR^2$ with pairwise non-intersecting interiors and admitting only common vertices or edges. As usually, we regard $\RR^2$ as the set of all real couples $[\xi,\eta]$ considered also as $1\times 2$ (row) matrices. We shall use the standard notations $x^{[1]}=x: [\xi,\eta] \mapsto \xi$, $x^{[2]}=y: [\xi,\eta] \mapsto \eta$ and $\langle {\bf u} \vert {\bf v} \rangle :=
\sum_{j=1}^2 x^{[j]}({\bf u}) x^{[j]}({\bf v})$ for the Cartesian coordinates and scalar product, respectively. We write $\Vert {\bf u}\Vert =\langle {\bf u}\vert {\bf u}\rangle^{1/2}$ for the norm of ${\bf u}\in\RR^2$ and ${\rm Co}({\bf S})$ for the convex hull of ${\bf S}\subset\RR^2$ resp. ${\rm det}({\bf u},{\bf v}) =
x^{[1]}({\bf u}) x^{[2]}({\bf v})-x^{[1]}({\bf v})x^{[2]}({\bf u})$ for $2\!\times\! 2$-determinants. Given a triangular mesh ${\cal T} =\big\{ {\bf T}_1,\ldots,{\bf T}_M\big\}$, in the sequel ${\rm Vert}({\bf T}_k)$ and ${\rm Edge}({\bf T}_k)$ will denote the sets of vertices resp. closed edges of the mesh members, furhermore ${\rm Dom}({\cal T}) := \bigcup_{k=1}^M {\bf T}_k, \
{\rm Edge}({\cal T}) := \bigcup_{k=1}^M \partial {\bf T}_k, \
{\rm Vert}({\cal T}) := \bigcup_{k=1}^M {\rm Vert}({\bf T}_k)$ will stand for the domain covered by ${\cal T}$, the line figure covered by all edges and the collection of all vertices, respectively. Recall that, given a [*gradient-data*]{} $$F = \Big\{ \big( {\bf p}, f_{{\bf p}},
[ f^\prime_{x,{\bf p}}, f^\prime_{y,{\bf p}} ] \big) : {\bf p}
\in {\rm Vert}{\cal T}) \Big\} \subset {\rm Vert}({\cal T})\times \RR\times\RR^2$$ on the set of the vertices in ${\cal T}$, a function $f: {\bf D} \to \RR$ is a [*${\cal C}^1$-extension*]{} of $F$ on ${\bf D}:={\rm Dom}({\cal T})$ if $f$ has a continuous gradient ${\bf p} \mapsto \nabla f({\bf p}) =
\big[ \frac{\partial}{\partial x}f ({\bf p}),
\frac{\partial}{\partial y}f ({\bf p}) \big]$ on ${\rm Interior}({\bf D})$ which admits a continuous extension to ${\bf D}$ as well (denoted also by $\nabla f$) such that $$f({\bf p}) = f_{{\bf p}}, \quad
\nabla f({\bf p}) = \big[ f^\prime_{x,{\bf p}} , f^\prime_{y,{\bf p}} \big]
\qquad
\big({\bf p}\in{\rm Vert}({\cal T})\big) .
\eqno(\NUM)$$ A ${\cal C}^1$-extension $f:{\bf D}\to\RR$ of $F$ is said to be a [*$\mathcal{C}^1$-spline interpolation*]{} of $F$ with respect to the mesh $\mathcal{T}$ if the restrictions $f\vert {\bf T}_k$ are polynomials of the coordinate functions $x,y$.
There exists a large variety of ${\cal C}^1$-splines for any admissible $\mathcal{T}$ and $F$ which can be obtained e.g. as global polynomial extensions with Hermite type interpolation \[\]. Obviously global polynomial fitting may primarily be interesting only from a pure theretical view point due to too large polynomial degree and hence high numerical instability. A better alternative could be an imitation of tensor product splines (e.g. with Catmull-Rom type hermition curves on edges developed for rectangular meshes \[,\]). This consists the construction of $\mathcal{C}^1$-splines as linear combinations on the rectangular mesh members from affine images of tensor products from only two special polynomials $\Phi,\Psi:[0,1]\to[0,1]$ (actually $\varphi(t)=t^2(3-2t)$, $\psi(t)=t^2(1-t)$). Some main features of tensor product spline procedures which can naturally be generalized even to procedures $$\SS : ({\cal T},F) \!\mapsto\! f_{\mathcal{T},F}
\quad \big(
\hbox{${\cal T}$ triang. mesh, $F$
grad. data on ${\rm Vert}({\cal T})$} \big)
\eqno(\NUM)$$ furnishing ${\cal C}^1$-spline interpolation functions from gradient data at the vertices over triangular meshes can be formulated in Postulates A,B below.
[**Postulate A.**]{} [(Linearity and being locally generated)]{}. *There are polynomial functions $$\varphi_{{\bf p},{\bf T}},\
\psi^{(1)}_{{\bf p},{\bf T}},\ \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf p},{\bf T}}:
{\bf T}\!\to\!\RR
\quad \big(
{\bf T} \ \hbox{non-deg. triangle}\}, \
{\bf p}\in {\rm Vert}({\bf T}) \big)$$ depending only on the couple of the triangle ${\bf T}$ with a distingvished vertex such that the restriction of ß to any mesh triangle ${\bf T}\in{\cal T}$ has the form $$f_{{\cal T}\!,F} \vert {\bf T} =
\sum_{{\bf p}\in {\rm Vert}({\bf T})} \Big[
f_{{\bf p}} \varphi_{{\bf p},{\bf T}} +
f^\prime_{x,{\bf p}} \psi^{(1)}_{{\bf p},{\bf T}} +
f^\prime_{y,{\bf p}} \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf p},{\bf T}} \Big] .
\eqno(\NUM)$$ If Postulate A holds and ${\rm Vert}({\bf T}) =\{ {\bf a,b,p}\}$, in terms of the canonical frame vectors $${\bf e}^{[0]} :={\bf 0} =[0,0],\ {\bf e}^{[1]}:=[1,0],\ {\bf e}^{[2]}:=[0,1]$$ we necessarily have $$\begin{aligned}
&\varphi_{{\bf p},{\bf T}} ({\bf p}) \!=\! 1, \
\nabla \varphi_{{\bf p},{\bf T}} ({\bf p}) \!=\! {\bf 0}, \qquad
\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},{\bf T}} ({\bf p}) \!=\! 0, \
\nabla \psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},{\bf T}}({\bf p}) \!=\! {\bf e}^{[j]}; \\
&\varphi_{{\bf p},{\bf T}} ({\bf x}) \!=\!
\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},{\bf T}} ({\bf x}) \!=\! 0, \
\nabla\varphi_{{\bf p},{\bf T}} ({\bf x}) \!=\!
\nabla\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},{\bf T}} ({\bf x}) \!=\! {\bf 0}
\quad \big( {\bf x} \!\in\! {\rm Co}\{{\bf a, b}\} \big) .
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ The first statement in $(\theIpv.\theipv)$ is immediate from (.), while the second one is a consequence of the fact that given any point $\widetilde{\bf p}$ forming an adjacent triangle $\widetilde{\bf T} := {\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b},\widetilde{\bf p}\}$, for the mesh ${\cal T} := \{ {\bf T},\widetilde{\bf T}\}$ with gradient data $F({\bf q}) = (0,{\bf 0})$ for ${\bf q}={\bf a,b},\widetilde{\bf p}$ we must have $f_{{\cal T},F} \equiv 0$ on $\widetilde{\bf T}$ and hence also $\nabla f_{{\cal T},F} \equiv 0$ on the common edge ${\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b}\}$ of the triangles ${\bf T},\widetilde{\bf T}$.*
Locally generated linear spline procedures have the computational advantage that the resulting functions can be calculated on any mesh triangle regardless to what happens at vertices outside. A practical disadvantage is that in most cases only function values are available (mostly from scanned data) and convenient gradient values must be guessed or found by optimizing procedres.
. *$(\theIpiv.\theipiv)$ holds and there are polynomial functions $\Phi,\!\Psi:[0,1]\!\to\!\RR$ such that $$\Phi(0)\!=\!\Psi(0)\!=\!\Phi^\prime(0)\!=\!\Psi^\prime(0)\!=\!\Psi(1)=0,
\quad
\Phi(1)\!=\!\Psi^\prime(1)\!=\!1
\eqno(\theIpvi.\theipvi)$$ and the graps of the basic functions $\varphi_{{\bf p},{\bf T}}$ on the edges of the triangle ${\bf T}$ are affine images of the graph of $\Phi$, and those of $\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},{\bf T}}$ $(j=1,2)$ are affine images of the graph of $\Psi$.*
That is, under Postulate B, for the generic points ${\bf y}_t := t{\bf p}+(1-t){\bf a}$ on the edge ${\rm Co} \{ {\bf a},{\bf p}\}$, resp. ${\bf z}_t := t{\bf p}+(1-t){\bf b}$ on ${\rm Co} \{ {\bf b},{\bf p}\}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\varphi_{{\bf p},{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a},{\bf b},{\bf p}\}}
\big( {\bf y}_t \big) = {\rm const}_{{\bf a},{\bf p}} \Phi(t) , \quad
\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a},{\bf b},{\bf p}\}} \big( {\bf y}_t \big) = {\rm const}^{(j)}_{{\bf a},{\bf p}} \Psi(t) , \\
&\varphi_{{\bf p},{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a},{\bf b},{\bf p}\}}
\big( {\bf z}_t \big) = {\rm const}_{{\bf b},{\bf p}} \Phi(t) , \quad
\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a},{\bf b},{\bf p}\}} \big( {\bf z}_t \big) = {\rm const}^{(j)}_{{\bf b},{\bf p}} \Psi(t)
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\theIpvii.\theipvii)$$ while for the points ${\bf x}_t := (1-t){\bf a}+t{\bf b}$ on the edge ${\rm Co}\{ {\bf a},{\bf b}\}$ we simply have $$\begin{aligned}
&\varphi_{{\bf p},{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a},{\bf b},{\bf p}\}} ({\bf x}_t) =
\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a},{\bf b},{\bf p}\}} ({\bf x}_t) = 0, \\
&\nabla \varphi_{{\bf p},{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a},{\bf b},{\bf p}\}} ({\bf x}_t) =
\nabla \psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a},{\bf b},{\bf p}\}} ({\bf x}_t) =
{\bf 0} .
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\theIpviii.\theipviii)$$
In the sequel we call $\Phi,\Psi$ the [*shape functions*]{} of the spline procedure $({\cal T},F) \mapsto f_{{\cal T},F}$ satisfying Postulate B. Notice that the requirements $\Phi(0)=\Phi^\prime(0) =\Psi(0)=\Psi^\prime(0)$ follow automatically from the order condition $(\theIpv.\theipv)$ on the edge ${\rm Co}\{{\bf a,b}\}$.
At first glance, shape uniformity may seem an artificial requirement. However, for a procedure satisfying Postulate A, the geometrically natural property of being invariant with respect to homothetic transformations $($maps $\RR \!\leftrightarrow\! \RR$ of the form ${\bf x} \!\mapsto\! \mu {\bf xS} \!+\! {\bf w}$ with some orthogonal matrix ${\bf S} )$ implies Postulate B trivially. In our context we understand invariance as follows: given a surjective affine transformation ${\bf G(x)}= {\bf xA}+{\bf w}$ with some invertible $2\!\times\!2$-matrix ${\bf A}$ of the plain, the spline procedure $\SS : ({\cal T},F) \mapsto f_{{\cal T},F}$ is [*${\bf G}$-invariant*]{} if it transfers spline functions constructed with the gradient data of any smooth function $h$ on ${\rm Vert}({\cal T})$ from ${\rm Dom}({\cal T})$ to the analogous objects with $h\!\circ\!{\bf G}^{-1}$ on ${\rm Dom}({\bf G}({\cal T})) \!=\! {\bf G}({\rm Dom}({\cal T}))$, that is $$\begin{aligned}
&f_{{\cal T},F} \circ {\bf G}^{-1} =
f_{{\bf G}({\cal T}),{\bf G}^\sharp(F)} \\
&\qquad {\rm with} \quad
{\bf G}^\sharp \big( {\bf x},\chi,[\mu_1,\mu_2]\big) :=
\big( {\bf G}({\bf x}),\chi,[\mu_1,\mu_2]{\bf A}^{-1}\big) .
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ As we shall see (Lemma 4.1), if Postulate A holds, we can formulate ${\bf G}$-invariance in terms of the basic functions as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&\varphi_{{\bf G}({\bf p}),{\bf G}({\bf T})} \!=\!
\varphi_{{\bf p,T}}\!\circ\! {\bf G}^{-1} ,\\
&\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{\bf G(p),G(T)} , \psi^{(2)}_{\bf G(p),G(T)}\big]
\!=\!
\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{\bf p,T}\!\circ\! {\bf G}^{-1} ,
\psi^{(2)}_{\bf p,T}\!\circ\! {\bf G}^{-1} \big] {\bf A} .
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ It is worth to notice (Corollary 4.4) that $(\theIpxi.\theipxi)$ cannot hold simultaneously for all invertible matrices ${\bf A}$ and ${\bf w}\in \RR^2$. Thus there is no local linear spline procedure which is invariant under all invertible affine transformations and producing always ${\cal C}^1$-smooth functions (i.e. functions being continuously differentiable also over the edges of mesh triangles) functions.
Our aim in this paper is a parametric classification of the procedures satisfying Postulates A,B, resulting in ${\cal C}^1$-smooth functions. In particular we enumerate all the homothetically invariant linear local polynomial $\mathcal{C}^1$-spline interpolation procedues from gradient data over triangular meshes. It is remarkable that there is a unique one among them with lawest degree (degree 5) which turns out to be homothetically invariant. From the view point of applications, the results provide the complete list of hermition $\mathcal{C}^1$-splines with shape uniformity over edges from which one can choose the best fit one with respect to various aspects. It is worth to relate the latter fact to a celebrated alternative local linear polynomial spline interpolation procedure on the basis of Zlámal-Ženišek 2-nd order triangular spline equations \[\]. This relies upon the fact that, given a triangular mesh with gradient and Hessian data at the vertices and normal derivative values at edge middle points, there is a unique fitting spline with 5th degree polynomials. The 21 polynomial coefficients over any mesh triangle can be obtained as the unique solution of a system of 21 straightforward linear equations whose explicit formula was published recently \[\]. Though not stated in the sources, easily seen this kind of procedure has some homothetical invariance properties. Hence it seems that our first order approach with the shape conditions of Postulate B provides a geometrically motivated alternative to several problems discussed in \[\]. As mentioned earler and remarked also e.g. in \[\], first order approches with a few (actually 9 in \[\]) free parameters may have practical advantages versus higher oreder methods due to the fact that data sampling can rarely support e.g. Hessian data (or even adequate guesses for them).
Our arguments are based on the use of baricentic coordinates associated with triangles instead of the usual Cartesian ones. Applying Remark 3.2 to the difference of the first order solution given in Theorem 2.3 a way is opened to develop a new geometric approach to the system of Zlámal-Ženišek equations and its alternative variants which may have further independent theoretical and educational interest.
Recall that given a non-degenerate triangle ${\bf T} \subset \RR^2$ with $\{ {\bf a,b,c} \} ={\rm Vert}({\bf T})$, the [*normalized baricentric coordinates*]{} of a point ${\bf x}$ are the terms of the necessarily unique triple $\big[ \lambda_{{\bf T}}^{{\bf a}}({\bf x}),
\lambda_{{\bf T}}^{{\bf b}}({\bf x}),
\lambda_{{\bf T}}^{{\bf c}}({\bf x}) \big] \in\RR^3$ such that $${\bf x} = \lambda_{{\bf T}}^{{\bf a}}({\bf x}) {\bf a} +
\lambda_{{\bf T}}^{{\bf b}}({\bf x}) {\bf b} +
\lambda_{{\bf T}}^{{\bf c}}({\bf x}) {\bf c},
\quad
\lambda_{{\bf T}}^{{\bf a}}({\bf x}) +
\lambda_{{\bf T}}^{{\bf b}}({\bf x}) +
\lambda_{{\bf T}}^{{\bf c}}({\bf x}) =1 .
$$ We reserve the symbols $\lambda_{{\bf T}}^{{\bf p}}$ as standard notation. It is well-known from elementary analytic plain geomertry \[\] that $$\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}({\bf x}) =
{ {\rm area}({\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,x}\})/
{\rm area}({\bf T}) } \qquad \big( {\bf x}\in{\bf T} \big)$$ thus normalized baricentric coordinates can easily be calculated by means of determinants or inner products with a $(\pi/2)$-rotation: $$\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}({\bf x}) \!=\!
\frac{{\rm det}({\bf x \!-\! a},
{\bf x \!-\! b})}{{\rm det}({\bf p \!-\! a},{\bf p \!-\! b})}
\frac{\big\langle {\bf (b \!-\! a)R} \big\vert {\bf x\!-\! a} \big\rangle}{
\big\langle {\bf (b-a)R} \big\vert {\bf p-a} \big\rangle}
\ \ {\rm where} \ \
{\bf R} \!:=\!\left[\begin{matrix} 0 &1 \cr -1 &0 \end{matrix}\right] .
\eqno (\NUM)$$ For later use we also introduce the abbreviating notations $$x^{[j]}_{\bf p} \! := \! x^{[j]} \!-\! x^{[j]}({\bf p}), \
\xi^{\bf v}_{\bf p,a} \!:=\! \frac{
\langle {\bf v} \!-\! {\bf a \vert p\!-\! a} \rangle}{
\Vert {\bf p-a }\Vert^2 } , \
\overline{\xi}^{\bf v}_{\bf p,a} \!:=\!
\frac{\langle {\bf v\!-\! a} \vert {\bf (p\!-\! a)R} \rangle}{
\Vert {\bf p-a} \Vert^2 } .
\eqno(\NUM)$$ As for geometric interpretation, $\xi^{\bf v}_{\bf p,a}$ resp. $\overline{\xi}^{\bf v}_{\bf p,a}$ are the affine coordinates of the point ${\bf v}$ with respect to the orthogonal frame $\big[ {\bf a, p, a \!+\!(p\!-\! a)R} \big]$ with origin ${\bf a}$ so that ${\bf v}= {\bf a} + \xi^{\bf v}_{\bf p,a} {\bf (p\!-\! a)} +
\overline{\xi}^{\bf v}_{\bf p,a} {\bf (p\!-\! a)R}$.
**Theorem . *There is a unique local linear polynomial ${\cal C}^1$-spline procedure acting on triagular meshes with the property of uniform shape on vertices[^1] and having shape functions with minimal computational complexity. Its shape functions are $$\strut^*\!\Phi(t) = t^3 ( 10 - 15t + 6t^2 ), \qquad
\strut^*\!\Psi(t) = t^3 (t - 1) (4 - 3t ) .$$ The corresponding basic functions $(\,$for a non-degenerate triangle ${\bf T} = {\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p} \}$ with distinguished vertex ${\bf p} \,)$ have the form $$\hskip-2mm
\begin{aligned}
&\phantom{.}^*\!\varphi_{{\bf p},{\bf T}} \!=\!
\strut^*\!\Phi\big( \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p} \big) +
30 \,[\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}]^2
\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a} \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b}
\Big[
\xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}
\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b} +
\xi^{\bf a}_{\bf p,b}
\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a} \Big] ,\\
&\phantom{.}^*\!\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p}, {\bf T}} \!=\!
\frac{\strut^*\!\Psi\big(\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}\big) }{
\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p} - 1}
x^{[j]}_{\bf p} + 12 [\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}]^2
\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a} \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b} \left[
\xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}
x^{[j]}_{\bf p}({\bf b}) \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b} +
\xi^{\bf a}_{\bf p,b}
x^{[j]}_{\bf p}({\bf a}) \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a} \right] \! .
\end{aligned}$$***
**Theorem . *A spline procedure acting on triangular meshes and satisfying Postulates A,B produces ${\cal C}^1$-smooth splines if and only if its shape functions are of the form $$\Phi(t) = \strut^*\!\Phi(t) +t^3(1-t)^3 \Phi_1(t), \qquad
\Psi(t) = \strut^*\!\Psi(t) + t^3(1-t)^3 \Psi_1(t)
\eqno(2.7)$$ and the basic functions $($for a non-degenerate triangle ${\bf T}={\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p}\}$ with distinguished vertex ${\bf p} )$ can be written in terms of the modified shape function $$\Theta(t) \!:=\! \Psi(t)/(t \!-\! 1)$$ and the rotation matrix ${\bf R}$ in $(\theIIpi.\theiipi)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&\varphi_{\bf p, T} =
\Phi\big(\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}\big) + [\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}]^2
\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a} \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b}
P^{{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}\big(
\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b},\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a}\big), \\
&\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T} =
\Theta\big(\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}\big)
x_{{\bf p}}^{[j]} + [\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}]^2
\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a} \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b}
Q^{j,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} \big(
\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b},\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a}\big)
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&P^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b}(s,t) =
s \Big\{
\xi^{\bf a}_{\bf p,b}
\frac{\Phi^\prime(1-s) }{ (1-s)^2s^2} +
\overline{\xi}^{\bf a}_{\bf p,b}
k_{\bf b}^{0,{\bf p}}(s) \Big\} +\\
&\hskip25mm
+ t \Big\{
\xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}
\frac{\Phi^\prime(1-t) }{ (1-t)^2t^2}
\overline{\xi}^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}
k_{\bf a}^{0,{\bf p}}(t) \Big\}
+st R^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(s,t) , \\
&Q^{j,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} (s,t) =
s \Big\{
\xi^{\bf a}_{\bf p,b}
x^{[j]}_{\bf p}\!({\bf b})
\frac{\Theta^\prime(1 \!-\! s) }{ s(1\!-\! s)^2} +
\overline{\xi}^{\bf a}_{\bf p,b}
k_{\bf b}^{j,{\bf p}}(s) \Big\} + \\
& \hskip25mm +
t \Big\{
\xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}
x^{[j]}_{\bf p}\!({\bf a})
\frac{\Theta^\prime(1 \!-\!t) }{ t(1 \!-\! t)^2} +
\overline{\xi}^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}
k_{\bf a}^{j,{\bf p}}(t) \Big\} +
st R^{j,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(s,t)
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ with the following free options in $(\theIIpviii.\theiipviii)$ resp. $(\theIIpix,\theiipix)$:***
- $\Phi_1,\Psi_1:[0,1]\to\RR$ are arbitrary polynomial functions,
- $({\bf p,q}) \mapsto k_{\bf q}^{i,{\bf p}}$ $(i=0,1,2)$ are arbitrary maps assigning polynomial functions $\RR\to\RR$ to pairs of distinct points,
- $({\bf p,q,r}) \mapsto
R^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf q,r}$ $(i=0,1,2)$ are arbitrary maps assigning polynomial functions $\RR^2\to\RR$ to triples of non-collinear points with the symmetry $ R^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf q,r}(s,t) \equiv R^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf r,q}(t,s)$.
**Remark . (i) Actually, Theorem . is simply a corollary of Theorem . by setting the options ${\rm (i)}\!-\!{\rm (iv)}$ to $0$. We emphasize it for its potential practical and educational use.**
\(ii) The formally rational expressions in $(\theIIpviii.\theiipviii \!-\! \theIIpix.\theiipix)$ are polynomials. Indeed, $\Phi^\prime(1-t) / \big[ t^2(1-t)^2 \big] =
30 - 3(1-2t)\Phi_1(1-t) + t(1-t) \Phi_1^\prime(1-t)$, resp. $\Psi(t)/(t-1) = t^3[(4-3t) - (1-t)^2\Psi_1(t)] , \ \
\Theta^\prime(1-t)/ [t(1-t)^2] =
12 + (2-5t)\Psi_1(1-t) - t(1-t)\Psi_1^\prime(1-t)$.
\(iii) $\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p},\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a},\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b}$ are the affine functions determined by the properties ${\rm Line}\{\! {\bf a,\! b}\!\} \!\!=\!\!
\big( \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p} \!\!=\!\!0 \big)$, ${\rm Line}\{\! {\bf b,\! p} \!\} \!\!=\!\!
\big( \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a} \!\!=\!\! 0 \big)$, ${\rm Line}\{\! {\bf a,\! p} \!\} \!\!=\!\!
\big( \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b} \!\!=\!\!0 \big)$, $\phantom{\strut^{\int}_{\int}}$-3mm $\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}({\bf p}) \!\!=\!\!
\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a}({\bf a}) \!\!=\!\!
\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b}({\bf b}) \!\!=\!\! 1$. For the parametrized edge points in $(\theIpvii.\theipvii)$ we have
-2.7cm
; at (-8,0) ; (5,0) – (10,0) – (7,3) – (5,0); at (5,0) ; at (10,0) ; at (7,3) ; at (4.5,0.2) [[**a**]{}]{}; at (10.4,0.2) [[**b**]{}]{}; at (9.5,2.9) ; at (6.5,0) ; at (6.5,0.4) ; at (5.6,0.9) ; at (5.0,0.9) ; at (9.1,0.9) ; at (9.7,0.9) ;
On the other hand $x^{[j]}({\bf y}_t) =
(1-t) x^{[j]} ({\bf a-p}) = (1-t) x^{[j]}_{\bf p}({\bf a})$ resp. $x^{[j]}({\bf z}_t) =
(1-t) x^{[j]} ({\bf b-p}) = (1-t) x^{[j]}_{\bf p}({\bf b})$. Hence, with the formulas $(\theIIpviii.\theiipviii)$, the shape conditions $(\theIpvii.\theipvii)$ hold automatically with ${\rm const}_{{\bf a},{\bf p}} = {\rm const}_{{\bf b},{\bf p}} =1$ and ${\rm const}^{(j)}_{{\bf a},{\bf p}} = x^{[j]}({\bf p-a})$ resp. ${\rm const}^{(j)}_{{\bf b},{\bf p}} = x^{[j]}({\bf p-b})$, furthermore also $(\theIpviii.\theipviii)$ is fulfilled.
\(iv) One can check with symbolic computer algebra that all the spline procedures described in Theorem . produce ${\cal C}^1$-functions. It suffices to establish only that, given any two adjacent non-degenerate triangles ${\bf T}:={\rm Co}\{ {\bf p,a,b}\}$ resp. $\widetilde{\bf T}:={\rm Co}\{ {\bf p,a},\widetilde{\bf p}\}$ with common edge ${\rm Co}\{ {\bf p,a}\}$ and distinguished point ${\bf p}$, the gradient vectors of the basic functions $\varphi_{\bf p,T}, \psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T}$ coincide with those of $\varphi_{{\bf p},\widetilde{\bf T}},
\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},\widetilde{T}}$ at the points ${\bf y}_t =(1-t){\bf a}+t{\bf b}$. Indeed, hence it follows that the unit spline functions $f_{{\cal T},F_{\bf p}^i}$ $\big( {\bf p}\!\in\!{\rm Vert}({\cal T}),\, i\!=\!0,1,2\big)$ corresponding to the gradient data $F^0_{\bf p}:=
\big\{ [{\bf p},1,{\bf 0}],
[{\bf q},0,{\bf 0}]:
{\bf q}\in {\rm Vert}({\cal T})\setminus\{ {\bf p}\} \big\}$ resp. $F^j_{\bf p}:= \big\{ [{\bf p},0,{\bf e}^{[j]}],
[{\bf q},0,{\bf 0}]:
{\bf q}\in {\rm Vert}({\cal T})\setminus\{ {\bf p}\} \big\}$ $(j\!=\! 1,2)$ are continuously differentiable. **Theorem . *A ${\cal C}^1$-spline procedure $\hbox{\Goth S}$ described in Theorem . in the form $(2.7\!\!-\!\! 9)$ is isometry-invariant if and only if $k^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(t) \equiv 0$ for all $i \!=\!0,1,2$ and ${\bf p\!\ne\! c}\!\in\!\RR^2$ furthermore the higher terms $R^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}$ in $(2.9)$ transform as $R^{0,{\bf G\!(p)}}_{\bf G\!(a),G\!(b)} =
R^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} \phantom{\strut^{\strut}_{\strut}}$ resp. $\big [R^{1,{\bf G\!(p)}}_{\bf G\!(a),G\!(b)},
R^{2,{\bf G\!(p)}}_{\bf G\!(a),G\!(b)} \big] =
\big[ R^{1,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} , R^{2,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} \big] {\bf A}$ whenever ${\bf G}: {\bf x}\mapsto {\bf w + x A}$ is an isometry.***
Henceforth we consider an arbitrarily fixed procedure $\SS : ({\cal T},F) \!\mapsto\! f_{{\cal T},F}$ which satisfies Postulates A,B and produces continuous but not necessarily continuously differentiable functions. We reserve the notations $\varphi_{{\bf p},{\bf T}}$, $\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},{\bf T}}$ resp. $\Phi,\Psi$ for the basic functions resp. shape functions as established in Section . In accordance with $(\theIpvi.\theipvi)$ we can write $$\Phi(t) = t^2(3-2t) + t^2(1-t)^2 \Phi_0(t), \qquad
\Psi(t) = t^2(t-1) + t^2(1-t)^2\Psi_0(t)
\eqno(\NUM)$$ and $\Theta(t) = t^2 + t^2(t-1)\Psi_0(t)$ with suitable polynomials $\Phi_0,\Psi_0$.
Next we are going to express the constraints $(\theIpv.\theipv)$, $(\theIpvii.\theipvii\!-\!\theipviii)$ on the basic functions in terms of $\Phi,\Psi$ and baricentric coordinates. To this aim, we recall the following folklore fact from elementary algebraic geometry relating the root curves with a product decomposition of multivariate polynomials which is an easy consequence of Bézout’s Theorem \[,\].
[**Remark** ]{}(i) If ${\bf L}_0,{\bf L}_1,\ldots,{\bf L}_m$ are distinct straight lines such that ${\bf L}_k = \big(\ell_k =0\big)$ with the affine functions (i.e. polynomials of first degree) $\ell_k: \RR^2\to\RR$ $(k=1,\ldots,m)$ then a polynomial $\RR^2\to\RR$ is divisable with $\prod_{k=0}^m \ell_k^{\nu_k}$ if and only if, for any index $k$, it vanishes in order $\nu_k$ at the points of ${\bf L}_k$. In particular, given a non-degenerate triangle ${\bf T}:={\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p}\}$, a polynomial $Q: \RR^2 \to \RR$ of two variables has the form $$Q =
[\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}]^{\nu_0} [\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a}]^{\nu_1}
[\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b}]^{\nu_2}$$ for some polynomial $q:\RR^2\to\RR$ if and only if it vanishes in order $\nu_0$ at the points of ${\rm Line}\{{\bf a},{\bf b}\}$, order $\nu_1$ at ${\rm Line}\{{\bf p},{\bf b}\}$ and order $\nu_2$ at ${\rm Line}\{{\bf p},{\bf a}\}$, respectively.[^2]
\(ii) If $Q:\RR^2\to\RR$ is a polynomial of two variables, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
Q&(x,y) = Q(0,0) + x q_1(x) + y q_2(y) + xy q_3(x,y) \quad {\rm where}\\
&q_1(x) := [Q(x,0)]-Q(0,0)/x, \quad q_2(y):=[Q(0,y)-Q(0,0)]/y,\\
&q_3(x,y) := \big[ Q(x,y) - [Q(0,0)+xq_1(x)+yq_2(y)]\big]/(xy)
\end{aligned}$$ are well-defined polynomials in one resp. two variables. We shall call the $\RR^2$-polynomial $Q_0(x,y):=Q(0,0) + x q_1(x) + y q_2(y)$ of first degree the [*principal part*]{} of $Q$.
[**Lemma .**]{} *The basic functions $\varphi_{\bf p,T},
\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T}$ for ${\bf T}={\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p}\}$ have the form $$\begin{aligned}
&\varphi_{\bf p,T} = \Phi (\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}) +
[\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}]^2 \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a} \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b} \,
{\rm Pol}(\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b},\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a}) , \\
&\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T} = \Theta(\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}) x_{{\bf p}}^{[j]} +
[\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}]^2 \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a} \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b} \,
{\rm Pol}(\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b},\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a})
\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the baricentric coordinates $(\theIIpi.\theiipi)$, the shape functions $\theIIIpi.\theiiipi$, $\Theta(t) \!:=\!\Psi(t)/(t\!-\! 1)$ and with suitable polynomials of two variables.*
**Proof. Fix any triangle ${\bf T}:={\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p}\}$. As mentioned, necessarily $(\theIIIpi.iiipi)$ holds and $\Theta$ is a polynomial. Consider the functions $$f := \Phi(\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}), \qquad
g^{(j)} := \Theta(\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}) \cdot x^{[j]}_{{\bf p}} .$$ Along the edge ${\rm Co}\{{\bf a,p}\}$, at the points ${\bf y}_t := (1-t){\bf a} + t{\bf p}$ we have $\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}({\bf y}_t) =t$, $\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b}({\bf y}_t) =0$, $\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a}({\bf y}_t) =
[1 -\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a} ({\bf y}_t) - \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b}({\bf y}_t)
=1-t$. Observe that the functions $f,g^{(j)}$ suit the shape uniformity conditions because $$\begin{aligned}
f({\bf y}_t) \!=\! \Phi(t), \quad
g^{(j)} ({\bf y}_t) \!&=\! \Theta(t)
\big\langle {\bf e}^{[j]} \big\vert {\bf y}_t -{\bf p} \big\rangle \!=\!
\Theta(t) (1-t) \big\langle {\bf e}^{[j]} \big\vert {\bf a-p} \big\rangle \!=\\
&= \big\langle {\bf e}^{[j]} \big\vert {\bf p-a} \big\rangle \Psi(t)
\end{aligned}$$ and since $f,g^{(j)}$ are polynomial multiples of $[\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}]^2$. Also, since ${\bf y}_1={\bf p}$, $f({\bf p}) =\Phi(\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}({\bf y}_1))=\Phi(1)=1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla f({\bf p}) &=
\Phi^\prime\big(\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}({\bf y}_1)\big)
\nabla \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}({\bf y}_1) =
0\cdot \nabla \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}({\bf y}_1) ={\bf 0} ,\\
\nabla g^{(j)} ({\bf p}) &= \nabla_{{\bf x}={\bf y}_1}
\Big[ \Theta\big(\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}({\bf x})\big)x^{[j]}_{{\bf p}}({\bf x}) \Big] =\\
&= x^{[j]}_{{\bf p}}({\bf p}) \nabla_{{\bf x}={\bf y}_1}
\Theta\big(\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}({\bf x})\big) +
\Theta\big( \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}({\bf p})\big) \nabla_{{\bf x}={\bf y}_1} x^{[j]}({\bf p}) =\\
&= 0 \cdot \Theta^\prime(1) \nabla \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}({\bf y}_1) +
\Theta(1) {\bf e}^{[j]} =
{\bf e}^{[j]} .
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the difference functions $\varphi_{\bf pT} \!-\! f$ and $\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T} \!-\! g^{(j)}$ vanish on the edge ${\rm Co}\{{\bf a,p}\}$ of the triangle ${\bf T}$. Similar arguments with the points ${\bf z}_t:=(1-t){\bf b}+t{\bf p}$ show that $\varphi_{\bf p,T} \!-\! g$ and $\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T} \!-\! g^{(j)}$ vanish on ${\rm Co}\{{\bf b,p}\}$. By $(\theIpviii.\theipviii)$ their gradients also vanish on the edge ${\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b}\} = \big( \lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}=0\big)$. Hence (cf. Remark .) they are polynomial multiples of $[\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}]^2\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a}\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b}$, say $\varphi_{\bf pT} = f +
[\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}]^2\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a}\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b}
\Pi^{(0)}_{\bf p,T}$ and $\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T} = g^{(j)} +
[\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf p}]^2\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf a}\lambda_{\bf T}^{\bf b}
\Pi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T}$, respectively. Since $\lambda^{\bf a}_{\bf T},\lambda^{\bf b}_{\bf T}$ are linearly independent affine functionals, the mapping $\Lambda^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b} :{\bf x}\mapsto \big[
\lambda^{\bf b}_{\bf T}({\bf x}),\lambda^{\bf a}_{\bf T}({\bf x}) \big]$ is an affine coordinatization on the plain $\RR^2$. Thus we can express each term $\Pi^{(i)}_{\bf p,T}$ as a polynomial of the coordinates $\Lambda^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b}$ which completes the proof.**
**Notation . For later convenience, without danger of confusion, we introduce the unifying context-free notations $$\lambda^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b} := \lambda^{\bf p}_{{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p}\}},
\quad
f^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} := \varphi_{{\bf p},{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p}\}},
\quad
f^{j,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} :=
\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p}\}} \quad (j\!=\! 1,2) .$$ Furthermore, in view of Lemma ., we shall write $$f_{{\bf a,b}}^{i,{\bf p}} =
\Phi^{[i]} (\lambda_{\bf a,b}^{\bf p}) x^{[i]}_{{\bf p}} +
[\lambda_{\bf a,b}^{\bf p}]^2 \lambda_{\bf a,p}^{\bf b}
\lambda_{\bf b,p}^{\bf a}
P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(\lambda_{\bf a,p}^{\bf b},\lambda_{\bf b,p}^{\bf a})
\quad (i=0,1,2)
\eqno(\NUM)$$ where $$\Phi^{[0]} := \Phi, \quad \Phi^{[1]} := \Phi^{[2]} := \Theta,
\quad x^{[0]}_{\bf p} : {\bf x}\mapsto 1 \ \
{\rm with} \ \ {\bf e}^{[0]} := \nabla x^{[0]}_{\bf p} = {\bf 0}$$ and the terms $P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}$ $(i\!=\! 0,1,2)$ are polynomials with coefficients depending on the ordered tuple $(i,{\bf p,a,b})$. Notice that necessarily $$P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} (s,t) \equiv P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf b,a}(t,s)
\eqno(\NUM)$$ due to the trivial index symmetries $\lambda_{\bf u,v}^{\bf w} \equiv \lambda_{\bf v,u}^{\bf w}$ and $f_{{\bf a,b}}^{i,{\bf p}} \equiv f_{{\bf b,a}}^{i,{\bf p}}$.**
[**Lemma .**]{} *We have $f_{{\cal T},F} \in {\cal C}^1\big({\rm Dom}({\cal T})\big)$ for every triangular mesh with arbitrary gradient data if and only if $${\bf b} \mapsto \nabla f_{{\bf a,b}}^{i, {\bf p}}({\bf y}) \equiv
{\rm const}_{\bf p,a,y} \quad
\hbox{\rm for fixed ${\bf p\ne a}$ and ${\bf y}\in{\rm Co}\{ {\bf p,a}\}$}.
\eqno(NUM)$$ [**Proof.**]{} Given any non-degenerate triangle ${\bf T}={\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p}\}$, By construction, for the points ${\bf x}_t := (1-t){\bf a} + t {\bf b}$, ${\bf y}_t := (1-t){\bf a} + t {\bf p}$ and ${\bf z}_t := (1-t){\bf b} + t {\bf p}$ on the edges of the triangle ${\bf T}$ we have $f^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}({\bf x}_t) = 0$ independently of ${\bf p}$, $f^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}({\bf y}_t) = \Phi^{[i]}(t)$ independently of ${\bf b}$ and $f^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}({\bf z}_t) = \Phi^{[i]}(t)$ independently of ${\bf a}$. Thus the shape conditions are automatic from $(\theIIIpxviiw.\theiiipxviiw)$. Moreover, given any triangle $\widetilde{\bf T}$ with a common edge but disjoint interior to ${\bf T}$, the functions pairs $\varphi_{\bf p,T},\varphi_{\bf p,\widetilde{T}}$ resp. $\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T},\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,\widetilde{T}}$ touch continuosly. The analogous necessary and sufficent condition for a ${\cal C}^1$-smooth touching is that the gradient pairs $\nabla\varphi_{\bf p,T},\nabla\varphi_{\bf p,\widetilde{T}}$ resp. $\nabla\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T},\nabla\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,\widetilde{T}}$ coincide on the common edge: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm (i)} \ \ &\nabla f^{i, {\bf p}}_{{\bf a,b}} ({\bf x}) =
\nabla f^{i, \widetilde{\bf p}}_{{\bf a,b}} ({\bf x}) \hskip10mm
{\rm if} \ {\bf x}\in{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b} \} \!=\!
{\bf T}\!\cap\! {\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b},\widetilde{\bf p}\},
\\
{\rm (ii)} \ \ &\nabla f^{i, {\bf p}}_{{\bf a,b}} ({\bf y}) =
\nabla f^{i, \widetilde{\bf b}}_{{\bf a,p}} ({\bf y}) \hskip10mm
{\rm if} \ {\bf y}\in{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,p} \} \!=\!
{\bf T}\!\cap\!{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a},\widetilde{\bf b},{\bf p}\}, \\
{\rm (iii)} \ \ &\nabla f^{i, {\bf p}}_{{\bf a,b}} ({\bf z}) =
\nabla f^{i, \widetilde{\bf a}}_{{\bf b,p}} ({\bf z}) \hskip10mm
{\rm if} \ {\bf z}\in{\rm Co}\{ {\bf b,p} \} \!=\!
{\bf T}\!\cap\!{\rm Co}\{ \widetilde{\bf a},{\bf b,p}\} .
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ Observe that (.(i)) holds automatically with the trivial value ${\bf 0}$. Furthermore conditions (.(i)) and (.(ii)) are equivalent (by changing the roles of ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$). Finally we observe that, in (.iiipxiii(i)), for fixed ${\bf a,p}$ and ${\bf y}\in{\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,p}\}$ we can choose the points ${\bf b}$ and $\widetilde{\bf b}$ on different half plain components of $\RR^2 \!\setminus\!{\rm Line}\{ {\bf a,p}\}$ arbitrarily. This implies that all the vectors $\nabla f^{i,{\bf b}}_{{\bf a,p}} ({\bf y})$, $\nabla f^{i, \widetilde{\bf b}}_{{\bf a,p}} ({\bf y})$ with ${\bf b},\widetilde{\bf b}\in \RR^2 \!\setminus\!{\rm Line}\{ {\bf a,p}\}$ must be the same. Due to the construction (.), the fact that all the pairs $\varphi_{\bf p,T},\varphi_{\bf p,\widetilde{T}}$ resp. $\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T},\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,\widetilde{T}}$ of basic functions touch ${\cal C}^1$-smoothly in case of adjacent triangles ${\bf T,\widetilde{T}}$, ensures that the splines $f_{{\cal T},F}$ are all ${\cal C}^1$-smooth as well.*
[**Notation .**]{} Given any ordered triple $({\bf u},{\bf v},{\bf w})$ of non-collinear points, we shall write ${\bf g}_{\bf u,v}^{\bf w} :=\nabla\lambda_{\bf u,v}^{\bf w}$ for the constant gradient vectors of the baricentric coordinate functions. Notice that, by $(\theIIpi.\theiipi)$, $${\bf g}_{\bf u,v}^{\bf w} :=
\frac{ {\bf (u-v)R} }{ \big\langle {\bf (u-v)R} \big\vert {\bf w-u}\big\rangle}
= \frac{ \sigma_{\bf u,v}^{\bf w} {\bf (u-v)R} }{
{\rm area}({\rm Co}\{ {\bf u,v,w}\}) } .
\eqno(\NUM)$$ where $\sigma_{\bf u,v}^{\bf w} \!=\! \pm 1$ according as $({\bf u,v,w})$ are oriented anticlockwise or clockwise. In particular, if ${\bf T} = {\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p}\}$ is a non-degenerate triangle, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&{\bf g}_{\bf a,b}^{\bf p} + {\bf g}_{\bf b,p}^{\bf a} +
{\bf g}_{\bf a,p}^{\bf b} =
\nabla \big[ \lambda_{\bf a,b}^{\bf p} + \lambda_{\bf b,p}^{\bf a} +
\lambda_{\bf a,p}^{\bf b} \big] = \nabla 1 = {\bf 0} ,\\
&{\bf g}_{\bf a,b}^{\bf p} \perp {\bf b-a},\quad
{\bf g}_{\bf a,p}^{\bf b} \perp {\bf a-p}, \quad
{\bf g}_{\bf b,p}^{\bf a}\perp {\bf b-p} .
\end{aligned}$$ [**Lemma .**]{} *If ${\bf T}={\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p}\}$ is a non-degenerate triangle, at the points ${\bf y}_t := (1-t){\bf a} + t{\bf p}$ of the edge ${\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,p}\}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla f^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} ({\bf y}_t) =
&x^{[i]}\big((1\!-\! t)({\bf a \!-\! p}) \big)
[\Phi^{[i]}]^\prime \! (t) \, {\bf g}^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b} +\\
&+ \Phi^{[i]}(t) {\bf e}^{[i]} +
t^2 (1\!- \!t) P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(0,1\!- \! t) \,
{\bf g}^{\bf b}_{\bf a,p} .
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ [**Proof.**]{} With the abbreviations $$\ell_0:=\lambda_{\bf a,b}^{\bf p}, \
\ell_1:=\lambda_{\bf a,p}^{\bf b}, \ \ell_2:=\lambda_{\bf b,p}^{\bf a}, \quad
P^{[i]}:= P^{i,{\bf p}}_{{\bf a},{\bf b}} , \quad
G^{[i]} := \ell_0^2 \ell_2 P^{[i]} (\ell_1,\ell_2)$$ we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla f_{{\bf a},{\bf b}}^{i,{\bf p}} &=
\nabla\Big[ x^{[i]}_{\bf p} \Phi^{[i]}(\ell_0) +
\ell_1 G^{[i]} \Big] =\\
&= x^{[i]}_{{\bf p}} \,\nabla\! \big[ {\Phi^{[i]}}(\ell_0) \big] +
{\Phi^{[i]}}(\ell_0) \nabla x^{[i]}_{{\bf p}} + \ell_1 \nabla G^{[i]} +
G^{[i]} \nabla \ell_1 = \\
&= x^{[i]}_{{\bf p}} {\Phi^{[i]}}^\prime(\ell_0) \nabla\ell_0 +
\Phi^{[i]}(\ell_0) {\bf e}^{[i]} +
\ell_1 \nabla G^{[i]} + G^{[i]} \nabla\ell_1 .
\end{aligned}$$ We complete the proof with the observations that $$\begin{aligned}
&\ell_0({\bf y}_t) \!=\! t,\quad \ell_1({\bf y}_t) \!=\! 0,\quad
\ell_2({\bf y}_t) \!=\! 1\!-\! t, \\
&x^{[i]}_{\bf p} ({\bf y}_t) \!=\!
x^{[i]} \big( (1\!- \! t)({\bf a\!-p}) \big) , \quad
\nabla x^{[i]}_{\bf p} \!\equiv\! {\bf e}^{[i]} .
\end{aligned}$$ [**Remark .**]{} To prove Theorem ., we need a precise description for the coefficients of the polynomials $P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}$ in terms of the variables ${\bf a,b,p}$ such that $(\theIIIpxvw.\theiiipxvw)$ should hold.*
According to Lemma ., the procedure $\SS : ({\cal T},F)\!\mapsto\! f_{{\cal T},F}$ produces ${\cal C}^1$-splines for every admissible data if and only if, for any $t\!\in\![0,1]$ and for any fixed pair ${\bf a,p}$ of distinct points, the gradient expressions $(\theIIIpxixw.\theiiipxixw)$ are independent of the variable ${\bf b}$ ranging in $\RR^2 \!\setminus\!{\rm Line}\{ {\bf a,p}\}$. This latter condition can be formulated in terms of the ${\bf b}$-independent affine coordinates $(\theIIpiw.\theiipiw)$ as follows. By $(\theIIIpx.\theiiipx)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf g}^{\bf b}_{\bf a,p} \!&=\!
\frac{{\bf (a\!-\! p)R}}{\langle {\bf (a\!-\! p)R}
\vert {\bf b\!-\! a}\rangle} \!=\!
\Vert {\bf p \!-\! a}\Vert^{-2}
(1/\overline{\xi}^{\ {\bf b}}_{\bf p,a}) {\bf (p \!-\!a)R} ,\\
{\bf g}^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b} \!&=\!
\frac{{\bf (a\!-\! b)R}}{\langle {\bf (a\!-\! b)R}
\vert {\bf p\!-\! a}\rangle} \!=\!
\frac{\xi^{\bf (a\!-\! b)R}_{\bf p,a} {\bf (p\!-\! a)} \!+\!
\overline{\xi}^{\bf (a\!-\! b)R}_{\bf p,a} {\bf (p\!-\! a)R}}{\Vert
{\bf p\!-\! a}\Vert^2 \overline{\xi}^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}} =\\
&= \Vert {\bf p \!-\! a}\Vert^{-2} \Big[ {\bf (p \!-\! a)} \!+\!
(\xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}/\overline{\xi}^{\ {\bf b}}_{\bf p,a})
{\bf (p \!-\! a)R} \Big] .
\end{aligned}$$ Thus we can rewrite $(\theIIIpxixw.\theiiipxixw)$ in the form $$\begin{aligned}
&\nabla f^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}({\bf y}_t) =
\Big[{\bf b}\hbox{-independent terms}\Big] + \\
&+ \frac{ x^{[i]}\big( (1 \!-\! t) ({\bf a\!-\! p}) \big)
[\Phi^{[i]}]^\prime \!(t)
\xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a} +
t^2 (1\!-t) P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(0,1\!-t)
}{ \Vert {\bf p \!-\! a} \Vert^2
\overline{\xi}^{\ {\bf b}}_{\bf p,a} }
{\bf (p \!-\! a)R} .
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ Hence we conclude immediately the following.
[**Lemma .**]{} *We have $(\theIIIpxvw.\theiiipxvw)$ if and only if for every pair ${\bf p,a}$ of distinct points there exist polynomials $K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}$ $(i\!=\! 0,1,2)$ of one variable such that $$K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t) =
x^{[i]}\big( (1 \!-t) ({\bf a\!-\! p})\big) [\Phi^{[i]}]^\prime \! (t)
\frac{\xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}}{\overline{\xi}^{\ {\bf b}}_{\bf p,a}} +
\frac{t^2 (1\!-t)}{\overline{\xi}^{\ {\bf b}}_{\bf p,a}}
P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(0,1\!-t)
\eqno(\NUM)$$ independently of the choice of ${\bf b}$ outside ${\rm Line}\{ {\bf a,p}\}$.*
We can regard $(\theIIIpxxiii.\theiiipxxiii)$ as a partial algebraic condition on the polynomials $P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}$ of two variables as $$\begin{aligned}
P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(0,1\!-t) =\ &\overline{\xi}^{\ {\bf b}}_{\bf p,a}
\frac{ K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t) }{ t^2 (1\!-\! t)} -\\
&- \xi^{\ {\bf b}}_{\bf p,a}
\frac{ x^{[i]}\big( (1\!-\! t)({\bf a\!-\! p})\big) [\Phi^{[i]}]^\prime \!(t)
}{ t^2(1\!-\! t)} \qquad (0 \!<\! t \!<\! 1).
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ Since, for fixed ${\bf a,p}$, the coordinates $\big( \xi^{\ {\bf b}}_{\bf p,a} , \overline{\xi}^{\ {\bf b}}_{\bf p,a} \big)$ may assume arbitrary values $(r,s)$ with $s\ne 0$, from $(\theIIIpxxiiiw.\theiiipxxiiiw)$ we obtain the polynomial divisability relations $t^2(1-t) \big\vert K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t)$ and $t^2(1-t) \big\vert
x^{[i]}\big((1\!-\! t)({\bf a \!-\! p}) \big) [\Phi^{[i]}]^\prime \! (t)$. Since $x^{[0]}\big( (1-t){\bf (a-p)}\big) \equiv 1$ and $x^{[0]}\big( (1-t){\bf (a-p)}\big) \equiv (1-t)x^{[j]}({\bf a-p})$ for $j=1,2$, with the aid of $(3.22^\prime)$ we can state $(\theIIIpxxiiiw.\theiiipxxiiiw)$ in the form $$P^{i,{\bf p}}_{{\bf a},{\bf b}} (0,1 \!-\! t) =
\frac{ \big\langle {\bf b \!-\! a} \big\vert {\bf p \!-\! a} \big\rangle
}{ \Vert {\bf p \!-\! \bf a}\Vert^2 }\ x^{[i]}_{\bf p}({\bf a})\
\chi^{[i]}(t) +
\frac{ \big\langle {\bf b \!-\! a} \big\vert ({\bf p \!-\! a}){\bf R} \big\rangle
}{ \Vert {\bf p \!-\! a}\Vert^2 }\
\kappa^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t)
\eqno(\NUM)$$ with suitable polynomials $\chi^{[i]}$ and $\kappa^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}$ $(i=0,1,2;\ {\bf a \ne p}\in\RR^2)$ of one variable. Actually $$\begin{aligned}
&\kappa^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t) = \frac{K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t) }{ t^2(1-t)^2},
\quad
\chi^{[0]}(t) = \frac{[\Phi^{[0]}]^\prime(t) }{ t^2(1-t)} =
\frac{\Phi^\prime(t) }{ t^2(1-t)} , \\
&x^{[i]}_{\bf p}({\bf a})\chi^{[j]}(t) \!=\!
\frac{x^{[j]}\big( (1 \!-\! t){\bf (a \!-\! p)}\big)[\Phi^{[j]}]^\prime(t) }{ t^2(1-t)}
= x^{[j]}_{\bf p}({\bf a}) \frac{[\Psi(t)/(t \!-\!1)]^\prime }{ t^2}
\end{aligned}$$ for $j\!\!=\!\! 1,2$ on the basis of $(\theIIIpxxiiiw.\theiiipxxiiiw)$ In terms of the Kronecker-$\delta$, we can write even $$\chi^{[i]}(t) = t^{-2} (1-t)^{-\delta_{i,0}}
[\Phi^{[i]}]^\prime(t) \qquad (i=0,1,2).$$ Clearly, the polynomials $K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}$ cannot be chosen arbitrarily. There is a unique obstacle: we obtained Lemma . and hence $(\theIIIpxxiii.\theiiipxxiii)$ by an inspection of $\nabla f^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}$ on one of the edges of a triangle ${\bf T}={\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p}\}$ at the distinguished point ${\bf p}$ (namely ${\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,p}\}$ with the parametrization ${\bf y}_t := (1-t){\bf a} + t{\bf b}$) while also the analogous conclusion should also be taken simultaneously in to account with the second edge (namely ${\rm Co}\{ {\bf b,p}\}$ issued from ${\bf p}$. Applying a change ${\bf a}\leftrightarrow{\bf b}$ and taking into account the symmetry $(\theIIIpxviiww.\theiiipxviiww)$, we see that also $$P^{i,{\bf p}}_{{\bf a},{\bf b}} (1 \!-\! t,0) \!=\!
\frac{ \big\langle {\bf a \!-\! b} \big\vert {\bf p\!-\! b} \big\rangle
}{ \Vert {\bf p \!-\! b}\Vert^2 } x^{[i]}_{\bf p}({\bf b})\
\chi^{[i]}(t) \!+\!
\frac{ \big\langle {\bf a\!-\! b} \big\vert ({\bf p\!-\! b}){\bf R} \big\rangle
}{ \Vert {\bf p\!-\! b}\Vert^2 }\
\kappa^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf b}(t) .
\eqno(\NUM)$$ We obtain the complete description for the families of polynomials $K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}$ being admissible by Lemma . by the next obervation.
[**Lemma .**]{} *For any pair ${\bf p \ne c}\in\RR^2$, in $(\theIIIpxxvi.\theiiipxxvi\!-\!\theiiipxxviw)$ we have $\chi^{[i]}(1) =
\kappa^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(1) =0$.*
[**Proof**]{}. Fix $i,{\bf p} \in\RR^2$ and $\rho>0$ arbitrarily. Consider $(\theIIIpxxvi.\theiiipxxvi\!-\!\theiiipxxviw)$ for pairs ${\bf a,b}$ with $\Vert {\bf a-p}\Vert = \Vert {\bf b-p}\Vert =\rho$ written in the form $${\bf a := c}_\sigma, \ \ {\bf b := c}_\tau \quad {\rm where} \quad
{\bf c}_\tau := {\bf p} + \rho {\bf u}_\tau, \
{\bf u}_\tau := \cos\tau {\bf e}^{[1]} + \sin\tau {\bf e}^{[2]} .$$ Due to $(\theIIIpxviiww.\theiiipxviiww)$, with the abbreviations $\alpha:= \chi^{[i]}(1)$ and $\beta(\tau) := \kappa^{i,{\bf p}}_{{\bf c}_\tau}(1)$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
&0 = P^{i,{\bf p}}_{{\bf c}_\sigma,{\bf c}_\tau}(0,0) -
P^{i,{\bf p}}_{{\bf c}_\tau,{\bf c}_\sigma}(0,0) =\\
&= \Big[
\big( \langle {\bf u}_\tau \vert {\bf u}_\sigma\rangle \!-\! 1\big)
x^{[i]} ({\bf c}_\sigma) \alpha
\!+\! \langle {\bf u}_\tau \vert {\bf u}_\sigma {\bf R}\rangle \beta(\sigma)\Big] -\\
&\hskip6mm - \Big[ \big( \langle {\bf u}_\sigma \vert {\bf u}_\tau\rangle \!-\! 1\big)
x^{[i]} ({\bf c}_\tau)\alpha
\!+\! \langle {\bf u}_\sigma \vert {\bf u}_\tau {\bf R}\rangle
\beta(\tau) \Big] \!=\\
&= ( \langle {\bf u}_\sigma \vert {\bf u}_\tau\rangle \!-\! 1 )
\big[ x^{[i]} ({\bf c}_\sigma) - x^{[i]} ({\bf c}_\tau) \big] \alpha +
\langle {\bf u}_\tau \vert {\bf u}_\sigma {\bf R}\rangle \beta(\sigma) - \langle {\bf u}_\sigma \vert {\bf u}_\tau {\bf R}\rangle \beta(\tau) \big) =\\
&= \big[ \cos(\sigma-\tau) - 1 \big]
\big[ x^{[i]} ({\bf c}_\sigma) - x^{[i]} ({\bf c}_\tau) \big] \alpha +
\sin(\tau-\sigma) \big[ \beta(\sigma)+\beta(\tau) \big] .
\end{aligned}$$ Since $x^{[0]} \equiv 1$, in any case we have $x^{[i]}_{\bf p}({\bf c}_\sigma) - x^{[i]}_{\bf p}({\bf c}_\tau) =
\rho [ x^{[i]} ({\bf u}_\sigma) - x^{[i]} ({\bf u}_\tau) ]$. It follows $$\begin{aligned}
\beta(\sigma) + \beta(\tau) &= \alpha \rho
\frac{\cos(\tau-\sigma)-1 }{ \sin(\tau-\sigma) }
\big[ x^{[i]} ({\bf u}_\sigma) - x^{[i]} ({\bf u}_\tau) \big] ,\\
\big\vert \beta(\sigma) + \beta(\tau) \big\vert &\le
\rho \vert\alpha \vert
\frac{1 -\cos(\tau-\sigma) }{ \sin( \vert\tau-\sigma\vert ) }
\big\Vert {\bf u}_\sigma - {\bf u}_\tau \big\Vert \le\\
&\le 2 \rho \vert\alpha \vert [ 1 -\cos(\tau-\sigma) ] .
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ Suppose indirectly $\beta(\tau) \ne 0$ for some $\tau\in\RR$. Let $\eps := \vert \beta(\tau)\vert$ and choose $\delta> 0$ such that $2 \rho \vert\alpha \vert ( 1 -\cos \theta ) <\eps /4$ whenever $\vert\theta\vert \le \eps$. Then we have $\vert \beta(\tau)+ \beta(\tau \pm \delta/2)\vert < \eps/4$ that is $\beta(\tau \pm\delta/2) \in \big[ -\eps/4,\eps/4] - \beta(\tau)$. Therefore $\beta(\tau+\delta/2)+ \beta(\tau - \delta/2) \in
\big[ -\eps/2,\eps/2 \big] - 2\beta(\tau)
\subset \big[ -\eps/2,\eps/2 \big] + \{ -2\eps, 2\eps\} =
\big[ -5\eps/2,-3\eps/2 \big] \cup \big[ 3\eps/2,5\eps/2 \big]$ i.e. $\vert \beta(\tau+\delta/2)+ \beta(\tau - \delta/2)\vert \in
\big[ 3\eps/2,5\eps/2 \big]$ However, we also have $\vert \beta(\tau+\delta/2)+ \beta(\tau - \delta/2)\vert < \eps/4$ which leads to the contradiction $\vert \beta(\tau+\delta/2)+ \beta(\tau - \delta/2) \vert \in
\big[ 3\eps/2, 5\eps/2 \big] \cap \big[ 0,\eps/4 \big] =\emptyset$. By the arbitrariness of the radius $\rho$, the angle $\tau$ and the origin ${\bf p}$, we conclude that $\kappa^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(1)=0$ in any case.
For $i=1,2$ we get $\alpha=0$ i.e. $\chi^{[i]}(1)=0$ immediately by plugging $\beta(\tau)=\beta(\sigma)= 0$ with $\sigma:=\tau+\pi/4$ in the first equation of $(\theIIIpxxix.\theiiipxxix)$. $(3.29)$. (Remark: $x^{[0]}({\bf u}_\sigma) - x^{[0]}({\bf u}_\tau) =1-1=0$, thus the argument does not work for $i=0$). In the case $i=0$ we conclude $\alpha=0$ as follows. Consider the difference of equations $(\theIIIpxxvi.\theiiipxxvi\!-\!\theiiipxxviw)$ for $t=1$ with ${\bf a}:={\bf p} + {\bf e}^{[1]}$ and ${\bf b}:={\bf p} + {\bf e}^{[1]} + {\bf e}^{[2]}$. Since $\kappa^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c} =0$ $({\bf c}={\bf a,b}$ is estabished already, we get simply $0 = -(1/2)\chi^{[0]}(1)$ which completes the proof.
[**Corollary .**]{} *The relations $(\theIIIpxvw.\theiiipxvw)$ hold if and only if we have $(\theIIIpxxiii.\theiiipxxiii)$ with the symmetry $(\theIIIpxviiww.\theiiipxviiww)$ where the polynomials $K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(t)$ respectively $x^{[i]}\big((1\!-\! t){\bf (a-p)}\big) [\Phi^{[i]}]^\prime(t)$ are all divisable by $t^2(1-t)^2$.*
[**Proof.**]{} The relation $\kappa^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(1) \!=\! 0$ implies that there is a polynomial $\widetilde{\kappa}^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}$ such that $\kappa^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(t) =
(1 \!-\! t) \widetilde{\kappa}^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(t)$ and $ K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(t) =
t^2(1 \!-\! t) \kappa^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c} =
t^2(1 \!-\! t)^2 \widetilde{\kappa}^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(t)$ with some polynomial. Similarly, from $\chi^{[i]}(1)=0$ we conclude that $\chi^{[i]}(t) = (1 \!-\! t) \widetilde{\chi}^{[i]}(t)$ and $(1\!-\! t) x^{[i]}({\bf a}) [\Phi^{[i]}]^\prime(t) =
((1\!-\! t) t^2 \chi^{[i]} (t) =
t^2(1 \!-\! t)^2 \widetilde{\chi}^{[i]}(t)$ with some polynomial $\widetilde{\chi}^{[i]}$.
[**Corollary .**]{} *We can write $K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(t) = t^2(1-t)^2 k^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(t)$ $({\bf p\ne c}\in\RR^2)$ and the admissible shape functions $\Phi,\Psi$ have the form $$\begin{aligned}
&{\rm (i)} \ \ \ \Phi(t) = t^3(10-15t+6t^2)+t^3(1-t)^3 \Phi_1(t),\\
&{\rm (ii)} \ \ \Psi(t) = t^3(t-1)(4-3t) + t^3(1-t)^3\Psi_1(t)
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ with suitable polynomials $k^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c},\Phi_2,\Psi_2$.*
[**Proof.**]{} The stated form of $K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}$ is clear from $\theIIIpxxviii.\theiiipxxviii)$. By definition $\Phi^{[0]}(t) = \Phi(t)$ and $x^{[0]}\big( (1-t){\bf (a-p)}\big) \equiv 1$. Furthermore $\Phi^{[j]}(t) = \Psi(t)/(t-1)$ and $x^{[j]}\big( (1 \!-\! t){\bf (a \!-\! p)}\big) \!=\!
(1 \!-\! t)x^{[j]}_{\bf p}({\bf a})$ for $j \!=\! 1,2$. Thus, taking $(\theIIIpi.\theiiipi)$ into acount, the relation that $t^2(1 \!-\! t)^2$ is a divisor of $x^{[0]}\big( (1 \!-\! t){\bf (a \!-\! p)}\big) [\Phi^{[0]}]^\prime(t) \!=\!
\Phi^\prime(t) \!=\!
6t(1 \!-\! t) + 2t(1 \!-\! t)(1\!-\! 2t)\Phi_0(t) + t^2(1 \!-\! t)^2\Phi^\prime_0(t)$ means simply that $t(1\!-\! t) \big\vert 6+2(1\!-\! 2t)\Phi_0(t)$ i.e. $6 + 2(1-2t)\Phi_0(t)\vert_{t=0,1} =0$ implying $\Phi_0(0)=-3$, $\Phi_0(1)=3$. Therefore $\Phi_0(t) = -3+6t + t(1-t)\Phi_1(t)$ with a polynomial $\Phi_1$ and the generic form of $\Phi$ is $\big(\theIIIpxxxi.\theiiipi{\rm (i)}\big)$. Also according to $(\theIIIpi.\theiiipi)$ in the cases $j=1,2$ we can write $\Psi(t)=-t^2(1-t)+t^2(1-t)^2\Psi_0(t)$ with some polynomial $\Psi_0$. Thus the relation that $t^2(1-t)^2$ is a divisor of $x^{[j]}\big( (1-t){\bf (a-p)}\big) [\Phi^{[0]}]^\prime(t) \equiv
(1-t) x^{[j]}_{\bf p}({\bf a}) \big[\Psi(t) /(1-t) \big]^\prime$ means that $t^2(1-t) \big\vert \big[\Psi(t) /(1-t) \big]^\prime \equiv
-2t + t(2-3t)\Psi_0(t) + t^2(1-t)^2\Psi_0^\prime(t)$ is equivalent to saying $t(1-t)\big\vert -2 + (2-3t)\Psi_0(t)$ i.e. $-2 + (2-3t)\Psi_0(t) \vert_{t=0,1} =0$ implying $\Psi_0(0)=1$ and $\Psi_0(1)=-2$. Therefore $\Psi_0(t) = 1 - 3t + t^2(1-t)\Psi_1(t)$ with some polynomial $\Psi_1$ and the generic form of $\Psi$ is $\big(\theIIIpxxxi.\theiiipxxxi{\rm (i)}\big)$.
[**. Finish of the proof of Theorem .**]{}
In view of $(\theIIIpxxvi.\theiiipxxviw\!-\!\theiiipxxviw)$ and Remark .(ii) we can write $$\begin{aligned}
&P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(s,t) =
P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(0,0) +
s \big[ \big( P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(s,0) -
P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(0,0) \big)/s \big] +\\
&\hskip 20mm + t \big[ \big( P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(0,t) -
P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(0,0) \big)/t \big] +
st {\rm Pol}(s,t) =\\
&= s \big[ \big( P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf b,a}(0,s) /s \big] +
t \big[ \big( P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(0,t)/t \big] + st {\rm Pol}(s,t) =\cr
&= s \left[ \overline{\xi}^{\ {\bf a}}_{\bf p,b}
\frac{ K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf b}(1\!-\! s) }{ s^2 (1\!-s)^2} -
\xi^{\ {\bf a}}_{\bf p,b}
\frac{ x^{[i]}({\bf b}) \big[\Phi^{[i]}\big]^\prime \!(1\!-\! s)
}{ s (1\!-\! s)^2} \right] +\\
&\qquad + t \left[ \overline{\xi}^{\ {\bf b}}_{\bf p,a}
\frac{ K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(1\!-\! t) }{ t^2 (1\!-t)^2} -
\xi^{\ {\bf b}}_{\bf p,a}
\frac{ x^{[i]}({\bf a}) \big[\Phi^{[i]}\big]^\prime \!(1\!-\! t)
}{ t (1\!-\! t)^2} \right] + st R^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b}(s,t)
\end{aligned}$$ with suitable polynomials $K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}, \Phi^{[i]}, R^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b}$ of one- resp. two variables such that $t^2(1 \!-\! t)^2 \big\vert K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(t)$ and $t^2(1 \!-\! t) \big\vert x^{[i]}_{\bf p}({\bf a}) [\Phi^{[i]}]^\prime(t)$. It is straightforward to check that the functions $f^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}$ are polynomials in these cases and $P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} (s,t) = P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf b,a} (t,s)$ if and only if $R^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b} (s,t) = R^{\bf p}_{\bf b,a} (t,s)$. It remains to show that the expressions $$\begin{aligned}
&\nabla f^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}({\bf y}_t) \quad
{\rm with} \quad {\bf y}_t:= (1-t){\bf a}+t{\bf p} , \\
&f^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} = \Phi^{[i]}(\lambda^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b}) +
[\lambda^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b}]^2 \lambda^{\bf b}_{\bf a,p}
\lambda^{\bf a}_{\bf b,p} P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(\lambda^{\bf b}_{\bf a,b},
\lambda^{\bf a}_{\bf b,p})
\end{aligned}$$ are independent of the term ${\bf b}$ whenever $$\begin{aligned}
&K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(t) = t^2(1-t)^2 k^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}(t) ,\\
&\Phi^{[0]}(t) = \Phi(t), \quad
\Phi^{[1]}(t) = \Phi^{[2]}(t) \equiv \big[ \Psi(t)/(t-1) \big]^\prime
\end{aligned}$$ with arbitrary polynomials $k^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}$ and the polynomials $\Phi,\Psi$ have the form $(\theIIIpxxxi.\theiiipxxxi)$ with arbitrarily fixed polynomials $\Phi_1,\Psi_1$ of one variable.
Repeating the calculations of Lemma ., we see that $(\theIIIpxixww.\theiiipxixww)$ holds independently of the choice of $k^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf c}, \Phi_1,\Psi_1, R^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}$. Notice that we have constructed the polynomials $P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(0,1-t) = P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf b,a}(1-t,0)$ in terms of $K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}$ in a manner such that $(\theIIIpxxiii.\theiiipxxiii)$ should be fulfilled. Thus the expression $\big[ \overline{\xi}^{\ {\bf b}}_{\bf p,a} \big]^{-1} \!
\left[ x^{[i]}\big( (1 \!-\! t) ({\bf a\!-\! p}) \big)
[\Phi^{[i]}]^\prime \!(t)
\xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a} +
t^2 (1\!-t) P^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b}(0,1\!-t) \right]
\big( \!=\! K^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t) \big)$ is independent of ${\bf b}$ automatically which completes the proof in view of Lemma ..
[**Lemma .**]{} *Let ${\bf G}:{\bf x}\mapsto {\bf xA+w}$ be an invertible affine map $\RR^2\leftrightarrow\RR^2$. A spline procedure $\hbox{{\Goth S}}: ({\cal T},F) \mapsto f_{{\cal T},F}$ satisfying Postulate A is ${\bf G}$-invariant if and only if $(\theIpxi.\theipxi)$ holds for any non-degenerate triangle ${\bf T}$ with distinguished vertex ${\bf p}$.*
[**Proof.**]{} The ${\bf G}$-invariance of $\hbox{{\Goth S}}$ means that, given any triangular mesh ${\cal T}$, the unit functions $f_{{\cal T},F_{i,{\bf p}}}$ $\big(i\!=\!0,\! 1,\! 2;\ {\bf p}\!\in\!{\rm Vert}({\cal T})\big)$ corresponding to the gradient data $F_{i,{\bf p}} := \big\{ ({\bf p},1,{\bf 0})$ if $i\!\!=\!\! 0$, $({\bf p},0,{\bf e}^{[i]})$ for $i\!=\!1\! , 2 \big\} \cup
\big\{ ({\bf q},0,{\bf 0}):
{\bf p}\!\ne\! {\bf q}\!\in\! {\rm Vert}({\cal T})\big\}$ are transformed by ${\bf G}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&f_{{\cal T},F_{i,{\bf p}}} \circ {\bf G}^{-1} =
f_{{\bf G}({\cal T}), {\bf G}^\sharp(F_{i,{\bf p}})} \quad (i=0,1,2) \\
&{\rm where} \quad
{\bf G}^\sharp(F_{i,{\bf p}}) \!=\\
&= \big\{
\big( {\bf r},[f_{{\cal T},F_{i,{\bf p}}}\!\circ\! {\bf G}^{-1}]({\bf r}),
\nabla [f_{{\cal T},F_{i,{\bf p}}}\!\circ\!{\bf G}^{-1}]({\bf r}) \big):
{\bf r} \!\in\! {\bf G}({\rm Vert}({\cal T})) \big\} \!= \\
&\hskip 7mm = \big\{ \big( {\bf G(q)}, f_{{\cal T},F_{i,{\bf p}}}({\bf q}),
[\nabla f_{{\cal T},F_{i,{\bf p}}}({\bf q})][{\bf A}^{\rm T}]^{-1} \big) :
{\bf q}\in {\rm Vert}({\cal T}) \big\}
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ with the gradient data of the transformed function on the transformed vertices. Consider any triangle ${\bf T} ={\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p}\} \in{\cal T}$. Notice that the basic functions over ${\bf T}$ are given as restrictions of the unit functions. In particular $f_{{\cal T},F_{0 \!,{\bf p}}} \vert {\bf T} =
\varphi_{\bf p,T}$ and $f_{{\cal T},F_{j,{\bf p}}} \vert {\bf T} =
\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T}$ $(j\!=\!1,2)$. On the other hand, by Postulate A, for any gradient data $G$ on ${\rm Vert}\big({\bf G}({\cal T})\big)$ of the transformed mesh, such that $\big({\bf G(p)},\omega,[\alpha,\beta]\big),
\big({\bf G(a)},0,{\bf 0}\big),\big({\bf G(b)},0,{\bf 0}\big) \in G,$ we have $f_{{\bf G}({\cal T}),G} =
\omega\varphi_{\bf G(p),G(T)}+\alpha \psi^{(1)}_{\bf G(p),G(T)}+
\beta \psi^{(2)}_{\bf G(p),G(T)}$. We can apply this observation to $(\theIVpii.\theivpii)$ with $G := {\bf G}^\sharp(F_{i,{\bf p}})$ $(i=0,1,2)$ to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
&\varphi_{\bf p,T} \circ {\bf G}^{-1} =
\varphi_{\bf G(p),G(T)}, \\
&\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T}\circ {\bf G}^{-1} =
\alpha_j \psi^{(1)}_{\bf G(p),G(T)} +
\beta_j \psi^{(2)}_{\bf G(p),G(T)} \\
& {\rm where} \ \
[\alpha_j,\beta_j] =
[\nabla \phi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T}({\bf p})] [{\bf A}^{\rm T}]^{-1} =
{\bf e}^{[j]} [{\bf A}^{\rm T}]^{-1} \ \ \ (j=1,2) .
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ Hence the matrix form in $(\theIpxi.\theipxi)$ is immediate: $(\theIVpiii.\theivpiii)$ implies that $[{\bf A}^{\rm T}]^{-1} =
\left[ \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha_1 \ \beta_1 }{ \alpha_2 \ \beta_2} \right]$ and $[\psi^{(1)}_{\bf p,T}\circ{\bf G}^{-1},\psi^{(2)}_{\bf p,T}\circ{\bf G}^{-1}] =
[\psi^{(1)}_{\bf G(p),G(T)},\psi^{(2)}_{\bf G(p),G(T)}] {\bf A}^{-1}$.
[**Corollary .**]{} *There is no affine invariant ${\cal C}^1$-spline procedure. satisfying Postulate A.*
[**Proof.**]{} Proceed by contradiction. Assume the procedure $\hbox{{\Goth S}} : ({\cal T},F)\!\mapsto\! f_{{\cal T},F}$ with basic functions $\varphi_{\bf p,T},\psi^{(j)}_{\bf p,T}$ is affine invariant. Then, in particular, $(\theIpxi.\theipxi)$ holds for all transformations ${\bf G}: {\bf x}\mapsto {\bf xA +w}$ with ${\rm det}({\bf A})\ne 0$ and ${\bf w}\in\RR^2$. Consider the triangles $${\bf T}_{\bf b} := {\bf G}_{\bf b}({\bf T}) \qquad
\hbox{where \quad ${\bf G}_{\bf b} : {\bf x}\mapsto {\bf xA}_{\bf b}$
with ${\bf A}_{\bf b}:=
\left[ \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1 \ \ \ \ 0 }{ x({\bf b}) \ y({\bf b}) } \right]$.}$$ Then, according to $(\theIpxi.\theipxi)$, for the points ${\bf b}$ with $y({\bf b})\ne 0$ we have $$\big[\psi^{(1)}_{\bf 0,T}\circ{\bf G}_{\bf b}^{-1},
\psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,T}\circ{\bf G}_{\bf b}^{-1} \big] {\bf A}_{\bf b} =
\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{{\bf G}_{\bf b}{\bf (0),G}_{\bf b}{\bf (T)}},
\psi^{(2)}_{{\bf G}_{\bf b}{\bf (0),G}_{\bf b}{\bf (T)}} \big] .
\eqno(\NUM )$$ Since ${\bf G}_{\bf b}^{-1} : {\bf y}\mapsto {\bf y}{\bf A}_{\bf b}^{-1}$, in $(\theIVpvi.\theipvi)$ we can write $\nabla [\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}} \circ {\bf G}_{\bf b}^{-1}] ({\bf y}) =
\big[\nabla \psi^{(j)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}} ({\bf yA}_{\bf b}^{-1})\big]
[{\bf A}_{\bf b}^{\rm T}]^{-1}$. Therefore, for any ${\bf y}\!\in\!{\bf T}_{\bf b}$ and ${\bf b}\!\in\!\RR^2$ with $y({\bf b})\!\ne\! 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\nabla \psi^{(1)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}_{\bf b}} ({\bf y}) \!=\!
\big[ \nabla \psi^{(1)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}} ({\bf yA}_{\bf b}^{-1}) \big]
[{\bf A}_{\bf b}^{\rm T}]^{-1} \!+\!
x({\bf b})
\big[ \nabla \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}}( {\bf yA}_{\bf b}^{-1}) \big]
[{\bf A}_{\bf b}^{\rm T}]^{-1} ,\\
& \nabla \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}_{\bf b}} ({\bf y}) \!=\!
y({\bf b}) \big[ \nabla \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}}( {\bf yA}_{\bf b}^{-1}) \big]
[{\bf A}_{\bf b}^{\rm T}]^{-1} .
\end{aligned}$$ Observe that the segment ${\rm Co}\{ {\bf 0},{\bf e}^{[1]} \}$ is a common edge of all the triangles ${\bf T}_{\bf b}$. Hence, in view of Remark ., the gradients $\nabla \psi^{(j)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}_{\bf b}}({\bf y}_t)$ with ${\bf y}_t:=t {\bf e}^{[1]}$ must be independent of ${\bf b}$ for any fixed $t\in[0,1]$. Since ${\bf y}_t {\bf A}_{\bf b}^{-1} = {\bf y}_t$ $(t\!\in\!\RR,\ y({\bf b})\!\ne\! 0)$, our indirect assumption leads to the conclusions that ${\bf 0} = \nabla \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}_{\bf b}} ({\bf y}_t)=
\nabla \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}}( {\bf y}_t )$ and $\big[ \nabla \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}_{\bf b}} ({\bf y}_t) \big]
{\bf A}_{\bf b}^{\rm T} =
\nabla \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}}( {\bf y}_t )$ for all $t\!\in\![0,1]$ and ${\bf b}\in \RR^2$ with $y({\bf b})\!\ne\! 0$. This latter identity means in particular that $x({\bf b}) \frac{\partial }{ \partial x}
\psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}_{\bf b}}( {\bf y}_t) +
y({\bf b}) \frac{\partial}{\partial y}
\psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}_{\bf b}}( {\bf y}_t) =
\frac{\partial}{\partial y} \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}}( {\bf y}_t)$ which is possible with ${\bf b}$-independent $\nabla \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}_{\bf b}}( {\bf y}_t)$ only if $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}_{\bf b}}( {\bf y}_t) =
\frac{\partial}{\partial y}
\psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}_{\bf b}}( {\bf y}_t) =0$ $(t\!\in\! [0,1])$. However, hence we get ${\bf 0}= \nabla \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}_{\bf b}}( {\bf y}_0)$ which contradicts the defining relations $(\theIpv.\theipv)$ with $\nabla \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}_{\bf b}}( {\bf 0}) =[0,1]$.
[**Lemma .**]{} [(Reflection lemma).]{} *Let ${\bf T}$ be a non-degenarate triangle of the form ${\bf T}:= {\rm Co} \{ {\bf 0},\rho {\bf e}^{[1]},{\bf b} \}$ and assume $\hbox{\Goth S}$ is a spline procedure satisfying Postulate A. Then, for the fixed points ${\bf u}_t := t{\bf e}^{[1]}$ of the reflection ${\bf K}={\bf K}^{-1} : {\bf x}\mapsto [x({\bf x},-y({\bf x}] ={\bf xU}$, ${\bf U}=\big[ \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ 1 \ \ \ 0 }{ 0 \ -1}\big]$ through the $x$-axis we have $$\big\langle \nabla \varphi_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t)
\big\vert {\bf e}^{[2]} \big\rangle \!=\! 0, \
\big\langle \nabla \psi^{(1)}_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t)
\big\vert {\bf e}^{[2]} \big\rangle \!=\! 0, \
\psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t) \!=\! 0
\ \ (t\!\in\![0,\rho]).$$ [**Proof.**]{} The triangles ${\bf T}$ and ${\bf K(T)}$ are adjacent, the segment ${\rm Co}\{ {\bf 0},\rho{\bf e}^{[1]}\}$ is their common edge. According to Remark ., the pairs $\varphi_{\bf 0,T},\varphi_{\bf 0,K(T)}$ resp. $\psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,T},\psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,K(T)}$ of basic functions must be coupled ${\cal C}^1$-smoothly along it: $\varphi_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t) \!\!=\! \varphi_{\bf 0,K(T)}({\bf u}_t)$, $\nabla\varphi_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t) \!=\!
\nabla\varphi_{\bf 0,K(T)}({\bf u}_t)$ resp. $\psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t) \!=\! \psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,K(T)}({\bf u}_t)$, $\nabla\psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t) =
\nabla\psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,K(T)}({\bf u}_t)$ for all $t\in[0,\rho]$. On the other hand, the transformation rules $(\theIpxi.\theipxi)$ require $\varphi_{\bf 0,K(T)} \!=\! \varphi_{\bf 0,T}\circ {\bf K}^{-1}$ resp. $\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{\bf 0,K(T)}, \psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,K(T)} \big] \!=\!
\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{\bf 0,T}\circ {\bf K}^{-1},
\psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,T}\circ {\bf K}^{-1} \big]{\bf U}$ i.e. $\varphi_{\bf 0,K(T)}({\bf y}) = \varphi_{\bf 0,T}({\bf yU})$ and $\psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,K(T)}({\bf y})= (-1)^{j-1}\psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,T}({\bf y})$ for all ${\bf y}\in{\bf K(T)=TU}$. By passing to gradients, since ${\bf K}={\bf K}^{-1}$ and ${\bf U}={\bf U}^{-1} ={\bf U}^{\rm T}$, we get $\nabla \varphi_{\bf 0,K(T)} ({\bf y}) =
\nabla [\varphi_{\bf 0,T}({\bf yU})]{\bf U}$ and $\nabla \psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,K(T)}({\bf y}) =
(-1)^{j-1}[\nabla \psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,T}({\bf y})$ for the points ${\bf y}\in{\bf K(T)}$. In particular on the common edge of ${\bf T}$ with ${\bf K(T)}$ we must have $\nabla \varphi_{\bf 0,T} ({\bf u}_t)
\nabla \varphi_{\bf 0,K(T)} ({\bf u}_t) =
\nabla [\varphi_{\bf 0,T}(({\bf u}_t))]{\bf U}$ i.e. $\frac{\partial}{ \partial x^{[k]}} \varphi_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t)
= (-1)^{k-1} \frac{\partial}{ \partial x^{[k]}} \varphi_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t)$ implying $0 = \frac{\partial}{ \partial y} \varphi_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t) =
\big\langle \nabla \varphi_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t)
\big\vert {\bf e}^{[2]} \big\rangle$. Similarly we conclude that $\psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t) =
\psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,K(T)}({\bf u}_t) =
(-1)^{j-1} \psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t)$ implying $\psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,K(T)}({\bf u}_t) =0$ and $\nabla \psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t) \!=\!
\nabla \psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,K(T)}({\bf u}_t) \!=\!
(-1)^{j-1} [\nabla \psi^{(j)}_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t)]{\bf U}$ implying in particular $\frac{\partial}{ \partial y} \psi^{(1)}_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t) \!=\! 0$.*
[**Proposition .**]{} *Homothetically invariant ${\cal C}^1$-spline procedures satisfying Postulate A are shape uniform on edges $($i.e. they satisfy Postulate B automatically$)$.*
[**Proof.**]{} Let ${\bf T}:={\rm Co}\{ {\bf 0},{\bf e}^{[1]},{\bf e}^{[2]}\}$ and define $$\Phi(t):= \varphi_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t), \quad
\Psi(t) := \phi^{(1)}_{\bf 0,T}({\bf u}_t) \quad
{\rm where} \ \
{\bf u}_t:= (1\!-\! t) {\bf e}^{[1]} .\eqno(\NUM)$$ Cosider any other non-degenerate triangle $\widetilde{\bf T} := {\rm Co}\{ {\bf p,a,b}\}$. Due to the arbitrariness of the choice of $\widetilde{\bf T}$, it suffices to see only that, for $j \!=\!1,2$ and $t\!\in\![0,1]$, $$\varphi_{{\bf 0},\widetilde{\bf T}} ({\bf y}_t) \!=\! \Phi(t), \ \
\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf 0},\widetilde{\bf T}} ({\bf y}_t) \!=\!
{\rm Const}^{(j)}_{\widetilde{\bf T}}\Psi(t)
\quad {\rm with} \quad
{\bf y}_t \!:=\! (1\!-\! t){\bf a} \!+\! t{\bf p} .
\eqno(4.9)$$ It is a crucial fact that we can find a homothetic transformation $${\bf G} :{\bf x}\mapsto {\bf xA}+{\bf p} \quad\hbox{such that}\
{\bf G}({\bf e}^{[1]}) ={\bf a}, \ \
{\bf G}({\bf T}) \cap \widetilde{\bf T} ={\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,p}\} .
\eqno(4.10)$$ Actually ${\bf A} = \big[
\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ x({\bf a-p}) \ \ \ y({\bf a-p}) }{
-\sigma y({\bf a-p}) \ \sigma x({\bf a-p}) }
\big]$ where $\sigma=1$ if the points ${\bf a,b,p}$ are oriented clockwise and $\sigma=-1$ else. According to $(\theIpxi.\theipxi)$, $\varphi_{\bf G(0),G(T)} = \varphi_{\bf 0,T}\circ {\bf G}^{-1}$. Since ${\rm Co}\{ {\bf p,a}\}$ is a common edge of ${\bf T}$ and $\widetilde{\bf T}$, in view of Remark . we have $$\varphi_{{\bf p},\widetilde{\bf T}} ({\bf y}_t) =
\varphi_{\bf p,G(T)}({\bf y}_t) =
\varphi_{\bf 0,T}\big({\bf G}^{-1}({\bf y}_t)\big) =
\varphi_{\bf 0,T}\big({\bf u}_t\big) = \Phi(t)
\eqno(\NUM)$$ which proves the first part of $(\theIIIpx.\theiiipx)$. To prove $\psi^{(j)}_{bf 0,\widetilde{T}}({\bf y}_t) =
{\rm Const}^{(j)}_{\widetilde{\bf T}}\Psi(t)$, consider also the symmetry $$\begin{aligned}
&{\bf H} :{\bf x} \!\mapsto\!
[y({\bf x}),x({\bf x})]={\bf xS},
\ \ {\bf v}_t:= {\bf u}_t{\bf S} =t{\bf e}^{[2]}
\ \hbox{where \
${\bf S} \!:=\! \big[ \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0 \ 1 }{ 1 \ 0 }\big]$}
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ of the triangle ${\bf T}$. By $(\theIpxi.\theipxi)$ we have $\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{\bf 0,T}, \psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,T} \big] \!=\!\!
\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{\bf 0,T} \circ {\bf H},
\psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,T} \circ {\bf H} \big] {\bf S}$ whence $$\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{\bf 0,T} ({\bf u}_t), \psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,T} ({\bf u}_t)\big] \! =
\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{\bf 0,T} ({\bf v}_t) ,
\psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,T} ({\bf v}_t) \big]
\big[ \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ 0 \ 1 }{ 1 \ 0} \big] =
\big[ \psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,T} ({\bf v}_t) ,
\psi^{(1)}_{\bf 0,T} ({\bf v}_t) \big] .$$ Thus $\psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,T} ({\bf v}_t) = \Psi(t)$ while $\psi^{1)}_{\bf 0,T} ({\bf v}_t) = \psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,T} ({\bf u}_t)$. On the other hand, by Lemma .ivpvii, $\psi^{(2)}_{\bf 0,T} ({\bf u}_t) =0$. Finally we apply Remark . and $(\theIpxi.\theipxi)$ to the points ${\bf y}_t$ of the common edge ${\rm Co} \{ {\bf a,p}\}$ between the triangles ${\bf G(T)}$ and $\widetilde{\bf T}$. Hence we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
&\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{{\bf p},\widetilde{\bf T}}({\bf y}_t) ,
\psi^{(2)}_{{\bf p},\widetilde{\bf T}}({\bf y}_t) \big] =
\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{{\bf G(0)},{\bf G(T)}}({\bf y}_t) ,
\psi^{(2)}_{{\bf G(0)},{\bf G(T)}}({\bf y}_t) \big] = \cr
&=\! \big[ \psi^{(1)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}}({\bf u}_t) ,
\big[ \psi^{(2)}_{{\bf 0},{\bf T}}({\bf u}_t) \big] {\bf A} \!=\!
\big[ \Psi(t),0\big] {\bf A} \!=\!
\Psi(t) \big[ x({\bf a \!-\! p} , y({\bf a \!-\! p} \big] .
\end{aligned}
\eqno(\NUM)$$ Thus $\psi^{(j)}_{{\bf p},\widetilde{\bf T}}({\bf y}_t) =
x^{[j]}({\bf a-p}) \Psi(t)$ $(j\!=\! 1,2)$ which completes the proof.
[**. Proof of Therem .**]{} It is clear that the coordinate values $\xi^{\bf v}_{\bf p,a} =
\langle {\bf v \!-\! a} \vert {\bf p\!-\! a} \rangle /
\Vert {\bf p\!-\! a}\Vert^2$ are homothetic invariant i.e. $\xi^{\bf G(v)}_{\bf G(p),G(a)} = \xi^{\bf v}_{\bf p,a}$ whenever the transformation ${\bf G}:\RR^2\leftrightarrow\RR^2$ is of the form ${\bf G(x) = w + \rho (x-q)S}$ with a constant $\rho>0$ and an orthogonal $2\times 2$-matrix ${\bf S}$. The baricentric coordinates $\lambda^{\bf p}_{\bf T}$ are even affine invariant as it is well-known from classical Projective Geometry. Hence it suffices to see that the invariance relations $$\varphi_{\bf G(p),G(T)} = \varphi\circ {\bf G}^{-1}, \ \
\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{\bf G(p),G(T)}, \psi^{(2)}_{\bf G(p),G(T)} \big] =
\big[ \psi^{(1)}\circ {\bf G}^{-1}, \psi^{(1)}\circ {\bf G}^{-1} \big]
{\bf S}$$ imply that $k^{i,{\bf p}}_{\bf a} \equiv 0$ $(i=0,1,2)$ whenever ${\bf T} = {\rm Co}\{ {\bf a,b,p} \}$ is a non-degenerate triangle and ${\bf G}:\RR^2\leftrightarrow\RR^2$ is the orthogonal reflection through ${\rm Line}\{ {\bf a,p}\}$ i.e. $${\bf G(a)=a, \ \ G(p)=p}, \quad
\xi^{\bf G(x)}_{\bf p,a} = \xi^{\bf x}_{\bf p,a}, \ \
\overline{\xi}^{\bf G(x)}_{\bf p,a} =
- \overline{\xi}^{\bf x}_{\bf p,a} \quad ({\bf x}\in\RR^2) ,$$ so that ${\bf G(x) = a \!+\! (x \!-\! a)S}$ where ${\bf S} = \Vert {\bf p\!-\! a}\Vert^{-2}$ $\genfrac[]{0pt}{1}{{\bf p\!-\! a}}{ {\bf (p\!-\! a)R}}^{\rm T}
\genfrac[]{0pt}{1}{{0\ 1}}{{1\ 0}}
\genfrac[]{0pt}{1}{{\bf p\!-\! a}}{ {\bf (p\!-\! a)R}}$. Let us first investigate the relation $\varphi_{\bf G(p),G(T)} = \varphi_{\bf p,T}\circ {\bf G}^{-1}$. By pluging $$\begin{aligned}
&t=t({\bf x}) := \lambda^{\bf a}_{\bf G(T)}({\bf x}) =
\lambda^{\bf G(a)}_{\bf G(T)}({\bf x}) =
\lambda^{\bf a}_{\bf T}\big({\bf {\bf G}^{-1}(x)}\big),\\
&s=s({\bf x}) := \lambda^{\bf G(b)}_{\bf G(T)}({\bf x}) =
\lambda^{\bf b}_{\bf T}\big({\bf {\bf G}^{-1}(x)}\big)
\end{aligned}$$ in the expressions of $\varphi_{\bf G(p),G(T)}$ resp. $\varphi_{\bf p,T}\circ {\bf G}^{-1}$ formed with $(\theIIpviii.\theiipviii)$, since $\lambda^{\bf p}_{\bf T} =
1 - \lambda^{\bf a}_{\bf T} -\lambda^{\bf b}_{\bf T}$ and ${\bf G(a)=a}$ resp. ${\bf G(p)=p}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&0 = \varphi_{\bf G(p),G(T)}({\bf x}) -
\varphi_{\bf p,T}\circ {\bf G}^{-1} ({\bf x}) =
\varphi_{\bf p,G(T)}({\bf x}) -
\varphi_{\bf p,T}\circ {\bf G}^{-1} ({\bf x}) =\\
&\ \, = \Big[ \Phi(1 \!-\! s \!-\! t) \!+\!
(1 \!-\! s \!-\! t)^2 st P^{\bf p}_{\bf a,G(b)} (s,t) \Big] \!-\\
&\hskip20mm - \Big[ \Phi(1 \!-\! s \!-\! t) \!+\!
(1 \!-\! s \!-\! t)^2 st P^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b}(s,t)\Big],\\
&0 =
P^{\bf p}_{\bf a,G(b)} (s,t) -
P^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b} (s,t) =
\left[
s \Big\{ \xi^{\bf a}_{\bf p, G\!(b)} \frac{\Phi^\prime(1 \!-\! s)
}{ s(1\!-\! s)^2}\!+\!
\overline{\xi}^{\bf a}_{\bf p,G\!(b)} k^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf G(b)}(s) \!\Big\}
\right. +\\
&\hskip 20mm + \left.
t \Big\{ \xi^{\bf G\!(b)}_{\bf p,a}
\frac{\Phi^\prime(1 \!-\! t)}{ t(1 \!-\! t)^2} \!+\!
\overline{\xi}^{\bf G\!(b)}_{\bf p,a} k^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t) \!\Big\}
\!+\! st R^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,G\!(b)} (s,t) \right] \!\!-\! \\
&\hskip 20mm -
\left[
s \Big\{ \xi^{\bf a}_{\bf p,b}
\frac{\Phi^\prime(1 \!-\! s) }{ s(1\!-\! s)^2}\!+\!
\overline{\xi}^{\bf a}_{\bf p,b} k^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf b}(s) \!\Big\}
\right.\!+\\
&\hskip20mm + \left. t \Big\{ \xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}
\frac{\Phi^\prime(1 \!-\! t) }{ t(1 \!-\! t)^2} \!+\!
\overline{\xi}^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a} k^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t) \Big\}
\!+\! st R^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} (s,t) \right]
\end{aligned}$$ Comparing the coefficients of the monomials $s^m t^n$, in view of $(2.9)$ we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm (i)} \
0 &\!=\! \Big[ \xi^{\bf G\!(b)}_{\bf p,a} \frac{\Phi^\prime(1-t) }{ t(1-t)^2} +
\overline{\xi}^{\bf G\!(b)}_{\bf p,a} k^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t) \Big] -
\Big[ \xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a} \frac{\Phi^\prime(1-t) }{ t(1-t)^2} +
\overline{\xi}^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a} k^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t) \Big] ,\\
{\rm (ii)} \
0 &\!=\! \Big[ \xi^{\bf a}_{\bf p,G\!(b)}
\frac{\Phi^\prime(1-s) }{ s(1 \!-\! s)^2} \!+\!
\overline{\xi}^{\bf a}_{\bf p,G\!(b)} k^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf G\!(b)}(s) \Big] \!-\!
\Big[ \xi^{\bf a}_{\bf p,b} \frac{\Phi^\prime(1-s) }{ s(1 \!-\! s)^2} \!+\!
\overline{\xi}^{\bf a}_{\bf p,b} k^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(s) \Big] ,\\
{\rm (iii)} \
0 &\!=\! R^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,G\!(b)} (s,t) - R^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} (s,t) .
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\xi^{\bf G\!(b)}_{\bf p,a} = \xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}$ and $\overline{\xi}^{\bf G\!(b)}_{\bf p,a} = -\overline{\xi}^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}$, from (i) we conclude that $k^{0,{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t) =0$. On the other hand, (iii) implies the isometry invariance of the non-principal parts because the lines ${\rm Line}\{{\bf p,a)}\}$ can be chosen arbitrarily and hence the corresponding reflections generate the whole group of self-isometries of $\RR^2$.
The treatment of the relations $$\big[ \psi^{(1)}_{\bf G(p),G(T)}, \psi^{(2)}_{\bf G(p),G(T)} \big] =
\big[ \psi^{(1)}\circ {\bf G}^{-1}, \psi^{(1)}\circ {\bf G}^{-1} \big]
{\bf S}$$ is analogous by using the vectorial forms $\ppsi_{\bf q,W} := \big[ \psi^{(1)}_{\bf q,W}, \psi^{(2)}_{\bf q,W} \big]$ for triangles ${\bf W}$ with distinguished vertex ${\bf q}$. With this formalism the above invariance relation can be written as $\ppsi_{\bf G\!(p),G\!(T)} ({\bf x}) =
\big[ \ppsi_{\bf p,T}\big( {\bf G}^{-1}({\bf x})\big) \big]{\bf S}$ where ${\bf G}={\bf G}^{-1}$, ${\bf G\!(p)=p,\ G\!(a)=a}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\ppsi_{\bf G\!(p),G\!(T)} ({\bf x}) =
\Theta(1\!-\! s\!-\! t) ({\bf x \!-\! p}) +
(1\!-\! s\!-\! t)^2 s t Q^{\bf p}_{\bf a,G\!(b)}(s,t) ,\\
&\big[ \ppsi_{\bf p,T}\big( {\bf G}^{-1}({\bf x})\big) \big]{\bf S} =
\Theta(1\!-\! s\!-\! t)\big( {\bf G\!(x)} \!-\! {\bf p}\big){\bf S} +
(1\!-\! s\!-\! t)^2 s t Q^{\bf p}_{\bf a,b}(s,t) {\bf S}
\end{aligned}$$ with the vector valued polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
\QQ^{\bf p}_{\bf a,w} (s,t) &:=
\big[ Q^{1,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,w} (s,t) , Q^{2,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,w} (s,t) \big] =\\
&= s \Big\{ \xi^{\bf a}_{\bf p,w}
\frac{\Theta^\prime(1 \!-\! s) }{ s(1\!-\! s)^2} {\bf (w \!-\! p)} +
\overline{\xi}^{\bf a}_{\bf p,w}
{\bf k}_{\bf w}^{{\bf p}}(s) \Big\} +\\
&+ \ \ t \Big\{ \xi^{\bf w}_{\bf p,a}
\frac{\Theta^\prime(1 \!-\!t) }{ t(1 \!-\! t)^2} {\bf (a \!-\! p)} +
\overline{\xi}^{\bf w}_{\bf p,a}
{\bf k}_{\bf a}^{{\bf p}}(t) \Big\}
+ st {\bf R}^{{\bf p}}_{\bf a,w}(s,t)
\end{aligned}$$ for ${\bf w}:= {\bf b,G\!(b)}$ where ${\bf R}^{{\bf p}}_{\bf a,w} :=
\big[ {\bf R}^{1,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,w}, {\bf R}^{2,{\bf p}}_{\bf a,w} \big]$ and ${\bf k}_{\bf u}^{{\bf p}} :=
\big[ {\bf k}_{\bf w}^{1,{\bf p}},{\bf k}_{\bf w}^{2,{\bf p}} \big]$. Clearly ${\bf (G\!(x) \!- \! p)S} \!=\! {\bf (G\!(x) \!-\! G\!(p))S} \!=\!
{\bf \big( (a + (x\!-\! a)S) \!-\! (a + (p\!-\! a)S) \big)S} \!=\!
{\bf (x \!-\! p)S^2} = {\bf x\!-\! p}$. Hence the comparison of the coefficients of the monomials $s^m t^n$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
&{\rm (i^\prime)} \quad
0 = \Big[ \xi^{\bf G\!(b)}_{\bf p,a} \frac{\Theta^\prime(1-t) }{ t(1-t)^2}
{\bf \big( G\!(b) \!-\! p\big)} \!+\!
\overline{\xi}^{\bf G\!(b)}_{\bf p,a} {\bf k}^{{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t) \Big] \!-\\
&\hskip 20mm -
\Big[ \xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a} \frac{\Theta^\prime(1-t) }{ t(1-t)^2}
{\bf (b \!-\!p)} \!+\!
\overline{\xi}^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a} {\bf k}^{{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(t) \Big]{\bf S} ,
\\
&{\rm (ii^\prime)} \quad
0 = \Big[ \xi^{\bf a}_{\bf p,G\!(b)} \frac{\Theta^\prime(1 \!-\!s)
}{ s(1 \!-\! s)^2} {\bf (a\!-\! p)} \!+\!
\overline{\xi}^{\bf a}_{\bf p,G\!(b)} {\bf k}^{{\bf p}}_{\bf G\!(b)}(s) \Big]
\!-\\
&\hskip 20mm - \Big[ \xi^{\bf a}_{\bf p,b} \frac{\Theta^\prime(1 \!-\!s)}{ s(1\!-\! s)^2}
{\bf (a\!-\! p)} \!+\!
\overline{\xi}^{\bf a}_{\bf p,b} {\bf k}^{{\bf p}}_{\bf a}(s) \Big]{\bf S} ,
\\
&{\rm (iii^\prime)} \quad
0 = {\bf R}\strut^{{\bf p}}_{\bf a,G\!(b)} (s,t) -
{\bf R}^{{\bf p}}_{\bf a,b} (s,t) {\bf S} .
\end{aligned}$$ Considering again ${\rm (i^\prime)}$, since ${\bf G\!(b) \!-\! p} = {\bf G\!(b) \!-\! G\!(p)} =
{\bf (b \!-\! p)}S$ and since $\xi^{\bf G\!(b)}_{\bf p,a} = \xi^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}$ resp. $\overline{\xi}^{\bf G\!(b)}_{\bf p,a} = -\overline{\xi}^{\bf b}_{\bf p,a}$, we conclude ${\bf k}^{\bf p}_{\bf a}(t)=0$.
[**Acknowledgement.**]{} This research was supported by the Ministry of Human Capacities, Hungary grant 20391-3/2018/FEKUSTRAT.
[REFERENCES]{}
- R.E. Barnhill, Smooth interpolation over triangles (p.47) 45-70?, in: R.E. Barnhild and R.F. Riesenfeld (Ed.-s), Computer Aided Geometric Design, Academic Press, NY-San Francisco-London,1974.
- H-S.M. Coxeter, Introduction to Geometry, New York: Wiley, 1969.
- William Fulton, Algebraic Curves, Mathematics Lecture Note Series. W.A. Benjamin. p. 112. (1974).
- H. Hamilton, Plane Algebraic Curves, Calderon Press, Oxford, 1920.
- Lorentz, Hermite interpolation by algebraic polynomials: A survey in Numerical Analysis 2000 (Elsevier).
- Meng wu, Bernard Mourrain, André Galligo, B. Nkonga, Hermite Type Spline Spaces over Rectangular Meshes with Complex Topological Structures, Communications in Computational Physics 21/3, 835-866.
- L.L. Schumacher, Spline Functions, Computational Methods, SIAM 2015.
- I.V. Sergienko, O.M. Lytvyn, O.O. Lytvyn and O.I. Denisova, Explicit formulas for interpolating splines of degree 5 on the triangle, Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, Vol. 50, No.5 (2014), 670-678.
- M. Zlámal and A. Ženišek, Mathematical aspects of the FEM, in Technical Physical and Mathematical Priciples of the FEM, Ed.-s V. Kolaž et al., Akademia, Praha, 1971, pp. 15-39.
L.L. STACHÓ
Bolyai Institute,
Interdisciplinary Excellence Centre,
University of Szeged
[[email protected]]{}
[^1]: That is satisfying Postulates A,B with $f_{{\cal T},F} \in {\cal C}^1\big({\rm Dom}({\cal T})\big)$.
[^2]: $Q$ vanishes in order $\nu$ at the point $[x_0,y_0]$ if $\frac{\partial^{k+m} }{ \partial x^k \partial y^m} Q(x_0,y_0) =0$ whenever $k+m<\nu$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The adsorption of hydrogen at nonpolar GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surfaces and its impact on the electronic and vibrational properties is investigated using surface electron spectroscopy in combination with density functional theory (DFT) calculations. For the surface mediated dissociation of H$_2$ and the subsequent adsorption of H, an energy barrier of 0.55eV has to be overcome. The calculated kinetic surface phase diagram indicates that the reaction is kinetically hindered at low pressures and low temperatures. At higher temperatures ab-initio thermodynamics show, that the H–free surface is energetically favored. To validate these theoretical predictions experiments at room temperature and under ultrahigh vacuum conditions were performed. They reveal that molecular hydrogen does not dissociatively adsorb at the GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface. Only activated atomic hydrogen atoms attach to the surface. At temperatures above 820K, the attached hydrogen gets desorbed. The adsorbed hydrogen atoms saturate the dangling bonds of the gallium and nitrogen surface atoms and result in an inversion of the Ga–N surface dimer buckling. The signatures of the Ga–H and N–H vibrational modes on the H-covered surface have experimentally been identified and are in good agreement with the DFT calculations of the surface phonon modes. Both theory and experiment show that H adsorption results in a removal of occupied and unoccupied intragap electron states of the clean GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface and a reduction of the surface upward band bending by 0.4eV. The latter mechanism largely reduces surface electron depletion.'
author:
- 'L. Lymperakis'
- 'J. Neugebauer'
- 'M. Himmerlich'
- 'S. Krischok'
- 'M. Rink'
- 'J. Kr[ö]{}ger'
- 'V. M. Polyakov'
title: 'Adsorption and desorption of hydrogen at nonpolar GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surfaces: Kinetics and impact on surface vibrational and electronic properties'
---
INTRODUCTION {#Int-GaN}
============
Gallium nitride (GaN) based optoelectronic devices are well established in solid state lighting [@Pimputkar2009; @Crawford2009; @Chang2012] and power electronics.[@Mishra2008; @Ikeda2010; @Chowdhury2015] High electron mobility transistor (HEMT) structures based on AlGaN/GaN have for example been modified in order to use these polar thin film devices as sensors with open or functionalized gate [@steinhoff03; @pear04], which essentially consist of the bare surface in polar orientation interacting with the surrounding species. In recent years, three-dimensional GaN nanowire structures have also attracted much attention for sensing applications [@chen2009; @Ganguly2009; @pearton2010; @Teubert2011], light emission and detection [@Guo2010; @li2012; @gonzales2012] as well as solar water splitting [@Shen10JPC; @Wang2011; @Wang12JPC] and photovoltaics.[@Tang2008; @Dong2009] They exhibit a high surface to volume ratio and are mainly composed of side facets consisting of the nonpolar $m$-plane $(1\overline{1}00)$ surface. Such nanowire structures are typically grown by catalyst-free molecular beam epitaxy [@Wang2006Nanotech; @Songmuang2007] and exhibit superior structural quality being almost free of defects and strain [@Schlager2008; @cheze2010] with the capability to integrate vertical core-shell [@Qian2008; @Koester2011; @Yeh2012] and embedded lateral heterostructures [@Nguyen2011; @Kehagias2013] and to intentionally dope the material.[@Guo2010; @Schoermann2013]
For sensor applications as well as to identify optimum growth conditions a detailed understanding of the interaction and adsorption of molecules and atoms in the gas phase with the surface is crucial. Of special importance is also the existence of free or saturated bonds and related surface, adsorbate or trap states with well defined electronic structure.[@Eller2013] They can induce charge transfer processes, band bending including accumulation or depletion of electrons and/or form a dipole at the surface or interface in focus.[@Zhang2012; @Robertson2013] For example, the characteristics of GaN single-nanowire transistors have been found to be dependent on the valence band bending at the $m$-plane side facets which is directly influenced by surface adsorbates.[@san2013]
Hydrogen is a simple model adsorbate system and is known to affect doping in GaN.[@Neugebauer1996; @Pearton1999; @Neugebauer1999] Understanding its influence is of great technological relevance, since GaN bulk and thin film growth techniques involve hydrogen directly or indirectly as possible dissociation product from ammonia or metalorganic precursors with impact on the growth and properties of the resulting material.[@Ambacher1997; @Okamoto1999; @Aujol2001] For polar GaN surfaces, the interaction with hydrogen has been studied both by experimental methods [@Chiang1995; @Shekhar1997; @bell99; @bell99_b; @slo99; @gra2000; @star00] and theory.[@Pignedoli2001; @Walle2002; @Northrup2004; @Bermudez2004; @Chen2010; @Kempisty2011; @Kempisty2012; @Ptasinska2015]
The nonpolar $m$-plane GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ orientation is a low energy surface of wurtzite GaN [@Dreyer2014] and consists of buckled Ga–N dimers in the outermost layer.[@Nor96-PhysRevB.53.R10477; @Segev2007L15] The dangling bonds at the nitrogen and gallium surface atoms give rise to occupied and unoccupied surface states that have been predicted by density functional theory (DFT) calculations [@seg06; @ber09; @Lym_APL2013] and experimentally verified.[@Lym_APL2013; @him_APL2014] The chemically clean surface has been experimentally observed to exhibit a distinct electron depletion layer with a surface upward band bending of $\sim$0.6eV. The position changes in the presence of gas molecules that adsorb on the surface.[@him_APL2014] The kinetics and thermodynamics of adsorption and desorption, the resulting surface/adatom geometric structures and their influence on the electronic properties of the surface and subsurface region are crucial to understand charge transfer processes across the semiconductor/adlayer interface as well as ionized adsorbate induced formation of surface dipoles.
DFT studies have focused on the stability of hydrogen species at nonpolar $m$-plane [@nor97] and $a$-plane [@Akiyama2011] GaN surfaces and found that under hydrogen-rich conditions hydrogen adsorbates attach at the free surface dangling bonds of both the Ga and N dimer atoms. It was further predicted that water molecules interacting with this surface spontaneously dissociate and form H and OH that bond with the surface.[@shen2009] In this study we combine first-principles calculations with surface adsorption/desorption experiments to clarify the mechanisms by which H and H$_2$ adsorb onto this surface. Based on this insight we study how the adsorbed H atoms modify the vibrational and electronic properties of this surface. We show that these aspects have consequences on growing GaN in hydrogen-rich environments and derive consequences when using nonpolar surfaces in electronic and chemical sensing devices.
EXPERIMENT AND THEORY {#Det-GaN}
=====================
Clean GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surfaces were prepared by homoepitaxial overgrowth on bulk GaN substrates from Kyma Technologies produced by hydride vapor phase epitaxy using molecular beam epitaxy (MBE). The used substrates were unintentionally $n$-doped crystals with a carrier concentration of $\sim$5$\times$10^16^cm^-3^ and had an epi-ready surface finish achieved by a final chemo-mechanical polishing step.[@pas09] Atomic force microscopy measurements identify atomically flat surfaces exhibiting a terrace width in correspondence with the sample miscut and a root-mean-square roughness below 0.5nm. Growth of an a few hundred nanometer thick GaN epilayer was performed using a Knudsen cell for Ga evaporation and a SVTA RF 4.5 plasma source (13.56 MHz) for the generation of reactive nitrogen species. The growth parameters Ga flux and substrate temperature were optimized at a constant nitrogen flux ($p_N$$\sim$5$\times$10^-8^bar, plasma power 450W) using reflection high energy electron diffraction (RHEED) during, and photoelectron spectroscopy (PES) after growth, in order to obtain stoichiometric surfaces which are free of excess Ga or surface defects. The properties of the GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ samples after growth have been reported and discussed earlier in Ref.. After epitaxy and cooling down, the samples were directly transferred under ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) conditions (base pressure $<$2$\times$10^-13^bar) to the respective position for *in-situ* surface analysis by ultraviolet and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS, XPS). These measurements were performed in normal emission using a hemispherical electron analyzer and monochromated AlK$\alpha$ (1486.7eV) or HeI (21.2eV) radiation for electron excitation. The description of the employed experimental conditions and parameters for PES can be found in Ref..
To investigate their interaction with hydrogen, the *as-grown* samples were exposed at room temperature to hydrogen (purity 99.999%) by backfilling the analysis chamber (p$ _{H_{2}} $=2.0$ \times $10$ ^{-11}$bar) for up to 55min. Prior to each adsorption experiment, the gas supply lines were thoroughly evacuated to a pressure below 1$\times$10$^{-10}$bar and subsequently filled with 1.5bar H$_2$. The molecular hydrogen was optionally activated by a hot filament placed close to the sample front side to obtain atomic hydrogen by partial dissociation of the H$_2$ molecules in front of the GaN surface. Due to a limited cracking efficiency of the hot filament, the actual amount of produced atomic H species is below the calculated total H$_2$ exposure. During exposure, the residual gas was monitored by quadrupole mass spectrometry to control gas purity and absence of impurities. The pressure was measured with a Bayard Alpert ionization gauge and used without any further correction of specific gas sensitivity to calculate the exposure in Langmuir (1L=1.33$ \times $10$ ^{-9}$bar$\cdot$s). The changes of the surface properties were examined in-situ by UPS and XPS.
In an additional experiment, the hydrogen-covered $m$-plane GaN sample was transferred to a second UHV recipient using a vacuum transfer chamber with a base pressure $<$1$\times$10^-11^bar. While clean surfaces were found to be extremely reactive to molecules from the residual gas, hydrogen adsorption at the GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface resulted in a passivation of the surface and relatively stable conditions for vacuum transfer. The second UHV recipient is optimized for electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) using an Ibach spectrometer.[@IBACH1993819] Such experiments were performed on the H-covered GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface in specular scattering geometry with energies of monochromatic electron beams varying between 5 and 80eV and were repeated after desorption of the hydrogen adsorbates by annealing the sample in UHV at 820$\pm$50K.
The H adsorption energies have been calculated employing DFT, the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) and the projector augmented-wave (PAW) method.[@Kresse93; @Kresse96] The Ga 3$d$ electrons are included as valence states. The surfaces are modeled using a slab geometry consisting of 12 Ga-N monolayers (MLs) and a vacuum region of 20 Å. A plane-wave energy cutoff of 450 eV was used and the Brillouin zone (BZ) was sampled using an equivalent 4$\times$4$\times$1 Monkhorst-Pack $k$-point mesh for the 1$\times$1 surface unit cell. The lowermost Ga and N atoms were passivated with pseudohydrogen having a fractional charge of 0.75 and 1.25, respectively. Convergence with respect to $k$-point sampling, energy cutoff, vacuum, and slab thickness were explicitly tested and found to provide surface energies with an accuracy better than 3meV/$1\times1$.
In order to investigate the vibrational properties and the vibrational entropic contributions we have calculated the dynamical matrix of the free and adsorbate covered surfaces. The force constant matrix and in turn the dynamical matrix have been calculated for the top four surface atomic layers and the H atoms at the surface using slabs of 8 layer thickness, 4$\times$4 surface supercells and a displacement of 0.01 Å in both directions. To evaluate the H$_2$ chemical potential we have included the translational, rotational, and vibrational contributions. More details regarding the approach and the convergence criteria can be found in Ref..
The kinetics of dissociative adsorption of molecular H$_2$ are addressed with the harmonic transition state theory.[@Vineyard1957] The transition states have been identified by climbing image nudged elastic band (NEB) calculations.[@NEB] For the NEB calculations a 2$\times$2 surface slab with a thickness of 8 MLs has been implemented and in total 6 images including the two stable/metastable end states, i.e. H$_2$ in the vacuum and H$_2$ bound to a surface dimer, have been used to identify the transition points. The electronic structure of clean and H-covered $m$-plane surfaces have been computed with the Heyd, Scuseria, and Ernzerhof hybrid functional.[@HSE] This functional gives a bulk bandgap of $E_g$=3.116eV in agreement with previous calculations.[@RN2097]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION {#Res-GaN}
======================
Monitoring of hydrogen adsorption/desorption {#Res-Elec clean}
--------------------------------------------
After growth the clean GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface exhibits electron depletion with strong upward band bending. A distinct occupied surface state is found close to the valence band edge at 3.1eV below the Fermi energy. This feature was identified as emission from an occupied surface state related to the filled dangling bond states located at the N atoms of the GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface dimer structure. For a detailed discussion on the electronic properties after growth we refer to our earlier study.[@him_APL2014] Since the focus of the present study is on hydrogen adsorption the variation of the valence band (VB) spectra has been monitored using UPS in continuing hydrogen interaction experiments increasing the exposure up to 50 Langmuir(L). In a first experiment molecular H$_2$ was offered to the clean GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface at room temperature (RT) resulting in negligible changes of the valence band features and surface band bending (not shown). Consequently, at RT no significant H$_2$ dissociation and H adsorption is observed for the used H$_2$ partial pressure of 2.0$ \times $10$ ^{-11} $bar and the chosen reaction time.
![\[fig:fig\_exposure\] Changes in the GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface electronic properties during continuous adsorption of atomic hydrogen (H) produced by a hot filament in the presence of H$_2$ – (a) UPS (HeI) valence band spectra revealing a shift of the occupied states and a reduction of electron emission from the surface state at 3.1eV. (b) Change of work function and (c) reduction in surface band bending in dependence upon hydrogen exposure.](Fig1_H_exposure_new.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
As a consequence, in a following experiment we have initiated the H adsorption process by implementing a hot filament for partial generation of thermally activated atomic hydrogen close to the sample surface. Fig.\[fig:fig\_exposure\](a) shows a series of UPS (HeI) valence band spectra during ongoing H and H$_2$ exposure up to 50L in total. A gradual shift of the occupied states away from the Fermi level $E_F$ at 0eV is observed. This effect is directly linked to a reduction of the surface band bending, which initially amounts to 0.6eV for the as grown $m$-plane GaN surface.[@him_APL2014] In addition, the onset of low-energy secondary electron emission (not shown) was shifted, pointing to a reduction of the work function $\Phi$. The temporal variation of $\Phi$ as well as the determined change in surface band bending $\Delta V_{bb}$ are plotted in Fig.\[fig:fig\_exposure\](b) and (c), respectively. Both values decrease monotonically with H exposure, with the tendency of saturation at the end of the experiment. In parallel, the signal intensity of the filled N dangling bond state, initially found at 3.1eV binding energy, is significantly reduced upon the interaction process \[Figs.\[fig:fig\_exposure\](a) and \[fig:fig\_PES\](d)\]. These aspects provide indirect evidence for H adsorption at the GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface for this second experiment in which the sample was exposed to activated H species.
To prove the observed shift in surface band bending, we have also characterized the core level binding energies using AlK$\alpha$ X-ray excitation. The corresponding spectra of the Ga2p$_{3/2}$, N1s and Ga3d states are shown in Fig.\[fig:fig\_PES\](a)–(c). Their respective binding energies for the as-grown surface are 1118.0, 397.7 and 20.1eV. We emphasize that no surface impurities were detected by XPS after the MBE growth or the subsequent H$_2$ exposure, and therefore the observed changes are not induced by surface impurities, while unfortunately a direct detection and analysis of hydrogen surface species is not possible by XPS. After the performed H exposure, in all cases a shift of the core level binding energy by 0.4eV towards higher values is observed, consistent with the changes observed in the HeI spectra during the adsorption process. These observations indicate that the reaction with the activated hydrogen species results in a saturation of the free dangling bonds at the Ga–N surface. The impact of the saturation will be discussed in detail in comparison with theoretical predictions below.
![\[fig:fig\_PES\] Comparison of the GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface properties after growth, atomic hydrogen adsorption and subsequent annealing at 820$\pm$50K. (a)–(c) X-ray photoelectron spectra of the Ga2p$_{3/2}$ and Ga3d states as well as the N1s core level including contributions from the Ga(LMM) Auger transition. The individual core level spectra were normalized with respect to their maximum peak height. (d) Valence band structure measured by UPS using HeI radiation. A subtraction of contributions from HeI satellite lines was applied. (e) Electronic properties including work function and surface band alignment of the m-plane GaN surface with and without adsorbed hydrogen determined based on the results of the photoelectron spectroscopy measurements.](Fig2_PES.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
In order to analyze the stability or reversibility of the H adsorption process, we have afterwards annealed the sample in ultrahigh vacuum. While an annealing temperature of 520$\pm$50K did not substantially change the surface electronic properties in terms of band bending and work function indicating a certain stability of the adsorbate structure, heating the substrate up to 820$\pm$50K almost recovered the characteristics after MBE growth. Figs.\[fig:fig\_PES\](a)–(d) include the photoelectron spectra obtained after annealing the hydrogenated surface at 820$\pm$50K for 10min (black). Obviously, the occupied states shift back towards the Fermi level and most noticeably, the near VB edge emission from the occupied surface state also recovers in intensity to almost the signal strength after growth \[Fig.\[fig:fig\_PES\](d)\]. Consequently, the hydrogen atoms adsorbed with an effective coverage in the submonolayer regime during the reaction of activated H species and the clean GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface, can be reversed, i.e. desorption initiated, if sufficient energy is introduced into the system, e.g. thermally induced as examined in this experiment.
Fig.\[fig:fig\_PES\](e) schematically summarizes the experimentally determined differences in electronic properties for the clean and H-covered GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface including variation in surface band bending and work function.
The aforementioned results indicate a complex interplay between thermodynamics and kinetics in hydrogen adsorption/desorption processes: they imply that it is energetically favorable for atomic hydrogen to adsorb at the surface, passivate the Ga– and N– dangling bonds of the clean GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface and saturate the surface states. This results in a reduction of the upward band bending by 0.4eV and reduction of the work function by 0.2eV as illustrated in the surface band diagram in Fig.\[fig:fig\_PES\](e). However, hydrogen desorption can be mediated at elevated temperatures which can be attributed to the existence of a kinetic barrier. These aspects will be further addressed below.
Electron density profile and surface vibrations
-----------------------------------------------
![\[fig:fig\_EELS\_Sim\] (a) Specular EEL spectra (circles) of clean GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$. The energy of incident electrons was set to 20eV. The full line depicts calculated results. The prominent loss features are due to single and multiple electron scattering from the Fuchs-Kliewer phonon at 88meV. (b) Surface band alignment and electron density profile resulting from modeling the experimental EEL spectra measured using different primary electron energies. ](Fig3_EELS_Sim.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
While PES unraveled changes in the electronic structure upon H adsorption, vibrational spectroscopy was performed to confirm adsorption of atomic H and to identify adsorption sites. The discovered possibility to saturate the surface by atomic hydrogen, forming a stable adsorbate (passivation) layer was used to transfer the H-covered GaN samples to a separate UHV chamber. The same heating procedure as used for the PES analysis was then performed to remove the hydrogen adatoms and to analyze the vibrational characteristics of the GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface.
Figure\[fig:fig\_EELS\_Sim\](a) shows a representative spectrum measured after transfer of the H-covered GaN sample and annealing at 820$\pm$50K in specular scattering geometry and a primary electron energy ($E_p$) of 20eV. Apart from the signature of elastically scattered electrons at 0meV the spectra of the clean surface exhibit almost equidistantly separated loss features. These peaks are assigned to the spectroscopic signatures of the Fuchs-Kliewer (FK) phonon at (88.0$\pm$0.4)meV (average value of EEL spectra measured at different $E_p$) and its multiple excitations. This interpretation is corroborated by previous findings for GaN(0001) and GaN$(000\overline{1})$ surfaces [@slo99; @bell99; @gra2000] and the simulations to be discussed next.
EELS data were simulated using a model which is similar to the theoretical approach developed in Refs.. In these calculations, the surface energy-loss function is derived using the continued-fraction expansion method [@lam90], when the subsurface region is represented by a finite number of sublayers of certain thickness to reproduce a smooth variation of the depth dependent electron density below the surface. For this purpose, electron density depth profiles are computed by solving the Schrödinger and Poisson equations self-consistently. It should be noted that the model used for fitting the measured spectra includes only two contributions, originating in collective lattice vibrations (phonons) and oscillations of the free-electron gas in the conduction band (plasmons). Also, due to sufficiently low bulk electron density \[see Fig.\[fig:fig\_EELS\_Sim\](b)\] in these samples, the plasmons can manifest themselves only as a small broadening of the elastic peak, in addition to the instrumental resolution ($\sim$3meV for the implemented experimental conditions).
The resulting electron density profile from modeling the combined EEL spectral data with varying $E_p$ and the associated band edge alignment in the near surface region are depicted in Fig.\[fig:fig\_EELS\_Sim\](b). The calculations are in very good agreement with the qualitative model of upward band bending \[Fig.\[fig:fig\_PES\](e)\] with an $V_{bb}$ value of 0.7eV compared to 0.6eV extracted from the PES measurements. Furthermore some important quantitative information can be extracted: the calculations indicate a bulk electron concentration of 5$\times$10$^{16} $cm$^{-3}$ combined with a depletion layer thickness of $\sim$100nm. Consequently, these results confirm the low electron concentration in these samples and that PES can be used for the determination of the band bending values since the width of the depletion layer is much larger than the information depth of a few nanometers from the surface obtained in PES. In this region the slope of the bands is found to be negligible within the uncertainty of 0.1eV.
![\[fig:fig\_EELS\] (a) Specular EEL spectrum of clean GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ with FK$n$ indicating loss features that result from single ($n$=1) and multiple ($n$$\geq$2) electron scattering from the Fuchs-Kliewer (FK) phonon at 88meV. The incident electron energy was set to 5eV. (b) As (a) for H-covered GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$. (c) Calculated phonon density of states (DOS) of clean (red) and H-covered (blue) GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surfaces. The gray shaded area depicts the projected bulk phonon DOS. Additional loss features in (b) and vibrational modes in (c) are due to Ga–H and N–H bending modes ($\delta_{\text{Ga--H}}$ and $\delta_{\text{N--H}}$) with calculated energies around 116meV. Ga–H and N–H stretching vibrations exhibit experimental(calculated) vibrational energies of $\nu_{\text{Ga--H}}$=233($\sim$231)meV and $\nu_{\text{N--H}}$=403(419)meV, respectively. The O–H bending mode appears at $\delta_{\text{O--H}}$=206meV and the detected O–H stretch mode has an energy of $\nu_{\text{O--H}}$=453meV. The surface excitations are indicated and related FK combination losses are marked using dotted lines of the same color.](Fig4_EELS_DFT_new.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:fig\_EELS\] shows specular EEL spectra of clean \[Fig.\[fig:fig\_EELS\](a)\] and H-covered \[Fig.\[fig:fig\_EELS\](b)\] GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surfaces that were acquired with an incident electron energy of 5eV. The equidistant cascade of loss features results from the single (FK1) and the multiple (FK2–FK6) excitation of the FK phonon. The single surface phonon energy (FK1) amounts to 88meV, slightly higher than those reported for GaN(0001) and $(000\overline{1})$ surfaces.[@slo99; @bell99; @gra2000] For the H-covered surface, additional signatures are observed and marked by solid lines in Fig.\[fig:fig\_EELS\]. Corresponding FK phonon combination losses (e.g. $\nu_{\text{{Ga--H}}}$+FK1) are marked by dotted lines of the same color. The feature at 233meV is caused by Ga–H stretching vibrations [@gra2000] of H adsorbed at the Ga– dangling bond of the Ga–N dimer. The corresponding N–H stretching vibration mode is also observed at 403meV.
In Fig.\[fig:fig\_EELS\](c) the projected bulk phonon density of states (DOS) (gray shaded area) as well as the phonon DOS of the clean and H-covered GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surfaces (red and blue curves, respectively) are shown. Each DOS is the sum over all states within the respective bulk or surface Brillouin zone. Besides the acoustic (0–40meV) and optical (60–90meV) bulk phonon modes [@PhysRevB.58.12899], which are not directly detected in the EELS experiment, three additional features are found for the m-plane surface with H atoms adsorbed at the Ga–N dimer dangling bonds. The N–H stretching mode ($\nu_{\text{N--H}}$) is identified as nondispersing state at a calculated vibrational energy of 419meV and the corresponding Ga–H stretching mode ($\nu_{\text{Ga--H}}$) exhibits slight dispersion between 229 and 232meV within the BZ (231.4meV at the $\Gamma$-point). Both values are in fairly good agreement with the EELS experiment. In addition, the signature between 113meV and 123meV can be assigned to bending vibrations of H atoms adsorbed at the surface dimer structure ($\delta_{\text{Ga--H}}$ and $\delta_{\text{N--H}}$).[@nor97] The calculations reveal that this structure consists of two states that disperse in the BZ within the mentioned energy range with a $\Gamma$-point energy of 115.6 and 117.2meV, respectively. These vibrational energies are nearly two times larger than the energy reported for the Ga–H bending mode at the GaAs(110) surface.[@gra96] The deviation may be ascribed to the difference of the microscopic adsorption geometry.
A faint shoulder on the high-energy side of the first FK phonon loss feature is observed around 118meV and is attributed to these calculated Ga–H and N–H bending modes, rather than to N–OH vibrations that were previously reported to exist at a slightly lower vibrational energy of 106meV.[@gra2000] The additional shoulder at 206meV is attributed to a superposition of contributions from a FK phonon combination loss ($\delta_{\text{{Ga--H,N--H}}}$+FK1) and an O–H bending vibrational mode ($\delta_{\text{{O--H}}}$).[@gra2000] The latter aspect is corroborated by the presence of a weak loss structure at 453meV as side feature of the FK5 multiple, which is caused by O–H stretching vibrations ($\nu_{\text{{O--H}}}$).[@slo99; @gra2000] Consequently, the main spectroscopic features are assigned to vibrations of atomic H adsorbed to Ga and N surface atoms. A slight uptake of hydroxides is indicated by the EEL spectra and is due to the high reactivity of unsaturated GaN surfaces [@star00] combined with the two orders of magnitude higher base pressure in the used vacuum transfer system compared to the recipient for in-situ PES analyses. After annealing at 820$\pm$50K signatures of adsorbate vibrational modes fall below the detection limit of the spectrometer \[Fig.\[fig:fig\_EELS\](a)\]. As a result, the EELS experiment provided important information that atomic H saturates Ga– and N– dangling bonds of the surface dimer structure.
Influence of hydrogen on the structural and electronic properties of GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surfaces {#Res-Elec hydrogen}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to investigate the effect of H adsorption on the electronic properties of GaN surfaces and to develop a microscopic model of the differences in surface geometry, we have performed DFT calculations to compute the surface crystal structures and the band structures of the clean and hydrogen-covered $m$-plane GaN surfaces. In Table \[tbl:tbl\] the PBE-GGA and HSE calculated displacements from the bulk like positions of the Ga and N surface atoms as well as the buckling angles of the surface cation–anion dimers at clean and hydrogen-covered GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surfaces are shown. After structure relaxation, the cations (Ga atoms) at the clean surface move inwards adopting an $sp^2$-like configuration and the anions (N atoms) move outwards in an $sp^3$-like configuration. Relaxation results in $\approx$7.5% contraction and $\approx8.1^\circ$ buckling angle of the Ga–N bond. Furthermore, the back bond length between the surface Ga(N) atoms and the N(Ga) atoms in the first subsurface layer is contracted by 2.79% (3.55%).
[lccccc]{}
atom & $\Delta x$ & $\Delta y$ & $\Delta z$ & $\Delta r$ & $\omega$\
\
\
Ga & 0.16 & 0.00 & -0.28 & 0.32 &\
N & -0.01 & 0.00 & -0.02 & 0.02\
\
Ga & 0.15 & 0.00 & -0.28 & 0.32 &\
N & -0.01 & 0.00 & -0.02 & 0.02 &\
\
\
Ga & -0.05 & 0.00 & 0.07 & 0.09 &\
N & -0.03 & 0.00 & -0.07 & 0.08 &\
\
Ga & -0.06 & 0.00 & 0.06 & 0.09 &\
N & -0.05 & 0.00 & -0.07 & 0.08 &\
At the hydrogen-covered surface both Ga and N surface atoms move outwards and the Ga–N bond length is expanded by $\approx$1.2% with a buckling angle of $\approx-3.90^\circ$, i.e. in the opposite direction with respect to the clean surface. The Ga–H and N–H bond lengths are 1.57 Å and 1.03 Å, respectively. The bonds of the Ga (N) atoms at the top most surface layer with the N (Ga) atoms at the second layer are expanded (contracted) by 0.42% (0.40%). Hence, after hydrogen adsorption the Ga and N surface atoms adopt more bulk-like positions.
The band structures of clean and hydrogen-covered GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surfaces are shown in Figs \[fig:fig\_band\](a) and (b), respectively. The clean $m$-plane GaN surface introduces a Ga-derived deep unoccupied $s$-type state at 2.98eV above the bulk valence band maximum (VBM) at the $\overline{\Gamma}$ point of the surface Brillouin zone. This value is larger than previous Hubbard-corrected LDA+U [@Lym_APL2013] and PBE+U [@PhysRevB.91.035302] calculations or specifically modified pseudopotential calculations [@wal07] which yield a surface band gap of 2.4, 2.68 and 2.7eV, respectively. However, it is in good agreement with previous self-energy–corrected LDA-1/2 calculations which predict a surface band gap of 3.03eV but smaller than the value of 3.31eV calculated by HSE with 32% fraction of exact exchange and the Ga 3$d$ electrons treated as valence states.[@PhysRevB.91.035302] In all the aforementioned high level DFT calculations the unoccupied surface state is well below the bulk conduction band minimum (CBM). The differences in the calculated surface band gaps can be attributed to the different methods as well as to the different slab thickness employed in these calculations. However, the position of the unoccupied surface state, i.e. 2.98eV above the bulk VBM, is in good agreement with the measured band bending of $\approx0.6$eV as discussed in detail below.
![\[fig:fig\_band\] Band structure of the (a) clean and (b) hydrogen-covered GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surfaces. The gray shaded areas indicate the projected bulk band structure. Insets: Ball and stick models of the corresponding surfaces in side view. The buckling angles of the Ga–N bonds $\omega$ are indicated. In (a) the displacements $\Delta x$ and $\Delta z$ of the Ga surface atoms from the bulk like positions are schematically shown.](Fig5_bandstructure_new2.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
The band structure of the hydrogen-passivated $m$-plane GaN surface is depicted in Fig. \[fig:fig\_band\](b): Passivation of the surface dangling bonds by hydrogen results in Ga–H and N–H occupied bonding and unoccupied antibonding states. The former shift from above the VB edge for the clean surface into the bulk VB region. The unoccupied states, initially also found as intragap states shift into the bulk conduction band (CB) region. Hence, hydrogen passivation shifts the surface states out of the fundamental band gap, providing a suitable explanation for the discovered changes in band bending as measured by PES. For the clean surface, the presence of deep unoccupied gap states induces a transfer of electrons from the CB into these energetically favorable localized states causing a depletion of the surface from electrons and strong upward band bending of 0.6–0.7eV as determined by PES and EELS simulations. The unoccupied states are pinning centers for the surface Fermi level as discussed in detail in Refs. and . If these states shift towards or even above the CB edge as calculated for the H-saturated surface, the surface Fermi level follows resulting in a reduced upward band bending $V_{bb}$ or even unpins the surface Fermi level resulting in flat band conditions. For the performed experiment, $\Delta V_{bb}$ is 0.4eV, indicating a remaining slight upward band bending/electron depletion. However, from the experimental data it is not possible to extract an exact number for the H-coverage for this experiment and one might expect an asymptotic convergence to the situation of a fully covered surface (considered in the calculations) for higher exposure.
Thermodynamics and Kinetics of hydrogen adsorption {#Res-Ads}
--------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:fig\_thermod\] Difference in the free energy, $\Delta F$ \[Eq.(\[eq:thermodynamics1\])\], of the hydrogen-covered and clean GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surfaces as function of hydrogen pressure and temperature. The thick contour line indicates the range of pressures and temperatures where both systems are in equilibrium. Blue (red) colors indicate smaller (larger) values. Each contour line corresponds to an energy difference of 0.1eV per 1$\times$1 surface cell area. In the region to the left of the equilibrium line (thick black line) the hydrogen-covered surface is thermodynamically favored.](Fig6_thermodynamics02.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
In order to address the thermodynamics of hydrogen adsorption, the free energy difference $\Delta F$ of the hydrogen-covered and clean GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surfaces was calculated as $$\label{eq:thermodynamics1}
\Delta F = \Delta E_\mathrm{tot}+\Delta F_\mathrm{vib}-\mu_{H_2}$$ where $\Delta E_\mathrm{tot}= E_\mathrm{tot}^{(1\overline{1}00):2H}-E_\mathrm{tot}^{(1\overline{1}00)}$ is the difference between the total energies of the hydrogen-covered and the clean surfaces, $\Delta F_\mathrm{vib}= F_\mathrm{vib}^{(1\overline{1}00):2H}-F_\mathrm{vib}^{(1\overline{1}00)}$ is the difference in vibrational contributions to the free energy, and $\mu_{H_2}$ is the chemical potential of H$_2$. In Fig. \[fig:fig\_thermod\] the difference in the surface free energies is plotted as function of temperature and H$_2$ pressure. Higher temperatures and/or lower pressures favor the clean surface. This is attributed to the large translational entropic contributions H$_2$ molecules have in the gas phase at these conditions. On the other side, at low temperatures and/or high partial pressures the hydrogen-covered surface is thermodynamically favorable. More specifically, at 300K and for H$_2$ pressures larger than $5\times10^{-19}$ bar it is thermodynamically favorable to adsorb hydrogen at the $m$-plane GaN surface. However, this is in contrast to the experimental finding that at the same temperature and at 8 orders of magnitude higher pressure (i.e. $2.0\times10^{-11}$ bar) of molecular H$_2$, no significant hydrogen adsorption is observed. Furthermore, the annealing experiments indicate that dehydrogenation of the surface, within the time scale of the experiments, requires elevated temperatures as high as 820K. This further indicates that kinetic effects rather than the thermodynamic properties control the H coverage on the surfaces. In order to identify and investigate these mechanisms we next focus on the adsorption and desorption kinetics of both atomic and molecular hydrogen.
The adsorption of atomic hydrogen is barrierless. The desorption/binding energy $E_\mathrm{des}$ of atomic hydrogen is defined as: $$\label{eq:eq_adsdes}
E_\mathrm{des}=E_\mathrm{surf:H}-E_\mathrm{surf}-E_\mathrm{H_{atom}},$$ where $E_\mathrm{surf:H}$ and $E_\mathrm{surf}$ are the total energies of the surface with and without adsorbed hydrogen atom, respectively and $E_\mathrm{H_{atom}}$ is the total energy of a hydrogen atom. In the calculation of the desorption energies different effects have to be considered: First the N–H bond is stronger than the Ga–H. Second, both unpassivated and doubly passivated surface dimers, i.e. both Ga and N atoms of the same dimer are passivated by hydrogen, obey the electron counting rule and do not introduce occupied states deep in the fundamental gap. On the contrary, passivation of only cation or anion dangling bonds of one dimer will result in the formation of fully or partially occupied states deep in the gap region. Furthermore, as has already been discussed, surface relaxation and re-hybridization effects result in different atomic geometries for the clean and doubly passivated surface dimers (see Table \[tbl:tbl\]).
As discussed above, bond enthalpies, electronic structure and surface strain are expected to strongly influence the desorption energies. Thus, they have to be explicitly considered by investigating different atomic hydrogen desorption scenarios. Hence, different desorption mechanisms have been calculated. These correspond to H desorption from cations and anions at doubly and singly passivated surface dimers in the limit of clean and fully covered surfaces. Our calculations reveal that H desorption from cations is energetically preferred to desorption from anions by at least 0.5eV. This value is considerably higher than $k_B T$ at 300K (0.026eV) or even at temperatures as high as 1000K (0.086eV). The corresponding desorption energies are $\approx$2.5eV and $\approx$4.8eV in the limit of a clean or fully covered surface, respectively.
--------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
ads. des. ads. des.
H$_2$ at Ga–N dimer 0.55 2.30 0.62 2.30
H$_2$ at 2 Ga atoms 2.41 0.52 0.43 2.85
H$_2$ at 2 N atoms 1.57 2.53 0.15 5.43
--------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
: Calculated adsorption (ads.) and desorption (des.) barriers of H$_2$ molecules at clean and hydrogen-covered m-plane GaN surface in eV.[]{data-label="tbl:kinetics"}
![\[fig:fig\_neb\] Energy change $\Delta E$ and H–H interatomic distance $\Delta d$ along the minimum energy path for H$_2$ adsorption at the clean GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface. The distance of the H$_2$ center of mass from the surface $\Delta z$ is used to represent the reaction coordinate. H$_2$ adsorbed at the surface is used as reference both for the energy change and the reaction coordinate. Insets: Schematic representation in side view along $[11\overline{2}0]$ of H$_2$ (a) bound to surface, (b) at the transition state, (c) and in the vacuum. Large green and smaller blue balls indicate Ga and N atoms, respectively. The H atoms are denoted by the smallest red spheres.](Fig7_neb.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
The aforementioned reaction mechanism might not be the most relevant since adsorption/desorption of hydrogen may be realized by the formation of H$_2$ molecules. As with atomic hydrogen desorption, different reaction mechanisms have been considered: Adsorption/desorption at (i) a surface dimer, (ii) two neighboring Ga surface atoms, and (iii) two neighboring N surface atoms considering the two limits, i.e. of a clean and fully covered surface. The corresponding energy barriers are listed in Table \[tbl:kinetics\]. The adsorption mechanism with the lowest adsorption barrier is H$_2$ dissociatively binding at a single surface dimer. In Fig. \[fig:fig\_neb\] the energy change as well as the H–H interatomic distance along the minimum energy path for H$_2$ adsorption on a Ga–N dimer at a clean surface are plotted as function of the distance between the H$_2$ center of mass and the surface. The barrier for H$_2$ adsorption is $\approx0.55$ eV and corresponds to the energy required to dissociate the molecule. On the other hand the desorption energy is $\approx2.30$ eV. It should be noted that the aforementioned energy barriers depend weakly on the surface coverage. In the limit of a fully hydrogen-covered surface the adsorption and desorption energy barriers are $\approx0.62$ eV and $\approx2.30$ eV, respectively.
H$_2$ desorption from two neighboring N or Ga surface atoms in the limit of a fully covered surface has higher kinetic barriers, 5.43 and 2.85eV, respectively. These reaction mechanisms result in single passivated surface dimers and increase both the surface strain and the electronic contributions to the surface energy (see above). Interestingly, the desorption barrier of 0.52eV is remarkably rather small for H$_2$ binding at two neighboring Ga atoms in the limit of a clean surface. This is because it is highly unfavorable for H to passivate only surface cations even at extreme H-rich conditions. In order that this mechanism can actually take place, the H atoms would already have been desorbed from the N surface atoms. However, the latter has considerably higher kinetic barriers. Hence, desorption of molecular hydrogen from neighboring surface cations or anions can be neglected and molecular hydrogen adsorption and desorption is taking place by preferentially binding to and desorbing from Ga–N dimers.
The desorption barrier for the hydrogen molecule is considerably smaller than the desorption energy of atomic hydrogen. Hence, desorption is taking place as molecular H$_2$ rather than as atomic hydrogen. On the other hand for the adsorption of a H$_2$ molecule, an energy barrier has to be overcome, while adsorption of atomic hydrogen is barrierless. Thus, if both atomic and molecular hydrogen are present in the gas phase, then surface passivation by hydrogen will preferentially take place through atomic hydrogen adsorption and the rate limiting mechanism will be the flux of incident hydrogen atoms at the surface.
The flux of incident particles at a surface depends on the temperature and the corresponding partial pressure $p$ and is given by the Hertz-Knudsen equation:[@ANDP:ANDP18822531002; @ANDP:ANDP19153521306] $$\label{eq:eqHK0}
f\left(p,T\right)=\frac{p}{\sqrt{2\pi m k_B T}},$$ where $m$ is the mass of the corresponding particles. For example, for an atomic hydrogen partial pressure of $10^{-11}$ bar at $T=300$ K the flux of incident atomic hydrogen is $\approx0.025$s$^{-1}$ per 1$\times$1 surface cell area. Under these conditions and assuming that hydrogen desorption is kinetically suppressed, 50% or 100% of a monolayer surface coverage of an initially clean surface will be achieved within $\approx 1$min and $\approx10$min, respectively. In contrast to atomic hydrogen the adsorption of H$_2$ molecules is not barrierless and the corresponding rate is given by the following equation: $$\label{eq:eqHK}
\nu_\mathrm{ads}\left(p, T \right) = f\left(p,T\right) \cdot A \cdot \exp{\left(-\frac{E_\mathrm{ads}}{k_B T}\right)},$$ where $A$ is the area of the 1$\times$1 surface unit cell and $E_\mathrm{ads}$ is the kinetic barrier for adsorption. It has to be noted here that the sticking coefficient of adsorbing H$_2$ depends on the orientation as well as the impinging angle of the molecule.[@WinklerRendulic; @PhysRevB.32.5032] This dependency is not included in the used model. Nevertheless, Eq. \[eq:eqHK\] provides an upper limit for the adsorption frequency and hence a lower limit of the time to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium. Similarly the desorption frequency reads: $$\label{eq:eqDes}
\nu_\mathrm{des}\left( T \right) = \nu_0 \cdot \exp{\left(-\frac{E_\mathrm{des}}{k_B T}\right)},$$ where the attempt frequency $\nu_0$ is calculated within the harmonic transition state theory:[@Vineyard1957] $$\label{eq:eqHTST}
\nu_0=\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{3N}\nu_i^\mathrm{min}}{\prod_{i=1}^{3N-1}\nu_i^\mathrm{sad}}.$$ Here $\nu_i^\mathrm{min}$ are the 3$N$ eigenfrequencies at the minimum and $\nu_i^\mathrm{sad}$ are the $3N$–$1$ nonimaginary eigenfrequencies at the transition point. In order to estimate the attempt frequency we have calculated the dynamical matrix of the 4 topmost atomic layers of an 8 layer thick 2$\times$2 slab using the small displacements method for a H$_2$ molecule (i) adsorbed at the surface and (ii) at the transition point. The attempt frequency calculated from Eq. \[eq:eqHTST\] is $\nu_0$=5.6$\times$$10^{13}$s$^{-1}$.
![\[fig:fig\_coverage\] Kinetic surface phase diagram of hydrogen adsorption and desorption on the $m$-plane GaN surface. The hydrogen surface coverage is given as function of time for different H$_2$ pressures and temperatures. (I) and (II) denote clean and fully covered surface initial conditions, respectively.](Fig8_coverage_new2.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
The temporal evolution of the surface coverage is described by the following rate equation: $$\label{eq:eq1}
\frac{dc}{dt}=(1-c) \cdot \nu_\mathrm{ads}-c \cdot \nu_\mathrm{des},$$ where $c$ is the surface coverage and $t$ is the time. Equation (\[eq:eq1\]) was solved for I $c(t=0)=0$ (clean surface) and for II $c(t=0)=1$ (fully covered surface). The former starting condition (I) corresponds to an adsorption experiment and the latter (II) to a desorption experiment.
In Fig. \[fig:fig\_coverage\] the coverage is plotted against exposure time to molecular H$_2$ for the two aforementioned initial boundary conditions and for various H$_2$ pressures and temperatures. A striking finding is that although at H$_2$ pressures in the order of 2$\times$10$^{-11}$bar at RT it is thermodynamically favorable to adsorb hydrogen at the surface and the equilibrium coverage is almost 100%, the time scale to achieve 10% or 100% surface coverage is more than a century or a millennium, respectively. Hence, within the time scale of the performed adsorption experiments at RT and partial pressures as low as 10$^{-11}$bar (section A) thermodynamic equilibrium between H$_2$ gas and the GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface is kinetically hindered and only atomic hydrogen is able to adsorb quickly and to induce changes in the structural and the electronic surface properties. On the other hand, although the desorption barrier of H$_2$ is larger than the H$_2$ adsorption barrier, desorption of molecular hydrogen can take place in considerably shorter time scales. This can be attributed to (i) the higher temperatures applied to dehydrogenate the surface and (ii) the considerably larger desorption attempt frequency $\nu_0$ than the adsorption attempt frequency $f$ \[see Eq. (\[eq:eqHK\])\]. For example, at the aforementioned temperature and pressure, the adsorption attempt frequency $f$ in Eq. (\[eq:eqHK\]) is 2$\times$10$^{-7}$s$^{-1}$ per 1$\times$1 surface cell area as opposed to the desorption attempt frequency of $\nu_0$=5.6$\times$10$^{13}$Hz in Eq. (\[eq:eqDes\]).
These results are consistent with the observations made in the UHV adsorption/desorption experiments. At low temperatures and low partial pressures thermodynamic equilibrium of the clean $m$-plane GaN surface with a H$_2$ atmosphere is kinetically hindered (compare to the solid black line in Fig. \[fig:fig\_coverage\] which represents the experimental conditions for the performed experiment of H$_2$ exposure). On the other hand, for the interaction of the clean GaN$(1\overline{1}00)$ surface with activated atomic H thermodynamic equilibrium between the surface and the offered H species can be established within the time scale of a few minutes even at pressures as low as 10$^{-11}$ bar.
SUMMARY {#Sum-GaN}
=======
Photoelectron and electron energy loss spectroscopy experiments were combined with first-principles calculations to investigate adsorption and desorption of molecular as well as atomic hydrogen on the nonpolar GaN($1\overline{1}00$) surfaces. Our results show that passivation of the surface cation and anion dangling bonds by hydrogen is thermodynamically favored at room temperature even at hydrogen pressures as low as $10^{-16}$bar. Adsorption of molecular hydrogen is associated with a barrier of 0.55eV, which leads to unrealistically high exposure times to complete a full monolayer. By contrast, only a few minutes of exposure time are required if the clean $m$-plane GaN surface is brought into an atomic hydrogen atmosphere. On the other hand, hydrogen desorption requires elevated temperatures and is predominantly taking place as hydrogen molecules desorbing from surface dimers. More specifically, our adsorption/desorption experiments confirm that in UHV at room temperature, H-adsorption could only be achieved using atomic hydrogen and desorption starts above $\sim$800K.
The differences in the surface properties of the bare and the H-covered GaN($1\overline{1}00$) surface have been characterized by electron spectroscopy and density functional calculations. Stretching and bending vibrations of the H adatoms at the Ga–N surface dimer structure were identified experimentally and are consistent with the energies and dispersion of calculated surface phonon modes. Furthermore, H adsorption was demonstrated to strongly influence the surface electronic properties. H adatoms occupy the Ga– and N– dangling bonds and induce a shift of occupied and unoccupied surface states out of the gap region across the VBM and CBM, respectively, which influences the surface electron depletion layer. Specifically, the raise of unoccupied intragap surface states from below the CBM for the clean surface to energies above the CBM for the H-covered surface induces an unpinning of the surface Fermi level and a reduction of the surface upward band bending from 0.6 to 0.2eV.
These insights demonstrate that chemisorption in a gas exposure experiment or furthermore the probability of impurity incorporation during crystal growth is strongly dependent on the experimental conditions as well as on the energetics and kinetics of the surface dissociation/adsorption reactions at the surface. For other reactions at GaN surfaces, one might expect comparable kinetically hindered reaction mechanisms that lead to strong deviations between the actually obtained coverage and the supplied reactant load.
This work was supported in part by the Carl Zeiss Stiftung and in part by project ‘PowerBase’. This project has received funding from the Electronic Component Systems for European Leadership Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 662133. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Spain and United Kingdom. We thank A.M[ü]{}ller and T.Hannappel for providing access to their vacuum transfer system.
[85]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} in @noop [**]{}, , Vol. , (, ) p. in @noop [**]{}, , Vol. , (, ) p. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.085204) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.91.035302) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/andp.18822531002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/andp.19153521306) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.32.5032)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The M-9-brane Wess-Zumino action is constructed, and by using it, consistency of the relation of p-branes for $p \ge 8$, suggested on the basis of superalgebra, is discussed.'
address: |
Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo,\
5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8582, Japan
author:
- Takeshi Sato
title: 'On M-9-branes and their dimensional reductions'
---
Introduction
============
M-theory is a candidate for a unified theory of particle interactions and is conjectured to be the 11-dimensional (11D) theory which gives 5 perturbative 10-dimensional (10D) string theories in different kinds of limits. In discussing properties of these theories, (p+1)-dimensional objects, called p-branes, play many crucial roles, so, it is important to clarify what kinds of branes exist in each of the theories. Brane scan via superalgebra is one of the methods to discuss them, by which BPS branes possible to exist in the theories are predicted[@hullalg][@towalg] (see also [@towbrscan]). For the case $p\le 7$, all the p-branes predicted to exist in M-, IIA and IIB string theories, have corresponding solutions in each of their supergravity theories. As for the p-branes with $p\ge 8$, however, there is a problem, as we will explain later. In this work we will discuss these branes, since p-branes with $p\ge 8$ are very important in that M- and string theories with 16 supercharges are expected to be constructed by using these branes (see ref.[@sptfilling] and references therein).
To be concrete, one kind of 9-brane is suggested to exist in M-theory[@hullalg], one kinds of 8-brane and 9-brane are predicted in IIA, and two kinds of 9-branes are in IIB[@hullalg]. The first one is called “M-9-brane”, and the others are called or identified with D-8-brane, NS-9A-brane, D-9-brane and NS-9B-brane, respectively, based on the consideration of their kind of charges. Taking into account the dimensions and the duality relations of the theories, the relation of the p-branes for $p\ge 8$, suggested based on superalgebra, is represented as Figure 1[@hullalg].
(75,55) (0,45)[(20,10)[D=11]{}]{} (0,25)[(20,10)[D=10IIA]{}]{} (0,5)[(20,10)[D=10IIB]{}]{} (50,25)[(15,10)[NS9A]{}]{} (55,45)[(0,-10)[10]{}]{} (50,45)[(15,10)[M9]{}]{} (50,45)[(-1,-1)[10]{}]{} (35,30) (30,26)[(10,8)[D8]{}]{} (55,25)[(0,-10)[10]{}]{} (35,23)[(0,-10)[6]{}]{} (50,5)[(15,10)[NS9B]{}]{} (35,10) (30,5)[(10,10)[D9]{}]{} (52,15)[(12,10)[T]{}]{} (22,15)[(12,10)[T]{}]{} (43,10)(2,0)[4]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (40,8)[(12,10)[S]{}]{} (59,35)[(10,10)[Direct D.R.]{}]{} (25,35)[(10,10)[Double D.R.]{}]{}
However, there is the following problem with the M-9-brane, or 11D origins of the D-8-brane solution and massive IIA supergravity (SUGRA). The BPS D-8-brane arising in the IIA string, actually, has a corresponding solution not in the usual IIA but in the massive IIA SUGRA with nonvanishing cosmological term[@pol2][@pol1][@berg3]. This is because a BPS D-8-brane in 10 dimensions is a domain wall with some electric charge of a RR 9-form gauge field, giving rise to a constant field strength, whose dual we denote as a mass parameter $m$. This field strength contributes to the action as a cosmological constant $-m^{2}/2$. In other words, such domain wall solutions cannot be constructed without cosmological term. In 11 dimensions (11D), however, no deformation to include a cosmological term is allowed if Riemannian geometry and covariant action are assumed[@des1]. Thus, there is no naive M-9-brane solution in 11D, and the origin of the D-8-brane and massive IIA SUGRA are still unclear.
There are several approaches to solve this problem and one of them is “massive 11D theory”[@berg4]. This is a trial theory, constructed on the basis of the idea that [*the problem may imply the need to modify the framework of 11D SUGRA*]{}. Suppose a Killing isometry is assumed in the 11D background. Then, the no-go theorem is avoided and the massive 11D theory, which is written in terms of an 11-dimensional theory at least formally, can be defined; it gives the 10D massive IIA SUGRA on dimensional reduction along the isometry direction (which is parametrized by the coordinate $z$), and gives usual 11D SUGRA in the massless limit $m \to 0$ if the dependence of the fields on $z$ is restored. Moreover, the M-9-brane solution, i.e. the solution which gives a D-8-brane solution on the dimensional reduction along $z$, is obtained in this theory[@bergm9]. We note that only the bosonic sectors have been discussed in this massive 11D theory, though its bulk theory is called “super”gravity. We also note that the isometry direction is interpreted as a compactified direction like $S^{1}$, and the M-9-brane is considered to be wrapped around it[@bergm9]. We follow the above idea and study the relation of branes within this framework.
To be concrete, we will discuss the relation from the viewpoint of worldvolume effective action (WVEA). In fact, almost all of the WVEA’s of the branes have been already obtained. However, only the Wess-Zumino (WZ) term of the M-9-brane $S_{M9}^{WZ}$ has not yet been obtained. So, as for the WZ terms, consistency of the relation in Figure 1 has not been established. In other words, [*even within this framework, the consistency of the relation of the branes has not been established yet*]{}. The purpose of this work is to construct $S_{M9}^{WZ}$ and to examine the consistency of the relation of the p-branes with $p \ge 8$ from the viewpoint of worldvolume effective action.
The concrete procedures are as follows: First, we introduce a 10-form gauge potential into the theory consistently because the M-9-brane is expected to couple to it. Then, we construct the M-9-brane WZ action using the 10-form and examine the consistency of the action in certain two ways. Finally, we investigate two kinds of dimensional reductions of the action.
This talk is based on work [@satom9; @satodr].
The M-9-brane WZ action and its dimensional reductions
======================================================
First, we briefly review the massive 11D SUGRA[@berg4]. The bosonic field content is the same as that of the usual (massless) 11D SUGRA: the metric $\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}$ and a 3-form gauge potential $\hat{C}_{\mu\nu\rho}$. In this theory these fields are required to have a Killing isometry, i.e., ${\cal L}_{\hat{k}}\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}
={\cal L}_{\hat{k}}\hat{C}_{\mu\nu\rho}=0$ where $ {\cal L}_{\hat{k}}$ indicates a Lie derivative with respect to a Killing vector field $\hat{k}^{\mu}$. (We fix the coordinates so that $\hat{k}^{\mu}=\delta^{\mu z}$.) The infinitesimal gauge transformations of the fields are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}=-m[\hat{\lambda}_{\mu}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{g})_{\nu}
+\hat{\lambda}_{\nu}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{g})_{\mu}], \nonumber\\
\delta\hat{C}_{\mu\nu\rho}=3
\partial_{[\mu}\hat{\chi}_{\nu\rho]}
-3m\hat{\lambda}_{[\mu}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})_{\nu\rho]}
\label{massivegt0}\end{aligned}$$ where $(i_{\hat{k}}T^{(r)}_{\mu_{1}\cdots \mu_{r-1}})\equiv\hat{k}^{\mu}
T^{(r)}_{\mu_{1}\cdots \mu_{r-1}\mu}$ for a field $T^{(r)}$. $\hat{\chi}$ is the infinitesimal 2-form gauge parameter, $\hat{\lambda}$ is defined as $\hat{\lambda}_{\mu}
\equiv (i_{\hat{k}}\hat{\chi})_{\mu}$, and $m$ is a constant mass parameter. Then, a connection for the massive gauge transformations should be introduced. The new total connection takes the form $\hat{\Omega}_{a}^{\ bc}=\hat{\omega}_{a}^{\ bc}
+\hat{K}_{a}^{\ bc}$[^1] where $\hat{\omega}_{a}^{bc}$ is a usual spin connection and $\hat{K}$ is given by $$\hat{K}_{a}^{\ bc}=\frac{m}{2}
[\hat{k}_{a}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{bc}
+\hat{k}_{b}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{ac}
-\hat{k}_{c}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{ab}].$$ The 4-form field strength $\hat{G}^{(4)}$ of $ \hat{C}$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{G}^{(4)}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}=4D_{[\mu}\hat{C}_{\nu\rho\sigma]}
&\equiv & 4\partial_{[\mu}\hat{C}_{\nu\rho\sigma]}\nonumber\\
&+&3m(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})_{[\mu\nu}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})_{\rho\sigma]}\end{aligned}$$ where $D_{\mu}$ denotes the covariant derivative. Then, $\hat{G}^{(4)}$ transforms covariantly as $
\delta \hat{G}^{(4)}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}=4m\hat{\lambda}_{[\mu}
(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{G}^{(4)})_{\nu\rho\sigma]},
$ which implies that $\delta (\hat{G}^{(4)})^{2}=0$.
The action of the massive 11D SUGRA is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{S}_{0}=\frac{1}{\kappa}
\int d^{11}x [\ \sqrt{|\hat{g}|}\{ \hat{R}
-\frac{1}{2\cdot 4!}(\hat{G}^{(4)})^{2}\ \ \ \ \ \ \nonumber\\
+\frac{1}{2}m^{2}|\hat{k}|^{4} \} +\frac{\hat{\epsilon}^{
\mu_{1}\cdots \mu_{11}}}{(144)^{2}}
\{2^{4}\partial\hat{C}\partial\hat{C}\hat{C}\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\nonumber\\
\ \ +18m\partial\hat{C}\hat{C}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{2}
+\frac{3^{3}}{5}m^{2}\hat{C}(i_{\hat{k}}
\hat{C})^{4}\}_{
\mu_{1}..\mu_{11}}]
\label{11daction0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa =16\pi G_{N}^{(11)}$ and $|\hat{k}|
=\sqrt{-\hat{k}^{\mu}\hat{k}^{\nu}\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}}$. This action is invariant (up to total derivative) under (\[massivegt0\]), and its dimensional reduction along $z$ gives the bosonic part of 10D massive IIA SUGRA action.
Now, let us introduce a 10-form gauge potential $\hat{A}^{(10)}$. Following the case of the 9-form potential in 10D IIA theory[@berg3], we promote the mass parameter $m$ to a scalar field $\hat{M}(x)$, and add the term $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\kappa}\int d^{11}x
\frac{11}{11!}\hat{\epsilon}^{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{11}}\hat{M}(x)
\partial_{[\mu_{1}} \hat{A}^{(10)}_{\mu_{2}\cdots\mu_{11}]}. \end{aligned}$$ to the action $\hat{S}_{0}$ to introduce $\hat{A}^{(10)}$ as a Lagrange multiplier for $\hat{M}(x)=m$. We note that $\hat{A}^{(10)}$ also satisfies $ {\cal
L}_{\hat{k}}\hat{A}^{(10)}=0$, which means that $\hat{A}^{(10)}$ with no $z$ index does not appear in this theory. Then, the action is invariant under (\[massivegt0\]) if the massive gauge transformation of $\hat{A}^{(10)}$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta (i_{\hat{k}}\hat{A}^{(10)})_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{9}}
=-\sqrt{|\hat{g}|}\hat{\epsilon}_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{9} z}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \cdot[-\hat{g}^{\mu\mu'}\hat{g}^{\nu\nu'}
(2\partial_{[\mu'} \hat{k}_{\nu']}
-\hat{M}|\hat{k}|^{2}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})_{\mu'\nu'})
\hat{\lambda}_{\nu}\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\frac{1}{2}\hat{G}^{(4)\mu\nu\rho\sigma}
(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})_{\nu\rho}\hat{\lambda}_{\sigma}]\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \ \
-\frac{9!}{48}[\partial \hat{C}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{2}\hat{\lambda}
+\frac{\hat{M}}{4}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{4}
\hat{\lambda}]_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{9}}.\label{10formtr2}
\label{10formtr1} \end{aligned}$$
Now, we discuss the construction of $S_{M9}^{WZ}$ using $\hat{A}^{(10)}$. However, the gauge invariant WZ action cannot be constructed straightforwardly. The reason is as follows: Since a M-9-brane couples to $\hat{A}^{(10)}$, $S_{M9}^{WZ}$ contains the term $$\begin{aligned}
S_{M9}^{WZ}|_{{\rm 9form}}=
\frac{T_{M9}}{9!}\int d^{9}\xi\ \epsilon^{i_{1}.. i_{9}}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times
\partial_{i_{1}}X^{\hat{\mu}_{1}}..\partial_{i_{9}}X^{\mu_{9}}
(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{A}^{(10)})_{\mu_{1}..\mu_{9}}\ \ \ \label{d8brwz}\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi^{i}$ ($i=0,..,8$) are worldvolume coordinates of the brane and $\hat{X}^{\mu} \ \ (\mu=0,..,9)$ are embedding coordinates. Suppose we consider the massive gauge transformation of (\[d8brwz\]). Then, we can see that the contribution of the first bracket of the r.h.s. of (\[10formtr2\]) to the variation of (\[d8brwz\]) cannot be cancelled even if any other terms are added to (\[d8brwz\]). This is because the contribution of the bracket cannot be represented by any products of forms due to the extra $\hat{\epsilon}$ but that all the terms of $S_{M9}^{WZ}$ should be represented by some products of forms.
Our idea to resolve this problem is as follows: Since the main obstruction is the existence of the extra $\hat{\epsilon}$ in (\[10formtr2\]), let us suppose one rewrite the first bracket of (\[10formtr2\]) by using the “dual fields” of $\hat{k}_{\hat{\mu}}$ and $\hat{C}$ through duality relations. Then, the extra $\hat{\epsilon}$ is cancelled and the first bracket can be expressed as a sum of exterior products of forms. Thus, it is expected that one can construct a gauge invariant WZ action. This idea is successful, which we show in the following.
The dual field of the 3-form $\hat{C}$ is the 6-form $\hat{C}^{(6)}$ whose massive gauge transformation, field strength and the duality relation are[@berg4][^2] $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \hat{C}^{(6)}_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{6}}&=&30
\partial_{[\mu_{1}}\hat{\chi}_{\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}
\hat{C}_{\mu_{4}\mu_{5}\mu_{6}]}\nonumber\\
&+&6\hat{M}\hat\lambda_{[\mu_{1}}
(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C}^{(6)})_{\mu_{2}\cdots\mu_{6}]}\\
\hat{G}^{(7)}_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{7}}&=&7[
\partial\hat{C}^{(6)}
-3\hat{M}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C}^{(6)})\nonumber\\
&+&10\hat{C}\partial \hat{C}
+5\hat{M}C(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{2}\nonumber\\
& &+\frac{\hat{M}}{7}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{N}^{(8)})]_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{7}}\\
\hat{G}^{(4)\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{4}}&=&\frac{\epsilon^{\mu_{1}\cdots
\mu_{11}}}{7!\sqrt{|\hat{g}|}}\hat{G}^{(7)}_{\mu_{5}\cdots
\mu_{11}}\label{11ddual1}.\end{aligned}$$ $\hat{N}^{(8)}$ is the dual field of the Killing vector also introduced in ref.[@berg4], whose gauge transformation is suggested such as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \hat{N}^{(8)}_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{8}}&=&\{
\frac{8!}{3\cdot 4!}\partial \hat{\chi}\hat{C}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})
\nonumber\\
& &+8\hat{M}\hat{\lambda}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{N}^{(8)})\}
_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{8}}.\end{aligned}$$ In this paper we regard $\hat{k}_{\mu}\equiv (i_{\hat{k}}\hat{g})_{\mu}$ as a “vector gauge field”, and consider the “field strength” of it, as one does for $(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})$. Then, if we define $\hat{G}^{(2)}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{G}^{(2)}_{\mu\nu}\equiv 2\partial_{[\mu}\hat{k}_{\nu]}
-\hat{M}|\hat{k}|^{2}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})_{\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$ $\hat{G}^{(2)}$ is shown to transform covariantly under (\[massivegt0\]). So, $\hat{G}^{(2)}$, in fact arising in the first term of (\[10formtr2\]), can be interpreted as the field strength of $\hat{k}_{\mu}$. On the other hand, the field strength $\hat{G}^{(9)}$ of the full 8-form $\hat{N}^{(8)}$ is difficult to construct. However, in order to rewrite the first term through the duality relation between $\hat{G}^{(9)}$ and $\hat{G}^{(2)}$, it is sufficient to know the field strength of $(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{N}^{(8)})$. This is because $\hat{G}^{(2)}$ in the first term of (\[10formtr1\]) vanishes if any of the indices of $\hat{G}^{(2)}$ takes $z$, implying that one of the indices of $\hat{G}^{(9)}$ certainly takes $z$. Thus, only the field strength of $(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{N}^{(8)})$ is needed, and it can be defined as $$\begin{aligned}
(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{G}^{(9)})_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{8}}\equiv
8\{ \partial (i_{\hat{k}}\hat{N}^{(8)})
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \nonumber\\
\ \ \ \ \ \
+21(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C}^{(6)})\partial(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})
+35C\partial(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ +35\partial C(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{2}
+\frac{105}{8}\hat{M}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{4}
\}_{[\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{8}]}.\label{n8fs}\end{aligned}$$ We note that $(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{G}^{(9)})$ is invariant under (\[massivegt0\]), which means that this definition is consistent. Then, we assume the duality relation: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{G}^{(2)\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}=\frac{\epsilon^{\mu_{1}\cdots
\mu_{10}z}}{9!\sqrt{|\hat{g}|}}
(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{G}^{(9)})_{\mu_{3}\cdots\mu_{10}}\label{11ddual2}.\end{aligned}$$ It gives one of the 10D IIA duality relations in ref.[@DWZ] on dimensional reduction in $z$, which means that (\[11ddual2\]) is consistent.
Since all the preparations have been done, let us substitute the relation (\[11ddual1\]) and (\[11ddual2\]) for (\[10formtr2\]) to have the rewritten expression of the massive gauge transformation of $\hat{A}^{(10)}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta (i_{\hat{k}}\hat{A}^{(10)})_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{9}}
&=&-9![\
\frac{1}{7!}\partial(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{N}^{(8)})\hat{\lambda}
\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{1}{2\cdot 5!}\partial\{(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C}^{(6)})
(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})\}\hat{\lambda}\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{1}{6\cdot 4!}\partial\{\hat{C}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{2}\}
\hat{\lambda}\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{\hat{M}}{2^{4}\cdot 4!}
(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{4}\hat{\lambda}\
]_{[\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{9}]}.\end{aligned}$$ By using this expression, the gauge invariant WZ action of the M-9-brane can be constructed indeed. Before constructing it, we give the rewritten field equation of $\hat{M}(x)$: $$\begin{aligned}
-\hat{M}|\hat{k}|^{4}
=\frac{10\hat{\epsilon}^{\mu_{1}..\mu_{10}z}}{10!\sqrt{|\hat{g}|}}
\{\partial_{\mu_{1}}
(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{A}^{(10)})_{\mu_{2}..\mu_{10}}\nonumber\\
-\frac{9!}{8\cdot 6!}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{G}^{(7)})(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{2}
+\frac{9!}{2\cdot 8!}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{G}^{(9)})(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})
\nonumber\\
+\frac{9!}{288}
\partial\hat{C}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{3}
+\frac{9\cdot 9!}{5760}\hat{M}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{5}
\}_{\mu_{1}..\mu_{10}}.\label{fs11form}\end{aligned}$$ Since the r.h.s. of (\[fs11form\]) is shown to be gauge invariant, it can be interpreted as the gauge invariant field strength of the 10-form (multiplied by 1/10!). Thus, we can conclude that the 10-form $\hat{A}^{(10)}$ is introduced consistently. Moreover, we define a new 10-form $\hat{C}^{(10)}$ which agrees with 10D IIA 9-form $C^{(9)}$ on dimensional reduction along z: $$\begin{aligned}
(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C}^{(10)})_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{9}}
\equiv (i_{\hat{k}}\hat{A}^{(10)})_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{9}}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\nonumber\\
+[\frac{9!}{2\cdot
7!}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{N}^{(8)})(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})
-\frac{9!}{2^{3}5!}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C}^{(6)})
(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{2}\nonumber\\
+\frac{9!}{2^{4}(3!)^{2}}
\hat{C}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{3}]_{[\mu_{1}..\mu_{9}]}\end{aligned}$$ Then, the gauge transformation of $\hat{C}^{(10)}$ takes the simple form: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta (i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C}^{(10)})_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{9}}
&=&-945\{-4\partial\hat{\chi}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{3}\nonumber\\
& &+ \hat{M}(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})^{4}\hat{\lambda}\
\}_{[\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{9}]}.\end{aligned}$$ For convenience, we use $\hat{C}^{(10)}$ to construct $S^{WZ}_{{\rm M9}}$.
Now, we construct the M-9-brane WZ action as that of the gauged $\sigma$-model, in which the translation along $\hat{k}$ is gauged[@kaluzakleinm][@berg4][@loz1]. In this approach the M-9-brane wrapped around the compact isometry direction is described[@bergm9]. So, denoting its worldvolume coordinates by $\xi^{i} \ (i=0,1,..,8)$ and their embeddings by $X^{\mu}(\xi) (\mu =0,1,..,9,z)$, the worldvolume gauge transformation is given by $\delta_{\eta} X^{\mu}=\eta(\xi)\hat{k}^{\mu}$ where $\eta(\xi)$ is a scalar gauge parameter. In order to make the brane action invariant under the transformation, the derivative of $X^{\mu}$ with respect to $\xi^{i}$ is replaced by the covariant derivative $D_{i}X^{\mu}=\partial_{i}X^{\mu}
-\hat{A}_{i}\hat{k}^{\mu} $ with the gauge field $\hat{A}_{i}=-|\hat{k}|^{-2}
\partial_{i}\hat{X}^{\hat{\nu}}\hat{k}_{\hat{\nu}}$[@loz1]. Then, we obtain the M-9-brane WZ action only on the basis of the gauge invariance, as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{M9}^{WZ}=T_{{\rm M9}}
\int d^{9}\xi \epsilon^{i_{1}\cdots i_{9}}
[\frac{1}{9!}\widetilde{(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C}^{(10)})}_{i_{1}\cdots
i_{9}}
\nonumber\\
+\frac{1}{2\cdot 7!}
\widetilde{(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{N}^{(8)})}_{i_{1}\cdots i_{7}}
\hat{{\cal K}}^{(2)}_{i_{8}i_{9}}
\nonumber\\
+\frac{1}{2^{3}\cdot 5!}\widetilde{(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C}^{(6)})}_{
i_{1}\cdots i_{5}}
(\hat{{\cal K}}^{(2)})^{2}_{{i_{6}\cdots i_{9}}} \nonumber\\
+\frac{1}{2\cdot (3!)^{2}}\widetilde{\hat{C}}_{i_{1} i_{2} i_{3}}
\{(\partial \hat{b})^{2}
-\frac{1}{4}\widetilde{(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})}
\partial \hat{b} \nonumber\\
+\frac{1}{8}\widetilde{(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})}^{2}\}_{i_{4}\cdots i_{7}}
\hat{{\cal K}}^{(2)}_{i_{8} i_{9}}\nonumber\\
+\frac{1}{2\cdot 4!}\hat{A}_{i_{1}}
\{ (\partial \hat{b})^{3}
+\frac{1}{2}(\partial \hat{b})^{2}\widetilde{(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})}
\nonumber\\
+\frac{1}{4}(\partial \hat{b})\widetilde{(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})}^{2}
+\frac{1}{8}\widetilde{(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})}^{3}
\}_{i_{2}\cdots i_{7}}
(\hat{{\cal K}}^{(2)})_{i_{8} i_{9}}\nonumber\\
+\frac{m}{5!}\hat{b}_{i_{1}}(\partial \hat{b})^{4}_{i_{2}\cdots
i_{9}}]
\label{m9action}\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{\hat{S}}_{i_{1}\cdots i_{r}}\equiv
\hat{S}_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{r}}
D_{i_{1}}X^{\mu_{1}}\cdots D_{i_{r}}X^{\mu_{r}}$ for a target-space field $\hat{S}_{\mu_{1}\cdots\mu_{r}}$. $\hat{b}_{i}$ describes the flux of an M-2-brane wrapped around the isometry direction, whose massive gauge transformation is determined by the requirement of the invariance of its modified field strength $\hat{{\cal K}}^{(2)}_{ij}=2\partial_{[i}\hat{b}_{j]}-
\partial_{i}X^{\mu}\partial_{j}X^{\nu}
(i_{\hat{k}}\hat{C})_{\mu\nu}$ (i.e. $\delta\hat{b}_{i}
=\hat{\lambda}_{i}$).
Then, we check the consistency of the M-9-brane action in two ways; (the kinetic term of the M-9-brane has been given in ref.[@eyras1].) first, we can improve the M-9-brane solution in ref.[@bergm9] so that $\hat{A}^{(10)} \ne 0$. Then, the M-9-brane worldvolume action must be the source of the solution. We can show that this is true[@satom9]. Second, when there are two M-9-branes parallel to each other with a certain orientation, no force exists between them, so, the potential energy of a test M-9-brane parallel to a background M-9-brane must vanish. Using the obtained M-9-brane action and the improved M-9-brane solution, we can show that this is also true[@satom9]. Thus, we can say that the obtained M-9-brane action is consistent.
Finally, we present the result of dimensional reductions of $S_{M9}^{WZ}$ briefly. First, if we consider the dimensional reduction along the isometry direction, it is shown to give the D-8-brane WZ action. Second, if we consider the dimensional reduction along the only transverse direction, $S_{M9}^{WZ}$ is shown to give the NS-9A-brane WZ action. (In fact, in this case, we need to know “undiscussed” truncation conditions caused by modding out the system by an certain $Z_{2}$ symmetry, but we can infer them by using the duality relations (\[11ddual1\]) and (\[11ddual2\]).) Thus, the relation of p-branes with $p \ge 8$, based on the superalgebra, is consistent from the viewpoint of their WVEAs.
Summary and discussion
======================
The results of this work is summarized as follows: The M-9-brane Wess-Zumino action, the only unconstructed (bosonic part of) brane action, has been obtained, based only on the gauge invariance. The essential point in constructing it is our appropriate choice of fields representing the same degrees of freedom. Its consistency has been confirmed in two ways. In addition, upon two kinds of dimensional reductions, the Wess-Zumino action of the M-9-brane has been shown to give those of the D-8-brane and the NS-9A brane, respectively. Therefore, we conclude that within the framework of massive 11D theory, the relation of p-branes with $p \ge 8$, suggested on the basis of superalgebra, is consistent from the viewpoint of their worldvolume effective actions.
In this theory, however, the implication of the existence of the isometry direction is still unclear, so some other modification of the framework might be needed.
Finally, we would like to note that there is third possibility of dimensional reduction of the M-9-brane; the dimensional reduction along the worldvolume direction but not the isometry one. There are some arguments on how to interpret this possibility, and ours is that the obtained 8-brane is essentially the same as the usual D-8-brane except that it arises in another massive extension of the 10-dimensional IIA theory with an isometry direction. Since we do not have enough space to discuss it here, in detail, please see ref.[@satodr] and references therein.
[**Acknowledgment**]{}
I would like to thank Taro Tani, Tunehide Kuroki and Shinya Tamura for fruitful discussions and encouragement in completing the work in refs.[@satom9][@satodr]. I am grateful to Professor Eric Bergshoeff for useful comments and Yolanda Lozano for useful comments on the work[@satodr] via e-mail. I am especially grateful to Professor Dmitri Sorokin, Professor Alexei Nurmagambetov and all the other staffs and students supporting the conference, for inviting me to the conference and taking much care of me and my wife very kindly before and during the conference. I am also grateful to Yoshida Foundation for Science and Technology for partial financial support.
[9]{}
C. M. Hull, Nucl. Phys. [**B509**]{} (1998) 216, hep-th/9705162.
P. K. Townsend, “[*M-theory from its Superalgebra*]{}”, Cargese Lectures 1997, hep-th/9712004.
P. K. Townsend, “[*P-brane Democracy*]{}”, hep-th/9507048. E. Bergshoeff, E. Eyras, R. Halbersma, C. M. Hull, Y. Lozano and J. P. van der Schaar, Nucl. Phys. [**B564**]{} (2000) 29, hep-th/9812224.
J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} (1995) 4724, hep-th/9510017. J. Polchinski and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B460**]{} (1996) 525, hep-th/9510169. E. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo, M. B. Green, G. Papadopoulos and P. K. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. [**B470**]{} (1996) 113, hep-th/9601150.
K. Bautier, S. Deser, M. Henneaux and D. Seminara, Phys. Lett [**B406**]{} (1997) 49, hep-th/9704131.
E. Bergshoeff, Y. Lozano and T. Ortin, Nucl. Phys. [**B518**]{} (1998) 363, hep-th/9712115.
E. Bergshoeff and J. P. van der Schaar, Class. Quant. Grav. [**16**]{} (1999) 23, hep-th/9806069.
T. Sato, Phys. Lett. [**B 477**]{} (2000) 457, hep-th/9912030. T. Sato, “[*On dimensional reductions of M-9-branes*]{}”, hep-th/0003240.
M. B. Green, C. M. Hull and P. K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. [**B382**]{} (1996) 65, hep-th/9604119.
E. Bergshoeff, B. Janssen and T. Ortin, Phys. Lett. [**B410**]{} (1997) 131, hep-th/9706117.
E. Bergshoeff, E. Eyras and Y. Lozano, Phys. Lett. [**B430**]{} (1998) 77, hep-th/9802199.
E. Eyras and Y. Lozano, “[*Brane Actions and String Dualities*]{}”, hep-th/9812225.
[^1]: We use $a,b,\cdots$ for local Lorentz indices.
[^2]: We concentrate our discussions on the gauge transformations with respect to $\hat{\chi}$ and $\hat{\lambda}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Rigorous nonequilibrium actions for the many-body problem are usually derived by means of path integrals combined with a discrete temporal mesh on the Schwinger-Keldysh time contour. The latter suffers from a fundamental limitation: the initial state on this contour cannot be arbitrary, but necessarily needs to be described by a non-interacting density matrix, while interactions are switched on adiabatically. The Kostantinov-Perel’ contour overcomes these and other limitations, allowing generic initial-state preparations. In this Article, we apply the technique of the discrete temporal mesh to rigorously build the nonequilibrium path integral on the Kostantinov-Perel’ time contour.'
address: 'Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Graphene Labs, Via Morego 30, I-16163 Genova, Italy'
author:
- 'Andrea Secchi, Marco Polini'
title: 'Discrete-time construction of nonequilibrium path integrals on the Kostantinov-Perel’ time contour'
---
March 2019
[*Keywords*]{}: Nonequilibrium, Path integrals, Time contours
Introduction
============
The theory of many-body systems brought away from equilibrium strongly relies on the concept of time contours. Introduced in different forms by several authors, including Schwinger [@Schwinger], Keldysh [@Keldysh], and Kostantinov and Perel’ [@KostantinovPerel], time contours provide an elegant way to deal on equal footing with time-ordered and anti-time-ordered products of operators which are both needed in the calculation of time-dependent observables out of equilibrium. For appropriately defined time contours, such cumbersome machinery is replaced by a single time-ordering procedure. The price to pay is that the size of the time domain has to be doubled with respect to the physical real-time axis.
Typically, one uses a time contour to evaluate nonequilibrium Green’s functions and associated observables. On both the Schwinger-Keldysh and the Kostantinov-Perel’ contours, equations of motion can be written down straightforwardly and many-body perturbation theory can be developed [@Keldysh; @KadanoffBaym; @RammerSmith; @Stefanucci; @vanLeeuwen; @Odashima17; @Kantorovich18]. In particular, the Kadanoff-Baym equations [@KadanoffBaym] are the cornerstone of any numerical calculation of nonequilibrium Green’s functions for correlated systems [@Bonitz13; @Schuler18; @Karlsson18; @Abdurazakov18; @Hopjan19].
Complementary to numerical approaches, path integrals constitute, in the context of nonequilibrium physics, a very useful analytical technique to derive effective theories, kinetic equations, and to define transparent physical approximations [@Kamenev; @Taniguchi17; @deNicola19]. These derivations typically rely on nonequilibrium generalizations of procedures which appear also with equilibrium path integrals, such as the Gaussian integration over a subspace of fields (e.g. integration over bosons in a coupled fermion-boson system), the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation, and the saddle-point approximation.
For the path integral to be meaningful, the action should be defined in a rigorous way, in particular, taking care of the correct operational definition of the inverse single-particle Green’s function operator, whose form depends on the time contour. Since the time contours used for nonequilibrium theories are different than the equilibrium (Matsubara) one, it is necessary to set up the corresponding actions case by case. This has been done for the Schwinger-Keldysh (SK) time contour [@Kamenev]. Here, we argue that a similarly rigorous derivation for the case of the Kostantinov-Perel’ (KP) time contour is timely.
In what follows, we first summarize the main features of SK and KP time contours, respectively. We denote by $\gamma_{\rm K} = \gamma_{{\rm K}, +} \cup \gamma_{{\rm K}, -}$ the SK contour. Here $\gamma_{{\rm K}, +}$ and $\gamma_{{\rm K}, -}$ are the forward and backward branches of the real-time axis $(-\infty, + \infty)$, respectively. These are obtained by doubling the real-time degrees of freedom: $\gamma_{{\rm K}, +}$ consists of the real axis traveled forward from $- \infty$ to $+ \infty$, while $\gamma_{{\rm K}, -}$ consists of the real axis traveled backwards from $+ \infty$ to $- \infty$. Nonequilibrium theories on the SK contour require to specify the density matrix, $\hat{\rho}_{- \infty}$, which describes the system in the remote past, i.e. for $t \rightarrow - \infty$. Crucially, this density matrix is required to be non-interacting [@Kamenev]. Many-body interactions, if present, are switched on adiabatically in such a way that the Hamiltonian coincides with the physical one at a given time $t = t_{0}$.
The KP contour [@KostantinovPerel; @Stefanucci] allows a much greater flexibility with respect to the choice of the initial state of the system. In this formalism, one specifies the preparation of the system at an arbitrary time $t_{0}$ ($> - \infty$) via the density matrix $\hat{\rho}_{0}$, whose most general form is [@Stefanucci] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\rho}_0 \equiv \mathrm{e}^{- \beta \hat{ \cal H}_{\rm M} } \biggl/ \mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{e}^{- \beta \hat{ \cal H}_{\rm M} }) ~,
\label{rho_0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta > 0$ is a positive constant and $\hat{ \cal H}_{\rm M}$ is an [*arbitrary*]{} Hermitian operator. A standard ([*but not mandatory*]{}) choice is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{ \cal H}_{\rm M} = \hat{\cal H}(t_0) - \mu \hat{\cal N} ~,
\label{standard HM}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\cal H}(t_0)$ is the physical Hamiltonian of the system at time $t = t_0$, $\mu$ is the chemical potential, and $\hat{\cal N}$ is the number operator. This describes a system at thermal equilibrium at the initial time, in the grand-canonical ensemble, with inverse temperature $\beta$. However, it should be emphasized that $\hat{ \cal H}_{\rm M}$ can be chosen to be a much more general operator [@Stefanucci], which allows to select a specific initial state, avoiding to assign the same weight to degenerate eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal H}(t_0)$. This allows to go beyond the grand-canonical ensemble and, for example, to select a broken-symmetry state instead of a thermal mixture, something which cannot be captured with the choice in equation (\[standard HM\]). (We will show this by means of a concrete example in section \[sect:example\].) Importantly, the KP formulation also allows to consider fully interacting systems without resorting to the adiabatic switching on of interactions, and is therefore appropriate for the study of strongly correlated systems. Since the adiabatic switching on is bypassed, one can control the preparation of the system at a finite time $t_{0}$, rather than in the far past. Because of this flexibility, the KP contour is a suitable framework for theories involving coupled fermion-boson systems, such as in the problem of nonequilibrium superconductivity [@Secchi17] and/or initial broken-symmetry states, such as in nonequilibrium magnetism [@Secchi16PRB].
In the latter formalism, the real-time domain is $[ t_0, \infty)$, and the KP time contour $\gamma$ is given by the union of three branches: $\gamma = \gamma_+ \cup \gamma_- \cup \gamma_{\rm M}$. The forward ($\gamma_+$) and backward ($\gamma_-$) branches are analogous to the SK branches, except that their domain of definition is $[t_{0}, \infty)$, while the Matsubara branch ($\gamma_{\rm M}$) is the imaginary-time domain needed to describe the initial statistical mixture, $[t_0, t_0 - i \beta)$, where $\beta$ is the initial inverse temperature ($\hbar = 1$ throughout this Article). One can write equation (\[rho\_0\]) in terms of an evolution operator along the Matsubara branch, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\rho}_0 \equiv \hat{ \cal U}_{{\gamma_{\rm M}}} \biggl/ \mathrm{Tr}( \hat{ \cal U}_{{\gamma_{\rm M}}}) ~.\end{aligned}$$
While the Green’s function problem on the KP contour is thoroughly discussed in the literature [@Stefanucci], a rigorous path-integral formulation seems to be available only in the case of the SK contour [@Kamenev]. Given the usefulness of path integrals when dealing with problems that can be simplified by field integration [@Secchi17], it is convenient to set up the same tools for the KP contour. The problem basically consists in deriving the KP nonequilibrium action, which correctly keeps into account the [*boundary terms*]{} arising from the construction of the path integral. This is the goal of the present Article.
Our Article is organized as follows. In section \[sect:Hamiltonian\] we introduce a generic time-dependent Hamiltonian, including both fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom. In section \[sect:pathint\] we present the nonequilibrium partition function and the associated action that we need to derive from “first principles”. In section \[sect: KP action\] we apply the technique of the discrete temporal mesh to derive the discrete form of the action. In section \[sect: ff fb Gf\] we derive the general form of the free-fermion and free-boson Green’s functions on the KP contour, which allows to treat boundary conditions exactly while moving to the continuous time representation. We then show several important simplifications that occur in relevant particular cases. In section \[sect: discrete continuum\] we complete the transition to the continuous-time representation of the action. In section \[sect:example\] we present the solution of a simple nonequilibrium model using both ordinary quantum mechanics and the KP path integral, with the aim of demonstrating the flexibility of the latter in fixing the initial conditions. Finally, in section \[sect:summary\] we summarize our main results and their applicability.
Hamiltonian {#sect:Hamiltonian}
===========
We consider a general system of fermions and bosons described by the following time-dependent Hamiltonian: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\cal H}(t) \equiv \hat{\cal H}_{\rm f}(t) + \hat{\cal H}_{\rm b}(t) + \hat{\cal I}(t)~.
\label{Hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{free-el Hamiltonian Nambu}
\hat{\cal H}_{\rm f }(t) = \hat{d}^{\dagger} \cdot \mathbf{T}_{\rm f }(t) \, \hat{d} \end{aligned}$$ is the single-fermion Hamiltonian, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{free-ph Hamiltonian Nambu}
\hat{\cal H}_{\rm b}(t) = \hat{a}^{\dagger} \cdot \mathbf{T}_{\rm b }(t) \, \hat{a} \end{aligned}$$ is the single-boson Hamiltonian, and $\hat{\cal I}(t)$ includes all the remaining terms. The creation/annihilation operators, $\hat{d}^{\dagger}$/$\hat{d}$ for fermions and $\hat{a}^{\dagger}$/$\hat{a}$ for bosons, respectively, are grouped into vectors whose components are distinguished by single-particle quantum numbers (e.g. wavevector and spin projection for electrons on a lattice). We do not make any assumption on the physical nature of the fields that were just introduced. Fermions can be e.g. electrons, holes, or Nambu fermions. Bosons can be e.g. photons or phonons. The term $\hat{\cal I}(t)$ may include any form of interaction between these fields, that is, both between particles of the same species (e.g. electron-electron Coulomb interaction) and between particles of different species (e.g. electron-phonon coupling). The form of the interaction terms does not affect the derivation of the single-particle inverse Green’s function operator, which is the main mathematical issue that we solve here. The single-particle Hamiltonian matrix $\mathbf{T}_{\mathrm{f/b}}(t)$ can include a time-independent hopping (or, if the hopping is diagonalized, the single-particle energy spectrum), as well as the effect of any external time-dependent fields. Setting either $\mathbf{T}_{\mathrm{f}}(t) = 0$ in (\[free-el Hamiltonian Nambu\]) or $\mathbf{T}_{\mathrm{b}}(t) = 0$ in (\[free-ph Hamiltonian Nambu\]) allows one to restrict the theory to the particular cases of purely bosonic or fermionic systems, respectively. In the following, we will always use bold fonts to denote matrices in the basis of single-particle quantum numbers.
Nonequilibrium path integrals {#sect:pathint}
=============================
We denote the contour variable by $z \in \gamma$. For every real time coordinate $t \in [t_0, \infty)$, there are two values of $z$: one belonging to $\gamma_+$, which we denote by $t_+$, and one belonging to $\gamma_-$, which we denote by $t_-$. For every imaginary-time coordinate on the Matsubara branch $[t_0, t_0 - i \beta)$ there is a single value of $z$.
The nonequilibrium partition function is expressed as a coherent-state path integral over Grassmann variables $(\overline{d}, d)$ (representing the fermion fields) and complex variables $(a^*, a)$ (representing the boson fields) [@Kamenev]. As in the previous section, with a single Latin letter, such as “$d$”, we intend an array of variables, one for each different value of the set of single-particle quantum numbers. In the coherent-state representation, these variables acquire a further dependence on the contour variable $z$. The general expression for the partition function is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ZKB}
Z\left[ V \right] \equiv \frac{\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{\gamma}\right\}}{\mathrm{Tr}( \hat{ \cal U}_{{\gamma_{\rm M}}}) }
\equiv \frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}( \hat{ \cal U}_{{\gamma_{\rm M}}})} \int \mathcal{D} \left(\overline{d}, d \right) \int \mathcal{D} \left( a^*, a \right) \mathrm{e}^{i S^{(V)}\left[\overline{d}, d ; a^*, a \right]}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{\gamma} $ is the evolution operator along the contour $\gamma$ , namely $\hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{\gamma} = \hat{\mathcal{U}}_{\gamma_{\rm M}} \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{\gamma_-} \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{\gamma_+}$ and we have included some source potential $V(z)$ depending on the contour variable $z$. One has $\hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(0)}_{\gamma} = \hat{\mathcal{U}}_{\gamma_{\rm M}}$ and therefore $Z[V = 0] = 1$. The same identity, i.e. $Z = 1$, applies if $V(t_{+}) = V(t_{-})$, $\forall t$. For simplicity, we assume that the sources are quadratic in the particle fields. The nonequilibrium action is $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(V)}[\overline{d}, d ; a^*, a] \equiv S^{(V)}_{\mathrm{f}, Q}[\overline{d}, d] + S^{(V)}_{\mathrm{b}, Q}[a^*, a] + S_{\cal I}[\overline{d}, d ; a^*, a]~,
\label{action KB}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{f}, Q}^{(V)}[\overline{d}, d] \equiv \int_{\gamma} \mathrm{d} z\Big\{ \overline{d}(z) \cdot i \partial_z d(z) - {\cal H}^{(V)}_{\rm f}[\overline{d}(z), d(z) ; z ] \Big\}
\label{S_f}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{b}, Q}^{(V)}[a^*, a] \equiv \! \int_{\gamma} \mathrm{d} z \Big\{ a^*(z)\! \cdot \! i \partial_z a(z) - {\cal H}^{(V)}_{\mathrm{b}}[ a^*(z), a(z) ; z ]\Big\}
\label{S_b} \end{aligned}$$ contain all the terms which are quadratic in the fermion or boson fields, respectively, while $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\cal I}\left[\overline{d}, d ; a^*, a \right] \equiv -\int_{\gamma} \mathrm{d} z \, {\cal I}\left[\overline{d}(z), d(z) ; a^*(z), a(z); z \right]
\label{S_IV} \end{aligned}$$ includes all the other terms, such as interactions between particles of the same or different kind. It is important to notice that, differently from the case of the SK contour, in the present case we must include the Matsubara branch and account for the fact that the Matsubara Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal{H}}_{\rm M}$, introduced in (\[rho\_0\]), is, in general, different from the physical Hamiltonian at the initial time, $\hat{\cal H}(t_0)$. In general, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\cal{H}}_{\rm M} = \hat{\cal H}(t_0) - \mu_{\rm f} \hat{\cal N}_{\rm f} - \mu_{\rm b} \hat{\cal N}_{\rm b} + \hat{\cal R}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_{\rm f ( \rm b )}$ is the chemical potential for the fermion (boson) subsystem, $\hat{\cal N}_{\rm f (\rm b)}$ is the fermion (boson) number operator, and $\hat{\cal R}$ includes all the remaining fermionic and bosonic terms. If the equilibrium state is a grand-canonical thermal distribution, then $\hat{\cal R} = 0$. If, instead, one wants to implement a non-thermal initial state [@Stefanucci], a non-vanishing $\hat{\cal R}$ is needed.
As in the previous discussion about the physical Hamiltonian, we separate the terms of the Matsubara Hamiltonian which are quadratic in the particle fields from those which are not. The quadratic terms have the form $\hat{d}^{\dagger} \cdot \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{f}} \, \hat{d}$ and $\hat{a}^{\dagger} \cdot \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{b}} \, \hat{a}$, where we have introduced the Matsubara hopping matrices $\mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{f/b}}$. After moving to the path integral formulation, all the terms which are not quadratic are collected into the quantity ${\cal I}\left[\overline{d}(z), d(z) ; a^*(z), a(z); z \right]$, introduced in equation (\[S\_IV\]), while the quadratic terms are included into equations (\[S\_f\]) and (\[S\_b\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}^{(V)}_{\rm f}[\overline{d}(z), d(z) ; z] \equiv \overline{d}(z) \cdot \mathbf{T}^{(V)}_{\mathrm{f}}(z) \, d(z)
\label{contour Hf}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}^{(V)}_{\rm b}[a^*(z), a(z) ; z] \equiv a^*(z) \cdot \mathbf{T}^{(V)}_{\mathrm{b}}(z) \, a(z)~,
\label{contour Hb}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{T}^{(V)}_{\mathrm{f/b}}(z) \equiv \Theta(t_{0-}, z) \left[ \mathbf{T}_{\mathrm{f/b}}(t) + \mathbf{V}_{\mathrm{f/b}}(z) \right] + \Theta(z, t_{0 -}) \, \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{f/b}} ~.
\label{contour hopping}\end{aligned}$$ In the above equations, $\Theta(z, t_{0 -})$ equals $1$ if $z$ lies on the Matsubara branch, and $0$ otherwise ($t_{0-}$ is the initial time taken on the backward branch). On the other hand, $\Theta( t_{0 -}, z)$ equals $1$ if $z$ lies on either $\gamma_+$ or $\gamma_-$, and $0$ otherwise. We have also included the quadratic sources into (\[contour hopping\]). Non-quadratic sources, if present, must be included in (\[S\_IV\]). To better grasp the structure of $\mathbf{T}^{(V)}_{\mathrm{f/b}}(z)$ in (\[contour hopping\]), we emphasize that: 1) $\mathbf{T}_{\mathrm{f/b}}(t)$ is the physical time-dependent hopping matrix, so it depends on the real time coordinate $t$ and, if seen as a $z$-dependent quantity, it has the same value for $z = t_+$ and $z = t-$; 2) $\mathbf{V}_{\mathrm{f/b}}(z)$ is the source matrix, so it contributes only when $z$ is on the real-time branches and, for a given physical time $t$, it must satisfy $\mathbf{V}_{\mathrm{f/b}}(t_+) \neq \mathbf{V}_{\mathrm{f/b}}(t_-)$, so that $Z[V] \neq 1$; 3) $\mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{f/b}}$ is constant on the Matsubara branch and does not contribute when $z$ is on the real-time branches, being replaced in this case by $\mathbf{T}_{\mathrm{f/b}}(t)$.
Once this issue about the Matsubara Hamiltonian is taken into account, writing down the explicit form of equation (\[S\_IV\]) is formally analogous to what is done in the case of the SK contour [@Kamenev]. This term therefore presents no difficulties. In this Article, instead, we deal with the derivation of the explicit and unambiguous forms of (\[S\_f\]) and (\[S\_b\]). Indeed, the operator $i \partial_z $ appearing in these equations is a shorthand for an object that needs to be defined with great care within a discrete-time formulation. The difference between the KP $\gamma$ and SK $\gamma_{\rm K}$ time contours requires a generalization of the procedure given in [@Kamenev], which employs a discrete temporal mesh to properly take into account boundary conditions. Besides this, it should be kept in mind that, starting from the discrete temporal mesh, the path integral is well defined only in the limit of a vanishingly small time step, which is taken at the end of the derivation (see section \[sect: discrete continuum\]) and is not optional. With respect to [@Kamenev], in our derivation we also include an arbitrary matrix structure of the hopping matrix.
The KP action {#sect: KP action}
=============
We now proceed to derive the path integral defining the nonequilibrium partition function on the KP time contour. We initially use the finite interval $[t_0, t_{\infty}]$ on the real-time axis (with $t_{\infty}>t_{0}$) and take the limit $t_{\infty} \rightarrow + \infty$ at the end of the derivation. This interval is divided into $N - 1$ arbitrarily small sub-intervals of width $\delta t$, so that $t_{\infty} - t_0 = (N - 1) \delta t$. We take the continuum $N \rightarrow \infty$ limit only at the end. We are therefore led to introduce a discrete set of time values: $$\begin{aligned}
t_j \equiv t_0 + (j - 1) \delta t ~, \quad j = 1, 2, \ldots, N ~.
\label{physical time values}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $t_1 = t_0$ and $t_N = t_{\infty}$. To each of the physical time values in (\[physical time values\]) we assign two distinct contour coordinates, $t_{j, +} \in \gamma_+$ and $t_{j, -} \in \gamma_-$.
We then consider the Matsubara branch $[t_0, t_0 - i \beta ]$. We split this interval into $M - 1$ infinitesimally small parts, such that $\beta = (M - 1) \delta t$, and we introduce $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_j = t_0 - i (j - 1) \delta t ~, \quad j = 1, 2, \ldots, M ~.\end{aligned}$$ We give a common name to the full set of discrete contour variables by introducing $2 N + M$ contour coordinates $z_j$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
z_j = t_{j, +} ~, \quad j = 1, 2, \ldots, N ~, \nonumber \\
z_{N + j} = t_{( N + 1 - j), -} ~, \quad j = 1, 2, \ldots, N ~, \nonumber \\
z_{ 2 N + j} = \tau_{j} ~, \quad j = 1, 2, \ldots, M ~.\end{aligned}$$
To determine the action $S^{(V)}[\overline{d}, d ; a^*, a]$ in equations (\[ZKB\]) and (\[action KB\]), which is a function of the fermionic (Grassmann) fields $(\bar{d}, d)$ and the bosonic (complex) fields $(a^*, a)$, we use a standard procedure that involves the decomposition of the identity operator of the full Hilbert space over fermionic and bosonic coherent states [@Kamenev; @NegeleOrland; @AltlandSimons]. Denoting by $a_j$, $a^*_j$, $\overline{d}_j$, $d_j$ the vectors collecting the fields needed to specify the Hamiltonian in the $j$-th decomposition of the identity, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Tr} \left\{ \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{\gamma} \right\} =
\int \mathrm{d} \left[a^*_0, a_0 \right] \int \mathrm{d} \left[\overline{d}_0, d_0 \right] \left< a_0, d_0 \right| \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{\gamma} \left| a_0, - d_0 \right> \mathrm{e}^{- \left| a_0 \right|^2} \mathrm{e}^{- \overline{d}_0 \cdot d_0} \nonumber \\
%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%
=
\int \mathrm{d} \left[a^*_0, a_0 \right] \int \mathrm{d} \left[\overline{d}_0, d_0 \right] \left< a_0, d_0 \right| \prod_{j = 1}^{2 N + M - 1} \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{z_j \rightarrow z_{j + 1}} \left| a_0, - d_0 \right> \mathrm{e}^{- \left| a_0 \right|^2} \mathrm{e}^{- \overline{d}_0 \cdot d_0} \nonumber \\
%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%
=
\int \prod_{j = 1}^{2 N + M} \mathrm{d} \left[a^*_j, a_j \right] \int \prod_{j = 1}^{2 N + M} \mathrm{d} \left[\overline{d}_j, d_j \right]
\mathrm{e}^{- \sum_{j = 1}^{2 N + M} \left| a_j \right|^2} \mathrm{e}^{- \sum_{j = 1}^{2 N + M} \overline{d}_j \cdot d_j} \nonumber \\
\quad \times
\int \mathrm{d} \left[a^*_0, a_0 \right] \int \mathrm{d} \left[\overline{d}_0, d_0 \right] \mathrm{e}^{- \left| a_0 \right|^2} \mathrm{e}^{- \overline{d}_0 \cdot d_0} \left< a_0, d_0 | a_{2 N + M}, d_{2 N + M} \right> \nonumber \\
\quad \times \left( \prod_{j = 1}^{2 N + M - 1} \left< a_{j + 1}, d_{j + 1} \right| \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{z_j \rightarrow z_{j + 1}} \left| a_j, d_j \right> \! \right) \left< a_1, d_1 | a_0, - d_0 \right> \nonumber \\
%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%
=
\int \prod_{j = 1}^{2 N + M} \mathrm{d} \left[a^*_j, a_j \right] \int \prod_{j = 1}^{2 N + M} \mathrm{d} \left[\overline{d}_j, d_j \right]
\mathrm{e}^{- \sum_{j = 1}^{2 N + M} \left| a_j \right|^2} \mathrm{e}^{- \sum_{j = 1}^{2 N + M} \overline{d}_j \cdot d_j} \nonumber \\
\quad \times
\mathrm{e}^{ a_1^* \cdot a_{2 N + M}} \mathrm{e}^{- \overline{d}_1 \cdot d_{2 N + M}} \left( \prod_{j = 1}^{2 N + M - 1} \left< a_{j + 1}, d_{j + 1} \right| \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{z_j \rightarrow z_{j + 1}} \left| a_j, d_j \right> \right)~.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\left| a_1, d_1 \right>$ depends only on $a_1$ and $d_1$, and not on $a^*_1$ and $\overline{d}_1$, we notice that $\overline{d}_1$ enters the integral in the combination $\mathrm{e}^{- \overline{d}_1 \cdot \left( d_1 + d_{2 N + M} \right)}$ only, while $a^*_1$ enters the integral in the combination $\mathrm{e}^{- a^*_1 \cdot \left( a_1 - a_{2 N + M} \right)}$ only. Using the representations of ordinary and Grassmann $\delta$ functions [@NegeleOrland], we then observe that, for any function $f(a_1, d_1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\fl \int \mathrm{d} \left[ a^*_1, a_1 \right] \mathrm{e}^{- a^*_1 \cdot \left( a_1 - a_{2 N + M} \right)} \int \mathrm{d}[\overline{d}_1, d_1]
\mathrm{e}^{- \overline{d}_1 \cdot ( d_1 + d_{2 N + M})} f(a_1, d_1) = f(a_{2N+M}, - d_{2 N + M} )~. \end{aligned}$$ We then obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Tr} \left\{ \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{\gamma} \right\}
& =
\int \prod_{j = 2}^{2 N + M} \mathrm{d} \left[a^*_j, a_j \right] \int \prod_{j = 2}^{2 N + M} \mathrm{d} \left[\overline{d}_j, d_j \right]
\mathrm{e}^{- \sum_{j = 2}^{2 N + M} \left( \left| a_j \right|^2 + \overline{d}_j \cdot d_j \right)} \nonumber \\
& \quad \times \left( \prod_{j = 2}^{2 N + M - 1} \left< a_{j + 1}, d_{j + 1} \right| \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{z_j \rightarrow z_{j + 1}} \left| a_j, d_j \right> \right) \nonumber \\
& \quad \times \left< a_{2}, d_{2} \right| \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{z_1 \rightarrow z_2} \left| a_{2N+M}, - d_{2N+M} \right> ~.\end{aligned}$$ Taking $\delta t$ to be infinitesimally small, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{z_j \rightarrow z_{j + 1}} \rightarrow \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{+ \delta t} \approx \mathrm{e}^{- i \delta t \left[ \hat{\cal H}(t_j) + \hat{V}(t_{j, +}) \right] } , \quad \! 1 \leq j \leq N - 1 ~; \nonumber \\
& \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{z_N \rightarrow z_{N + 1}} = 1 ~; \nonumber \\
& \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{z_j \rightarrow z_{j + 1}} \rightarrow \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{- \delta t} \approx \mathrm{e}^{ i \delta t \left[ \hat{\cal H}(t_{2 N + 1 - j}) + \hat{V}(t_{2 N + 1 - j, -}) \right] } ~, \quad \quad N + 1 \leq j \leq 2 N - 1 ~; \nonumber \\
& \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{z_{2 N} \rightarrow z_{2 N + 1}} = 1 ~; \nonumber \\
& \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{z_j \rightarrow z_{j + 1}} \rightarrow \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{- i \delta t} = \mathrm{e}^{ - \delta t \hat{\cal H}_{\rm M} } ~, \quad \quad 2 N + 1 \leq j \leq 2 N + M - 1 ~.\end{aligned}$$ We now introduce $\hat{\cal H}(z_j)$, $\hat{V}(z_j)$ and $\delta z_j$ in such a way that $$\begin{aligned}
& \hat{\cal H}(z_j) = \hat{\cal H}(t_j) ~, \quad \hat{V}(z_j) = \hat{V}(t_{j, +}) ~, \quad 1 \leq j \leq N - 1 ~; \nonumber \\
& \hat{\cal H}(z_j) = \hat{\cal H}(t_{2 N + 1 - j}) ~, \quad \hat{V}(z_j) = \hat{V}(t_{2 N + 1 - j, -}) ~, \quad\quad N+1 \leq j \leq 2 N - 1 ~; \nonumber \\
& \hat{\cal H}(z_j) = \hat{\cal H}_{\rm M} ~, \quad \hat{V}(z_j) = 0 ~, \quad\quad 2 N + 1 \leq j \leq 2 N + M - 1 ~;\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& \delta z_j = \delta t ~, \quad 1 \leq j \leq N - 1 ~; \nonumber \\
& \delta z_N = 0 ~; \nonumber \\
& \delta z_j = - \delta t ~, \quad N+1 \leq j \leq 2 N - 1 ~; \nonumber \\
& \delta z_{2 N} = 0 ~; \nonumber \\
& \delta z_j = - i \delta t ~, \quad 2 N + 1 \leq j \leq 2 N + M - 1 ~.
\label{delta z}\end{aligned}$$ We then write the contour evolution operator compactly as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{z_j \rightarrow z_{j + 1}} \rightarrow \mathrm{e}^{- i \delta z_j \left[ \hat{\cal H}(z_j) + \hat{V}(z_j) \right] }~,\end{aligned}$$ and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\fl \mathrm{Tr} \left\{ \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{\gamma} \right\} =
\int \prod_{j = 2}^{2 N + M} \mathrm{d} \left[a^*_j, a_j \right] \int \prod_{j = 2}^{2 N + M} \mathrm{d} \left[\overline{d}_j, d_j \right] \nonumber \\
\times \exp\left\{- \sum_{j = 2}^{2 N + M } \left[ a^*_{j } \cdot \left( a_{j } - a_{j - 1} \right) + \overline{d}_{j} \cdot \left( d_{j} - d_{j - 1} \right) \right] \right\} \nonumber \\
\times \exp\left\{- i
\sum_{j = 1}^{2 N + M - 1} \delta z_j \left\{ {\cal H}\left[\overline{d}_{j + 1}, d_{j} ; a^*_{j + 1}, a_{j} ; z_j \right] + V\left[\overline{d}_{j + 1}, d_{j} ; z_j \right] \right\} \right\}~,
\label{path integral before continuum}\end{aligned}$$ where $a_1 = a_{2N+M}$, and $d_1 = - d_{2N+M}$ in the arguments of the exponentials. In the continuous-time representation, one formally puts $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j = 2}^{2 N + M } \left[ a^*_{j } \cdot \left( a_{j } - a_{j - 1} \right) + \overline{d}_{j} \cdot \left( d_{j} - d_{j - 1} \right) \right] \nonumber \\
\equiv \sum_{j = 2}^{2 N + M } \delta z_{j - 1} \left[ a^*(z) \cdot \partial_z a(z) + \overline{d}(z) \cdot \partial_z d(z) \right] \Big|_{z = z_j}~,\end{aligned}$$ obtaining $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Tr} \left\{ \hat{\mathcal{U}}^{(V)}_{\gamma} \right\} \equiv \int \mathcal{D} \left(\overline{d}, d \right) \int \mathcal{D} \left( a^*, a \right) \mathrm{e}^{i S^{(V)}\left[\overline{d}, d ; a^*, a \right]}~,
\label{path integral continuum}\end{aligned}$$ where the action is given by equation (\[action KB\]). The boundary conditions $a_{1} = a_{2N + M}$ and $d_{1} = - d_{2 N + M}$ make the definition of the operator $\partial_z$ on the contour non-trivial, something which is fully captured by using the discrete temporal mesh.
In passing, we mention that discrete-temporal-mesh methods have also been used to tackle other problems, related, for example, to the correct definition and use of time-derivative-dependent variable transformations in path integrals [@Ezawa85].
Green’s functions for the quadratic part of the action {#sect: ff fb Gf}
======================================================
Derivation of the general formula
---------------------------------
In the discrete-time representation, the quadratic ($Q$) actions, (\[S\_f\]) and (\[S\_b\]), read as $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(V)}_{\mathrm{f}, Q}\!\left[ \overline{d} , d \right] = \sum_{j, j' = 2}^{2 N + M} \overline{d}_{j} \cdot \left( \mathbf{G}^{ -1}_{j, j' } \right)^{(V)}_{\mathrm{f}, Q} d_{j'} ~,
\label{free fermion discrete}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(V)}_{\mathrm{b}, Q}\!\left[ a^*, a \right] = \sum_{j, j' = 2}^{2 N + M} a^*_{j} \cdot \left( \mathbf{G}^{ -1}_{ j, j' } \right)^{(V)}_{\mathrm{b} , Q} a_{ j'} ~,
\label{free boson discrete}\end{aligned}$$ where the free-fermion and free-boson inverse Green’s functions (GFs) are matrices in the discrete-time coordinates ($j, j'$), as well as in the free-particle indexes. Note that we are using the term “free” in the sense of [*non-interacting*]{}. External fields coupling with the particles are included in the definition of $\mathbf{G}^{ -1}_Q$, but interactions are left into the action term $S_{\cal I}$, equation (\[S\_IV\]). Our goal here is to find the direct GFs by inverting the matrices $\mathbf{G}^{ -1}_Q$.
In order to lighten the notation, in the following steps we will omit subscripts and superscripts of the GFs, except for those referring to the discrete-time coordinates. To distinguish between bosons and fermions, we introduce the index $\xi = \pm 1$, where the $+$ sign is for bosons and the $-$ sign is for fermions.
The free-particle inverse GF matrices are then written compactly as $$\begin{aligned}
i \mathbf{G}^{-1}_{ j, j' } = - \delta_{j, j'} \mathbf{1} + \left( 1 - \delta_{j, 2} \right) \delta_{j', j-1} \left( \mathbf{1} - i \delta z_{j-1} \mathbf{ T}_{j - 1} \right)
\nonumber \\
\quad \quad\quad\,\, + \xi \delta_{j, 2} \delta_{j', 2N+M } \left( \mathbf{1} - i \delta t \mathbf{T}_{ 1} \right) ~,
\label{Gfe-1} \end{aligned}$$ where the dependence of $\mathbf{T}_{j}$ on the contour coordinate is detailed in (\[contour hopping\]). The only formal difference between fermions and bosons is in the $\xi$-dependent term appearing in the second line of (\[Gfe-1\]), which reflects the different boundary conditions arising from the construction of the path integral.
The matrix in equation (\[Gfe-1\]) is invertible, i.e. the left inverse is the same as the right inverse. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j''} ( i \mathbf{G}^{-1}_{j, j''}) ( - i \mathbf{G}_{j'', j'})
= \delta_{j, j'} \nonumber \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\Rightarrow i \mathbf{G}_{ j, j' } - \left( 1 - \delta_{j, 2} \right) \mathbf{x}_{j-1 } i \mathbf{G}_{ j-1, j' } - \xi \delta_{j, 2} \mathbf{x}_{ 1 } i \mathbf{G}_{ 2N+M , j' } = \delta_{j, j'} \mathbf{1} ~,
\label{Gfe definition} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{x}_{j } \equiv \mathbf{1} - i \delta z_{j} \mathbf{T}_{j}~.\end{aligned}$$ To solve equation (\[Gfe definition\]), we first introduce the Ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
i \mathbf{G}_{ j, j' } = \delta_{j, j'} \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{X}_{ j, j' }
\label{ansatz}\end{aligned}$$ in the second line of (\[Gfe definition\]); separating the case $j = 2$ from $j \neq 2$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{X}_{ 2, j' }
= \xi \mathbf{x}_{ 1 } \left( \mathbf{X}_{ 2N+M , j' } - \delta_{j', 2N+M} \mathbf{1} \right) ~, \nonumber \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\mathbf{X}_{ j \neq 2, j' }
= \mathbf{x}_{j-1 } \mathbf{X}_{ j-1, j' } - \delta_{j-1, j'} \mathbf{x}_{j-1 }~.
\label{Gfe passage 2} \end{aligned}$$ The second equation ($j \neq 2$) is solved by iteration: for some $n < j-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{X}_{ j, j' }
= \left( \overrightarrow{\prod_{m = 1}^{n} } \mathbf{x}_{j-m } \right) \mathbf{X}_{ j-n, j' } - \theta_{1 \leq j-j' \leq n} \left( \overrightarrow{\prod_{m = 1}^{j-j'}} \mathbf{x}_{j-m } \right) , \quad j > n + 1~,
\label{Gfe passage 3} \end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_p$ is the discrete step function ($\theta_p = 1$ if $p$ is true, $\theta_p = 0$ if $p$ is false), and we have introduced the contour-anti-ordered product $$\begin{aligned}
\overrightarrow{\prod_{m = 1}^n} \mathbf{f}_{m} \equiv \mathbf{f}_1 \mathbf{f}_2 \ldots \mathbf{f}_{n-1} \mathbf{f}_n~,\end{aligned}$$ which is accompanied by the contour-ordered product $$\begin{aligned}
\overleftarrow{\prod_{m = 1}^n} \mathbf{f}_{m} \equiv \mathbf{f}_n \mathbf{f}_{n-1} \ldots \mathbf{f}_2 \mathbf{f}_1~.\end{aligned}$$ From equation (\[Gfe passage 3\]), we take $n = j-2$ and, using the first among equations (\[Gfe passage 2\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
\fl \mathbf{X}_{ j, j' }
= \xi \left( \overleftarrow{\prod_{ m = 1 }^{ j-1}} \mathbf{x}_{m } \right)
\left( \mathbf{X}_{ 2N+M , j' } - \delta_{j', 2N+M} \mathbf{1} \right)
- \theta_{ j'\leq j -1 } \left( \overleftarrow{\prod_{m = j'}^{j - 1}} \mathbf{x}_{m } \right) , \quad j > 2~.
\label{Gfe passage 4} \end{aligned}$$ We take $j = 2N+M$ and solve for every $j'$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{X}_{ 2N+M , j' } = - \left( \mathbf{1} - \xi \mathbf{y}_{2N+M } \right)^{-1} \mathbf{y}_{2N+M } \mathbf{y}^{-1}_{j' }
+ \delta_{j', 2N+M} \mathbf{1}~,
\label{Xfe row 2N+M discrete} \end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the quantities $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{y}_{j } \equiv \left( \overleftarrow{\prod_{ m = 1 }^{j-1} } \mathbf{x}_{m } \right), \quad
\mathbf{y}^{-1}_{j } = \left( \overrightarrow{\prod_{ m = 1 }^{j-1} } \mathbf{x}^{-1}_{m } \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Inserting (\[Xfe row 2N+M discrete\]) into (\[Gfe passage 4\]), we solve the latter for $3 \leq j \leq 2N+M - 1$, while we solve for $j =2$ using (\[Gfe passage 2\]). The solutions for these cases can be combined into a single one: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{X}_{ j, j' }
= \mathbf{y}_{j } \left[ - \xi \left( \mathbf{1} - \xi \mathbf{y}_{2N+M } \right)^{-1} \mathbf{y}_{2N+M } - \theta_{ j'\leq j -1 } \mathbf{1} \right] \mathbf{y}^{-1}_{j' } .
\label{Xfe discrete} \end{aligned}$$ It can be seen that (\[Xfe discrete\]) coincides with (\[Xfe row 2N+M discrete\]) for $j = 2N+M$. Therefore, (\[Xfe discrete\]) represents the full solution for all values of $j, j'$. From (\[ansatz\]), we find the free-particle GF: $$\begin{aligned}
i \mathbf{G}_{ j, j' } = \mathbf{y}_{j } \left[ \xi \left( \mathbf{y}_{2N+M }^{-1} - \xi \mathbf{1} \right)^{-1} + \theta_{ j'\leq j } \mathbf{1} \right] \mathbf{y}^{-1}_{j' } ~.
\label{G discrete}\end{aligned}$$ We now take the continuum limit. We first introduce $$\begin{aligned}
\label{times}
& t_j = t_0 + (j - 1) \delta t~, \quad \mathrm{if} \,\, 1 \leq j \leq N ~; \nonumber \\
& t_j = t_0 + (2 N - j) \delta t~, \quad \mathrm{if} \,\, N + 1 \leq j \leq 2N ~; \nonumber \\
& t_j = t_0 - i (j - 2 N - 1) \delta t~, \quad \mathrm{if} \,\, 2 N + 1 \leq j \leq 2N + M~.\end{aligned}$$ These identities give the real (if $1 \leq j \leq 2N$) or complex (if $2 N + 1 \leq j \leq 2N + M$) time coordinates on the contour corresponding to the discrete index $j$.
Taking $\delta t$ as infinitesimally small, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{yj continuum 1}
\mathbf{y}_{j } \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_{\gamma} \exp \left[ - i \int_{t_{0+}}^{z_j} \mathrm{d} z' \, \mathbf{T}(z') \right]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{yj continuum 2}
\mathbf{y}_{j }^{-1} \rightarrow \overline{\mathcal{T}_{\gamma}} \exp \left[ i \int_{t_{0+}}^{z_j} \mathrm{d} z' \, \mathbf{T}(z') \right]~, \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{T}_{\gamma}$ is the contour-ordering operator along $\gamma$, and $\overline{\mathcal{T}_{\gamma}}$ is the analogous contour-anti-ordering operator. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{towards the number matrix}
\mathbf{y}_{2 N + M }^{-1} \rightarrow \overline{\mathcal{T}_{\gamma}} \exp \left[ i \int_{\gamma} \mathrm{d} z' \, \mathbf{T}(z') \right] \nonumber \\
= \left\{ \overline{\mathcal{T}_{\gamma}} \exp \left[ i \int_{t_{0+}}^{t_{0-}} \mathrm{d} z' \, \mathbf{T}(z') \right] \right\} \exp\left( \beta \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}}\right)~, \end{aligned}$$ where the simplification is possible due to the contour structure of the hopping detailed in equation (\[contour hopping\]). In the second step of (\[towards the number matrix\]), the contour-anti-ordered exponential is different from $\mathbf{1}$ only in the presence of sources, while the term $\exp\left( \beta \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}}\right)$ is a matrix generalization of the inverse Boltzmann factor. This suggests to introduce a generalized occupation-number matrix, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{number matrix with sources}
\mathbf{n}_{\xi} \equiv \left( \mathbf{y}_{2N+M }^{-1} - \xi \mathbf{1} \right)^{-1} \nonumber \\
\quad \,\, = \left\{ \overline{\mathcal{T}_{\gamma}} \exp \left[ i \int_{t_{0+}}^{t_{0-}} \mathrm{d} z' \, \mathbf{T}(z') \right] \exp\left( \beta \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}}\right) - \xi \mathbf{1} \right\}^{-1}~.\end{aligned}$$ We will see that, in the simplest cases, this quantity reduces to the standard occupation number.
We now switch to the full continuum notation for the GF, obtaining $$\begin{aligned}
i \mathbf{G}_{\xi}(z, z') & = \left\{ \mathcal{T}_{\gamma} \exp\left[ - i \int_{t_{0+}}^{z} \mathrm{d} z'' \, \mathbf{T}(z'') \right] \right\} \left[ \xi \mathbf{n}_{\xi} + \Theta(z, z') \mathbf{1} \right] \nonumber \\
& \quad \times \left\{ \overline{\mathcal{T}_{\gamma}} \exp\left[ i \int_{t_{0+}}^{z'} \mathrm{d} z'' \, \mathbf{T}(z'') \right] \right\} ~,
\label{G discrete continuum limit}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta(z,z')$ is the step function on $\gamma$, with $\Theta(z,z) = 1$.
Equation (\[G discrete continuum limit\]) represents the explicit nonequilibrium free-fermion and free-boson GFs on the KP time contour $\gamma$, for the most general case of a single-particle Hamiltonian with a non-trivial matrix structure, including time-dependent fields [*and*]{} sources. We note that, in the absence of sources ($V = 0$), equation (\[G discrete continuum limit\]) reduces to the noninteracting GF derived in [@Stefanucci] with the method of equations of motion. We will now consider several relevant cases in which (\[G discrete continuum limit\]) can be significantly simplified.
GFs in the absence of sources {#subsect: no V}
-----------------------------
Most nonequilibrium problems require functional differentiation with respect to the sources, followed by the evaluation of the result at $\mathbf{V}(z) = \mathbf{0}$. Therefore, although nonzero sources are needed to make the path integral meaningful, at some point in the calculation one typically needs to compute the GFs in the absence of sources. In this case, $\mathbf{T}(z) = \mathbf{T}(t)$ if $z \in \gamma_+ \cup \gamma_-$, while $\mathbf{T}(z) = \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}}$ if $z \in \gamma_{\mathrm{M}}$. Equations (\[yj continuum 1\]) and (\[yj continuum 2\]) simplify to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{simplify 1 1}
\mathbf{y}_{j } = \mathcal{T} \exp \left[ - i \int_{t_0}^{t_j} \mathrm{d} t' \, \mathbf{T}(t') \right] \quad \mathrm{if} \, z_j \in \gamma_+ \cup \gamma_- ~,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{simplify 1 2}
\mathbf{y}_{j } = \exp \left( - \tau \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}} \right) \quad \mathrm{if} \, z_j \in \gamma_{\mathrm{M}} ~,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{simplify 2 1}
\mathbf{y}_{j }^{-1} = \overline{\mathcal{T}} \exp \left[ i \int_{t_0}^{t_j} \mathrm{d} t' \, \mathbf{T}(t') \right] \quad \mathrm{if} \, z_j \in \gamma_+ \cup \gamma_- ~,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{simplify 2 2}
\mathbf{y}_{j }^{-1} = \exp \left( \tau \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}} \right) \quad \mathrm{if} \, z_j \in \gamma_{\mathrm{M}} ~, \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{T}$ and $\overline{\mathcal{T}}$ are the standard time-ordering and anti-time-ordering operators on the real axis, respectively, $t_j$ are the time coordinates defined as in (\[times\]), and $0< \tau < \beta$ parameterizes the Matsubara branch as $t_0 - i \tau$. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{y}_{ 2 N + M } = \exp \left( - \beta \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}} \right)~. \end{aligned}$$ The occupation number matrix introduced in (\[number matrix with sources\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{n}_{\xi} \equiv \left( \mathrm{e}^{ \beta \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}} } - \xi \mathbf{1} \right)^{-1}~,
\label{occupation number matrix}\end{aligned}$$ which is the matrix generalization of the occupation number resulting from either the Bose-Einstein or the Fermi-Dirac statistics. Once $z$ and $z'$ are specified, equation (\[G discrete continuum limit\]) is simplified using (\[simplify 1 1\])-(\[simplify 2 2\]) and (\[occupation number matrix\]).
GFs in the equilibrium case for a diagonal single-particle Hamiltonian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us consider the case of an equilibrium single-particle GF and assume that the single-particle Hamiltonian (and, therefore, the GF as well) is diagonal in the single-particle indexes. It should be noted that treating an equilibrium single-particle GF does not mean that the system must be at equilibrium. It only means that one chooses to exclude the nonequilibrium features from the definition of the single-particle Hamiltonian, i.e. the time-dependent fields are included into (\[S\_IV\]), despite being quadratic contributions to the action. Let $k$ be the set of single-particle quantum numbers. For a system of electrons on a lattice, such set would consist of the wavevector and a spin projection.
Including a possibly $k$-dependent chemical potential term (e.g. a spin-dependent chemical potential for electrons), which enters the definition of the Hamiltonian on the Matsubara branch, we find $T_{k , k'}(z) = \delta_{k, k'} \varepsilon_{k }(z)$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_{ k }(z) = \varepsilon_{ k } - \mu_{k} \Theta(z, t_{0-})~,\end{aligned}$$ and the number matrix reduces to the familiar occupation number, $$\begin{aligned}
n_{\xi; k } = \left( \mathrm{e}^{ \beta \left( \varepsilon_{ k } - \mu_{k} \right)} - \xi \right)^{-1} ~.\end{aligned}$$
In this case, the free-particle GF is diagonal, with diagonal components given by $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\xi ; k } (z,z') = & - i \, \mathrm{e}^{- i \left[ \varepsilon_{ k }(z) \left( t - t_0 \right) - \varepsilon_{ k }(z') \left( t' - t_0 \right) \right] } \left[ \xi \, n_{\xi ; k} + \Theta(z,z') \right] ~,
\label{Gf continuum}\end{aligned}$$ where $t$ and $t'$ are the (complex) time coordinates corresponding to the contour coordinates $z$ and $z'$, respectively. Recall that $\xi=\pm 1$ distinguishes between the bosonic and fermionic cases, respectively. Equation (\[Gf continuum\]) represents the generalization of the results given in [@Kamenev] for the SK time contour, to the case of the KP time contour.
To better illustrate the main features of equation (\[Gf continuum\]), we explicitly consider the various combinations obtained when the positions of $z$ and $z'$ on the contour are specified. First, consider the case in which both $z$ and $z'$ belong to the real-time branches (either to $\gamma_+$ or to $\gamma_-$). In this case, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
G^{ >}_{\xi; k } (t,t') = - i \, \mathrm{e}^{- i \varepsilon_{ k } \left( t - t' \right) } \left( 1 + \xi n_{\xi ; k} \right)~,\end{aligned}$$ if $z > z'$ (on the contour) and $$\begin{aligned}
G^{<}_{\xi ; k } (t,t') = - \xi \, i \, \mathrm{e}^{- i \varepsilon_{ k} \left( t - t' \right) } n_{\xi; k}~,\end{aligned}$$ if $z < z'$. These coincide with the standard [*greater*]{} and [*lesser*]{} nonequilibrium GFs which are also found in the SK formalism [@Kamenev].
On the KP contour, one also obtains the other Langreth components [@Stefanucci]. If $z$ belongs to one of the two real-time branches, while $z'$ is on the Matsubara branch, $$\begin{aligned}
G^{ \rceil}_{\xi ; k} (t,t_0 - i \tau) = - \xi \, i \, \mathrm{e}^{- i \varepsilon_{ k } \left( t - t_0 \right) } \mathrm{e}^{ \left( \varepsilon_{ k } - \mu_k \right) \tau } n_{\xi ; k}~.\end{aligned}$$ In the opposite case, when $z$ belongs to the Matsubara branch and $z'$ to one of the real-time branches, $$\begin{aligned}
G^{ \lceil}_{\xi ; k } (t_0 - i \tau, t) & = - i \, \mathrm{e}^{ i \varepsilon_{ k } \left( t - t_0 \right) } \mathrm{e}^{ - \left( \varepsilon_{ k } - \mu_k \right) \tau } \left( 1 + \xi n_{\xi ; k} \right) ~.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, if both $z$ and $z'$ belong to the Matsubara branch, $$\begin{aligned}
G^{ \rm M}_{\xi ; k } (t_0 - i \tau, t_0 - i \tau') & = - i \, \mathrm{e}^{ - \left( \varepsilon_{k} - \mu_k \right) \left( \tau - \tau' \right) } \left[ \theta(\tau - \tau') + \xi n_{\xi ; k} \right]~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta(\tau- \tau')$ is the ordinary step function.
Determinant {#sect: determinant}
-----------
In several applications which involve field integration over either the fermionic/bosonic degrees of freedom, it is necessary to know the determinant of $( - i \mathbf{G}^{-1}_{ j, j' })$. In general, explicit calculations of this quantity are difficult.
However, in the case when the hopping is diagonal, the calculation can be done easily and directly from equation (\[Gfe-1\]). The determinant can be evaluated using the Laplace theorem combined with the fact that the determinant of a triangular matrix is the product of its diagonal elements. The result is independent of $M$ and $N$ being even or odd, implying that it is well defined in the limit $M, N \rightarrow \infty$. We obtain (omitting the single-particle quantum numbers) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{det}( - i G^{-1}_{ j, j' }) = 1 - \xi \prod_{j = 1}^{2 N + M - 1} x_j = 1 - \xi y_{2 N + M } \rightarrow 1 - \xi \mathrm{e}^{- \beta \left( \varepsilon - \mu \right) } ~.
\label{determinant A}\end{aligned}$$
From the discrete to the continuum representation {#sect: discrete continuum}
=================================================
We now apply the continuum representation for the time domain, in order to make the path-integral construction meaningful. We define the operator $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbf{G}}^{ -1}_{\xi}(z,z') \equiv
\frac{\left( \mathbf{G}^{ -1}_{ \xi}\right)_{ j, j' }}{\delta z_{j-1} \delta z_{j'-1}}~,
\label{Gfe-1 continuum}\end{aligned}$$ which satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\gamma} \mathrm{d}z' \, \hat{\mathbf{G}}^{-1}_{\xi}(z,z')~\mathbf{G}_{\xi}(z',z'') = \mathbf{1} \delta(z, z'')~,
\label{Gfe-1 continuum definition}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{G}_{\xi}(z',z'')$ is given by (\[G discrete continuum limit\]) and $\delta(z, z'')$ is the Dirac delta on $\gamma$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(z, z'') \equiv \frac{\delta_{j, j''}}{\delta z_{j-1}}~.\end{aligned}$$ In the continuum, equation (\[free fermion discrete\]) reads as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{f}, Q}\left[ \overline{d} , d \right]
=
\int_{\gamma} \mathrm{d}z \int_{\gamma} \mathrm{d}z' \, \overline{d}(z) \cdot \hat{\mathbf{G}}^{ -1 }_{\mathrm{f}, Q}(z,z') \, d(z')~,
\label{fermions continuum}\end{aligned}$$ while equation (\[free boson discrete\]) reads as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{b}, Q}\left[ a^* , a \right]
=
\int_{\gamma} \mathrm{d}z \int_{\gamma} \mathrm{d}z' a^*(z) \cdot \hat{\mathbf{G}}^{ -1 }_{\mathrm{b}, Q}(z,z') \, a(z')~.
\label{bosons continuum}\end{aligned}$$ The dependence on the sources $V$ is implicit. The inverse GFs appearing in (\[fermions continuum\]) and (\[bosons continuum\]) are to be considered as merely symbolic objects. Any calculation (involving, for example, field integration or extremization of the action) must, at some stage, rely on a transformation from the inverse GF to the direct GF in equation (\[G discrete continuum limit\]). This encodes the boundary conditions arising from the procedure of construction of the path integral, while being fully well-defined in the continuum limit of the time domain.
An example: Spin evolution in a time-dependent Zeeman field {#sect:example}
===========================================================
To show how the KP time contour can be used to specify the initial state in practice, we consider a simple and well-known problem that can be solved analytically with elementary means, allowing for a straightforward comparison of the result with that obtained in the realm of path integrals.
The model involves a single electronic orbital subjected to a time-dependent magnetic field along a certain direction $x$, which couples to the spin through the Zeeman coupling. We neglect interactions, which would affect the doubly-occupied state and choose a basis for the electronic states where spin is quantized along $z$, with $z \perp x$. The Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\cal H}(t) \equiv B_x(t) \hat{s}_x~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{s}_x = ( \hat{d}^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} \hat{d}_{\downarrow} + \hat{d}^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} \hat{d}_{\uparrow}) / 2$ and $B_x(t)$ is the external magnetic field, in appropriate units. We assume $B_x(t_0) = 0$. Our goal is to compute the time-dependent density matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\sigma, \sigma'}(t) \equiv \left\langle \hat{\cal U}(t_0, t) \, \hat{d}^{\dagger}_{\sigma} \hat{d}_{\sigma'} \, \hat{\cal U}(t, t_0) \right\rangle~,
\label{ex rho}\end{aligned}$$ from which single-particle observables (particle number and spin components) can be read off. The quantity (\[ex rho\]) is obviously very sensitive to the initial preparation of the system, demonstrating spin precession if the spin in the initial state has a non-vanishing component perpendicular to $x$, or no evolution at all otherwise. In section \[subsect: QM\] we compute (\[ex rho\]) by using tools of basic quantum mechanics. Then, in section \[subsect: path\] we compute (\[ex rho\]) by using the KP partition function that we have derived before, to show that an appropriate choice of $\hat{\cal H}_{\mathrm M}$ allows to choose the initial state and therefore to reproduce all possible dynamical evolutions of the system.
Solution of the problem with ordinary quantum mechanics {#subsect: QM}
-------------------------------------------------------
We first solve the problem using ordinary quantum mechanics. The Fock space consists of four states: the vacuum $\left| 0 \right>$, the singly-occupied states $\hat{d}^{\dagger}_{\sigma} \left| 0 \right> \equiv \left| \sigma \right>$, and the doubly-occupied state $\hat{d}^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} \hat{d}^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} \left| 0 \right> \equiv \left| \uparrow \downarrow \right>$. The evolution operator, satisfying $i \, \partial_t \, \hat{\cal U}(t, t_0) = \hat{\cal H}(t) \, \hat{\cal U}(t, t_0) $ and $\hat{\cal U}(t_0, t_0) = \hat{1}$, is obtained directly as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\cal U}(t, t_0) & = \left| 0 \right> \left< 0 \right|
+ \left| \uparrow \downarrow \right> \left< \uparrow \downarrow \right| + \left\{ \cos\left[\theta(t) / 2\right] \left| \uparrow \right> - i \sin\left[\theta(t) / 2\right] \left| \downarrow \right> \right\} \left< \uparrow \right| \nonumber \\
%%%%%
& \quad + \left\{ \cos\left[\theta(t) / 2\right] \left| \downarrow \right> - i \sin\left[\theta(t) / 2 \right] \left| \uparrow \right> \right\} \left< \downarrow \right|~,
\label{ex U}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(t) \equiv \int^t_{t_0} \mathrm{d} t' B_x(t')~.
\label{ex theta}\end{aligned}$$ The expectation value in (\[ex rho\]) can be calculated from $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\sigma, \sigma'}(t) \equiv \sum_{n} W_n \left\langle n \right| \hat{\cal U}(t_0, t) \, \hat{d}^{\dagger}_{\sigma} \hat{d}_{\sigma'} \, \hat{\cal U}(t, t_0) \left| n \right\rangle~,\end{aligned}$$ where $W_n$ is the statistical weight of the Fock state $\left| n \right>$. The final result (after a number of simple trigonometric manipulations) is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\uparrow, \uparrow} = W_{\uparrow \downarrow} + \frac{1}{2} \left( W_{\uparrow} + W_{\downarrow} \right) + \frac{1}{2} \left( W_{\uparrow} - W_{\downarrow} \right) \cos\left[ \theta(t) \right]~, \nonumber \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\rho_{\uparrow, \downarrow} = - \frac{i}{2} \left( W_{\uparrow} - W_{\downarrow} \right) \sin\left[ \theta(t) \right]~, \nonumber \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\rho_{\downarrow, \uparrow} = \frac{i}{2} \left( W_{\uparrow} - W_{\downarrow} \right) \sin\left[ \theta(t) \right]~, \nonumber \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\rho_{\downarrow, \downarrow} = W_{\uparrow \downarrow} + \frac{1}{2} \left( W_{\uparrow} + W_{\downarrow} \right) - \frac{1}{2} \left( W_{\uparrow} - W_{\downarrow} \right) \cos\left[ \theta(t) \right]~.
\label{ex rho QM}\end{aligned}$$ It is important to notice that the freedom on the choice of the weights $W_n$ allows to prepare the system in a non-trivial initial state and to implement symmetry breaking. For example, if we make the rotationally symmetric choice $W_{\uparrow} = W_{\downarrow}$, we get $\rho_{\sigma, \sigma'}(t) = \delta_{\sigma, \sigma'} \left( W_{\uparrow \downarrow} + W_{\uparrow} \right)$: the density matrix becomes time-independent, encoding only information about the (constant) population of the orbital, as all the spin components are zero. This choice, in more sophisticated cases, is not uncommon at all: it is exactly what one would obtain from a grand canonical thermal mixture, where $W_n = \mathrm{e}^{- \beta (E_n - \mu N_n)} / \mathcal{Z}$ and $\mathcal{Z} = \sum_n \mathrm{e}^{- \beta (E_n - \mu N_n)}$. In such case, the equality between $W_{\uparrow}$ and $W_{\downarrow}$ comes from the degeneracy of the states $\left| \uparrow \right>$ and $\left| \downarrow \right>$ with respect to the Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal H}(t_0)$. It is by allowing $W_{\uparrow} \neq W_{\downarrow}$ (hence, deviating from a thermal mixture) that rotational symmetry is broken, the $z$ direction is selected as the one along which the spin is aligned in the initial state, and a non-trivial spin evolution occurs in response to the application of a magnetic field perpendicular to $z$.
Solution of the problem by means of the KP path integral approach {#subsect: path}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Can we obtain the same result (\[ex rho QM\]) within the KP path integral formulation? In particular, do we have the same freedom on the preparation of the initial state? To see this, let us follow the procedure outlined above. Recalling that $B_x(t_0) = 0$, we take the following Hamiltonian on the Matsubara branch: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Matsubara spin}
\hat{\cal H}_{\rm M} = - \mu \left( \hat{n}_{\uparrow} + \hat{n}_{\downarrow} \right) + \sum_{\sigma} (\sigma \Delta)~\hat{n}_{\sigma}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{n}_{\sigma}=\hat{d}^\dagger_{\sigma} \hat{d}_{\sigma}$. The inclusion of the second term ($\propto \Delta$) in equation (\[Matsubara spin\]), which is equivalent to assuming a spin-dependent chemical potential, is the key tool that allows to break rotational symmetry in the initial-state preparation. We emphasize that (\[Matsubara spin\]), for $\Delta \neq 0$, is crucially different from the grand-canonical Matsubara Hamiltonian, which would be equal to $- \mu \left( \hat{n}_{\uparrow} + \hat{n}_{\downarrow} \right)$. Therefore, we are [*not*]{} choosing a thermal mixture.
The nonequilibrium partition function, from equation (\[ZKB\]), is $$\begin{aligned}
Z\left[ V \right] = \mathcal{Z}^{-1} \int \mathcal{D} \left(\overline{d}, d \right) \mathrm{e}^{i S^{(V)}\left[\overline{d}, d \right]}~,
\label{ex ZKB}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} = \mathrm{Tr}\!\left( \mathrm{e}^{- \beta \hat{\cal H}_{\mathrm{M}}}\right) = 1 + \mathrm{e}^{\beta (\mu - \Delta)} + \mathrm{e}^{\beta (\mu + \Delta)} + \mathrm{e}^{2 \beta \mu }
\label{Z equilibrium spin problem}\end{aligned}$$ is the equilibrium partition function. Because $Z[0] = 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int \mathcal{D} \left(\overline{d}, d \right) \mathrm{e}^{i S^{(0)}\left[\overline{d}, d \right]} = \mathcal{Z}~.\end{aligned}$$ The action is quadratic, as in (\[fermions continuum\]). The free-electron GF has the general form given by (\[G discrete continuum limit\]), with $\mathbf{T}$ being a matrix in spin space only: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{T}(z) & = \left( \bm{\sigma}_3 \Delta - \mathbf{1} \mu \right) \Theta(z, t_{0-}) + \bm{\sigma}_1 \frac{B_x(t)}{2} \Theta(t_{0-}, z) \nonumber \\
& \equiv \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}} \, \Theta(z, t_{0-}) + \mathbf{T}(t) \, \Theta(t_{0-}, z)~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{1}$ is the $2 \times 2$ identity and $\bm{\sigma}_{n}$ are ordinary $2\times2$ Pauli matrices. The source term in the action is $$\begin{aligned}
V\left[ \overline{d}(z), d(z) ; z \right] \equiv \sum_{\sigma, \sigma' } V_{\sigma, \sigma'}(z) \, \overline{d}_{\sigma}(z) \, d_{\sigma'}(z)~,\end{aligned}$$ so that the density matrix is obtained from functional differentiation with respect to the source fields as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\sigma, \sigma'}(t) = \frac{i}{2} \left. \left\{ \frac{\delta Z[V]}{\delta V_{\sigma, \sigma'}(t_+) }
+ \frac{\delta Z[V]}{\delta V_{\sigma, \sigma'}(t_-) } \right\} \right|_{V = 0}~.
\label{ex rho path integral}\end{aligned}$$ Carrying out the path integral in (\[ex ZKB\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Z_0\left[ V \right] = \mathcal{Z}^{-1} \mathrm{det} \left( - i \, G^{-1}[V] \right)
= \mathcal{Z}^{-1} \mathrm{e}^{ \mathrm{tr} \, \mathrm{ln} \left( - i \, G^{-1}[V] \right) } ~.
\label{ex ZKB - 0}\end{aligned}$$ The explicit calculation of (\[ex rho path integral\]) requires the following identity: $$\begin{aligned}
\fl \mathrm{tr} \left. \frac{\delta \, \mathrm{ln} \left( - i \, G^{-1}[V] \right) }{\delta V_{\sigma, \sigma'}(z) }
\right|_{V = 0}
= \mathrm{tr}\left\{ G[0] \left. \frac{\delta \left( G^{-1}[V] \right) }{\delta V_{\sigma, \sigma'}(z) }
\right|_{V = 0} \right\} = - G_{\sigma', \sigma}(z, z + 0) ~,\end{aligned}$$ where $V = 0$ is intended in the last line. We finally find $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\sigma, \sigma'}(t) = - i G_{\sigma', \sigma}[t_+, (t + 0)_+] \equiv - i G^<_{\sigma', \sigma}(t, t) ~.
\label{ex rho path integral nonint}\end{aligned}$$ To calculate the GF, let us consider equation (\[G discrete continuum limit\]) specialized to our case. Since the GF needs to be calculated in the absence of sources, we can use the simplifications discussed in section \[subsect: no V\]. We find $$\begin{aligned}
- i \mathbf{G}^<(t, t) & = \left\{ \mathcal{T} \exp\left[ - i \int_{t_0}^{t} \mathrm{d} t' \, \mathbf{T}(t') \right] \right\} \mathbf{n}_{\mathrm{f}} \left\{ \overline{\mathcal{T} } \exp\left[ i \int_{t_0}^{t} \mathrm{d} t' \, \mathbf{T}(t') \right] \right\} \nonumber \\
& = \exp\left[ - i \bm{\sigma}_1 \theta(t) / 2 \right] \mathbf{n}_{\mathrm{f}} \exp\left[ i \bm{\sigma}_1 \theta(t) / 2 \right] ~,
\label{ex G}\end{aligned}$$ where we have exploited the fact that $\mathbf{T}(t)$ commutes with itself at different times. The exponentials of the Pauli matrix give the usual result: $$\begin{aligned}
\exp\left[ \pm i \bm{\sigma}_1 \theta(t) / 2 \right] = \mathbf{1} \cos\left[ \theta(t) / 2 \right] \pm i \bm{\sigma}_1 \sin\left[ \theta(t) / 2 \right]~.\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[ex G\]) includes information about the preparation of the initial state via the occupation number matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \mathbf{n}_{\mathrm{f}} \right)_{\sigma, \sigma'} = \left[ \exp\left( \beta \mathbf{T}^{\mathrm{M}} \right) + \mathbf{1} \right]^{-1}_{\sigma, \sigma'} = \delta_{\sigma, \sigma'} \left( \mathrm{e}^{\beta \left( \sigma\Delta - \mu \right)} + 1 \right)^{-1} \equiv \delta_{\sigma, \sigma'} \, n_{\mathrm{f}, \sigma}~.
\label{occupation matrix}\end{aligned}$$ The components of (\[ex G\]), after simple trigonometric manipulations, can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
- i G_{\uparrow, \uparrow}^<(t, t) = \frac{1}{2} \left( n_{\mathrm{f}, \uparrow} + n_{\mathrm{f}, \downarrow} \right) + \frac{1}{2} \left( n_{\mathrm{f}, \uparrow} - n_{\mathrm{f}, \downarrow} \right) \cos\left[ \theta(t) \right]\equiv \rho_{\uparrow, \uparrow}(t)~, \nonumber \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
- i G_{\uparrow, \downarrow}^<(t, t) = \frac{i}{2} \left( n_{\mathrm{f}, \uparrow} - n_{\mathrm{f}, \downarrow} \right) \sin\left[ \theta(t) \right] \equiv \rho_{\downarrow, \uparrow}(t)~, \nonumber \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
- i G_{\downarrow, \uparrow}^<(t, t) = - \frac{i}{2} \left(n_{\mathrm{f}, \uparrow} - n_{\mathrm{f}, \downarrow} \right) \sin\left[ \theta(t) \right] \equiv \rho_{\uparrow, \downarrow}(t)~, \nonumber \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
- i G_{\downarrow, \downarrow}^<(t, t)
= \frac{1}{2} \left( n_{\mathrm{f}, \uparrow} + n_{\mathrm{f}, \downarrow} \right) - \frac{1}{2} \left( n_{\mathrm{f}, \uparrow} - n_{\mathrm{f}, \downarrow} \right) \cos\left[ \theta(t) \right]
\equiv \rho_{\downarrow, \downarrow}(t)~,
\label{ex G final}\end{aligned}$$ where we have identified the components of the density matrix $\rho_{\sigma, \sigma'}(t)$ according to (\[ex rho path integral nonint\]) (minding the matrix transposition).
We immediately see that the resulting density matrix, calculated from the path integral on the KP contour, has the same form as that computed with ordinary quantum mechanics—see equations (\[ex rho QM\])—once the following identifications are made: $$\begin{aligned}
n_{\mathrm{f}, \uparrow} = W_{\uparrow, \downarrow} + W_{\uparrow} ~, \quad
n_{\mathrm{f}, \downarrow} = W_{\uparrow, \downarrow} + W_{\downarrow} ~,
\label{equations for W}\end{aligned}$$ where the weights $W$ in the right-hand sides are those appearing in (\[ex rho QM\]). One solution of equations (\[equations for W\]) is given by the grand-canonical statistical weights $$\begin{aligned}
W_{\uparrow} = \mathcal{Z}^{-1} \mathrm{e}^{- \beta \left(\Delta - \mu \right)} ~, \quad
W_{\downarrow} = \mathcal{Z}^{-1} \mathrm{e}^{- \beta \left(- \Delta - \mu \right)} ~, \quad
W_{\uparrow \downarrow} = \mathcal{Z}^{-1} \mathrm{e}^{2 \beta \mu } ~, \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{Z}$ is the equilibrium partition function given in (\[Z equilibrium spin problem\]). Note that $\Delta \neq 0$ (i.e. a non-thermal choice for $\hat{\cal H}_{\mathrm M}$) is essential to realize spin symmetry breaking in our example, as it allows for $W_{\downarrow} \neq W_{\uparrow}$ and to tune the relative weights at will. Moreover, taking the limit $\Delta \rightarrow + \infty$ allows to prepare the system in the $\left| \downarrow \right\rangle$ state ($W_{\downarrow} = 1$, $W_{\uparrow} = 0$) and, viceversa, taking the limit $\Delta \rightarrow - \infty$ allows to prepare the system in the $\left| \uparrow \right\rangle$ state ($W_{\downarrow} = 0, W_{\uparrow} = 1$).
This simple example illustrates the power of the path integral approach on the KP contour, which gives us the full freedom of defining the Hamiltonian on the Matsubara branch in an arbitrary way.
Summary and conclusions {#sect:summary}
=======================
In summary, we have presented a discrete temporal procedure for the rigorous construction of the nonequilibrium path integral on the KP time contour. Our main result is that we have rigorously converted the general (contour-independent) expressions given by equations (\[S\_f\]) and (\[S\_b\]) into the forms of equations (\[fermions continuum\]) and (\[bosons continuum\]), via the expression of the GF, equation (\[G discrete continuum limit\]), that is specific of the KP contour.
Our procedure generalizes the one used for the SK contour [@Kamenev], allowing us to include the imaginary-time (Matsubara) branch in addition to the real-time branches. Consequently, path-integral theories on the KP time contour can account, in principle, for arbitrarily correlated initial states and/or statistical mixtures, or particular chosen pure states.
Of course, many of the results that can be usually achieved with path integrals can also be obtained by applying other methods, such as the equations of motion for nonequilibrium GFs. However, path integrals are extremely useful when part of the fields entering the action can be integrated away, and/or when a suitable Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation on the interaction term yields a meaningful physical theory which can then be studied, e.g., via a saddle-point approximation. Interested readers can find the application of all these procedures in the context of a theory of laser-induced nonequilibrium superconductivity [@Secchi17].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 785219 - GrapheneCore2. We thank Alex Kamenev for very stimulating comments on our manuscript.
[77]{} J. Schwinger, [J. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 407 (1961)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1703727). L.V. Keldysh, [Sov. Phys. JETP [**20**]{}, 1018 (1965)](http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_020_04_1018.pdf). O.V. Kostantinov and V.I. Perel’, [Sov. Phys. JETP [**12**]{}, 142 (1961)](http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_012_01_0142.pdf). L.P. Kadanoff and G. Baym, [*Quantum Statistical Mechanics*]{} (Benjamin, New York, 1962). J. Rammer and H. Smith, [Rev. Mod. Phys. [**58**]{}, 323 (1986)](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.58.323). G. Stefanucci and R. van Leeuwen, [*Nonequilibrium Many-Body Theory of Quantum Systems*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013). R. van Leeuwen and G. Stefanucci, [J. Phys.: Conference Series [**427**]{}, 012001 (2013)](https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/427/1/012001). M. M. Odashima, and C. H. Lewenkopf, [Phys. Rev. B [**95**]{}, 104301 (2017)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.104301). L. Kantorovich, [Phys. Rev. B [**98**]{}, 014307 (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.014307). M. Bonitz, S. Hermanns, K. Kobusch, and K. Balzer, [J. Phys.: Conference Series [**427**]{}, 012002 (2013)](https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/427/1/012002). M. Schüler, M. Eckstein, and P. Werner, [Phys. Rev. B [**97**]{}, 245129 (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.245129). D. Karlsson, R. van Leeuwen, E. Perfetto, and G. Stefanucci, [Phys. Rev. B [**98**]{}, 115148 (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.115148). O. Abdurazakov, D. Nevola, A. Rustagi, J. K. Freericks, D. B. Dougherty, and A. F. Kemper, [Phys. Rev. B [**98**]{}, 245110 (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.245110). M. Hopjan and C. Verdozzi, [Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics (2019)](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2018-800054-3). A. Kamenev, [*Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011). N. Taniguchi, [Phys. Rev. A [**96**]{}, 042105 (2017)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.042105). S. De Nicola, B. Doyon, and M. J. Bhaseen, [J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**52**]{}, 05LT02 (2019)](https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/aaf9be). A. Secchi and M. Polini, [Phys. Rev. B [**98**]{}, 144513 (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.144513). A. Secchi, A.I. Lichtenstein, and M.I. Katsnelson, [Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 085153 (2016)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.085153). J.W. Negele and H. Orland, [*Quantum Many-Particle Systems*]{}, (Westview Press, 1998). A. Altland and B. Simons, [*Condensed Matter Field Theory*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010). H. Ezawa and J. R. Klauder, [Progr. Theor. Phys. [**74**]{}, 904-915 (1985)](https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.74.904).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We provide a rigorous derivation of a quantum filter for the case of multiple measurements being made on a quantum system. We consider a class of measurement processes which are functions of bosonic field operators, including combinations of diffusive and Poissonian processes. This covers the standard cases from quantum optics, where homodyne detection may be described as a diffusive process and photon counting may be described as a Poissonian process. We obtain a necessary and sufficient condition for any pair of such measurements taken at different output channels to satisfy a commutation relationship. Then, we derive a general, multiple-measurement quantum filter as an extension of a single-measurement quantum filter [@bouten2007introduction]. As an application we explicitly obtain the quantum filter corresponding to homodyne detection and photon counting at the output ports of a beam splitter, correcting an earlier result [@Kuramochi2013].'
address: 'School of Engineering and Information Technology, University of New South Wales, ADFA, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia'
author:
- 'Muhammad F. Emzir, Matthew J. Woolley, Ian R. Petersen'
bibliography:
- 'Reference.bib'
title: Quantum filtering for multiple diffusive and Poissonian measurements
---
November 2014
Introduction
============
An optimal filter provides the best estimate of unknown variables through a set of observations of a system. To construct the filter, we need three key ingredients. The first is the probability law corresponding to an observation event. The second is the conditional expectation, which relates an observation result to the unknown variables. Finally, we need to construct the stochastic differential equations, which describe the estimation result.\
The quantum filtering problem was considered in the early 1980’s in a series of articles by Belavkin [@Belavkin1992; @belavkin1980quantum; @belavkin1989nondemolition]. In quantum mechanics, any two random variables (represented by operators) do not always commute. This fact requires an extension of Kolmogorov’s classical probability theory to the non-commutative probability theory used in quantum filtering. In the theoretical physics community, the quantum filtering problem is known under the names of the stochastic master equation and quantum trajectory theory [@carmichael1993open; @wiseman2010quantum].\
Quantum filters are typically derived for the case of single measurements. The quantum filtering problem with multiple output fields has been developed using quantum trajectory theory in Refs. [@wiseman2010quantum; @wiseman2001complete] with application to multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) quantum feedback [@chia2011quantum]. In Ref. [@nurdin2014quantum], the multiple-output measurements of the generalized “dyne” type were also considered for the case of a zero-mean jointly Gaussian state. It is desirable to extend these results to cover a wider class of measurements, e.g., to include both homodyne detection and photon counting in a quantum optics setting. However, in the case of multiple measurements, it is not clear whether every possible combination of measurements will satisfy the commutation relations required for a joint probability density of the multiple measurements to exist.\
A jump-diffusive quantum trajectory has also been derived in Ref. [@pellegrini2010markov] using a classical Markov chain approximation of the environmental field, where the system is assumed to interact with the environment over a small time interval. The infinitesimal generator of the Markov process is obtained as the limiting case when the interaction time goes to zero. Recently Ref. [@amini2014] proved that for a general class of stochastic master equations (SME) driven simultaneously by Wiener and Poissonian process, the quantum filter possesses sub-martingale properties for the fidelity between the estimated state and the actual state. Our quantum filter’s SME descriptions will also fall within a class of the SMEs considered in Ref. [@amini2014]. However, we derive the filter using quantum stochastic calculus for a class of measurement processes which are functions of bosonic field operators, including combinations of diffusive and Poissonian processes.\
Within the experimental quantum optics community, simultaneous measurement of quantum systems are frequently performed [@Broome15022013; @Spring15022013; @lang2013correlations]. Previously, non-classical states of light have been reconstructed via post-processing of homodyne detection measurement data [@NeergaardNielsen2008; @KatanyaB.Kuntz2014]. The thousands of homodyne detection records triggered by photon counts were sampled to construct a Wigner function using a heuristic time window approach. One could replace this procedure with the more systematic quantum filtering approach for multiple measurements that we have derived. In addition to this, the quantum filtering approach using both homodyne and photon counting detections could possibly be used as a solution to the number-resolved photon counting problem, [@chen2011microwave].\
The purpose of this article is to derive using quantum stochastic calculus, the quantum filter corresponding to multiple measurements made on a quantum system. To achieve this, we first investigate the commutativity of multiple measurement processes [@belavkin1989nondemolition]. We use the definitions of concatenation and series product [@gough2009series] to describe quantum systems composed of multiple interacting open quantum systems, each of them described by $(S,L,H)$ parameters [@parthasarathy2012]. We then formulate a general quantum filter for a quantum system with a finite number of commutative measurements.\
We will show that the quantum filter for a quantum system with multiple measurement outputs can be described by a stochastic master equation for the conditional density operator as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
d\rho_t = & \underbrace{\left[-i\left[H_t,\rho_t\right] + \mathbf{L}^{\top}\rho_t\mathbf{L}^{\ast} - \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{L}^{\dagger}\mathbf{L}\rho_t - \frac{1}{2}\rho_t\mathbf{L}^{\dagger}\mathbf{L}\right]dt }_{\text{a-priori}}+ \underbrace{\zeta^{\top}\Sigma^{-\top}d\mathbf{W}}_{\text{innovation term}}.
\end{aligned}$$ This equation includes an a-priori part which is the original unconditional quantum master equation, and a stochastic part which is contained in the *innovation term*. The innovation term relates the measurement records to the evolution of the conditional density operator. In this equation, $d\mathbf{W}$ is a vector of the “error” between the actual measurement and the expected value. $\zeta^{\top}\Sigma^{-\top}$ is the weighting function which associates the contribution of each measurement to the total increment of the conditional density operator. Generally, the evolution of the conditional density operator above will contain both diffusion and jump processes, which allows for simultaneous photon counting and homodyne detection.\
We apply our filter to the simple case of photon counting and homodyne measurement at the outputs of a single beam splitter [@carmichael2000giant]. shows a typical arrangement of photon counting and homodyne detection at the output ports of a beam splitter in a quantum optics experiment. In Ref. [@Kuramochi2013], simultaneous continuous measurement of photon counting and homodyne has been considered. However, their derivation does not appropriately account for the presence of the beam splitter. We correct the result of Ref. [@Kuramochi2013], and then give our result for the photon counting and homodyne detection filter in the form of an unnormalized stochastic Schrödinger equation (SSE).\
We refer the readers to Ref. [@bouten2007introduction] for background material, such as an introduction to quantum stochastic calculus, quantum probability, and quantum non-demolition measurements. Furthermore, without loss of generality, the field is assumed to initially be in the vacuum state and the reduced Planck constant $\hbar$ is set to one. We will assume that the quantum stochastic differential equation (QSDE) parameters $S,L,H$ are bounded to ensure that the corresponding solution is unique and unitary, as well as reducing the technical difficulties that arise.
![Simultaneous photon counting and homodyne detection at the outputs of a beam splitter in a quantum optics experiment.[]{data-label="fig:DoubleMeasurement"}](Diagram){width="\textwidth"}
Preliminary
===========
Notation
--------
Von Neumann algebras and $\sigma$-algebras are written in calligraphic symbols (e.g. $\mathcal{B}$ for the Borel $\sigma$-algebras on $\mathbb{R}$). As usual, classical probability spaces are written as $(\Omega, \mathcal{F},\mu)$. $\mathbb{E}_{\rho}$ will be used for the expectation of an observable with respect to the density matrix $\rho$. Plain capital letters (e.g. $P$) will be used to denote elements of von Neumann algebras. Bold letters (e.g. $\mathbf{X}$) will be used to denote a matrix whose elements are Hilbert space operators. Serif symbols (e.g. $\mathsf{H}$) are used for Hilbert spaces. Hilbert space adjoints, are indicated by $^{\ast}$, while the complex conjugate transpose will be denoted by $\dagger$, i.e. $\left(\mathbf{X}^{\ast}\right)^{\top} = \mathbf{X}^{\dagger}$. For single-element operators we will use $*$ and $\dagger$ interchangeably. The Hilbert space inner product of $X$ and $Y$ is given by ${\langleX,Y\rangle}$. The commutator of $X$ and $Y$ is given by $[X, Y ] = XY - YX$.
Multiple Output and Input Channels Open Quantum System
------------------------------------------------------
The dynamics of an open quantum system with multiple bosonic field input and output channels can be described via annihilation, creation and conservation processes. First, let ${z_k, k \geq 1}$ in $\mathsf{V}$ be a complete orthonormal basis. A single particle Hilbert space $\mathsf{h}$ is defined as $\mathsf{V}\otimes L^2(\mathbb{R}_+)$. The *symmetric* Fock space over $\mathsf{h}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(\mathsf{h}) = \oplus_{n=0}^{\infty}{\mathsf{h}_{\textcircled{s}}}^{n},
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathsf{h}_{\textcircled{s}}}^{n}$ is the $n-$fold symmetric tensor product of $\mathsf{h}$. The exponential vector $e(u) \in \Gamma(\mathsf{h})$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
e(u) = \oplus_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} u^{\otimes^n}.
\end{aligned}$$ The vacuum vector $\Phi$ corresponds to the exponential vector with $u=0$, whilst other coherent vectors $\psi(u)$ are the normalized exponential vectors $e(u), u\neq 0$. The Weyl operator $W(u,U), u \in \mathsf{h}, U \in \mathcal{B}(\mathsf{h})$ is a unique unitary transformation operating on $e(u)$ defined by [@parthasarathy2012 20] $$\begin{aligned}
W(u,U)e(v) = \left\{\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}{\left\lVertu\right\rVert}^2 - {\langleu,Uv\rangle}\right)\right\}e\left(Uv+u\right).\label{eq:WeylOperator}
\end{aligned}$$\
For any $f \in \mathsf{h}$, let us define $f_k (t) \equiv \langle z_k | f(t) \rangle$. The annihilation $A_k (t) $, creation $A^{\dagger}_k (t)$ and conservation $\Lambda^{\dagger}_{kl} (t)$ processes related to the orthonormal basis $z_k$ are given by [@barchielli2006continual],
$$\begin{aligned}
A_k (t) & \equiv a (z_k \otimes I_{(0,t]}),\\
A^{\dagger}_k (t) & \equiv a^{\dagger} (z_k \otimes I_{(0,t]}),\\
\Lambda^{\dagger}_{kl} (t) & \equiv \lambda (|z_k\rangle\langle z_l| \otimes I_{(0,t]}),\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:QuantumFundamentalProcesses\]
here the operators $a, a^{\dagger}$ and $\lambda$ is the Stone generator of the corresponding Weyl operators, defined for $H = |z_k\rangle\langle z_l| \otimes I_{(0,t]}$ and $u = z_k \otimes I_{(0,t]}$, $$\begin{aligned}
W\left(0,\exp(i t H)\right) = \exp(-it\lambda(H)) ,\; W\left(tu,I\right) = \exp(-itp(u)), \\
q = p(iu) ,\; a(u)=\frac{1}{2}\left(q(u)+ip(u)\right) ,\; a^{\dagger}(u)=\frac{1}{2}\left(q(u)-ip(u)\right).\end{aligned}$$
In the coherent vector domain, the following commutation relations hold,
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[A_k(t),A_l(s)\right] = &\left[A^{\dagger}_k(t),A^{\dagger}_l(s)\right] = 0 \; , \left[A_k(t),A^{\dagger}_l(s)\right] = \delta_{kl} \min(t,s).
\end{aligned}$$
\
In addition, other commutation relations can be obtained using the general Itô multiplications as below [@parthasarathy2012; @barchielli2006continual],
$$\begin{aligned}
dt & \equiv d\Lambda_{00} \; , dA_k \equiv d\Lambda_{0k} \; , dA^{\dagger}_k \equiv d\Lambda_{k0}, \\
d\Lambda_{k} & \equiv d\Lambda_{kk} \; , d\Lambda_{kr}(t)d\Lambda_{sl}(t) = \hat{\delta}_{rs}d\Lambda_{kl},\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:GeneralItoMultiplication\]
\
where $\hat{\delta}_{rs}=0, \forall r=0 \cup s=0$ and $\hat{\delta}_{rs} = \delta_{rs}$ otherwise. The evolution of a system observable in the Heisenberg picture is given by $$\begin{aligned}
X_t \equiv & U^{\dagger}_t\left(X \otimes I \right)U_t \label{eq:UnitaryMap}\end{aligned}$$\
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be an open quantum system with parameters $(\mathbf{S},\mathbf{L},H)$, and $\mathbf{S}\mathbf{S}^{\dagger} = \mathbf{S}^{\dagger}\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{I}$. For any system observable $X$, the following QSDE in the Heisenberg picture is obtained, $$\begin{aligned}
dX_t = & \left(-i\left[X_t,H_t\right] + \mathcal{L}_L (X_t)\right)dt + d\mathbf{A}^{\dagger}_t\mathbf{S}^{\dagger}_t\left[X_t,\mathbf{L}_t\right] + \left[\mathbf{L}^{\dagger}_t,X_t\right]\mathbf{S}_t d\mathbf{A}_t\nonumber\\
& + \text{tr}\left[\left(\mathbf{S}^{\dagger}_t X_t \mathbf{S}_t - X_t\right)d\mathbf{\Lambda}_t^{\top}\right], \label{eq:QSDE_X}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{L}_L (X_t) = \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{L}_t^{\dagger} \left[X_t,\mathbf{L}_t\right] + \frac{1}{2} \left[\mathbf{L}_t^{\dagger},X_t\right]\mathbf{L}_t$, is the Lindbladian super operator, and all operators evolve according to Eq. , i.e. $\mathbf{L}_t \equiv U^{\dagger}_t\left(\mathbf{L} \otimes I \right)U_t$. In the Schrödinger picture, the corresponding unitary operator evolution is $$\begin{aligned}
dU_t = & \left[\text{tr}\left[\left(\mathbf{S} - \mathbf{I}\right)d\mathbf{\Lambda}^\top_t\right] + d\mathbf{A}^{\dagger}_t \mathbf{L} - \mathbf{L}^{\dagger}\mathbf{S} d\mathbf{A}_t - \left(\dfrac{1}{2}\mathbf{L}^{\dagger}\mathbf{L}+iH\right)dt\right]U_t \;, U_0 = I\label{eq:UnitaryEvolution}\end{aligned}$$ The evolution of the output fields is given by [@gough2009series]
$$\begin{aligned}
d\tilde{\mathbf{A}}_t =& \mathbf{S}_td\mathbf{A}_t + \mathbf{L}_t dt,\\
d\tilde{\mathbf{\Lambda}}_t =& \mathbf{S}_t^{*} d\mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{S}_t^{\top} + \mathbf{S}_t^{*} d\mathbf{A}_t^{\ast}\mathbf{L}_t^{\top} + \mathbf{L}_t^{\ast}d\mathbf{A}_t^{\top}\mathbf{S}_t^{\top} + \mathbf{L}^{\ast}\mathbf{L}^{\top}dt.
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:OutputFieldEvolution\]
Subsequently, we will show our first result, which will ensure that for a class of output measurements, the commutation relation is satisfied, and hence the corresponding joint probability density function exists.
Main Results
============
Commutativity of Open Quantum System Output Channels
----------------------------------------------------
\[def:Commutation\]\[Commutator of two vectors with non-commutative elements\] Let $\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b} \in \mathcal{B}(\mathsf{H})^{n \times 1}$ be vectors whose elements are non-commutative. The commutator of a pair $\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
[\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}] = & \mathbf{a}\mathbf{b}^{\top} - \left(\mathbf{b}\mathbf{a}^{\top}\right)^{\top}.
\end{aligned}$$
Notice that in Definition \[def:Commutation\], in general, $\left(\mathbf{b}\mathbf{a}^{\top}\right)^{\top} \neq \mathbf{a}\mathbf{b}^{\top}$ due to the non-commutativity of the elements in the pair $\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}$. We further define the self-commutator of a vector $\mathbf{a}$ whose elements are non-commutative as $[\mathbf{a},\mathbf{a}]$. It is important to see that the self-commutator is not always equals to zero, as the following simple example shows.
\[exm:a-adagger\] Let $\mathbf{a} = \left[a \; a^{\dagger}\right]^{\top}$,where $a$ is an annihilation operator defined for a Fock space $\Gamma(\mathsf{h})$. Then by Definition \[def:Commutation\], the self-commutator of $\mathbf{a}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
[\mathbf{a},\mathbf{a}] = & \mathbf{a}\mathbf{a}^{\top} - \left(\mathbf{a}\mathbf{a}^{\top}\right)^{\top}\\
= & \begin{bmatrix}
aa & aa^{\dagger},\\
a^{\dagger}a & a^{\dagger}a^{\dagger}
\end{bmatrix} -
\begin{bmatrix}
aa & a^{\dagger}a\\
aa^{\dagger} & a^{\dagger}a^{\dagger}
\end{bmatrix}
\\
= & \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1\\
-1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$
As the definition and example clearly show, for self-commutator, commutativity is implied by the symmetry properties of $\mathbf{a}\mathbf{a}^{\top}$. Now consider a general measurement equation, which is a function of the field output annihilation, creation, and conservation processes, $$\begin{aligned}
d\mathbf{Y}_t =& \mathbf{F}_t^{\ast}d\tilde{\mathbf{A}}_t^{\ast} +\mathbf{F}_t d\tilde{\mathbf{A}}_t+ \mathbf{G}_t d\tilde{\mathbf{\lambda}}_t,\label{eq:GeneralMeasurement}\\
d\tilde{\mathbf{\lambda}}_t =& \text{diag}\left(d\tilde{\mathbf{\Lambda}}_t\right).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$\
Substituting Eq. into , we can write the general measurement equation as
$$\begin{aligned}
d\mathbf{Y}_t =& \mathbf{F}_t^{\ast} d\mathbf{a}_1+\mathbf{F}_t d\mathbf{a}_2 + d\mathbf{a}_3 + \mathbf{G}_t \left(d\mathbf{b}_1+ d\mathbf{b}_2+d\mathbf{b}_3+d\mathbf{b}_4\right),
\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
d\mathbf{a}_{1,i} =& \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \mathbf{S}^{*}_{ik}d\mathbf{\Lambda}_{k0} , &
d\mathbf{a}_{2,i} =& \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \mathbf{S}_{ik}d\mathbf{\Lambda}_{ok} , &
d\mathbf{a}_{3,i} =& \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \left[\left(\mathbf{FL}\right)^{*}_{i1}+\left(\mathbf{FL}\right)_{i1}\right]dt,\\
d\mathbf{b}_{1,i} =& \sum_{k,k' = 1}^{n} \mathbf{S}^{*}_{ik}d\mathbf{\Lambda}_{kk'}\mathbf{S}^{\top}_{k'i} , &
d\mathbf{b}_{2,i} =& \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \mathbf{S}^{*}_{ik}d\mathbf{\Lambda}_{k0}\mathbf{L}^{\top}_{1i} , &
d\mathbf{b}_{3,i} =& \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \mathbf{L}^{*}_{i1}d\mathbf{\Lambda}^{\top}_{0k}\mathbf{S}^{\top}_{ki},\\
d\mathbf{b}_{4,i} =& \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \mathbf{L}^{*}_{i1}\mathbf{L}^{\top}_{1i} dt.
\end{aligned}$$\[eq:a\_and\_b\]
Based on Eq. , most of the multiplication products between the $d\mathbf{Y}$ elements are zero, while the remaining terms are listed in .
$\times$ $d\mathbf{b}_1^{\top}$ $d\mathbf{b}_2^{\top}$ $d\mathbf{a}_1^{\top}$
----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$d\mathbf{b}_1$ $\sum_{k,l,l' = 1}^{n} \mathbf{S}^{*}_{ik}\mathbf{S}^{\top}_{li}\mathbf{S}^{*}_{jl}\mathbf{S}^{\top}_{l'j}d\mathbf{\Lambda}_{kl'}$ $\sum_{k,l = 1}^{n} \mathbf{S}^{*}_{ik}\mathbf{S}^{\top}_{li}\mathbf{S}^{*}_{jl}\mathbf{L}^{\top}_{1j}d\mathbf{\Lambda}_{k0}$ $\sum_{k,l=1}^{n} \mathbf{S}_{ik}\mathbf{S}^{\top}_{li} \mathbf{S}^{*}_{jl}d\mathbf{\Lambda}_{k0} $
$d\mathbf{b}_3$ $\sum_{l,l' = 1}^{n} \mathbf{L}^{*}_{i1}\mathbf{S}^{\top}_{li}\mathbf{S}^{*}_{jl}\mathbf{S}^{\top}_{l'j}d\mathbf{\Lambda}_{0l'}$ $\sum_{k = 1}^{n} \mathbf{L}^{*}_{i1}\mathbf{S}^{\top}_{ki}\mathbf{S}^{*}_{jk}\mathbf{L}^{\top}_{1j}dt$ $\sum_{k}^{n} \mathbf{L}^{*}_{i1}\mathbf{S}^{\top}_{ki}\mathbf{S}^{\ast}_{jk} dt$
$d\mathbf{a}_2$ $\sum_{k,l'=1}^{n} \mathbf{S}_{ik}\mathbf{S}^{*}_{jk}\mathbf{S}^{\top}_{l'j} d\mathbf{\Lambda}_{0l'}$ $\sum_{k=1}^{n} \mathbf{S}_{ik} \mathbf{S}^{*}_{jk}\mathbf{L}^{\top}_{1j}dt$ $\mathbf{I}_{ij}dt$
: Itô multiplication table for the $d\mathbf{Y}$ components. []{data-label="tab:ItoTableResult"}
\[rem:selfCommutativity\] A set of measurements $\mathbf{Y}_t$ made at the output of a quantum system is *self-commutative* if and only if $d\mathbf{Y}_t d\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}$ is symmetric.
This fact follows directly from Definition \[def:Commutation\]. Now we state the following Lemma to prove our main result on the commutation relation for a finite number of outputs of an open quantum system.
\[lem:ItoTableResult\] The off diagonal elements in the Itô for multiplication between the $d\mathbf{Y}$ elements are zero.
For every entry in , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{l = 1}^{n} \mathbf{S}^{\top}_{ki} \mathbf{S}^{*}_{jk} = \sum_{l = 1}^{n} \mathbf{S}^{\top}_{li} \mathbf{S}^{*}_{jl} = & \left(\mathbf{S}_t\mathbf{S}^{\dagger}\right)_{i,j} = \left(I\right)_{i,j} = 0, \; \forall i \neq j ,
\end{aligned}$$ which shows that the non-diagonal elements of the multiplication results are zero.
\[thm:CommutativityOfQuantumNetwork\] A set of $n$ general measurements $\mathbf{Y}$ is self-commutative for any multiple-output quantum system with $n$ channels if and only if,
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{F} & \mathbf{F}^{\ast}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{I}\\
-\mathbf{I} & \mathbf{0}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{F}^{\top} \\ \mathbf{F}^{\dagger}
\end{bmatrix} = & \mathbf{0}, \label{eq:ConditionOnF}\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{G} & \mathbf{F}^{\ast}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{I}\\
-\mathbf{I} & \mathbf{0}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{G}^{\top} \\ \mathbf{F}^{\dagger}
\end{bmatrix} = & \mathbf{0},\label{eq:ConditionOnGF_ast}\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{G} & \mathbf{F}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{I}\\
-\mathbf{I} & \mathbf{0}\label{eq:ConditionOnGF}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{G}^{\top} \\ \mathbf{F}^{\top}
\end{bmatrix} = & \mathbf{0}.
\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, Eq. is equivalent to $\Re(\mathbf{F})\Im(\mathbf{F})^{\top}$ being symmetric, Eq. is equivalent to both $\Re(\mathbf{G})\Re(\mathbf{F})^{\top},\Im(\mathbf{G})\Im(\mathbf{F})^{\top}$ being symmetric whilst Eq. is equivalent to both $\Re(\mathbf{G})\Im(\mathbf{F})^{\top},\Im(\mathbf{G})\Re(\mathbf{F})^{\top}$ being symmetric.
Let $\mathbf{Y}$ be a generalized measurement whose evolution is given by . Then to prove the theorem, Remark \[rem:selfCommutativity\] shows that it is sufficient to show that $d\mathbf{Y}d\mathbf{Y}^{\top}$ is symmetric in order to show that all measurement outputs commute with each other. Simplifying to and evaluating the $d\mathbf{Y}d\mathbf{Y}^{\top}$, from , one obtains, $$\begin{aligned}
\left(d\mathbf{Y}d\mathbf{Y}^{\top}\right)_{ij} = & \left(\mathbf{G}\left[d\mathbf{b}_1d\mathbf{b}_1^{\top}+d\mathbf{b}_1d\mathbf{b}_2^{\top}+d\mathbf{b}_3d\mathbf{b}_1^{\top}+d\mathbf{b}_3d\mathbf{b}_2^{\top}\right]\mathbf{G}^{\top}\right)_{ij} \nonumber\\
&+\left(\mathbf{G}\left[d\mathbf{b}_1d\mathbf{a}_1^{\top}+d\mathbf{b}_3d\mathbf{a}_1^{\top}\right]\mathbf{F}^{\dagger}\right)_{ij}\nonumber\\
&+\left(\mathbf{F}\left[d\mathbf{a}_2d\mathbf{b}_1^{\top}+d\mathbf{a}_2d\mathbf{b}_2^{\top}\right]\mathbf{G}^{\top}\right)_{ij}\nonumber\\
&+\left(\mathbf{F}d\mathbf{a}_2d\mathbf{a}_1^{\top}\mathbf{F}^{\dagger}\right)_{ij} \nonumber\\
&= \left(\mathbf{G}\mathbf{O}_1\mathbf{G}^{\top} + \mathbf{G}\mathbf{O}_2\mathbf{F}^{\dagger} + \mathbf{F}\mathbf{O}_3\mathbf{G}^{\top} + \mathbf{F}\mathbf{F}^{\dagger}\right)_{ij}dt. \label{eq:dYdYT}
\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lem:ItoTableResult\], we have $\mathbf{O}_1,\mathbf{O}_2$ and $\mathbf{O}_3$ are diagonal matrices. Since every diagonal element of $\mathbf{O}_i , i=1,2,3$ has different creation, annihilation and conservation processes, by , requiring $d\mathbf{Y}d\mathbf{Y}^{\top}$ to be symmetric is equivalent to the symmetry of $\mathbf{G}\mathbf{O}_1\mathbf{G}^{\top}, \mathbf{G}\mathbf{O}_2\mathbf{F}^{\dagger},\mathbf{F}\mathbf{O}_3\mathbf{G}^{\top}$ and $\mathbf{F}\mathbf{F}^{\dagger}$. For the first term, we have $\mathbf{G}\mathbf{O}_1\mathbf{G}^{\top} = (\mathbf{G}\mathbf{O}_1\mathbf{G}^{\top})^{\top}$, which is satisfied for all $\mathbf{G}$. Furthermore, for $\mathbf{F}\mathbf{F}^{\dagger}$, we have the symmetry condition $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{F}\mathbf{F}^{\dagger} = & \mathbf{F}^{\ast}\mathbf{F}^{\top} ,
\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to $\Re(\mathbf{F})\Im(\mathbf{F})^{\top} - \Re(\mathbf{F})^{\top}\Im(\mathbf{F})=0$, and in turn equivalent to condition Eq. . For $\mathbf{G}\mathbf{O}_2\mathbf{F}^{\dagger}$, we have the symmetry condition $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\mathbf{G}\mathbf{O}_2\mathbf{F}^{\dagger}\right)_{ij} = & \left(\mathbf{G}\mathbf{O}_2\mathbf{F}^{\dagger}\right)_{ji} = \sum_{k=1}^{n}\mathbf{G}_{jk}\mathbf{O}_{2,kk}\mathbf{F}^{\dagger}_{ki}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since every diagonal element of $\mathbf{O}_2$ will have a different creation process at each $k$,this condition is equivalent to the equality being satisfied for every $k$, which is equivalent to the condition $\mathbf{G}\mathbf{F}^{\dagger} = \mathbf{F}^{\ast}\mathbf{G}^{\top}$. This equality is equivalent to the symmetry of $\Re(\mathbf{G})\Re(\mathbf{F})^{\top}$ and $\Im(\mathbf{G})\Im(\mathbf{F})^{\top}$. Using a similar argument, the third line of Eq. is also equivalent to the condition $\mathbf{G}\mathbf{F}^{\top} = \mathbf{F}\mathbf{G}^{\top}$, but this equality is equivalent to the symmetry of $\Re(\mathbf{G})\Im(\mathbf{F})^{\top}$ and $\Im(\mathbf{G})\Re(\mathbf{F})^{\top}$, which completes the proof.
$\times$ $d\mathbf{b}_1^{\top}$ $d\mathbf{b}_2^{\top}$ $d\mathbf{a}_1^{\top}$
----------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
$d\mathbf{b}_1$ $\left(\mathbf{S}d\mathbf{\Lambda}^{\top}\mathbf{S}^{\dagger}\right)_{ii}$ $\left(\mathbf{S}^*d\mathbf{A}^*\mathbf{L}^{\top}\right)_{ii}$ $\left(\mathbf{S}^*d\mathbf{A}^*\right)_i $
$d\mathbf{b}_3$ $\left(\mathbf{S}d\mathbf{A}\mathbf{L}^{\dagger}\right)_{ii}$ $ \left(\mathbf{L}^{*}\mathbf{L}^{\top} dt\right)_{ii}$ $\left(\mathbf{L}dt\right)_i$
$d\mathbf{a}_2$ $\left(\mathbf{S}d\mathbf{A}\right)_i $ $\left(\mathbf{L}^*dt\right)_i$ $dt$
: Itô multiplication table for $d\mathbf{Y}$ components. []{data-label="tab:ItoTableResultSimplified"}
To clarify this result, we provide a few examples. In the case of a quantum system with two output channels, both subject to homodyne detection, $\mathbf{F} = \mathbf{I}$ and $\mathbf{G} = \mathbf{0}$. The case of photon counting measurement at both output channels is given by $\mathbf{F} = 0$ and $\mathbf{G} = \mathbf{I}$. A combination of homodyne detection and photon counting measurement is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{F} = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0\\0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} ,\; \mathbf{G} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0\\0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$ In these cases the self-commutativity condition of Theorem \[thm:CommutativityOfQuantumNetwork\] can be easily verified. However, taking $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{F} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0\\1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} ,\; \mathbf{G} = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0\\0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$ means that the first measurement is homodyne detection on the first output channel, and the second is the photon counting measurement on the same channel. Now, $\mathbf{F}\mathbf{G}^{\top}$ is not symmetric, thus by Theorem \[thm:CommutativityOfQuantumNetwork\] the measurement vector is not self-commutative. In the next subsection, we will present our second result, which gives a general derivation of a quantum filter for a set of commutative measurements.
General Quantum Filter For Multiple Compatible Measurements
-----------------------------------------------------------
To derive a quantum filter for multiple measurements, we follow the characteristic function method described in Refs. [@van2005feedback; @gough2011quantum]. We will use the following notation to denote the conditional expectation, $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(X) _t & = \hat{X}_t = \mathbb{E}_{\rho_0 \otimes \Phi} \left[X_t | \mathcal{Y}_t\right],
\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_0$ is the initial system density matrix, $\Phi$ is the vacuum state of the field, and $\mathcal{Y}_t$ is a commutative von Neumann algebra generated by measurements $\mathbf{Y}_t$.
Let $\lbrace Y_{i,t}, i=1,\cdots N \rbrace $ be a set of $N$ compatible measurement outputs for a quantum system $\mathcal{G}$. With vacuum initial state, the corresponding joint measurement quantum filter is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
d\hat{X} = & \pi_t \left[ -i \left[X_t,H_t\right] + \mathcal{L}_L(X_t)\right] dt+ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N} \beta_{i,t} dW_{i,t},
\end{aligned}$$
where $dW_{i,t} = dY_{i,t} - \pi_t\left(dY_{i,t}\right)$ is a martingale process for each measurement output and $\beta_{i,t}$ is the corresponding gain given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\beta =& \Sigma^{-1}\zeta , \label{eq:beta}\\
\zeta^{\top} = & \pi_t\left(X_t d\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\right) - \pi_t\left(X\right) \pi_t \left(d\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\right) + \pi_t \left(\left[\mathbf{L}^{\dagger}_t,X_t\right]\mathbf{S}_td\mathbf{A}d\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\right),\label{eq:zeta}\\
\Sigma =& \pi_t \left(d\mathbf{Y}_td\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\right),\label{eq:Sigma}
\end{aligned}$$
\[thm:JointMeasurementQuantumFiltration\] where $\Sigma$ is assumed to be non-singular.
First, define a $\mathcal{Y}_t$-measurable Itô exponential $c_{f_t}$ with respect to arbitrary functions $\lbrace f_{i,t} \rbrace$ whose derivative is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
dc_{f_t} = & c_{f_t} \left[\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N} f_{i,t}dY_{i,t} \right] = c_{f_t} d\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\mathbf{f}_t. \label{eq:dc_f}
\end{aligned}$$ Now the dynamics of the conditional expectation are assumed to be in the form of the following equation, $$\begin{aligned}
d\hat{X} = & \alpha_t dt + \beta_t^{\top}d\mathbf{Y}_t ,\label{eq:dhatX}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_t$ and $\beta_{i,t}$ are to be determined from the conditional expectation relation $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{\rho_0 \otimes \Phi} \left[X_t c_{f_t} | \mathcal{Y}_t \right] & = \mathbb{E}_{\rho_0 \otimes \Phi} \left[\mathbb{E}_{\rho_0 \otimes \Phi}\left[X_t | \mathcal{Y}_t\right]c_{f_t}\right], \nonumber\\
\pi_t \left(X_t c_{f_t} \right) & = \pi_t \left(\hat{X}_t c_{f_t}\right). \label{eq:ConditionalExpectation}
\end{aligned}$$\
From the QSDE of a system observable in Eq. , Eq. , and the definition of conditional expectation , we have
$$\begin{aligned}
d\pi_t \left[X_t c_{f_t}\right] = & \pi_t \left(dX_t c_{f_t} + X_t d c_{f_t} + dX_t d c_{f_t}\right) ,\label{eq:dE_Xt_c}\\
\pi_t \left[dX_t c_{f_t}\right] = & \pi_t \left[ -i \left[X_t,H_t\right] + \mathcal{L}_L(X_t)\right] c_{f_t} dt ,\label{eq:E_dXt_c}\\
\pi_t \left[X_t d c_{f_t}\right] = & c_{f_t} \pi_t\left(X_t d\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\right)\mathbf{f}_t ,\label{eq:E_Xt_dc}\\
\pi_t \left[d X_t d c_{f_t}\right] = & c_{f_t} \left(\left[\mathbf{L}^{\dagger}_t,X_t\right]\mathbf{S}_td\mathbf{A}d\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\right)\mathbf{f}_t ,\label{eq:E_dXt_dc}
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:dE\_Xt\_c\_All\]
while $d\pi_t \left[\hat{X}_t c_{f_t}\right]$ given by,
$$\begin{aligned}
d\pi_t \left[\hat{X}_t c_{f_t}\right] = & \pi_t \left(d\hat{X}_t c_{f_t} + \hat{X}_t d c_{f_t} + d\hat{X}_t d c_{f_t}\right),\label{eq:dE_Xhatt_c}\\
\pi_t \left[d\hat{X}_t c_{f_t}\right] = & c_{f_t}\left[\alpha_t dt + \beta_t^{\top} \pi_t \left(d\mathbf{Y}_t\right)\right],\label{eq:E_dXhatt_c}\\
\pi_t \left[\hat{X}_t d c_{f_t}\right] = & \pi_t\left(X\right)c_{f_t} \pi_t \left(d\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\right)\mathbf{f}_t,\label{eq:E_Xhatt_dc}\\
\pi_t \left[d \hat{X}_t d c_{f_t}\right] = & c_{f_t} \beta_t^{\top}\pi_t \left(d\mathbf{Y}_td\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\right)\mathbf{f}_t.\label{eq:E_dXhatt_dc}
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:dE\_Xhattt\_c\_All\]
Equating and , solving for $\alpha_t$ and then substituting the result into Eq. , we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
d\hat{X} = & \pi_t \left[ -i \left[X_t,H_t\right] + \mathcal{L}_L(X_t)\right] dt+ \beta_t^{\top} \left[d\mathbf{Y}_t - \pi_t \left(d\mathbf{Y}_t\right)\right],\nonumber\\
= & \pi_t \left[ -i \left[X_t,H_t\right] + \mathcal{L}_L(X_t)\right] dt+ \beta_t^{\top} d\mathbf{W}_t.
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, using the fact that the function $\mathbf{f}_t$ is arbitrary, we can equate the right-hand-side of Eqs. and , which recovers $\beta_{i,t}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^{\top}_t =& \zeta^{\top} \mathbf{\Sigma} ^{-1},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta$ and $\Sigma$ are a real valued row vector and a real valued matrix, respectively given by,
$$\begin{aligned}
\zeta^{\top} = & \pi_t\left(X_t d\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\right) - \pi_t\left(X\right) \pi_t \left(d\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\right) + \pi_t \left(\left[\mathbf{L}^{\dagger}_t,X_t\right]\mathbf{S}_td\mathbf{A}d\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\right),\\
\Sigma =& \pi_t \left(d\mathbf{Y}_td\mathbf{Y}_t^{\top}\right).
\end{aligned}$$
Proof of the martingale properties of $W_{i,t}$ is given in Ref. [@bouten2007introduction proof of Theorem 7.1].
A restricted form of Theorem \[thm:JointMeasurementQuantumFiltration\] has been independently proven in Ref. [@nurdin2014quantum Theorem 9] using the “reference probability” approach. This result applied to a class of generalized homodyne detection measurements, i.e. $\mathbf{G} = 0$.\
The result of Theorem \[thm:JointMeasurementQuantumFiltration\] can be generalized further to include coherent initial states $\psi(u)$ by introducing a Weyl operator in Eq. . To do this, we select $U= I$ and $u\neq0$, in the Weyl operator parameters, and transform all of the fundamental quantum processes $M_t$ in into $M_t(u) = W(u,I)^{\dagger}M_t W(u,I)$. [@bouten2007introduction; @parthasarathy2012].\
The dynamics of the quantum filter can also be expressed using the following equation, $$\begin{aligned}
d\hat{X} = & \pi_t \left[ -i \left[X_t,H_t\right] + \mathcal{L}_L(X_t)\right] dt + \zeta^{\top} \mathbf{\Sigma} ^{-1}d\mathbf{W}. \label{eq:dHatXGeneral}
\end{aligned}$$ From a classical filtering point of view, Eq. possesses some similarities to the Kalman filter, where $\pi_t \left[ -i \left[X_t,H_t\right] + \mathcal{L}_L(X_t)\right] dt$ is the a-priori estimate and $\zeta^{\top} \mathbf{\Sigma} ^{-1}$ is analogous to the Kalman gain which multiplies the innovation process $d\mathbf{W}$.
Theorem \[thm:JointMeasurementQuantumFiltration\] requires the existence of an invertible differential measurement correlation matrix $\Sigma$, which is a sufficient condition for the joint measurements to be obtainable from a single quantum filter equation. This condition, however, is not a necessary condition, as we will encounter in Section \[sec:Limit\], where in a case of zero reflectivity, the quantum filter equation exists although $\Sigma$ is not invertible.
In most cases of nonlinear estimation, Eq. is merely a representation for the estimator and cannot be interpreted as an explicit solution to the filtering problem [@segall1975nonlinear]. As in the classical filtering problem, explicit solutions to the general nonlinear filtering problem can be obtained using a variety of approximation methods [@lototsky2006wiener; @crisan2011oxford]. However, in the quantum filter, rather than approximating the explicit solution of Eq. , one can convert the filtering problem in Eq. , which is given in the Heisenberg picture, into the Schrödinger picture. Then one deals with the evolution of the system’s conditional density operator at time $t$, $\rho_t$. As described in Ref. [@bouten2004stochastic], by means of the relation $\pi_t(X) \equiv \text{tr}(\rho_t X)$, one can construct from Eq. , $$\begin{aligned}
d\rho_t = & \underbrace{\left[-i\left[H_t,\rho_t\right] + \mathbf{L}^{\top}\rho_t\mathbf{L}^{\ast} - \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{L}^{\dagger}\mathbf{L}\rho_t - \frac{1}{2}\rho_t\mathbf{L}^{\dagger}\mathbf{L}\right]dt }_{\text{a-priori}}+ \underbrace{\zeta_{\rho}^{\top}\Sigma^{-\top}d\mathbf{W}}_{\text{innovation term}},\label{eq:GeneralFilteringEquationSchrodinger}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta_{\rho}$ in the above equation is now only a function of the conditional density operator, $\mathbf{L}$ and $H$, but not of the particular system observable $X$.\
Finally, for numerical simulation efficiency, after truncating the Hilbert space dimension to a finite number $n$, instead of solving for the $ n \times n$ conditional density operator in Eq. , one can “*unravel*” this equation, and solve instead for the state vector $|\psi \rangle$, which is an $n \times 1$ vector. This unravelled equation is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
d |\psi\rangle = & -i \left(H_t - i \dfrac{1}{2}\mathbf{L}^{\dagger}\mathbf{L} \right)|\psi\rangle dt + \sigma(|\psi\rangle) dt + \delta(|\psi\rangle) d\mathbf{W}, \label{eq:GeneralFilteringEquationSchrodingerUnravel}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma(|\psi\rangle)$ and $\delta(|\psi\rangle)$ are operators which are linear with respect to the coupling operator $\mathbf{L}$.
Application of The Quantum Filter to Joint Homodyne Detection and Photon Counting
=================================================================================
Quantum Filter for Joint Homodyne Detection and Photon Counting {#sec:Limit}
---------------------------------------------------------------
![Quantum network depiction of the quantum optics setup of []{data-label="fig:QuantumNetwork"}](QuantumNetwork){width="50.00000%"}
In this section, we derive the quantum filter for the setup shown in . We define two Fock spaces for the two corresponding input fields, the first Fock space for the system input field is given by $\Gamma_1(\mathsf{h})$, while the vacuum field input at the upper-port of the beam splitter is denoted by $\Gamma_2(\mathsf{h})$. Notice that if we restrict ourself to work in the linear span of coherent states, the Fock spaces $\Gamma_{i}$ $i=1,2$ possesses a continuous tensor product. For any time interval $0\leq s < t $, the Fock space $\Gamma_i$ can be decomposed into $$\Gamma_i = \Gamma_{i,s]}\otimes \Gamma_{i,[s,t]}\otimes \Gamma_{i,[t}. \label{eq:GammaDecompose}$$\
The overall quantum system with the measurement setup in can be depicted as shown in . $\mathcal{G}_1$ is our system of interest, with parameters $(I,L,H)$. We concatenate the vacuum noise into our system by introducing a second open quantum system, $\mathcal{G}_2$ , whose parameters are $(1,0,0)$. The last open quantum system $\mathcal{G}_3$ is the beam splitter, with parameters $(\mathbf{S},0,0)$. The parameters of the composite quantum system are obtained by taking the series product and the concatenation product [@gough2009series], giving $\mathcal{G} = \left(\mathcal{G}_1 \boxplus \mathcal{G}_2\right)\rhd\mathcal{G}_3$ with parameters $\left(\mathbf{S},\mathbf{S}\begin{pmatrix}
L\\0
\end{pmatrix},H\right)$.\
The output field of the system $\mathcal{G}_1$, $A_{s,t} = U^{\dagger}_t\left(I \otimes A_{i,t} \right)U_t$, is an operator on $\mathsf{h}_s\otimes\Gamma_{1,t]}(\mathsf{h})$, while the vacuum field $A_{v,t}$ is an operator on $\Gamma_{2,t]}(\mathsf{h})$. We denote the total Hilbert Space as $\mathsf{H} = \mathsf{h}_s\otimes\Gamma_1(\mathsf{h})\otimes\Gamma_2(\mathsf{h})$. The beam splitter equation is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{S} & = \begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{1 - r^2} e^{i\theta}& re^{i\left(\theta + \frac{\pi}{2}\right)}\\
re^{i\left(\theta + \frac{\pi}{2}\right)} & \sqrt{1 - r^2} e^{i\theta}
\end{pmatrix},& r \geq& 0. \label{eq:BeamSplitterGeneral}
\end{aligned}$$ For homodyne measurement in the first output channel and photoncounting measurement in the second output channel, we have $$\begin{aligned}
d\mathbf{Y}_t =& \mathbf{F}^{\ast}d\tilde{\mathbf{A}}_t^{\ast} +\mathbf{F}d\tilde{\mathbf{A}}_t+ \mathbf{G}d\tilde{\mathbf{\lambda}}_t, \\
\mathbf{F} =& \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0\\ 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} ,\;
\mathbf{G} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0\\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$\
By Theorem \[thm:CommutativityOfQuantumNetwork\], the measurement set $d\mathbf{Y}$ is self-commutative. Substituting the general beam splitter and output field evolution , the measurements quantum stochastic differential equations are given by,
$$\begin{aligned}
dY_{1,t} = & \sqrt{1 - r^2} \left( \left(e^{i\theta}L_t + e^{-i\theta}L_t^{\dagger}\right) dt + e^{i\theta}dA_{i,t} + e^{-i\theta}dA^{\dagger}_{i,t}\right) \nonumber \\
& + ir\left(e^{i\theta}dA_{v,t} - e^{-i\theta}dA^{\dagger}_{v,t}\right),\label{eq:dY_1General}\\
dY_{2,t} = & r^2\left[ d\Lambda_{i,t} + L_t dA^{\dagger}_{i,t} + L^{\dagger}_t dA_{i,t} + L^{\dagger}_t L_t dt\right]+ \left(1-r^2\right)d\Lambda_{v,t} \nonumber\\
& + i \left(r \sqrt{1-r^2}\right)\left[d\Lambda_{vi,t} - d\Lambda_{iv,t} + L_t dA^{\dagger}_{v,t} - L_t^{\dagger}dA_{v,t}\right].\label{eq:dY_2General}
\end{aligned}$$
These measurements can be proven to satisfy the non-demolition and self-non-demolition properties, see Ref. [@van2005feedback]. Next, we can compute the expectation and the correlation of the measurement time derivative as
$$\begin{aligned}
\pi_t \left(dY_{1,t}\right) = & \sqrt{1 - r^2} \pi_t\left(e^{i\theta}L_t + e^{-i\theta}L_t^{\dagger}\right) dt, \\
\pi_t \left(dY_{2,t}dY_{2,t}\right) = & \pi_t \left(dY_{2,t}\right) = r^2\pi_t\left(L^{\dagger}_t L_t\right) dt, \\
\pi_t \left(dY_{1,t}dY_{1,t}\right) = & dt, \\
\pi_t \left(dY_{2,t}dY_{1,t}\right) = & \pi_t \left(dY_{1,t}dY_{2,t}\right) = 0.
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:dY1dY2ExpectationGeneral\]
Using these values, $\beta$ is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_1 = & \sqrt{1 - r^2} \left(\pi_t\left(X_t e^{i\theta} L_t + e^{-i\theta} L^{\dagger}_t X_t\right) - \pi_t\left(X\right)\pi_t\left(e^{i\theta}L_t + e^{-i\theta} L^{\dagger}_t\right)\right),\\
\beta_2 = & \dfrac{\pi_t\left( L^{\dagger}_t X_t L_t \right)}{\pi_t\left(L^{\dagger}_t L_t\right)}- \pi_t\left(X\right).
\end{aligned}$$ In the case that $r \rightarrow 1$, the estimation problem reduces to an estimation problem with a single photon counting process. The opposite case is more interesting. When $r \rightarrow 0$, the gain $\beta_2$ has a non zero value, while the Poisson process has zero arrival rate, and hence the estimation problem reduces to an estimation problem with a single homodyne detection. This is unsurprising since zero reflection ensures all photons pass through to the homodyne detector.\
We can unravel the stochastic master equation into the form Eq. . By using the Itô equivalence, $$\begin{aligned}
d\rho &= d|\psi\rangle \langle \psi| + |\psi\rangle d\langle \psi| + d|\psi\rangle d\langle \psi|,
\end{aligned}$$ one recovers the unravelled stochastic Schrödinger equation for the quantum filter,
$$\begin{aligned}
d |\psi\rangle = & -i \left(H - i \dfrac{1}{2}L^{\dagger}L \right)|\psi\rangle dt + \sigma(|\psi\rangle) dt + \delta_1(|\psi\rangle) dW + \delta_2(|\psi\rangle) dN, \label{eq:QFUnravelGeneral}\\
\sigma(|\psi\rangle) = & \left(\left[\dfrac{1 - r^2}{2}\pi_t\left(e^{-i\theta}L^{\dagger}_t+e^{i\theta}L_t\right)\right]\right.L \nonumber\\
& \left. +\left[\dfrac{r^2\pi_t\left(L^{\dagger}_t L_t\right)}{2}-\dfrac{1-r^2}{8}\pi_t\left(e^{-i\theta}L^{\dagger}_t+e^{i\theta}L_t\right)^2\right]\right)|\psi\rangle,\\
\delta_1(|\psi\rangle) = & \sqrt{1-r^2}\left(L - \dfrac{1}{2}\pi_t\left(e^{-i\theta}L^{\dagger}_t+e^{i\theta}L_t\right)\right)|\psi\rangle,\\
\delta_2(|\psi\rangle) = & \left(\dfrac{L}{\sqrt{\pi_t\left(L^{\dagger}_t L_t\right)}} - 1\right)|\psi\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:QFUnravel\]
Here, $dW$ is equal to $dW_1$, and $dN$ is equal to the Poisson process of the second measurement. The unravelled version of quantum filter given in Eq. is normalized. For the case $r=0$ and $r=1$, Eq. is equivalent to stochastic Schrödinger equation (SSE) for homodyne detection and photon counting respectively, given in Refs. [@breuer2007theory 6.1 6.4],[@gardiner2004quantum 11.3 11.4].\
Comparison with results in Ref. [@Kuramochi2013]
------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we give a comparison of our quantum filter with the results of Ref. [@Kuramochi2013]. Here, the unnormalized SSE for photon counting and homodyne detection was formulated heuristically by the addition of two measurement operations, where every operation determined the infinitesimal evolution of the unnormalized state. The SSE for photon counting and homodyne was given in Ref. [@Kuramochi2013] as,
$$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde{\psi}_{t+dt}\rangle = & \left[1 + A dt + \left(B-1\right)dN + C dW\right]|\tilde{\psi}_t\rangle, \\
A &= -i H - \dfrac{L^{\dagger}L}{2} + L \langle L + L^{\dagger}\rangle ,\\
C=B &= L.
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:UnNormalizedKuramochi\]
In these equations, we are slightly abusing the notation, by denoting $\pi_t\left(X\right) = \langle X\rangle$, and setting local oscillator angle to $\theta=0$. To give a comparison of Eq. with our result in Eq. , one can consider the normalization of Eq. as detailed in Ref. [@gardiner2004quantum 11.4]. In general, the infinitesimal evolution given in Eq. , can be normalized to the following normalized SSE,
$$\begin{aligned}
d|\psi_t\rangle = & \left[\left(A+\hat{A}+C\hat{C}\right) dt + \left(\hat{B}B-1\right)dN + \left(C+\hat{C}\right) dW\right]|\psi_t\rangle, \\
\hat{A} &= \frac{3}{8}\langle C + C^{\dagger}\rangle^2 - \frac{1}{2} \langle A + A^{\dagger}\rangle - \frac{1}{2} \langle C^{\dagger}C\rangle,\\
\hat{B} &= \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{ \langle B^{\dagger} B \rangle} },\\
\hat{C} &= -\frac{1}{2}\langle C + C^{\dagger}\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:NormalizedKuramochi\]
Substituting these values into Eq. , one can get an SSE in the form of Eq. , with
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(|\psi\rangle) = & \left[ \frac{1}{2} \langle L^{\dagger} + L\rangle L - \frac{1}{8} \langle L^{\dagger}+ L\rangle^2 \right] |\psi\rangle, \\
\delta_1(|\psi\rangle) = & \left[ L - \frac{1}{2} \langle L^{\dagger}+ L\rangle \right] |\psi\rangle, \\
\delta_2(|\psi\rangle) = & \left[\dfrac{L}{\sqrt{\langle L^{\dagger} L\rangle}} - 1\right]|\psi\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:NormalizedKuramochiDetail\]
However Eq. is *not* consistent with our result in Eq. . In fact, Eq. is consistent with Eq. in the limiting case $r=0$, which would correspond to a jump process with zero arrival rate. The paper [@Kuramochi2013] claims to consider the case of simultaneous jump and diffusion measurement processes, but the above comparison shows that it does not account for the required beam splitter. The equivalence of the unnormalized SSE in Ref. [@Kuramochi2013] with the quantum filter is obtained when we take the beam splitter into consideration. In this case, instead of $A,B$ and $C$ given in Eq. , we will have an equivalent quantum filter as an unnormalized SSE given by
$$\begin{aligned}
A &= -i H - \dfrac{L^{\dagger}L}{2} + \left(1 - r^2\right)L \langle L + L^{\dagger}\rangle,\\
B &= r L,\\
C &= \sqrt{1 - r^2}L.
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:NonNormalizedQF\]
gives an intuitive interpretation of simultaneous filtering, where as in Ref. [@Kuramochi2013], the unnormalized evolution of photon counting and homodyne detections requires the addition of the two measurement operations, but with the appropriate beam splitter gain.
Simulation Results
==================
This section will show a simulation of the proposed quantum filter for an empty cavity with a number state as the initial condition. In this condition, the analytical probability distribution of the number state is given by [@breuer2007theory],
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}_N(t) =& {{n}\choose{N}} \mu(t)^N - \left(1-\mu(t)\right)^{n-N},\\
\mu(t) =& 1- e^{-\gamma t}.
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:Analytic\]
Simulation results for different reflectivity factors are shown in . The cavity dissipative ratio $\gamma$ is set to one. Figures \[fig:r2\_1\] and \[fig:r2\_0\] show single trajectory simulations of the expected number operator for the case of pure photon counting measurement and homodyne detection. shows the non-trivial case of a half-reflective beam splitter $r^2 = 0.5$. In this case, the quantum filter average of the number operator converges to the analytical prediction when the trial number is increased. also shows that the SSE formulated in [@Kuramochi2013] gives a biased average compared with the analytical result.
Conclusions
===========
We have derived a sufficient and necessary condition for a class of quantum measurement output channels to satisfy a commutativity relation. The measurement class considered is quite general compared to Ref. [@nurdin2014quantum], since it covers not only homodyne type measurements, but also photon counting type measurements. Furthermore, this commutativity condition enables us to derive a quantum filter corresponding to multiple measurement outputs. We also provide examples of the quantum filter for homodyne and photon counting detection. The quantum filter results were shown to be consistent with the homodyne and photon counting quantum filters for both extreme cases, where the reflectivity of the beam splitter is zero and one. In addition, the quantum filter also corrected the result of Ref. [@Kuramochi2013], which ignored the effect of the beam splitter.
Acknowledgements
================
We acknowledge discussions with Dr. Katanya Kuntz of UNSW Canberra.
References
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The MAGIC telescopes observed S2 0109+22 in 2015 July during its flaring activity in high energy gamma rays observed by *Fermi*-LAT. We analyse the MAGIC data to characterise the very high energy (VHE) gamma-ray emission of S2 0109+22, which belongs to the subclass of intermediate synchrotron peak (ISP) BL Lac objects. We study the multi-frequency emission in order to investigate the source classification. Finally, we compare the source long-term behaviour to other VHE gamma-ray emitting (TeV) blazars. We performed a temporal and spectral analysis of the data centred around the MAGIC interval of observation (MJD 57225-57231). Long-term radio and optical data have also been investigated using the discrete correlation function. The redshift of the source is estimated through optical host-galaxy imaging and also using the amount of VHE gamma-ray absorption. The quasi-simultaneous multi-frequency spectral energy distribution (SED) is modelled with the conventional one-zone synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) model. MAGIC observations resulted in the detection of the source at a significance level of $5.3\,\sigma$. The VHE gamma-ray emission of S2 0109+22 is variable on a daily time scale. VHE gamma-ray luminosity of the source is lower than the average of TeV BL Lacs. The optical polarization, and long-term optical/radio behaviour of the source are different from the general population of TeV blazars. All these findings agree with the classification of the source as an ISP BL Lac object. We estimate the source redshift as $z = 0.36 \pm 0.07$. The SSC parameters describing the SED are rather typical for blazars.'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: 'The broad-band properties of the intermediate synchrotron peaked BL Lac S2 0109+22 from radio to VHE gamma rays'
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: active – galaxies: jets – gamma rays: galaxies – BL Lacertae objects: individual: S2 0109+22
Introduction
============
BL Lac objects dominate the extragalactic very-high-energy (VHE, $E>100$GeV) gamma-ray sky. A relativistic jet shoots from the region of the central super-massive black hole, hosted at the center of BL Lac objects, in the line of sight of the observer. Jets are typically characterized by featureless spectra in the optical band, highly polarized radiation in radio and optical, and variable radiation at all frequencies. The jet emission is non-thermal and described as a continuous spectral energy distribution (SED), spanning from radio to VHE gamma-ray frequencies, and featuring two wide peaks. Synchrotron emission by highly relativistic electrons spiralling in the magnetic field of the jet is used to explain the lower frequency peak. Different scenarios within various models are used to explain the high-frequency peak: external Compton [@1989ApJ...340..162M; @1994ApJS...90..945D; @1994ApJ...421..153S] and synchrotron self-Compton [SSC, @1992MNRAS.258..657C; @1992ApJ...397L...5M] as leptonic models, proton synchrotron emission [@1996SSRv...75..331M; @2000NewA....5..377A; @2001APh....15..121M] and photo-pion production [@2014ApJ...797...89A] as hadronic models. Traditionally, in view of their relative simplicity and agreement with the data, single-zone SSC models have been used to describe BL Lac SEDs [e.g. @2011ApJ...727..129A; @2011ApJ...736..131A]. However, there is growing evidence that these models do not reproduce all the observed features of BL Lac objects , and, in some cases, more complicated models should be considered. BL Lac objects are classified according to the peak frequency of their lower energy peak, $\nu_{syn}$ [@1994MNRAS.268L..51G]: low synchrotron peaked (LSP; $\nu_{syn}<10^{14}$Hz), intermediate synchrotron peaked (ISP; $10^{14}\leq\nu_{syn}<10^{15}$Hz), and high synchrotron peaked (HSP; $\nu_{syn}\geq10^{15}$Hz) [@2010ApJ...716...30A].
S2 0109+22 (also known as GC 0109+224), at coordinates (J2000) $\text{RA = 01h12m05.8s}$ and $\text{DEC=+22d44m39s}$, was first detected as a compact radio source in the 5GHz Survey of the NRAO 43m dish of Green Bank, West Virginia [@1971AJ.....76..980D; @1972AJ.....77..265P]. In 1976, it was optically identified as a stellar object of magnitude 15.5 on the Palomar Sky Survey plates, @1977AJ.....82..776O also measured a strong millimetre emission (1.53Jy at 90GHz)[^1] and defined it as a BL Lac object. Since then it was continuously monitored in radio and optical . performed extensive studies on the radio and optical behaviour and the broad-band SED of this source. It remarkably shows high polarization variability, from 7% to 30% . It is classified as an ISP BL Lac object using different approaches and datasets to calculate the location of its synchrotron peak.
Since the launch of the *Fermi* satellite in 2008, the source has been listed in most of the *Fermi*-LAT catalogues, i.e. 1FGL [@2010ApJS..188..405A]; 2FGL [@2012ApJS..199...31N]; 1FHL [@2013ApJS..209...34A]; and 3FGL [@2015ApJS..218...23A]. However, the source is not listed in the catalogue of sources detected $>50\,\text{GeV}$ by the *Fermi*-LAT [2FHL, @2016ApJS..222....5A]. The source is variable in the high energy (HE: 100 MeV$<E<$100 GeV) gamma-ray band with the variability index equal to 489 and the maximum monthly flux value of $F_{(0.1-100\,\text{GeV})}=(2.14\pm0.17) \times 10^{-7}$phcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ which is reported in February 2011 [3FGL, @2015ApJS..218...23A]. @2008ApJS..175...97H reported a redshift value for the source of $z=0.265$, which was disfavoured by @2016MNRAS.458.2836P using a high signal-to-noise optical spectrum from Gran Telescopio Canarias. Based on this spectrum, $z>0.35$ was measured, assuming the source is hosted by a massive elliptical galaxy typical for this class of sources. VHE gamma-ray observations of this source carried out with MAGIC between 2015 July 22 and 28 (MJD 57225–57231), were triggered when the reported HE gamma-ray daily flux, July 20 (MJD 57223), was about two times higher than the average flux reported in the 3FGL catalogue (private communication with Luigi Pacciani). The MAGIC observations led to the first detection of this source in VHE gamma rays [@2015ATel.7844....1M].
In this paper, we present the multi-frequency observations and data analysis in Section \[sec2\]. A long-term behaviour study, the comparison with other VHE gamma-ray emitting (TeV) blazars, and estimations of the source distance are presented in Section \[sec3\]. Finally, Section \[sec4\] summarizes our results.
Observations and data analysis {#sec2}
==============================
In this section, we introduce the instruments and their respective data analysis procedures.
Very high energy gamma rays (MAGIC)
-----------------------------------
MAGIC is a system of two Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (17m diameter) located in the Canary Island of La Palma ($28.7^{\circ}$N, $17.9^{\circ}$W), at the elevation of 2200m a.s.l. [@2016APh....72...76A]. The use of the stereoscopic technique, combined with large mirror size makes MAGIC one of the most sensitive instruments for VHE gamma-ray astronomy. The corresponding trigger threshold is $\gtrsim 50$GeV [@2016APh....72...76A]. S2 0109+22 is visible from the MAGIC site at zenith angle below 40$^{\circ}$ between mid-July and February.
Triggered by increased activity in HE gamma rays, MAGIC observed S2 0109+22 for 9.63h in 2015 July within a multi-wavelength blazar monitoring program. The observations were performed during 7 consecutive nights from July 22 to July 28 (MJD 57225–57231) with zenith angle range between 11$^\circ$ and 39$^\circ$. The data have been analysed using the MAGIC Standard Analysis Software [MARS, @2009arXiv0907.0943M; @2016APh....72...61A; @2017MNRAS.468.1534A]. Part of the data were affected by clouds, therefore we applied atmospheric transmission correction based on the information obtained with the MAGIC elastic LIDAR [@2015EPJWC..8902003F].
High-energy gamma rays (*Fermi*-LAT)
------------------------------------
The Large Area Telescope (LAT) is the primary instrument on-board the *Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope*. Based on the pair-conversion technique, it is designed to investigate the gamma-ray sky in the energy band from 30MeV to >300GeV [@2009ApJ...697.1071A]. In its standard operation mode it surveys the sky, covering it fully every 3h.
The data analysed in this paper were selected from a region of interest around S2 0109+22 with a radius of $15^{\circ}$, in a period lasting around three weeks (MJD 57220–57240) roughly centred on the MAGIC detection peak on MJD 57228 (2015 July 25). The data reduction of the events of the Pass8 source class was performed with the ScienceTools software package version v10r0p5[^2] in the energy range 0.1–300GeV. To reduce Earth limb contamination a zenith angle cut of 90$^{\circ}$ was applied to the data. The un-binned likelihood fit of the data was performed using the suggested Galactic diffuse-emission model and isotropic component [@2016ApJS..223...26A] recommended for Pass8 Source event class[^3].
The normalizations of both diffuse components in the source model were allowed to freely vary during the spectral fitting. The source model also includes the sources of the *Fermi*-LAT third source catalogue [3FGL, @2015ApJS..218...23A] within 25$^{\circ}$ of the source of interest. Spectral indices and fluxes are left to freely vary for sources within 5$^{\circ}$; fluxes are also left to freely vary for sources flagged as ’variable’ in the 3FGL catalogue that lie from 5 to 10$^{\circ}$. The spectral parameters of the sources from 10 to 25$^{\circ}$, were instead fixed to their catalogue value.
To construct the light-curve (LC) with 1-day time bins, only the source of interest (normalization and spectral index) and the diffuse models (normalization) were left free to vary, while the remaining 3FGL sources were fixed to the values obtained for the three week analysis of the region. An upper-limit is shown when the detection significance was $<3\,\sigma$[^4]. The SED was obtained analysing data collected between the 2015 July 22 and 2015 July 28 (MJD 57225–57231), corresponding to the MAGIC observing period.
X-ray and UV (*Swift*)
----------------------
Since 2006, *Neil Gehrels Swift observatory (Swift)* has pointed to the source fifteen times in photon counting mode. Ten of the raw images by the X-ray Telescope [*XRT*, @2004SPIE.5165..201B] on-board the *Swift* satellite, are qualified for analysis[^5]. The multi-epoch (8) event list for the period from 2015 July 21 (MJD 57224.95) to 2015 August 1 (MJD 57235.86) with a total exposure time of $\sim 6.15$h, were downloaded from the publicly available SWIFTXRLOG (*Swift*-XRT Instrument, Log)[^6]. These observations have an average integration time of 2.8ks each. They were processed using the procedure described by , assuming fixed equivalent Galactic hydrogen column density $n_H = 4.24 \times 10^{20}\,\rm cm^{-2}$ reported by . Additionally, *Swift* observed this source two more times in 2006. We analysed those two additional event lists to get a broader view of the source’s X-ray properties.
The Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope (*UVOT*, $[4.9-16.6] \times 10^{5}$GHz) on-board the *Swift* satellite [@2008MNRAS.383..627P], observed the source 15 times during the MAGIC campaign, out of which eight were simultaneous to the *XRT* data taking[^7]. An iterative data calibration procedure was used to calculate the Galactic extinction[^8], the effective frequency, and the flux conversion factor for each filter.
Optical
-------
### Light-curve (KVA, KAIT, and Catalina)
S2 0109+22 was added to the Tuorla blazar monitoring program[^9] when HE activity was reported in 2015 July. The monitoring observations were performed in optical R-band using a 35cm Celestron telescope coupled to the KVA (Kunglinga Vetenskapsakademi) telescope located at La Palma. Data analysis was performed using a semi-automatic pipeline for differential photometry assuming the comparison star magnitudes in . The magnitudes were corrected for Galactic extinction using values from @2011ApJ...737..103S.
In order to study the long-term optical behaviour of S2 0109+22, its optical LC is retrieved from the publicly available online database of 76-cm Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope (KAIT) at Lick Observatory[^10]. The LC from KAIT is produced through a pipeline that utilizes aperture photometry and performs brightness calibrations using USNO B1.0 catalogue stars in the source field. The long-term optical LC is extended back to 2005 by including available online data from the Catalina Real-Time Transient Survey [@2009ApJ...696..870D]. KAIT and Catalina data are obtained from unfiltered observations, whose effective color is close to the R-band [@2003PASP..115..844L].
### Host galaxy imaging (NOT) {#HGIMAGE}
To investigate the host galaxy of S2 0109+22, we obtained a deep I-band image at the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) on 2015 November 11. In total, 26 exposures, each 150 seconds long, were obtained using the ALFOSC[^11] instrument. After subtracting the bias, flat-fielding and fringe map correction, the images were registered using stars in the field and summed. The resulting image has a total exposure time of 3900 seconds with $FWHM \cong 1.14\arcsec$. The comparison stars in were used to calibrate the field.
### Polarization (NOT)
Polarization observations were carried out using the ALFOSC instrument in the standard linear polarization set-up (lambda/2 retarder followed by calcite) in optical *R*-band. Weekly observations were performed from November 2015 to September 2017 within three observing seasons. In order to determine the zero point of the position angle, polarization standards were observed on a monthly basis. The instrumental polarization was measured observing zero-polarization standard stars, and was found to be negligible. Most of the observations were conducted under good sky condition (seeing $\sim 1\arcsec$).
Using aperture (radius of $1.5\arcsec$) photometry, the sky-subtracted target counts were measured for ordinary and extraordinary beams. By using the intensity ratios of two beams and standard formulae in @2007ASPC..364..495L, we calculated normalized Stokes parameters, polarization fraction, and position angle for each observation. Systematic uncertainties are included in our error estimation.
Radio (OVRO and Metsähovi)
--------------------------
S2 0109+22 was observed at 15GHz as part of a high-cadence gamma-ray blazar monitoring program using the Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO) 40 m telescope [@2011ApJS..194...29R]. The observations are calibrated by using a temperature-stable diode noise source to remove receiver gain drifts, and the flux density scale is derived from observations of 3C 286 assuming the value of 3.44Jy at 15.0GHz . The systematic uncertainty of about 5% in the flux density scale is not included in the error bars. Complete details of the reduction and calibration procedure are found in @2011ApJS..194...29R.
The Mets[ä]{}hovi radio telescope, operating at 37GHz, has been observing the source for two decades. We selected radio data obtained after mid-2005 for the long-term study of the source. The instrument and data reduction procedures are described by .
Results {#sec3}
=======
Very high energy gamma rays {#sec3-1}
---------------------------
The VHE gamma-ray signal from the source is estimated after applying energy dependent selection cuts to the signal. Residual background of the observation is measured around a control region [@2017MNRAS.468.1534A]. The distribution of the events is shown in Figure \[theta2\]. In total, there was an excess of ($365.8\pm 69.1$) events in the signal region $\theta^2 < 0.02\,\deg^2$, where $\theta^2$ is the squared angular distance between the reconstructed source position of the events and the nominal position of the expected source. The data taken during MJD 57228 (2015 July 25) contribute $\geq 61\%$ of excess events of the whole sample of data. The source was detected at a significance level of $7.24\,\sigma$ during MJD 57228 (Fig. \[theta2\]).
The LC of the VHE gamma-ray integral flux above 100GeV ($F_{>100\,\text{GeV}}$) is shown in Figure \[fig\_lc\] with the details presented in Table \[tab\_tev\_flux\]. The constant flux hypothesis is disfavoured with $\chi^2/\text{d.o.f.} = 14.5/4$ ($P_{value}=0.005$). The peak flux, detected on MJD 57228 (hereafter flare night), is twice the average flux over the whole period of observation, $F_{>100\,\text{GeV, ave}}=~(4.7 \pm 1.2) \times 10^{-11}$phcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$. Real correlation analysis for such a short period around the flare night is beyond the reach with the available data sample shown in Figure \[fig\_lc\]. However, there seems to be an increased flux in X-rays, optical and UV bands around the flare night, which suggests that emission in these bands could originate from a single region.
We compare the integral flux ($F_{>200\,\text{GeV}}$) of S2 0109+22 to that of other TeV BL Lac objects (21 sources) with variable flux in VHE gamma rays presented in the most recent population study by , who studied a time independent correlation between several lower-energy bands and VHE gamma-ray luminosity, and predicted the VHE gamma-ray flux for 182 non-TeV BL Lac objects. The comparison is shown in Figure \[histo2\]. Both the lowest and the largest observed flux of S2 0109+22 during the MAGIC campaign are among the faintest of the population. High and low state VHE gamma-ray predicted energy flux (>200GeV) in are $(4.5\pm1.9)\times 10^{-12}$ and $(9.8\pm2.1)\times 10^{-14}$ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$, respectively. The largest observed flux over the same energy range, $F_{>200\,\text{GeV}}^{\text{high~obs}}=(4.6\pm1.5)\times 10^{-12}$ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$, is in good agreement with the predicted flux. The lowest observed flux of this source is $F_{(>200\,\text{GeV})}^{\text{low obs}}=(1.5\pm0.7)\times 10^{-12}$ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$. The observed VHE gamma-ray flux of the source is fainter than the sample of variable TeV BL Lacs.
Figure \[vhe\_sed\] shows the spectrum of S2 0109+22 in the VHE gamma rays. We assume a simple power-law model, $$\frac{dN}{dE}=F_0 (\frac{E}{E_{\text{dec}}})^{-\Gamma},$$ where $E_{\text{dec}}$ and $F_0$ are the decorrelation energy and differential flux at $E_{\text{dec}}$, and $\Gamma$ is the spectral photon index. The spectral parameters are obtained via forward-folding using Poissonian maximum likelihood procedure described by @2017MNRAS.472.2956A. In order to calculate the intrinsic spectral parameters, the same estimation procedure is used by assuming $z=0.35$ (see Sect. \[sec3-5\]) and Extragalactic Background Light (EBL) absorption model described by @2011MNRAS.410.2556D. The spectral parameters are summarized in Table \[tab\_tev\_spec\] for the flare night and the average spectrum. The fitted model statistics are calculated in the energy range of 65–370GeV and 65–250GeV for average and flare night spectra, where MAGIC detected the source.
High-energy gamma rays {#sec3-2}
----------------------
We have found that there is no significant HE gamma-ray spectral and flux variability on a daily basis during the investigated period (MJD 57220–57240). These results are shown in Figure \[fig\_lc\] (Panels b and c). The HE gamma-ray constant fit flux is $F_{(0.1-300\,\text{GeV})} = (1.4 \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-7}$phcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$, which is $\sim\,2$ times higher than the average flux reported in the 3FGL catalogue [@2015ApJS..218...23A] for this source.
To model the HE gamma-ray spectrum of S2 0109+22, a power-law function which uses integrated flux as a free parameter[^12] is used. $$\frac{dN}{dE}=\frac{N(\Gamma +1)E^{\Gamma}}{E^{\Gamma +1}_{\text{max}}-E^{\Gamma +1}_{\text{min}}}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the photon index, $E_{\text{min}}=100\,\text{MeV}$, $E_{\text{max}}=300\,\text{GeV}$, and N is the integral flux between $E_{\text{min}}$ and $E_{\text{max}}$.
We analysed the source in the period MJD 57225–57232, modelling its spectrum with a simple power-law. The likelihood fit obtained a Test Statistic of $TS= 111$. The resulting power law index of the fitted model is $\Gamma=1.81 \pm 0.14$. The spectral index of the investigated period is within the error bars of the one reported in 3FGL. In Figure \[vhe\_sed\], we show the flux values in six logarithmically spaced bins from 100MeV to 300GeV. Upper-limits are shown when the detection significances are lower than $3\,\sigma$.
X-rays {#xray3}
------
The results of our X-ray analysis are shown in Figure \[fig\_lc\] with the details available in Table \[tab\_xray\]. The X-ray flux peaks three nights before the VHE gamma-ray peak. The X-ray spectrum is usually soft (Photon index, $\Gamma_X \geq 2.4$). The constant flux hypothesis is rejected with $>10\,\sigma$ level of confidence. However, only a hint of brighter-harder trend with $2\,\sigma$ level of confidence is present in our data sample. The trend between X-ray spectral index and flux ($F_{0.3-10\,\text{keV}}$) can be described by a linear model (Fig. \[spec\_flux\]) with the test statistics of $\chi ^2/\text{d.o.f.}= 2.97/5$, corresponding to Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.76. Moreover, we tried to fit a log-parabola model to the data obtained on MJD 57228. It reveals that the power law model with an index $\Gamma_X = 2.58 \pm 0.05$ ($\chi ^2/\text{d.o.f.}= 48.2/50$) can describe the spectrum better. The X-ray flux ($F_{0.3-10\,\text{keV}}$) on the flare night was $>6$ times higher than the flux from 2006 observations.
Long-term behaviour
-------------------
Recently two studies of optical and radio behaviour of TeV blazars have been published. studied the long-term optical and radio behaviour of 32 VHE gamma-ray blazars using data from the OVRO and Tuorla blazar monitoring programs. They found correlated flares in half of the sources, and correlated long-term trends in 13 sources. performed a first statistical study of the optical polarization variability of TeV blazars, and found that they are not different from the control sample of non-TeV blazars. S2 0109+22 was not part of those studies. In order to compare its optical and radio behaviour with the sample of VHE gamma-ray blazars, we have performed the same analysis of the long-term optical and radio data and optical-polarization data as done in and .
Moreover, the long-term correlation studies between radio/optical and gamma-ray bands were already performed by @2014MNRAS.445..437M and @2014ApJ...797..137C using similar radio and optical datasets as those presented in this analysis. Therefore, we only attempt to study the long-term radio-optical cross-correlation behaviour of the source together with its optical polarization behaviour.
### Radio-Optical cross-correlation analysis {#3-4-1}
Figure \[fig\_longterm\] illustrates the long-term optical and radio data of S2 0109+22. The coverage is of 12 years in the optical band (R-band and open filters) and at 37GHz, and 10 years at 15GHz.
Following , we calculated the cross-correlation function between the optical and 15GHz LCs using the Discrete Correlation Function [DCF; @1988ApJ...333..646E] with local normalization [LCCF; @1999PASP..111.1347W]. We use temporal binning of 10 days and require that each LCCF bin has at least 10 elements. Following @2014MNRAS.445..437M, the significance of the correlation is estimated using simulated LC. In the simulations, we used a power spectral density index of -1.8 for the radio LC (Max-Moerbeck et al. in prep.), which is slightly smaller than the values between -1.4 and -1.7 reported in @2004MNRAS.348.1379C for the (8 to 37GHz) radio LCs. For the optical, we used a power spectral density index of -1.5 (Nilsson et al. in prep.). While there are several peaks (features) in the LCCF, shown in Figure \[lccf\], none of them reach the $2\,\sigma$ significance level. We also calculated the cross-correlation functions between the optical-37GHz and 37-15GHz. The only significant correlation is between 37-15GHz, with significance $>3\sigma$. The peak is rather broad from -40 to +30 days (Fig. \[lccf\]) and is consistent with zero lag. Typically, for evolving synchrotron self-absorbed components [e.g. @1994ApJ...437...91S; @2014MNRAS.441.1899F], one would expect the higher frequency to lead the lower frequency variations, which is consistent with our finding. However, as stated the peak is rather wide and also consistent with zero time lag. These results may indicate co-spatiality.
The optical-radio correlations of this source have been previously studied by and @2004MNRAS.348.1379C. Both works found several weak peaks in the correlations with lags 190, 400 days , and 190, 789 and 879 days [@2004MNRAS.348.1379C]. In Figure \[lccf\], there is a single ‘feature’ covering all these lags, peaking at $\sim$500 days. This feature is not significant and in general the results of our calculation agree with those by and @2004MNRAS.348.1379C.
We also searched for common long-term trends from the optical and radio data by fitting linear trends to these LCs. No long-term trends were found at these wavelengths.
We then compared the results of the correlation and trend analyses to the results obtained for other TeV blazars in . The sources in which no connection between flaring behaviour nor long term behaviour were found were a minority in that sample and were either very weak sources, or bright sources with clear outbursts like S2 0109+22. These other bright sources in the sample were S5 0716+714, ON 325 and W Com and it was suggested that as there were several $2\,\sigma$ peaks in their correlation function, there might be several time-scales involved, blurring the correlation. However, for S2 0109+22 we do not find any correlation peaks above $2\,\sigma$. This result may indicate that a major fraction of the optical flux in this source is not originating from the same emission region as the radio, or that the radio-optical correlation is more complex than can be probed by the simple cross-correlation function used in this paper.
### Optical Polarization
The optical emission in active galaxies is dominated by synchrotron emission of the their jet, which is intrinsically highly polarized. In an optically thin jet with uniform magnetic field, the polarization fraction can be up to 70% [e.g., @1970ranp.book.....P]. The more typically observed levels of fractional polarization reach a few tens of percent at maximum , which have been taken as evidence for disordered magnetic fields. The linearly polarized emission is described using the Stokes parameters *I* (for total intensity), and *Q* and *U* (for linear polarization). Using the Stokes parameters, the polarization fraction and the electric vector position angle (EVPA) can be defined as $m=(\sqrt{Q^2+U^2})/I$ and EVPA$=1/2\tan^{-1}(U/Q)$. The polarization fraction and EVPA for S2 0109+22 are shown in Figure \[pollc\].
We estimate the long-term polarization variability of S2 0109+22 by using the methods described in where the optical polarization of a sample of TeV and non-TeV-detected BL Lac objects was studied. We calculate the intrinsic mean polarization fraction and its modulation index (standard deviation of the polarization fraction over the mean), by assuming that the polarization fraction follows a Beta distribution, which is confined to values between 0 and 1, similarly as the polarization fraction. A single polarization observation is assumed to follow a Ricean distribution, so that our probability density function is obtained by convolving the Beta and Ricean distributions as follows,
$${\rm PDF}\left(p;\alpha, \beta\right)=\frac{p^{\alpha -1} \left( 1-p\right)^{\beta -1}}{B\left(\alpha, \beta\right)},$$ where $p$ is the polarization fraction and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ determine the shape of the Beta distribution $B\left(\alpha, \beta\right)$. If the parameters $a, \beta$ of this distribution are known, the mean polarization fraction and the intrinsic modulation index are then given by
$$p_\text{int}=\frac{\alpha}{\alpha + \beta}$$ and $$m_\text{int}=\frac{\sqrt{Var}}{p_\text{int}}=\frac{\sqrt{\frac{\alpha\beta}{\left(\alpha + \beta\right)^2 \left(\alpha + \beta
+1 \right)}}}{\frac{\alpha}{\alpha + \beta}},$$ where $Var$ is the variance of the distribution. Details of the method are described in Appendix A of @2016MNRAS.457.2252B. The intrinsic mean polarization fraction of S2 0109+22 is $0.090^{+0.010}_{-0.008}$, which is higher than the sample mean values of $0.054\pm0.008$ and $0.079\pm0.009$ obtained for the TeV and non-TeV BL Lac objects in . Similarly, the intrinsic modulation index of the polarization fraction $0.54^{+0.08}_{-0.06}$ is higher than the sample mean values for the TeV ($0.29\pm0.03$) and non-TeV ($0.38\pm0.04$) sources.
The polarization angle variability can be quantified by calculating the derivative of the polarization angle variations. First we account for the n$\pi$ ambiguity of the polarization angle by requiring that each subsequent point is within 90$^\circ$ from the previous observation. We obtain a median derivative of 2.4 degrees per day, which translates to 3.3 degrees per day in the source frame when multiplied by $(1+z)$ ($z=0.35$, see Sect. \[sec3-5\]). Comparing this to the histograms in Figure 4 of shows how S2 0109+22 varies more rapidly in polarization angle than the average TeV (mean $1.11\pm0.29$ deg./day) and non-TeV (mean $1.66\pm0.45$ deg./day) sources. This is also seen when we examine the polarization variations in the $Q/I-U/I$-plane (see the inset in Fig. \[pollc\] for the $Q/I-U/I$ plot). As described in a tightly clustered distribution of the points in the $Q/I-U/I$-plane is an indication of a preferred polarization angle. For S2 0109+22 the weighted average of the $Q/I$ and $U/I$ values places the mass center at a distance of 0.039 from the origin, which is smaller than the mean value of $0.050\pm0.008$ for the TeV sources in . However, the spread in the points, quantified as the distance of each point from the mass center, is 0.077, which is much higher than the mean values ($0.021\pm0.003$ for TeV and $0.041\pm0.005$ for non-TeV sources) in . In fact, there is only one non-TeV source with a value higher than we obtain for S2 0109+22.
These results are in good agreement with previous studies and indicate that the optical polarization of S2 0109+22 is more variable both in fractional polarization and position angle than other high-energy BL Lac objects, and that there does not seem to be a preferred polarization angle in the source, at least over our monitoring period. This is not unexpected based on the analysis of which showed that the polarization variability depends more on the position of the synchrotron peak rather than the detection of TeV emission . As shown in Figure \[SED\], in the ISP-type S2 0109+22 the optical emission probes the peak of the synchrotron component, where the variability is expected to be higher [see also @2016MNRAS.463.3365A]. Comparing the obtained intrinsic mean polarization fraction to the values presented by @2016MNRAS.463.3365A, this source seems to be a rather typical ISP-type object. The maximum polarization fraction is over 15%, which is high, but not uncommon for ISP sources, as shown in where about 30% of the ISP objects reach fractional polarization values as high as or higher than 15%. This indicates that the magnetic field order must be fairly high in the emission region.
Redshift estimation {#sec3-5}
-------------------
The lack of emission lines in the optical spectrum of BL Lacs objects makes the determination of the redshift of these sources particularly challenging. An estimation on the distance can be obtained from basic assumption on the host galaxy luminosity . Alternatively, an upper limit on the distance can instead be estimated by studying the deformation induced by the EBL on the VHE gamma-ray spectrum.
### Host galaxy {#sec3-5-1}
We use the deep I-band image (see \[HGIMAGE\]) to search for the host galaxy emission. Two-dimensional surface brightness models were fitted to the light distribution of S2 0109+22 in order to study its host galaxy. Prior to the fitting, the background level was measured and subtracted, removing also a small tilt in the background. Two models were considered: 1) a point source (jet) model and 2) a point source + elliptical galaxy model. Both models had three free parameters, point source x-y position plus flux in the first model, and point source flux, host galaxy flux and host galaxy effective radius in the second model. The first model was used to fix the position of the nucleus, i.e. the second model was fit using the position from the first model to fix the point source and the host galaxy into the same position. Moreover, the ellipticity of the host galaxy was fixed to $\varepsilon = 0$ and the Sersić index to $n = 4$. Both models were convolved with the PSF, determined from two nearby stars, located at 61and 84away from, and with similar peak intensity to S2 0109+22. The fit was performed using pixels within 10.5of the center of S2 0109+22.
We used a Metropolis sampler [e.g. @2017arXiv170404629M] to map a posteriori distribution in three-dimensional parameter space. We employed 10 independent walkers, each completing 30 000 iteration steps and with flat priors. The walkers were initially distributed randomly over a fairly wide range of values, but they all quickly converged towards the same area in the parameter space corresponding to the maximum likelihood. The calculation of likelihood assumed that the pixel values had an uncertainty consisting of four components, each normally distributed: 1) Photon noise, 2) readout noise, 3) error in background determination and 4) error in the PSF model. The background uncertainty was determined by measuring the background around the source in 10 rectangular regions. For the PSF error, we subtracted the PSF from a star close to S2 0109+22 and examined the residuals. The residuals were the strongest near the center of the star, where they amounted to 2% of the local signal.
Figure \[hostplot\] shows the marginalized posterior distributions of the two host galaxy parameters: the host galaxy flux and effective radius. The parameters are correlated and in addition both correlate strongly with the point source flux. The best-fit (mode of the posteriors) parameters of model no.2 correspond to AGN flux = (6.651$\pm$0.003) mJy, host galaxy flux (0.149$\pm$0.003) mJy and effective radius (1.40$\pm$0.04). The host galaxy flux in the *I*-band optical is I = 18.05 mag.
If we make the assumption that the host galaxy is a passively evolving early type galaxy with absolute magnitude $M_R = -22.8$ [@2005ApJ...635..173S] with $R - I$ = 0.7 and using $A_I$ = 0.057 for the Galactic absorption [@2011ApJ...737..103S], then we obtain $z = 0.36 \pm 0.07$. This value and its error are a result of 1000 trials where we first drew $M_R$ from a Gaussian distribution with average $-22.8\pm0.5$ and then determined the redshift compatible with the observed I-band magnitude taking into account the evolution, K-correction and Galactic absorption.
### Redshift upper limit based on absorption of VHE gamma rays
The absorption of VHE gamma rays through interaction with the EBL increases with source distance and photon energy. Basic assumptions on the intrinsic spectrum can be used to infer a limit on the distance of the blazar [e.g. @2007ApJ...655L..13M; @2010MNRAS.405L..76P]. In order to determine an upper limit for the source distance, we assumed that the intrinsic spectrum is described by a power law or a concave function (i.e. hardness does not increase with energy). The archival data (Fig. \[SED\]) indicates that the spectrum of the source in the HE gamma-ray band is variable. Considering that the source is not located at $z>1$, we assume the hardest possible spectrum for this redshift as an intrinsic power-law index. As a conservative approach we assume a fixed photon-index limit of 1.5 following @2006Natur.440.1018A and . We obtain a 95% confidence level limit to the S2 0109+22 redshift of $z\leq 0.60$. The value is obtained by means of a maximum likelihood fit to the observed event rates vs. the reconstructed energy, modelling the intrinsic spectrum with a power-law function, using the EBL model of @2011MNRAS.410.2556D, and performing a scan in redshift. The limit is obtained, following @2001NIMPA.458..745R, from the resulting profile likelihood vs. redshift, with the intrinsic source parameters, and the background rates vs. reconstructed energy, treated as nuisance parameters. A more conservative limit can be estimated by varying the simulated total light throughput of the instrument by $\pm15\%$. This yields an 95% upper limit on the redshift of $z\leq 0.67$. To estimate the uncertainties caused by EBL model selection, we test eight different EBL models . The results show that the uncertainties due to EBL model selection are negligible compared with the instrumental uncertainties. Finally, in order to verify the assumed intrinsic photon index (1.5), we compare the results with the ones obtained by assuming the photon index in Section \[sec3-2\] ($\Gamma=1.81 \pm 0.14$). The comparison shows that results are consistent with each other.
The estimated redshift ($z=0.36\pm0.07$) and the calculated redshift 95% upper limit ($z\leq 0.67$) in this paper are consistent with the value reported by @2016MNRAS.458.2836P [$z>0.35$]. Therefore, we used $z=0.35$ based on the accuracy of the technique and other uncertainties, to calculate the intrinsic properties of the source.
![\[hostplot\]Marginalized posterior distributions of the host galaxy flux and effective radius *(bottom-right)*. The likelihood distribution of effective radius *(bottom-left)* and host galaxy flux *(top-right)*. The color is proportional to the probability.](bayesplot_final.eps){width="47.00000%"}
Spectral energy distribution
----------------------------
[\[3-6\]]{} In this section, we first present the physical modelling of the SED based on the quasi-simultaneous data described in previous sections. Then, we use a mathematical approach in order to calculate the location of SED peaks in other epochs using archival data (as well as the quasi-simultaneous data near the flare night).
### Broad band SED {#BBSED}
In Figure \[SED\], we plot the broad-band SED of S2 0109+22 using the multi-frequency data described in previous sections. For the SED modelling, the HE and VHE gamma-ray spectra are constructed from MAGIC and *Fermi*-LAT data obtained on MJD 57225-57231. The VHE gamma-ray data are corrected for the EBL absorption effect using the @2011MNRAS.410.2556D model. The VHE gamma-ray spectrum is dominated by the signal from the flare night. However, for the night of the flare, we do not have enough strictly simultaneous data to produce a robust model. As discussed in Section \[sec3-1\], the low significance of the signal outside the flare night did not allow us to construct a low-state SED. For X-ray, UV and optical, we selected the data points which are near the flare night, to avoid averaging a variable source with different distribution of observation times during the MAGIC campaign. The *Swift*-UVOT and *Swift*-XRT data are used to reproduce the UV and X-ray spectra of the source on MJD 57228.41. The optical data point, obtained by the KVA telescope on MJD 57228.22, is corrected for Galactic extinction. The host galaxy contribution to the optical flux is neglected (see Sect. \[sec3-5-1\]). The radio data points were collected on MJD 57227.41 and 57227.08 in 15 and 37GHz respectively, but are not used for SED modelling (see below).
The quasi-simultaneous SED was modelled using a one-zone synchrotron self-Compton model [@2003ApJ...593..667M]. It assumes a spherical, relativistically moving emission region characterized by its radius $R$, magnetic field B and Doppler factor $\delta$. It contains an electron population following a broken power-law distribution with index $p_1$ for $\gamma_\text{min}<\gamma<\gamma_\text{break}$ and $p_2$ for $\gamma_\text{break}<\gamma<\gamma_\text{max}$. The normalization of this electron distribution at $\gamma$=1 is $K$. We use the redshift of $z=0.35$ for the source (see Sect. \[sec3-5\]).
The goodness of the fitted model is judged by a $\chi^2$-test ($\chi^2$/d.o.f = 22.4/16) assuming fixed $\gamma_\text{min}=1.0 \times 10^{3}$ because there is no instrument available to probe the energy range where the influence of $\gamma_\text{min}$ would be significant. Therefore, the curve represents only one possible set of SED parameters. The other parameters used for the model are: $R=5.5 \times 10^{16}$ cm, $B=0.054$ G, $\delta=21.7$, $\gamma_\text{break}=1.2 \times 10^{4}$, $\gamma_\text{max}=4.5 \times 10^{5}$, $p_1=1.94$, $p_2=3.68$ and $K=3.1 \times 10^3$ cm$^{-3}$. The assumed emission region size is compatible with a daily variability time scale. There is no evidence of a shorter variability time scale in the multi wavelength data during the MAGIC campaign. The parameters are rather typical for TeV BL Lac objects [See e.g. @2010MNRAS.401.1570T].
The one-zone model does not reproduce the spectrum at the lowest frequencies, since the emission is self-absorbed below the millimetre band. It is generally assumed that this emission is produced in the outer regions of the jet. This is in agreement with the results in Section \[3-4-1\], where no connection between the long-term behaviour of the optical and radio bands was found for this source. Moreover, the location of the SED peaks are roughly estimated to be $\log \nu_{\text{sync}}\simeq 15.4$ and $\log \nu_{\text{IC}}\simeq 23.3$.
### SED peaks {#syncpeak}
In order to determine the peak frequencies of the SED components, we fitted simultaneously two log-parabolic spectra , one for the synchrotron peak and another for the Inverse Compton (IC), to the SED of the source. We try to calculate the location of the SED peaks for two different states. First, we extracted the archival data from the ASI Space Science Data Center[^13]. Since the archival data are non-simultaneous and $\nu_{\text{peak}}$ is known to change with the activity state in blazars [e.g. @2009ApJ...705.1624A], we can expect the fitted $\nu_{\text{peak}}$ to depend on the frequencies covered and on the number of observing epochs. To roughly estimate how much this could affect $\nu_{\text{peak}}$ we constructed 4 different samples from the archival data, one representing a high state, another for a low state and two ‘mixed’ states. The archival data indicate that the source is an intermediate synchrotron peak BL Lac object based on the classifications in @2010ApJ...716...30A with $\log \nu_{\text{sync}}=14.4 \pm 0.1$ and $\log \nu_{\text{IC}}=22.8 \pm 0.2$, which is consistent with the source classification reported by .
In the second step we used the quasi-simultaneous data described in section \[BBSED\]. The locations of the peaks are $\log \nu_{\text{sync}}=15.1 \pm 0.5$ and $\log \nu_{\text{IC}}=23.1 \pm 0.2$, which are consistent with the results obtained from the physical modelling described in Section \[BBSED\]. Table \[synchtab\] shows the summary of the SED peaks using different approaches and datasets. Based on the broad-band SED modelled for this dataset, the X-ray emission is purely synchrotron, which is normal for HSP BL Lac objects [e.g. @2010ApJ...708L.100A]. The historical X-ray observations of 2006 (Table \[tab\_xray\]) show a hard X-ray spectral index ($\Gamma_X=2.06\pm 0.05$) which is in good agreement with the broad-band SED reported by @2004MNRAS.348.1379C and the normal case for LSP and ISP BL Lac objects [e.g. @2017ApJ...844...58P]. Therefore, there is a hint of a transition from intermediate to high synchrotron peak during the MAGIC observation period. The transition is not only in the peak but the whole SED is appearing as a typical X-ray bright HSP SED .
Summary {#sec4}
=======
S2 0109+22 was discovered for the first time in the HE gamma-ray band by the *Fermi*-LAT during the first three months of sky-survey operation in 2008 [@2009ApJ...700..597A]. Previous EGRET upper limits are reported in @2004MNRAS.348.1379C.
In this paper, we reported the first VHE gamma-ray detection of S2 0109+22 by MAGIC in 2015 July. The MAGIC observation was triggered by the source high state in HE gamma rays. During the MAGIC observation campaign, the HE gamma-ray LC does not show variability on a daily time scale, while the constant fit to VHE gamma-ray flux was rejected with $3\,\sigma$ level of confidence.
We performed a long-term and a short-term multi-frequency study of the source, from radio to VHE gamma rays and compare the source to other TeV blazars. The summary of the main outcomes are:
1. Compared to the sample of 21 known variable TeV BL Lac objects (Fig. \[histo2\]), the observed VHE gamma-ray flux from S2 0109+22 is relatively low. The predicted low state VHE gamma-ray flux by is below the sensitivity of the current generation of IACTs. Moreover, the source was not detected after its flaring activity by MAGIC. Therefore, this source will be a good candidate to be monitored by the future Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA) in order to characterize its VHE gamma-ray temporal behaviour and its connection to lower energy bands.
2. The brighter-harder trend is clear in the X-ray band (Table \[tab\_xray\] and Fig. \[spec\_flux\]). Similar behaviour was observed for many TeV BL Lac objects [@2017ApJ...841..123P]. However, such a trend is not present in the VHE gamma-ray (Table \[tab\_tev\_spec\] and Fig. \[vhe\_sed\]) and HE gamma-ray (Fig. \[fig\_lc\], panel b and c) bands, but this could be due to large error bars in these bands. The absence of such a correlation in HE and VHE gamma-ray bands for non-HSP BL Lac objects is widely discussed in the context of the ‘blazar sequence’ [see @2015ApJ...810...14A and references therein].
3. In the long-term optical and radio LC (Fig. \[fig\_longterm\]), there was no correlation peak between 15GHz and optical flux. This fact suggests that, unlike for many other TeV blazars, the optical and radio emission do not originate from the same region or that the correlation is too complex to be probed by the method found in .
4. The optical fractional polarization and polarization angle of S2 0109+22 are more variable than found for typical high-energy BL Lac objects .
5. We used two methods to estimate the redshift of the source. The result of the photometric host-galaxy method is $z = 0.36\pm0.07$, whereas the 95% upper limit estimation based on the absorption of VHE gamma-ray emission, assuming the EBL model described in @2011MNRAS.410.2556D, gives $z \leq 0.67$. The estimated redshifts are in agreement with the one derived by @2016MNRAS.458.2836P.
6. When comparing the quasi-simultaneous SED presented in this paper with archival data obtained from the ASI Space Science Data Center, there is a hint of intermediate to high synchrotron peak transition. This has been previously suggested for PKS 0301-243 and 1ES 1011+496 in 2008 [@2016MNRAS.459.2286A].
7. The broad-band SED of S2 0109+22 (Sect. \[BBSED\]) reveals that the parameters of a single-zone SSC model are rather typical for TeV BL Lac objects. Comparing the SED parameters with the ones reported in @2004MNRAS.348.1379C reveals that the magnetic field strength is an order of magnitude weaker. Weaker magnetic field energy density ($U_B=B^2/8\pi$) increases the radiation to magnetic energy ratio ($U_{\text{rad}}/U_{B}=L_{\text{IC}}/L_{\text{sync}}$). Therefore, SSC luminosity component increases to the level above the sensitivity of VHE gamma-ray instruments.
The long-term radio to optical and optical polarization behaviour of the source agree with the classification of the source as an ISP BL Lac object, which are still a minority in the class of TeV blazars. However, there is a hint of type transition as discussed in Section \[syncpeak\] based on the multi epoch comparison of the SED peak locations and X-ray behaviour of the source. In order to precisely characterize the source-type transition behaviour, more simultaneous multi-wavelength observations during different flux states are needed. Such observations can be performed when CTA enables us to detect VHE gamma-ray emission also during the low state of the source. Moreover, considering the increased SSC luminosity, high polarization degree in the optical and high X-ray luminosity of the source make this source an ideal candidate for physical modelling when the X-ray and soft-gamma-ray (MeV) polarization observations become available by instruments such as Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer [IXPE, @2016SPIE.9905E..17W], e-ASTROGAM [@2017ExA....44...25D], and All-sky Medium Energy Gamma-ray Observatory [AMEGO, @2017HEAD...1610313M].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Part of this work is based on archival data, software or online services provided by the Space Science Data Center - ASI.
We would like to thank the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias for the excellent working conditions at the Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos in La Palma. The financial support of the German BMBF and MPG, the Italian INFN and INAF, the Swiss National Fund SNF, the ERDF under the Spanish MINECO (FPA2015-69818-P, FPA2012-36668, FPA2015-68378-P, FPA2015-69210-C6-2-R, FPA2015-69210-C6-4-R, FPA2015-69210-C6-6-R, AYA2015-71042-P, AYA2016-76012-C3-1-P, ESP2015-71662-C2-2-P, CSD2009-00064), and the Japanese JSPS and MEXT is gratefully acknowledged. This work was also supported by the Spanish Centro de Excelencia “Severo Ochoa” SEV-2012-0234 and SEV-2015-0548, and Unidad de Excelencia “María de Maeztu” MDM-2014-0369, by the Croatian Science Foundation (HrZZ) Project IP-2016-06-9782 and the University of Rijeka Project 13.12.1.3.02, by the DFG Collaborative Research Centers SFB823/C4 and SFB876/C3, the Polish National Research Centre grant UMO-2016/22/M/ST9/00382 and by the Brazilian MCTIC, CNPq and FAPERJ.
The *Fermi*-LAT Collaboration acknowledges generous ongoing support from a number of agencies and institutes that have supported both the development and the operation of the LAT as well as scientific data analysis. These include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Energy in the United States, the Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules in France, the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana and the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare in Italy, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) in Japan, and the K. A. Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish National Space Board in Sweden. Additional support for science analysis during the operations phase is gratefully acknowledged from the Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica in Italy and the Centre National d’Études Spatiales in France. This work performed in part under DOE Contract DEAC02-76SF00515.
The OVRO 40-m monitoring program is supported in part by NASA grants NNX08AW31G, NNX11A043G and NNX14AQ89G, and NSF grants AST-0808050 and AST-1109911.
affiliations {#affiliations .unnumbered}
============
$^{1}$ [Università di Udine, and INFN Trieste, I-33100 Udine, Italy]{}\
$^{2}$ [National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF), I-00136 Rome, Italy]{}\
$^{3}$ [Università di Padova and INFN, I-35131 Padova, Italy]{}\
$^{4}$ [Technische Universität Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany]{}\
$^{5}$ [Croatian MAGIC Consortium: University of Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, University of Split - FESB, 21000 Split, University of Zagreb - FER, 10000 Zagreb, University of Osijek, 31000 Osijek and Rudjer Boskovic Institute, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.]{}\
$^{6}$ [Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, 1/AF Bidhannagar, Salt Lake, Sector-1, Kolkata 700064, India]{}\
$^{7}$ [Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, D-80805 München, Germany]{}\
$^{8}$ [now at Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), 22290-180 URCA, Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brasil]{}\
$^{9}$ [Unidad de Partículas y Cosmología (UPARCOS), Universidad Complutense, E-28040 Madrid, Spain]{}\
$^{10}$ [Inst. de Astrofísica de Canarias, E-38200 La Laguna, and Universidad de La Laguna, Dpto. Astrofísica, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain]{}\
$^{11}$ [University of Łódź, Department of Astrophysics, PL-90236 Łódź, Poland]{}\
$^{12}$ [Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany]{}\
$^{13}$ [ETH Zurich, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland]{}\
$^{14}$ [Institut de Física d’Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), E-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain]{}\
$^{15}$ [Università di Siena and INFN Pisa, I-53100 Siena, Italy]{}\
$^{16}$ [Università di Pisa, and INFN Pisa, I-56126 Pisa, Italy]{}\
$^{17}$ [Universität Würzburg, D-97074 Würzburg, Germany]{}\
$^{18}$ [Finnish MAGIC Consortium: Tuorla Observatory and Finnish Centre of Astronomy with ESO (FINCA), University of Turku, Vaisalantie 20, FI-21500 Piikkiö, Astronomy Division, University of Oulu, FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland]{}\
$^{19}$ [Departament de Física, and CERES-IEEC, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain]{}\
$^{20}$ [Japanese MAGIC Consortium: ICRR, The University of Tokyo, 277-8582 Chiba, Japan; Department of Physics, Kyoto University, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan; Tokai University, 259-1292 Kanagawa, Japan; RIKEN, 351-0198 Saitama, Japan]{}\
$^{21}$ [Inst. for Nucl. Research and Nucl. Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria]{}\
$^{22}$ [Universitat de Barcelona, ICC, IEEC-UB, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain]{}\
$^{23}$ [Humboldt University of Berlin, Institut für Physik D-12489 Berlin Germany]{}\
$^{24}$ [also at Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Trieste, I-34127 Trieste, Italy]{}\
$^{25}$ [also at Port d’Informació Científica (PIC) E-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona) Spain]{}\
$^{26}$ [also at INAF-Trieste and Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, University of Bologna]{},\
$^{27}$ [Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI) Space Science Data Center, I-00133 Roma, Italy)]{},\
$^{28}$ [Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Sezione di Perugia, I-06123 Perugia, Italy]{},\
$^{29}$ [Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Chile, Camino El Observatorio 1515, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile]{},\
$^{30}$ [Tuorla Observatory, University of Turku, Väisäläntie 20, FI-21500 Piikkiö, Finland]{},\
$^{31}$ [Aalto University Metsähovi Radio Observatory, Metsähovintie 114, 02540 Kylmälä, Finland]{},\
$^{32}$ [Aalto University Department of Electronics and Nanoengineering, P.O. BOX 15500, FI-00076 AALTO, Finland]{},\
$^{33}$ [Tartu Observatory, Observatooriumi 1, 61602 Tõravere, Estonia]{},\
$^{34}$ [Owens Valley Radio Observatory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA]{},
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: The eleven meter telescope (National Radio Astronomy Observatory) observed the source in 1976.
[^2]: <https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/software/>
[^3]: <https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/access/lat/BackgroundModels.html>
[^4]: The detection significance for a given source is approximately equal to the square root of the Test Statistic, for a given source.
[^5]: <https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/analysis/threads/gen_thread_attfilter.html>
[^6]: <https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/W3Browse/swift/swiftxrlog.html>
[^7]: The difference between the number of data points measured by *UVOT* and *XRT* is due to the usage of *XRT* window timing mode, multiple *UVOT* snapshots during *XRT* exposure, and bad quality of *XRT* raw images.
[^8]: Calculated based on the value obtained from @2011ApJ...737..103S
[^9]: <http://users.utu.fi/kani/1m>
[^10]: <http://herculesii.astro.berkeley.edu/kait/agn>
[^11]: \[ALFOSC\]<http://www.not.iac.es/instruments/alfosc>
[^12]: <https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/scitools/source_models.html#PowerLaw2>
[^13]: <http://www.asdc.asi.it/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) contribution induced on the cosmic microwave background by the presence of a supervoid as the one detected by @Szapudi2015 is reviewed in this letter in order to check whether it could explain the Cold Spot (CS) anomaly. Two different models, previously used for the same purpose, are considered to describe the matter density profile of the void: a top hat function and a compensated profile produced by a Gaussian potential. The analysis shows that, even enabling ellipticity changes or different values for the dark-energy equation of state parameter $\omega$, the ISW contribution due to the presence of the void does not reproduce the properties of the CS.'
author:
- |
A. Marcos-Caballero$^1$$^,$$^2$, R. Fernández-Cobos$^1$, E. Martínez-González$^1$, P. Vielva$^1$\
$^1$ Instituto de Física de Cantabria, CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Avda. de los Castros s/n, E-39005 Santander, Spain.\
$^2$ Departamento de Física Moderna, Universidad de Cantabria, Avda. los Castros s/n, E-39005 Santander, Spain.
bibliography:
- 'citas\_letter.bib'
date: 'Accepted Received ; in original form '
title: On the void explanation of the Cold Spot
---
methods: data analysis - cosmic microwave background
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
The Cold Spot (CS), an extremely cold region centred on $(b, \ell) =
(210^{\mathrm{\circ}},-57^{\mathrm{\circ}})$, was discovered in the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data using a multiscale analysis of the Spherical Mexican Hat Wavelet (SMHW) coefficients [@Vielva2004; @Cruz2005]. Within the $\mathrm{\Lambda CDM}$ model, the significance of the occurrence of this feature in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies was estimated between $1\%$ and $2\%$ [@Cruz2006]. As the Planck Collaboration confirmed, the CS shows unusual properties which come to light when the mean angular profile or the area of wavelet coefficients above a certain threshold on angular scales around $10^{\mathrm{\circ}}$ are analysed [@Planck2015XVI]. Besides the possibility that the CS could be a statistical fluke, different explanations have been proposed. Although this letter is focused on the void hypothesis, other physical mechanisms include a cosmic bubble collision [@Czech2010; @Feeney2011; @McEwen2012], the gravitational evolution of a cosmic texture [@Cruz2007], and alternative inflationary models [@BuenoSanchez2014].
Recently, there has been a debate on whether the CS could be explained as a consequence of the presence of a large void, which was detected in the WISE-2MASS galaxy survey at the same direction [@Szapudi2015; @Finelli2014]. Actually, this is not the first time in which a void arises as the possible origin of the CS [see e.g. @Tomita2005; @Inoue2006; @Rudnick2007; @Cruz2008; @Bremer2010; @Granett2010]. This low-density region is consistent with a supervoid centred at $z\approx 0.15 - 0.25$, depending on its characterization. The alignment of the void and the CS is pointed out as a hint of a physical connection between both phenomena. They built their argument based on a probabilistic discussion about this alignment and a particular case of the Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) model with a Gaussian potential [@Finelli2014] to infer the angular profile of the CMB imprint of a spherically symmetric supervoid in the number density of galaxies. In this latter paper, the connection between the supervoid detected in WISE-2MASS and the CS was analysed in the light of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) and the Rees-Sciama contributions. However, @Zibin2014 and @Nadathur2014 show independently that the first-order ISW contribution from the presence of this type of void is actually dominant with respect to the non-linear component (Rees-Sciama effect), and therefore the corresponding temperature decrement induced in the CMB by the presence of a void as the one mentioned above ($\approx -19\mathrm{\mu K}$) would not be intense enough to account for the depth of the CS ($\approx -150 \mathrm{\mu K}$).
In this letter, we explore the latter argument through a supplementary analysis in the SMHW coefficients [@Martinez2002] at the specific CS angular scale, since the anomaly is detected in the SMHW space. In addition, we extend the void models enabling ellipticity changes to check that a different geometry could not produce an ISW contribution which accounts for the CS. We also show that alternative simple models of dark energy cannot reconcile the CMB contribution from a supervoid and the observed CS temperature. Finally, we discuss the previous analyses.
The void influence on the CMB {#sec:isw}
=============================
As it is known, within the standard cosmological model, the contribution of any possible supervoid is already included in the total CMB anisotropies (as a part of the linear ISW contribution) and therefore the presence of a standard and linear underdensity cannot explain the anomalous temperature decrement of the CS. The assumption that the effect on the CMB photons due to the nonlinear evolution of the potential is negligible with respect to the ISW contribution is based on previous analyses of the Rees-Sciama contribution, which becomes noticeable at multipoles $\ell > 80$ ($\lesssim 2^{\circ}$), and even at these angular scales, its value is much lower than the ISW component at large scales [see e.g. @Cai2010]. Therefore, a rare void is needed in order to explain the CS with the ISW and Rees-Sciama effects. These non-standard scenarios are explored varying the void eccentricity up to very unlikely values. In any case, the angular size of the ISW effect of the voids considered in this work is greater than several degrees.
Besides the amplitude of this decrement, the profile of the CS is also important to characterize the anomaly because a particular shape is preferred when it is selected in the SMHW coefficients. In this section, we first review the main conclusions about the ISW contribution expected from the presence of a void as that detected by @Szapudi2015. Subsequently, the impact of varying the ellipticity of the void is also explored. In addition, non-standard scenarios with different values of $\omega$ are considered to check whether the void prediction is able to cause a temperature decrement as that observed in the CS.
Spherical model
---------------
Because of symmetry assumptions, the ISW contribution to the CMB anisotropies caused by a large-scale structure (LSS) fluctuation can be written as: $$\small
\dfrac{\Delta T (\theta)}{T_{\mathrm{CMB}}} = -2\int {\mathrm{d}z \dfrac{\mathrm{d}G(z)}{\mathrm{d}z}\Phi\left( \sqrt{\chi^2(z)+\chi_0^2-2\chi(z)\chi_0\cos\theta}\right)},
\label{eq:profile}$$ where $\theta$ denotes the angular distance from the centre of the void at $\chi_0 = \chi(z_0)$, in comoving distance. The gravitational potential $\Phi(\mathbf{r},z)$ is factorized into the growth suppression factor $G(z)$ and a spatial dependence $\Phi(r)$ which, assuming $G(0)=1$, represents the potential at $z=0$.
In this letter, two different density profiles, which have been already used to the same purpose, are considered. On the one hand, a spherical top hat (TH) model [@Szapudi2015], parametrized by its radius $R$. In this case, the potential can be written as $$\Phi(r) =\begin{cases} \phi_0 R^2 \left( 3- \dfrac{r^2}{R^2}\right), & \mbox{if } r\le R \\
\phi_0 \dfrac{2R^3}{r}, & \mbox{if } r> R, \end{cases}$$ where $r$ denotes the comoving distance from the centre of the void.
When distances greater than $R$ are considered, this model behaves as a point-like particle: it presents an inverse dependence on distance, and therefore the gravitational effect is extended far beyond distances as the size of the void.
On the other hand, a particular case of LTB model is considered [@Finelli2014; @Nadathur2014]. The potential is described in this case by a Gaussian profile: $$\Phi(r) = \phi_0 {r_0}^2\exp{\left(-\dfrac{r^2}{{r_0}^2}\right)},$$ where $r_0$ accounts for the scale. Hereafter, this profile is referred as the Gaussian model, although the matter underdensity profile is not Gaussian in this case[^1].
It is easy to show that, whilst the density profile associated to the Gaussian potential is compensated, that associated to the TH model is not.
In both cases, the amplitude $\phi_0$ is proportional to the matter density fluctuation at the void centre $\delta_0$: $$\phi_0 = \dfrac{\Omega_m \delta_0}{4G(0)}\left( \dfrac{H_0}{c}\right)^2,$$ where, in a flat universe, $\Omega_m = 1 - \Omega_{\Lambda}$ denotes the matter energy density (in our case, with a fixed dark-energy density $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.685$), $H_0$ is the Hubble constant at present time and $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum.
The best-fitting set of parameters is considered for each model. In particular, we take $R = (220\pm50) \mathrm{h^{-1}Mpc}$, $\delta_0 =
0.14\pm0.04$ and $z_0 = 0.22\pm 0.03$, for the TH model [@Szapudi2015]; and $r_0 = (195\pm35) \mathrm{h^{-1}Mpc}$, $\delta_0 = 0.25\pm0.10$ and $z_0 = 0.155\pm 0.037$, in the case of the LTB Gaussian model [@Finelli2014; @Nadathur2014].
In order to characterize the feature induced in the CMB temperature anisotropies by the presence of a supervoid, we compute its 1-dimensional shape. This profile can be expanded in terms of the Legendre polynomials: $$\dfrac{\Delta T(\theta)}{T_{\mathrm{CMB}}} = \sum_{\ell = 0}^{\infty}{\sqrt{\dfrac{2\ell+1}{4\pi}} a_{\ell} P_{\ell}(\cos\theta)},$$ where $a_{\ell}$ denotes the coefficients of the expansion. In the particular case in which the void is aligned with the z-axis, the coefficients $a_{\ell}$ are equivalent to the spherical harmonic coefficients with $m=0$. They can be therefore computed from the theoretical profile of Eq. (\[eq:profile\]) as $$a_{\ell} = \sqrt{\left( 2\ell + 1\right)\pi}\int_{-1}^{1}{\mathrm{d}(\cos\theta)\dfrac{\Delta T(\theta)}{T_{\mathrm{CMB}}}P_{\ell}(\cos\theta)}.$$
The corresponding ISW profiles induced by each void model [and the CS data]{} are depicted in Figure \[fig:profiles\]. The profiles are very different in terms of the amplitude. Within the considered $\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}$ model, the standard deviation of the ISW temperature fluctuations is estimated to be $\sigma_{\mathrm{ISW}}
= 19.58\mathrm{\mu K}$. Whilst the Gaussian model induces a profile whose value at $\theta = 0$ lies at the $1\sigma$ level when the standard deviation due exclusively to the ISW contribution is taken as reference, the TH profile at the centre reaches a $4.5\sigma$ level.
In terms of the standard deviation of the matter field convolved by a top hat function of scale $R$, the corresponding value of $\delta_0$ for the TH best-fit profile lies at the $\approx 6\sigma$ level[^2]. This could give a hint that the TH model is not a realistic description of a void expected within the standard model, although it is shown closer –but not enough yet– to explain the CS anomaly. Actually, this void description would imply an anomaly larger than the one that is expected to be explained. For the Gaussian model, the value of $\delta_0$ is only at a $\approx2\sigma$ level.
In addition to the amplitude, a deeper insight can be obtained by paying attention to the shape of the profile. The SMHW coefficient of the CS with scale $R=300 \arcmin$ describes both the temperature at the centre and the hot ring at $15^\circ$, since the specific shape of the SMHW at this scale weighs these features in a single number. Therefore, if the theoretical profiles fit the CS data, they will have a similar value of the SMHW coefficient. It is also important to remark that the CS represents a $\approx
4.7\sigma$ fluctuation in terms of this coefficient, which implies that any theoretical model assumed for the CS must explain this large deviation. The value of the SMHW coefficient can be computed as $$W_0 = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}{\sqrt{\dfrac{2\ell+1}{4\pi}}w_{\ell}a_{\ell}}.$$
The standard deviation of the SMHW coefficients with $R=300 \arcmin$ (the scale at which the CS anomaly is manifested) due to the ISW contribution is $\sigma_{\mathrm{ISW}}(W_0) = 0.94\mathrm{\mu K}$. We obtain $W_0$ values at around $-1.07 \mathrm{\mu K}$ for the TH description and $-0.54 \mathrm{\mu K}$ for the Gaussian model, and both lie within the $\approx 1\sigma$ level when only the ISW contribution is taken into account. On the other hand, the SMHW coefficient associated to the CS is a $20\sigma$ fluctuation with respect to the ISW effect, and therefore is very unlikely to explain the CS only taking into account the ISW fluctuations of linear standard voids. Other possible scenario is that the CS is the sum of a primordial CMB fluctuation and the ISW effect of a void, but even in this case the probability of this event is small. The SMHW coefficient of the observed data, once the effect of the void is subtracted, is still a $\approx 4.5 \sigma$ fluctuation. Therefore, whilst the effect predicted by the theoretical models for this particular void is shown compatible with the expected ISW signal from typical LSS fluctuations within the $\Lambda \mathrm{CDM}$, the CS appears anomalous in relation to both properties: shape and amplitude.
In principle, to consider the void as explanation of the CS, it would not be necessary that its contribution accounts for all the CS amplitude, but it should be intense enough to make anomalous the primordial fluctuation. In terms of the amplitude of the Gaussian model, the ISW contribution from the void represents a $13\%$ with respect to the temperature at the centre of the CS. However, in terms of $W_0$, this fraction drops to $2.8\%$.
![CMB temperature profiles induced by the presence of a supervoid modelled as a TH (in blue) and a Gaussian model (in red). The data points correspond to the CS profile from the Planck SMICA map, and the error bars represent the cosmic variance.[]{data-label="fig:profiles"}](profile.ps)
Ellipsoidal model
-----------------
All previous conclusions are derived from a spherical void model, but we could wonder whether they remain when the void presents an ellipsoidal geometry. For this purpose, we decompose the radial coordinate $\mathbf{r}$ of the matter density profile, defined from the centre of the void, into a component parallel to the line of sight $r_{\parallel}$ and another orthogonal to it $\mathbf{r_{\perp}}$, which is a 2-dimensional vector in the normal plane, such that: $$r = \sqrt{r_{\parallel}^2 \left( 1-e^2\right)+r_{\perp}^2},$$ where $e$ denotes the ellipticity. This toy model allows us to stretch the void along the line of sight in terms of the ellipticity, whereas the semi-minor axis is fixed to the scale of the density profile ($R$ for the TH and $r_0$ for the Gaussian model, respectively), implying an increase of the volume. The centre position of the void is also kept at $z_0$. This configuration favours the increase of the ISW contribution due to the presence of the void, because the void influence is kept in a greater redshift interval along the line of sight.
Although the standard model imposes limits to the ellipticity [e.g. @Icke1984; @Bardeen1986], three values are considered such that the semi-major axis is increased by one, two and three times the error bar of $r_0$ (the value of $35\mathrm{h^{-1}Mpc}$ is taken in both models for simplicity). A comparison between CMB temperature profiles caused by supervoids with different ellipticity is shown in Figure \[fig:profiles\_e\]. As expected, the absolute value of the amplitude at $\theta = 0$ increases as the ellipticity grows. In the case of the TH model, the radial profile at the centre of the void reaches a value close to the CS temperature decrease when an ellipticity of $e=0.76$ is considered, whilst these values remain unreachable with the Gaussian model. However, all the SMHW coefficients lie within the $1\sigma$ level of the ISW contribution, as in the spherical case. This means that the shape of the profiles differs from that shown by the CS. The $W_0$ value for all cases are given in Table \[tab:coef\_e\]. They should be compared with the SMHW coefficient at the CS location in the *Planck* temperature data whose value is estimated in $-19.3 \pm 4.1 \mathrm{\mu K}$.
![Comparison of CMB temperature profiles induced by the presence of an elliptical supervoid modelled as a TH (top panel) and a Gaussian model (bottom panel) with different values of ellipticity.[]{data-label="fig:profiles_e"}](profile_th_e.ps "fig:") ![Comparison of CMB temperature profiles induced by the presence of an elliptical supervoid modelled as a TH (top panel) and a Gaussian model (bottom panel) with different values of ellipticity.[]{data-label="fig:profiles_e"}](profile_ltb_e.ps "fig:")
$e$ TH \[$\mathrm{\mu K}$\] Gaussian \[$\mathrm{\mu K}$\]
------ ------------------------- -------------------------------
0.00 -1.07 -0.54
0.53 -1.42 -0.71
0.68 -1.81 -0.85
0.76 -2.20 -1.03
: SMHW coefficients $W_0$ induced by elliptical voids modelled by TH and Gaussian profiles with different ellipticity. All coefficients correspond to a wavelet scale $R=300\arcmin$. The $W_0$ computed at the CS location in the *Planck* temperature data is $-19.3 \pm 4.1 \mathrm{\mu K}$.[]{data-label="tab:coef_e"}
Varying $\omega$ in the dark-energy equation of state {#sec:beyond}
-----------------------------------------------------
Assuming $\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ regulates the amplitude of the ISW effect produced by these void models. Considering dark energy, the ISW contribution also depends on its evolution. In this section, we extend the void models so that the dark-energy equation of state parameter $\omega$ can be set to another value different from $-1$. This dependence affects explicitly to the growth suppression factor $G(z)$ and the comoving distance $\chi(z)$. Decreasing the value of $\omega$ causes a stronger evolution in the density parameter of the dark energy, implying a larger ISW imprint. Actually, for our purposes, the assumption that the $\omega$ is different from $-1$ is only necessary at the redshift interval in which the CMB photon is suffering the effect of the void but not in the whole evolution of the Universe.
A comparison between CMB temperature profiles induced by the void corresponding to different values of $\omega$ is given in Figure \[fig:profiles\_w\]. The temperature at the centre reaches a similar value than that shown by the CS only for the TH model and considering a value of $\omega = -3.0$ which, obviously, is ruled out by current observations [e.g. @Parameters2015]. Similar intervals in $\omega$ does not correspond with similar increases of the absolute value of the amplitude of the profiles, but this increase is smaller as the values of $\omega$ become more extreme. However, the $W_0$ values for these profiles also lie within the $1\sigma$ level with respect to the standard deviation of the ISW signal. They are shown in Table \[tab:coef\_w\].
![Comparison of CMB temperature profiles induced by the presence of a spherical supervoid modelled as a TH (top panel) and a Gaussian model (bottom panel) with different values of $\omega$.[]{data-label="fig:profiles_w"}](profile_th_w.ps "fig:") ![Comparison of CMB temperature profiles induced by the presence of a spherical supervoid modelled as a TH (top panel) and a Gaussian model (bottom panel) with different values of $\omega$.[]{data-label="fig:profiles_w"}](profile_ltb_w.ps "fig:")
$\omega$ TH \[$\mathrm{\mu K}$\] Gaussian \[$\mathrm{\mu K}$\]
---------- ------------------------- -------------------------------
-1.00 -1.07 -0.54
-1.50 -1.74 -0.96
-2.00 -2.13 -1.28
-2.50 -2.34 -1.49
-3.00 -2.38 -1.60
: SMHW coefficients $W_0$ induced by a spherical void as that detected by @Szapudi2015 modelled by TH and Gaussian profiles for different values of $\omega$. All coefficients correspond to a wavelet scale $R=300\arcmin$. The $W_0$ computed at the CS location in the *Planck* temperature data is $-19.3 \pm 4.1 \mathrm{\mu K}$.[]{data-label="tab:coef_w"}
Discussion {#sec:Conclusions}
==========
We have reviewed the ISW contribution from a supervoid as the one detected by @Szapudi2015 in the light of two different models previously considered: a TH matter density profile and a particular case of the LTB model with a Gaussian potential. The comparison between the feature induced on the CMB by the presence of a void as the one mentioned above and the CS has been focused both on the amplitude of the induced CMB temperature decrement and the shape of the radial profile. This is an important aspect, which is related to the anomalous nature of the CS that is manifested when the CMB is analysed in wavelet space. As was mentioned in @Planck2015XVI, the shape of the CS radial profile is shown anomalous, and therefore the ability to relate this shape with the imprint of a supervoid would give weight to the hypothesis that there is a connection between both phenomena. However, an SMHW coefficient analysis shows that the imprint of the void does not fit the same pattern than the CS profile. All SMHW coefficients computed in this work lie within the $2.5\sigma$ level with respect to the standard deviation due to the ISW signal, even for extreme scenarios that, although discarded within the standard cosmological model, could provide CMB decrements at the centre of the CS of the order of the observed data. In the light of these models, it is important to recall that the ISW imprint from an individual void is indistinguishable from the primordial fluctuations.
Modifications of the LTB density profile have been considered to describe more accurately the particular shape of the CMB profile around the CS [see @Finelli2014]. However, the shape is modified at the expense of a lower value of the amplitude at the centre, and therefore this amplitude is not already significant. In fact, we have checked that the $W_0$ values associated with this profile are even smaller than those related to the cases considered in this work.
In conclusion, we have shown that the ISW effect within the standard model is not a plausible explanation for the CS, not even considering the Rees-Sciama effect. Nevertheless, any hypothetical physical connection between the void and the CS should rely either on deviations from the standard cosmological model (e.g. non-Gaussian primordial density fluctuations) or on new physics.
acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors thank J. Zibin for his useful comments on the letter. Partial financial support from the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad Projects AYA2012-39475-C02-01 and Consolider-Ingenio 2010 CSD2010-00064 is acknowledged.
[^1]: Notice that this model is denoted simply as LTB in previous papers [@Szapudi2015; @Finelli2014; @Nadathur2014].
[^2]: Notice that @Szapudi2015 provide a value of at least $3.3\sigma$ based on a more conservative estimate of the rareness of the void which takes into account a $1\sigma$ deviation of the TH best-fit parameters.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper is devoted to study the existence of a solution to Hilfer fractional differential equation with nonlocal boundary condition. We use the equivalent integral equation to study the considered Hilfer differential problem with nonlocal boundary condition. The Mönch type fixed point theorem and the measure of the noncompactness technique are the main tools in this study. We demonstrate the existence of a solution with a suitable illustrative example.'
address:
- |
“Department of Mathematics”,\
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University,\
Aurangabad - 431001, (M.S) India
- |
“Department of Mathematics”,\
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University,\
Aurangabad - 431001, (M.S) India
- |
“Department of Mathematics”,\
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University,\
Aurangabad - 431001, (M.S) India
- |
“Faculty of Engineering Mathematics”,\
Institute of Chemical Technology Mumbai,\
Marathwada Campus, Jalna - 431 203 (M.S) India.
author:
- 'Hanan A. Wahash'
- 'Mohammed S. Abdo'
- 'Satish K. Panchal'
- 'Sandeep P. Bhairat[^1]'
title: Existence of solution for Hilfer fractional differential problem with nonlocal boundary condition
---
Introduction
============
The calculus of arbitrary order has been extensively studied in the last four decades. It has been proved to be an adequate tool in almost all branches of science and engineering. Because of its widespread applications, fractional calculus is becoming an integral part of applied mathematics research. Indeed, fractional differential equations have been found useful to describe abundant phenomena in physics and engineering, and the modest amount of work in this direction has taken place, see [@ABLZ; @AG; @KD] and references therein. For basic development and theoretical applications of fractional differential equations, see [@HI; @KL1].
In the past two decades, the fractional differential equations are extensively studied for existence, uniqueness, continuous dependence and stability of the solution. For some fundamental results in existence theory of various fractional differential problems with initial and boundary conditions, see survey papers [@ABLZ; @AG], the monograph [@KL1], the research papers [@AP1; @AP2; @SP1; @SPN; @SP5; @DB1; @DBN; @SPB; @DB2; @KD; @FK; @KM; @FMG; @HLT; @VE; @WZ] and references therein.
In the year 2018, Thabet et al. [@SA] investigated the existence of a solution to BVP for Hilfer FDEs: $$D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }z(t)=f\left( t,z(t),Sz(t)\right) ,0<\mu <1,0\leq \nu
\leq 1,\text{\qquad\ \ }t\in (a,b], \label{11}$$$$I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }\left[ uz(a^{+})+vz(b^{-})\right] =w,\text{ }\ \mu \leq
\gamma =\mu +\nu (1-\mu ),u,v,w\in
\mathbb{R}
, \label{12}$$by using the Mönch fixed point theorem.
Recently, in [@APB], Abdo et al. obtained the existence of the solutions of BVP for the class of Hilfer FDEs: $$D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }z(t)=f(t,z(t)),\text{ \ }p-1<\mu <p,\,0\leq \nu \leq
1\qquad \qquad \ \ \ \label{e8.1a}$$$$I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }\left[ cz(a^{+})+dz(b^{-})\right] =e,\text{\ \ \ }\mu
\leq \gamma =\mu +\nu (1-\mu ),\qquad \ \ \ \label{e8.1b}$$by using the Schauder, Schaefer and Krasnosel’skii’s fixed point theorems.
Motivated by works cited above, in this paper, we consider the nonlocal boundary value problem for a class of Hilfer fractional differential equations (HNBVP): $$D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }z(t)=f(t,z(t)),\text{ \ }0<\mu <1,\,0\leq \nu \leq
1,t\in (a,b],\qquad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \qquad \qquad \label{e8.1}$$$$I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }cz(a^{+})+I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma
}dz(b^{-})=\sum_{k=1}^{m}\lambda _{k}z(\tau _{k}),\tau _{k}\in (a,b],\ \mu
\leq \gamma =\mu +\nu -\mu \nu , \label{e8.2}$$where $D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }$ is the generalized Hilfer fractional derivative of order $\mu $ and type $\nu $, $I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }$ is the Riemann-Liouville fractional integral of order $1-\gamma $, $f:(a,b]\times
\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a function such that $f(t,z)\in
C_{1-\gamma }[a,b]$ for any $z\in C_{1-\gamma }[a,b]$ and $c,d\in \mathbb{R}$, for $k=1,2,\cdots,m$.The measure of noncompactness technique and a fixed point theorem of Monch type are the main tools in this analysis.
The paper is organized as follows: Some preliminary concepts related to our problem are listed in Section 2 which will be useful in the sequel. In Section 3, we first establish an equivalent integral equation of BVP and then we present the existence of its solution. An illustrative example is provided in the last section.
Preliminaries
=============
In this section, we present some definitions, lemmas and weighted spaces which are useful in further development of this paper.
Let $J_{1}=[a,b]$ and $J_{2}=(a,b]\-\infty <a<b<+\infty.$ Let $C(J_{1},E),$ $AC(J_{1},E)$ and $C^{n}(J_{1},E)$ be the Banach spaces of all continuous, absolutely continuous, $p-$times continuous and continuously differentiable functions on $J_{1},$ respectively. Here $L^{p}(J_{1},E),$ $p>1,$ is the Banach space of measurable functions on $J_{1}$ with the $L^p$ norm where $$\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L^{p}}=\left( \int_{a}^{b}\left\vert
p(s)\right\vert ^{p}ds\right) ^{\frac{1}{p}}<\infty.$$ Let $L^{\infty }(J_{1},E)$ be the Banach space of measurable functions $z:J_{1}\longrightarrow E$ which are bounded and equipped with the norm $\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }}=\inf \{e>0:\left\Vert z\right\Vert
\leq e,$ a.e $t\in J_{1}\}.$ Moreover, for a given set $\mathcal{V}$ of functions $v:J_{1}\longrightarrow E$ let us denote by$$\mathcal{V(}t)=\{v(t):v\in \mathcal{V};t\in J_{1}\},$$$$\mathcal{V(}J_{1})=\{v(t):v\in \mathcal{V};t\in J_{1}\}.$$
[@KL1] Let $g:[a,\infty )\rightarrow R$ is a real valued continuous function. The left sided Riemann-Liouville fractional integral of $g$ of order $\mu >0$ is defined by $$I_{a^{+}}^{\mu }g(t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{\mu
-1}g(s)ds,\quad t>a, \label{d1}$$where $\Gamma (\cdot )$ is the Euler’s Gamma function and $a\in
\mathbb{R}
.$ provided the right hand side is pointwise defined on $(a,\infty ).$
[@KL1] Let $g:[a,\infty )\rightarrow R$ is a real valued continuous function. The left sided Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative of $g$ of order $\mu >0$ is defined by $$D_{a^{+}}^{\mu }g(t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma (p-\mu )}\frac{d^{n}}{dt^{n}}\int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{n-\mu -1}g(s)ds, \label{d2}$$where $n=[\mu ]+1,$ and $[\mu ]$ denotes the integer part of $\mu .$
\[7\] [@HI] The left sided Hilfer fractional derivative of function $g\in L^{1}(a,b)$ of order $0<\mu <1$ and type $0\leq \nu \leq 1$ is denoted as $D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }$ and defined by $$D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }g(t)=I_{a^{+}}^{\nu (1-\mu )}D^{p}I_{a^{+}}^{(1-\nu
)(1-\mu )}g(t),\text{ }D^{n}=\frac{d^{n}}{dt^{n}}. \label{d3}$$where $I_{a^{+}}^{\mu }$ and $D_{a^{+}}^{\mu }$ are Riemann-Liouville fractional integral and derivative defined by and , respectively.
\[rem8.a\] From Definition \[7\], we observe that:
- The operator $D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }$ can be written as $$D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }=I_{a^{+}}^{\nu (1-\mu )}D^{p}I_{a^{+}}^{(1-\gamma
)}=I_{a^{+}}^{\nu (1-\mu )}D^{\gamma },~~~~~~~~\gamma =\mu +\nu -\mu \nu
\text{.}$$
- The Hilfer fractional derivative can be regarded as an interpolator between the Riemann-Liouville derivative ($\nu =0$) and Caputo derivative ($\nu =1$) as $$D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }=\begin{cases}
DI_{a^{+}}^{(1-\mu )}=~D_{a^{+}}^{\mu },~~~~~~~~~~if~\nu =0; \\
I_{a^{+}}^{(1-\mu )}D=~^{c}D_{a^{+}}^{\mu },~~~~~~~~if~\nu =1.\end{cases}$$
- In particular, if $\gamma =\mu +\nu -\mu \nu ,$ then $$(D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }g)(t)=\Big(I_{a^{+}}^{\nu (1-\mu )}\Big(D_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }g\Big)\Big)(t),$$where $\Big(D_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }g\Big)(t)=\frac{d}{dt}\Big(I_{a^{+}}^{(1-\nu
)(1-\mu )}g\Big)(t).$
[@KL1] Let $0\leq \gamma <1.$ The weighted spaces $C_{\gamma }[a,b]$ and $C_{1-\gamma }^{n}[a,b]$ are defined by $$C_{\gamma }[a,b]=\{g:(a,b]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}:(t-a)^{\gamma }g(t)\in
C[a,b]\},$$and $$C_{\gamma }^{n}[a,b]=\{g:(a,b]\rightarrow \mathbb{R},g\in
C^{n-1}[a,b]:g^{(n)}(t)\in C_{\gamma }[a,b]\},\,n\in \mathbb{\mathbb{N}
}$$with the norms$${\Vert g\Vert }_{C_{\gamma }}={\Vert }(t-a)^{\gamma }{{g}\Vert }_{C}=\max
\{\left\vert (t-a)^{\gamma }{g(t)}\right\vert :t\in \lbrack a,b]\},$$and $${\Vert g\Vert }_{C_{1-\gamma }^{n}}=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}{\Vert g^{(k)}\Vert }_{C}+{\Vert g^{(n)}\Vert }_{C_{1-\gamma }}, \label{n1}$$respectively. Furthermore we recall following weighted spaces $$C_{1-\gamma }^{\mu ,\nu }[a,b]=\big\{g\in {C_{1-\gamma }[a,b]}:D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }g\in {C_{1-\gamma }[a,b]}\big\},\quad \gamma =\mu +\nu
(1-\mu ) \label{w1}$$and$$C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }[a,b]=\big\{g\in {C_{1-\gamma }[a,b]}:D_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }g\in {C_{1-\gamma }[a,b]}\big\},\quad \gamma =\mu +\nu
(1-\mu ).$$where Let $0<\mu <1,0\leq \nu \leq 1$ and $\gamma =\mu +\nu -\mu \nu $. Clearly, $D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }g=I_{a^{+}}^{\nu (1-\mu )}D_{a^{+}}^{\gamma
}g $ and $C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }[a,b]\subset C_{1-\gamma }^{\mu ,\nu
}[a,b]. $
\[def8.5\] [@KD] If $\mu >0$ and $\nu >0,$ and $g\in L^{1}(a,b)$ for $t\in \lbrack a,b]$, then the following properties hold: $$\Big(I_{a^{+}}^{\mu }I_{a^{+}}^{\nu }g\Big)(t)=\Big(I_{a^{+}}^{\mu +\nu }g \Big)(t)\,\, \text{and }\Big(D_{a^{+}}^{\mu }I_{a^{+}}^{\nu }g\Big)(t)=g(t).$$ In particular, if $f\in C_{\gamma }[a,b]$ or $f\in C[a,b]$, then the above properties hold for each $t\in (a,b]$ or $t\in \lbrack a,b]$ respectively.
\[Le1\][@KL1] For $t>a,$ we have
(i)
: $I_{a^{+}}^{\mu }(t-a)^{\delta -1}=\frac{\Gamma (\delta )}{\Gamma
(\delta +\mu )}(t-a)^{\delta +\mu -1},\quad \mu \geq 0,\delta >0.$
(ii)
: $D_{a^{+}}^{\mu }(t-a)^{\mu -1}=0,\quad \mu \in (0,1).$
\[def8.8\] [@HI] Let $\mu >0$, $\nu >0$ and $\gamma =\mu +\nu -\mu
\nu .$ If $g\in C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }[a,b]$, then$$I_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }D_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }g=I_{a^{+}}^{\mu }D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu
}g,~D_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }I_{a^{+}}^{\mu }g=D_{a^{+}}^{\nu (1-\mu )}g.$$
\[Le2\] [@HI] Let $0<\mu <1,$ $0\leq \nu \leq 1$ and $g\in
C_{1-\gamma }[a,b].$ Then$$I_{a^{+}}^{\mu }D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }g(t)=g(t)-\frac{I_{a^{+}}^{(1-\nu
)(1-\mu )}g(a)}{\Gamma (\mu +\nu (1-\mu ))}(t-a)^{\mu +\nu (1-\mu )-1},\quad
\text{for all}\quad t\in (a,b],$$Moreover, if $\ \gamma =\mu +\nu -\mu \nu ,$ $g\in C_{1-\gamma }[a,b]$ and $I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }g\in C_{1-\gamma }^{n}[a,b],$ then $$I_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }D_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }g(t)=g(t)-\frac{I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma
}g(a)}{\Gamma (\gamma )}(t-a)^{\gamma -1},\quad \text{for all}\quad t\in
(a,b].$$
\[def8.7\] [@HLT] If $0\leq \gamma <1$ and $g\in C_{\gamma }[a,b]$, then $$(I_{a^{+}}^{\mu }g)(a)=\lim_{t\rightarrow a^{+}}I_{a^{+}}^{\mu
}g(t)=0,~0<\mu \leq \gamma .$$
[@MH] Let $E$ be a Banach space and let$\ \Upsilon _{E}$ be the bounded subsets of $E$. The Kuratowski measure of noncompactness is the map ${\Large \alpha }:\Upsilon _{E}\longrightarrow \lbrack 0,\infty )$defined by$${\Large \alpha }(\mathcal{S})=\inf \{\varepsilon >0:\mathcal{S}\subset \cup
_{i=1}^{m}\mathcal{S}_{i}\text{ and the diam }(\mathcal{S}_{i})\leq
\varepsilon \};\mathcal{S}\subset \Upsilon _{E}.$$
[@GD] For all nonempty subsets $\mathcal{S}_{1},\mathcal{S}_{2}\subset E$. The Kuratowski measure of noncompactness ${\Large \alpha }(\mathcal{\cdot })$ satisfies the following properties:
1. ${\Large \alpha }(\mathcal{S})=0\Longleftrightarrow \overline{\mathcal{S}}$ is compact ($\mathcal{S}$ is relatively compact);
2. ${\Large \alpha }(\mathcal{S})={\Large \alpha }(\overline{\mathcal{S}})={\Large \alpha }(conv\mathcal{S}),$ where where $\overline{\mathcal{S}}$ and $conv\mathcal{S}$ denote the closure and convex hull of the bounded set $\mathcal{S}$ respectively;
3. $\mathcal{S}_{1}\subset \mathcal{S}_{2}\Longrightarrow {\Large \alpha }(\mathcal{S}_{1})\leq {\Large \alpha }(\mathcal{S}_{2});$
4. ${\Large \alpha }(\mathcal{S}_{1}+\mathcal{S}_{2})\leq {\Large \alpha }(\mathcal{S}_{1})+{\Large \alpha }(\mathcal{S}_{2}),$ where $\mathcal{S}_{1}+\mathcal{S}_{2}=\{s_{1}+s_{2}:s\in \mathcal{S}_{1},s\in \mathcal{S}_{2}\};$
5. ${\Large \alpha }(\kappa \mathcal{S})=\left\vert \kappa \right\vert
{\Large \alpha }(\overline{\mathcal{S}}),$ $\kappa \in
\mathbb{R}
;$
For more details, see [@APB; @SPN; @GC].
[@MH] Let $\mathbb{B}$ be a bounded, closed and convex subset of a Banach space $E$ such that $0\in \mathbb{B}$; and let ${\large \mathcal{T}}$ be a continuous mapping of $\mathbb{B}$ into itself. If for every subset ${\large
\mathcal{V}}$ of $\mathbb{B}$$$\mathcal{V=}\overline{co}\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{V})\text{ or }\mathcal{V=T}(\mathcal{V})\cup \{0\}\Longrightarrow {\Large \alpha }(\mathcal{V}){\large
\mathcal{=}}0$$ holds. Then ${\large \mathcal{T}}$ has a fixed point.
[@SZ] Let $\mathbb{B}$ be a bounded, closed and convex subset of a Banach space $C(J_{1},E)$; $F$ is a continuous function on $J_{1}\times J_{1}$; and a function $f:J_{1}\times E\longrightarrow E$ satisfying the Carathéodory conditions, and assume there exists $\rho \in $ $L^{P}(J_{1},\mathbb{R}
^{+})$ such that, for each $t\in J_{1}$ and each bounded set $\mathbb{B}^{\ast }\subset E$; one has$$\underset{r\longrightarrow 0^{+}}{\lim }{\Large \alpha }(f(J_{t,r}\times
\mathbb{B}^{\ast }))\leq \rho (t){\Large \alpha }(\mathbb{B}^{\ast }),\text{where }J_{t,r}\in \lbrack t-r,t]\cap J_{1}.$$If $\mathcal{V}$ is an equicontinuous subset of $\mathbb{B}$; then$${\Large \alpha }\bigg(\bigg\{\int_{J_{1}}F(t,s)f(s,z(s))ds:z\in \mathcal{V\bigg\}\bigg)}\leq \int_{J_{1}}\left\Vert F(t,s)\right\Vert \rho (s){\Large \alpha }(\mathcal{V(}s\mathcal{)})ds.$$
\[le\][@SPB] Let $\gamma =\mu +\nu -\mu \nu $ where $0<\mu <1$ and $0\leq \nu \leq 1.$ Let $f:J_{2}\times E\rightarrow E$ be a function such that $f(t,z)\in C_{1-\gamma }(J_{1},E)$ for any $z\in C_{1-\gamma
}(J_{1},E). $ If $z\in C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }(J_{1},E),$ then $z$ satisfies IVP - if and only if $z$ satisfies the Volterra integral equation $$z(t)=\frac{z_{a}}{\Gamma (\gamma )}(t-a)^{\gamma -1}+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds,\quad t>a. \label{s3}$$
Main results
============
Now we prove the existence of solution of HNBVP - in $C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }(J_{1},E)\subset C_{1-\gamma }^{\mu ,\nu }(J_{1},E).$
A function $z\in $ $C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }(J_{1},E)$ is said to be a solution of HNBVP - if $z$ satisfies the differential equation $D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }z(t)=f(t,z(t))$ on $(a,b]$, and the nonlocal condition $\displaystyle I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }\left[
cz(a^{+})+dz(b^{-})\right] =\sum_{k=1}^{m}\lambda _{k}z(\tau _{k}).$
In the beginning, we need the following axiom lemma:
\[lee1\] Let $0<\mu <1$, $0\leq \nu \leq 1$ where $\gamma =\mu +\nu -\mu
\nu $, and $f:J_{2}\times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a function such that $f(t,z)\in C_{1-\gamma }(J_{1},E)$ for any $z\in C_{1-\gamma
}(J_{1},E).$ If $z\in C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }(J_{1},E),$ then $z$ satisfies HNBVP - if and only if $z$ satisfies the following integral equation$$\begin{aligned}
z(t) &=&\frac{(t-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{1}{\left(
c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau
_{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds \notag \\
&&-\frac{(t-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu }f(s,z(s))ds
\notag \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds, \label{ee3}\end{aligned}$$where $\displaystyle{A=\sum_{k=1}^{m}\lambda _{k}\frac{(\tau _{k}-a)^{\gamma
-1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )}}$, and $c+d\neq A$.
Proof: In view of Lemma \[le\], the solution of can be written as$$z(t)=\frac{I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }z(a^{+})}{\Gamma (\gamma )}(t-a)^{\gamma -1}+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds,\quad t>a.
\label{e8.3}$$
Applying $I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }$ on both sides of and taking the limit $t\rightarrow b^{-}$, we obtain $$I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }z(b^{-})=I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }z(a^{+})+\frac{1}{\Gamma
(1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu }f(s,z(s))ds. \label{e8.4}$$Now, we substitute $t=\tau _{k}$ in (\[e8.3\]) and multiply by $\lambda
_{k}$ to obtain$$\lambda _{k}z(\tau _{k})=\lambda _{k}\left[ \frac{I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma
}z(a^{+})}{\Gamma (\gamma )}(\tau _{k}-a)^{\gamma -1}+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds\right] . \label{e8.3a}$$Using the nonlocal boundary condition (\[e8.2\]) with (\[e8.4\]) and (\[e8.3a\]), we have$$\begin{aligned}
I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }z(a^{+}) &=&\frac{1}{c}\sum_{k=1}^{m}\lambda _{k}z(\tau
_{k})-\frac{d}{c}I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }z(a^{+}) \\
&&+\frac{d}{c\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu
}f(s,z(s))ds.\end{aligned}$$Therefore, by (\[e8.3a\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }z(a^{+}) &=&\frac{1}{c}\sum_{k=1}^{m}\lambda _{k}\frac{I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }z(a^{+})}{\Gamma (\gamma )}(\tau _{k}-a)^{\gamma -1}
\notag \\
&&+\frac{1}{c}\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau
_{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds \notag \\
&&-\frac{d}{c}I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }z(a^{+})-\frac{d}{c}\frac{1}{\Gamma
(1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu }f(s,z(s))ds. \notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma
(\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds \notag \\
&&-\frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu }f(s,z(s))ds, \label{t1}\end{aligned}$$Submitting into , we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
z(t) &=&\frac{(t-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{1}{\left(
c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau
_{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds \notag \\
&&-\frac{(t-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu }f(s,z(s))ds
\notag \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds. \label{E5}\end{aligned}$$
Conversely, applying $I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }$ on both sides of , using Lemma \[def8.5\] and \[Le1\], some simple computations gives $$\begin{aligned}
&&I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }\big(cz(a^{+})+dz(b^{-})\big) \\
&=&\frac{c}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma
(\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds \\
&&-\frac{cd}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu }f(s,z(s))ds \\
&&+\frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma
(\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds \\
&&-\frac{d^{2}}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu }f(s,z(s))ds \\
&&+\frac{d}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu
}f(s,z(s))ds.\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned}
&&I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }\big(cz(a^{+})+dz(b^{-})\big) \\
&=&\left( \frac{c}{\left( c+d-A\right) }+\frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\right) \sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau
_{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds \\
&&-\left( d-\frac{cd}{\left( c+d-A\right) }-\frac{d^{2}}{\left( c+d-A\right)
}\right) \int_{a}^{b}\frac{(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu}}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}f(s,z(s))ds \\
&=&\frac{c+d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma
(\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds \\
&&-\frac{Ad}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu }f(s,z(s))ds\end{aligned}$$From (\[e8.3a\]) and (\[t1\]), we conclude that$$I_{a^{+}}^{1-\gamma }\big(cz(a^{+})+dz(b^{-})\big)=\sum_{k=1}^{m}\lambda
_{k}z(\tau _{k}),$$which shows that the boundary condition (\[e8.2\]) is satisfied.
Next, applying $D_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }$ on both sides of and using Lemma \[Le1\] and \[def8.8\], we have $$D_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }z(t)=D_{a^{+}}^{\nu (1-\mu )}f\big(t,z(t)\big).
\label{e8.9}$$
Since $z\in C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }(J_{1},E)$ and by definition of $C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }(J_{1},E)$, we have $D_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }z\in
C_{1-\gamma }(J_{1},E)$, therefore, $D_{a^{+}}^{\nu (1-\mu
)}f=DI_{a^{+}}^{1-\nu (1-\mu )}f\in C_{1-\gamma }(J_{1},E).$ For $f\in
C_{1-\gamma }(J_{1},E)$, it is clear that $I_{a^{+}}^{1-\nu (1-\mu )}f\in
C_{1-\gamma }(J_{1},E)$. Hence $f$ and $I_{a^{+}}^{1-\nu (1-\mu )}f$ satisfy the hypothesis of Lemma \[Le2\].
Now, applying $I_{a^{+}}^{\nu (1-\mu )}$ on both sides of , we have$${\large I_{a^{+}}^{\nu (1-\mu )}}D_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }z(t)={\large I_{a^{+}}^{\nu (1-\mu )}}D_{a^{+}}^{\nu (1-\mu )}f\big(t,z(t)\big).$$Using Remark \[rem8.a\] (i), relation (\[e8.9\]) and Lemma \[Le2\], we get$$I_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }D_{a^{+}}^{\gamma }z(t)=f\big(t,z(t)\big)-\frac{I_{a^{+}}^{1-\nu (1-\mu )}f\big(a,z(a)\big)}{\Gamma (\nu (1-\mu ))}(t-a)^{\nu (1-\mu )-1},\, \text{for all}\,\, t\in J_{2}.$$ By Lemma \[def8.7\], we have $I_{a^{+}}^{1-\nu (1-\mu )}f\big(a,z(a)\big)=0$. Therefore $D_{a^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }z(t)=f\big(t,z(t)\big)$. This completes the proof.
To prove the existence of solutions for the problem at hand, let us make the following hypotheses.
- The function $f:J_{2}\times E\rightarrow E$ satisfies the Carathèodory conditions.
- $f:J_{2}\times E\rightarrow E$ is a function such that $f(\cdot
,z(\cdot ))\in C_{1-\gamma }^{\nu (1-\mu )}(J_{1},E)$ for any $z\in
C_{1-\gamma }(J_{1},E)$ and there exists $\rho \in L^{p}(J_{1},\mathbb{R}
^{+})$ with $p>\frac{1}{\mu }$ and $p>\frac{1}{\gamma }$ such that$$\left\Vert f\big(t,z\big)\right\Vert \leq \rho (t)\left\Vert z(t)\right\Vert \big),$$for each $t\in J_{2},$ and all $z\in E.$
- The inequalities$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G} &:&\mathcal{=}\big(\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{\left(
\Lambda _{q,\mu ,\gamma }\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}(\tau _{k}-a)^{\gamma +\mu
-1} \notag \\
&&+\big)\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\right\vert \frac{\left( \Delta _{q,\mu ,\gamma }\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}+\frac{\left( \Lambda _{q,\mu ,\gamma }\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\big)(b-a)^{\mu }\big)\left\Vert \rho
\right\Vert _{L^{p}}<1,\end{aligned}$$and$$\begin{aligned}
L^{\ast } &:&=\big(\frac{m}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{(b-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\left(
c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}(\tau _{k}-a)^{\mu }}{\Gamma
(\mu +1)} \notag \\
&&+\big(\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\right\vert \frac{1}{\Gamma (-\gamma +\mu )}+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\mu +1)}\big)(b-a)^{\mu }\big)\left\Vert \rho \right\Vert _{L^{p}}<1\end{aligned}$$hold.
Now, we are ready to prove the existence of solutions for the HNBVP -, which is based on fixed point theorem of Mönch’s type.
\[th8.1\] Assume that (H1)-(H3) are satisfied. Then HNBVP - has at least one solution in $C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma
}(J_{1},E)\subset C_{1-\gamma }^{\mu ,\nu }(J_{1},E)$.
Transform the problem - into a fixed point problem. Define the operator ${\large \mathcal{T}}:C_{1-\gamma
}(J_{1},E)\longrightarrow C_{1-\gamma }(J_{1},E)$ as$$\begin{aligned}
{\large \mathcal{T}}z(t) &=&\frac{(t-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{1}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds \notag \\
&&-\frac{(t-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu }f(s,z(s))ds
\notag \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{\mu -1}f(s,z(s))ds.
\label{e8.10}\end{aligned}$$Clearly, from Lemma \[lee1\], the fixed points of ${\large \mathcal{T}}$ are solutions to -. Let $\mathbb{B}_{R}=\left\{ z\in
C_{1-\gamma }(J_{1},E):\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}\leq
R\right\} $. We shall show that $\mathcal{T}$ satisfies the conditions of Mönch’s fixed point theorem. The proof will be given in the following four steps:
Step1: We show that $\mathcal{T}(\mathbb{B}_{R})\subset \mathbb{B}_{R}$. By definition of $\mathcal{T}$, hypothesis $(H_{2})$ and Hölder’s inequality, we have$$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\Vert (\mathcal{T}z)(t)(t-a)^{1-\gamma }\right\Vert \notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{1}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu
-1}\left\Vert f(s,z(s))\right\Vert ds \notag \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\right\vert \frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu
}\left\Vert f(s,z(s))\right\Vert ds \notag \\
&&+\frac{(t-a)^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{\mu
-1}\left\Vert f(s,z(s))\right\Vert ds \notag \\
&\leq &\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{1}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu
-1}(s-a)^{\gamma -1}\rho (s)\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}ds
\notag \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\right\vert \int_{a}^{b}\frac{(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu}}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}
(s-a)^{\gamma -1}\rho (s)\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}ds \notag
\\
&&+\frac{(t-a)^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{\mu
-1}(s-a)^{\gamma -1}\rho (s)\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}ds
\notag \\
&\leq &\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\left( \int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}\frac{(\tau_{k}-s)^{(\mu -1)q}}
{\left( c+d-A\right)}(s-a)^{(\gamma -1)q}ds\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}\left\Vert
\rho \right\Vert _{L^{p}}\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }} \notag \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\right\vert \left(\int_{a}^{b}\frac{(b-s)^{(-\gamma +\mu )q}}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}(s-a)^{(\gamma -1)q}ds\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}} \notag \\
&&\times \left\Vert \rho \right\Vert _{L^{p}}\left\Vert z\right\Vert
_{C_{1-\gamma }}+\frac{(t-a)^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\mu )} \notag \\
&&\times \left( \int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{(\mu -1)q}(s-a)^{(\gamma -1)q}ds\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}\left\Vert \rho \right\Vert _{L^{p}}\left\Vert z\right\Vert
_{C_{1-\gamma }}. \label{q1}\end{aligned}$$Since $q>1,$ $p>\frac{1}{\mu }$ and $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1,$ the change of variable $s=a-u(\tau _{k}-a)$ yields $$\left( \int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{(\mu -1)q}(s-a)^{(\gamma
-1)q}ds\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}\leq \left( \Lambda _{q,\mu ,\gamma }\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}(\tau _{k}-a)^{\gamma +\mu -1}, \label{e1}$$the change of variable $s=a-u(b-a)$ gives $$\left( \int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{(-\gamma +\mu )q}(s-a)^{(\gamma -1)q}ds\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}\leq \left( \Delta _{q,\mu ,\gamma }\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}(b-a)^{\mu }, \label{e2}$$and the change of variable $s=a-u(t-a)$ gives us $$\left( \int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{(\mu -1)q}(s-a)^{(\gamma -1)q}ds\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}\leq \left( \Lambda _{q,\mu ,\gamma }\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}(t-a)^{\gamma
+\mu -1}, \label{e3}$$where $$\Lambda _{q,\mu ,\gamma }:=\frac{\Gamma (q(\mu -1)+1)\Gamma (q(\gamma -1)+1)}{\Gamma (q(\mu +\gamma -2)+2)},$$and $$\Delta _{q,\mu ,\gamma }:=\frac{\Gamma (q(\mu -\gamma )+1)\Gamma (q(\gamma
-1)+1)}{\Gamma (q(\mu -1)+2)}.$$
Substitution of (\[e1\]),(\[e2\]) and (\[e3\]) into (\[q1\]) leads$$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\Vert (\mathcal{T}z)(t)(t-a)^{1-\gamma }\right\Vert \\
&\leq &\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{1}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\left( \Lambda _{q,\mu ,\gamma }\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}(\tau _{k}-a)^{\gamma +\mu -1}\left\Vert \rho \right\Vert
_{L^{p}}\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }} \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\right\vert \frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\left( \Delta _{q,\mu ,\gamma
}\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}(b-a)^{\mu }\left\Vert \rho \right\Vert
_{L^{p}}\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }} \\
&&+\frac{(t-a)^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\mu )}\left( \Lambda _{q,\mu ,\gamma
}\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}(t-a)^{\gamma +\mu -1}\left\Vert \rho \right\Vert
_{L^{p}}\left\Vert z\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}.\end{aligned}$$
For any $z\in \mathbb{B}_{R},$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\Vert{\large \mathcal{T}}z\Vert}_{C_{1-\gamma }} &\leq \bigg(\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{\left(\Lambda _{q,\mu,\gamma }\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}}{\left( c+d-A\right)}\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda_{k}}{\Gamma(\mu)}(\tau_{k}-s)^{\gamma +\mu-1}\bigg) \\
&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right)}\right\vert\frac{\left(\Delta_{q,\mu,\gamma}\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}} {\Gamma(1-\gamma+\mu)}+\frac{\left(\Lambda_{q,\mu,\gamma}\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}}{\Gamma(\mu)}\big)(b-a)^{\mu}\big)\left\Vert\rho \right\Vert_{L^{p}}R.\end{aligned}$$
By (H3), we have $\Vert {\large \mathcal{T}}z\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}\leq
\mathcal{G}R\leq R,$ that is, ${\large \mathcal{T(}}\mathbb{B}_{R})\subset
\mathbb{B}_{R}.$
Step 2. We shall prove that ${\large \mathcal{T}}$ is completely continuous.The operator ${\large \mathcal{T}}$ is continuous. Let $\{z_{n}\}_{n\in
\mathbb{N}
}$ is a sequence such that $z_{n}\rightarrow z$ in $\mathbb{B}_{R}$. Then for each $t\in J_{2},$ we have$$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\Vert \big((\mathcal{T}z_{n})(t)-(\mathcal{T}z)(t)\big)(t-a)^{1-\gamma }\right\Vert \\
&=&\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{1}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu
-1}\left\Vert f(s,z_{n}(s))-f(s,z(s))\right\Vert ds \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\right\vert \int_{a}^{b}\frac{(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu}}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\left\Vert f(s,z_{n}(s))-f(s,z(s))\right\Vert ds \\
&&+\frac{(t-a)^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{\mu
-1}\left\Vert f(s,z_{n}(s))-f(s,z(s))\right\Vert ds \\
&\leq &\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{1}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu
-1}(s-a)^{\gamma -1}ds \\
&&\times \left\Vert f\big(\cdot ,z_{n}(\cdot )\big)-f\big(\cdot ,z(\cdot )\big)\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }} \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\right\vert \frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu
}(s-a)^{\gamma -1}ds \\
&&\times \left\Vert f\big(\cdot ,z_{n}(\cdot )\big)-f\big(\cdot ,z(\cdot )\big)\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }} \\
&&+\frac{(t-a)^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{\mu
-1}(s-a)^{\gamma -1}ds\left\Vert f\big(\cdot ,z_{n}(\cdot )\big)-f\big(\cdot
,z(\cdot )\big)\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\Vert \big((\mathcal{T}z_{n})(t)-(\mathcal{T}z)(t)\big)(t-a)^{1-\gamma }\right\Vert \\
&\leq &\frac{1}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\frac{\mathcal{B}(\gamma ,\mu )}{\Gamma
(\mu )\Gamma (\gamma )}\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}(\tau _{k}-a)^{\gamma
-1+\mu }}{\Gamma (\mu )}\left\Vert f\big(\cdot ,z_{n}(\cdot )\big)-f\big(\cdot ,z(\cdot )\big)\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }} \\
&&+\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\right\vert \frac{(b-a)^{\mu }}{\Gamma (\mu +1)}\left\Vert f\big(\cdot ,z_{n}(\cdot )\big)-f\big(\cdot
,z(\cdot )\big)\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }} \\
&&+\frac{(b-a)^{\mu }}{\Gamma (\mu )}\frac{\mathcal{B}(\gamma ,\mu )}{\Gamma
(\mu )}\left\Vert f\big(\cdot ,z_{n}(\cdot )\big)-f\big(\cdot ,z(\cdot )\big)\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}.\end{aligned}$$By (H1) and the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we have $$\Vert (\mathcal{T}z_{n}-\mathcal{T}z)\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}\longrightarrow
0~~as~~n\longrightarrow \infty ,$$which means that operator $\mathcal{T}$ is continuous on $\mathbb{B}_{R}$.
Step 3. $\mathcal{T}(\mathbb{B}_{R})$ is relatively compact.From Step 1, we have ${\large \mathcal{T(}}\mathbb{B}_{R})\subset \mathbb{B}_{R}.$ It follows that ${\large \mathcal{T(}}\mathbb{B}_{R})$ is uniformly bounded i.e. $\mathcal{T}$ maps $\mathbb{B}_{R}$ into itself. Moreover, we show that operator $\mathcal{T}$ is equicontinuous on $\mathbb{B}_{R}$. Indeed, for any $a<t_{1}<t_{2}<b$ and $z\in \mathbb{B}_{R}$, we get$$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\Vert (t_{2}-a)^{1-\gamma }\big({\large \mathcal{T}}z\big)(t_{2})-(t_{1}-a)^{1-\gamma }\big({\large \mathcal{T}}z\big)(t_{1})\right\Vert \\
&\leq &\dfrac{1}{\Gamma (\mu )}\left\Vert (t_{2}-a)^{1-\gamma
}\int_{a}^{t_{2}}(t_{2}-s)^{\mu -1}f\big(s,z(s)\big)ds\right. \\
&&\left. -(t_{1}-a)^{1-\gamma }\int_{a}^{t_{1}}(t_{1}-s)^{\mu -1}f\big(s,z(s)\big)ds\right\Vert \\
&\leq &\dfrac{\Vert f\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\left\Vert
(t_{2}-a)^{1-\gamma }\int_{a}^{t_{2}}(t_{2}-s)^{\mu -1}(s-a)^{\gamma
-1}ds\right. \\
&&\left. -(t_{1}-a)^{1-\gamma }\int_{a}^{t_{1}}(t_{1}-s)^{\mu
-1}(s-a)^{\gamma -1}ds\right\Vert \\
&\leq &\Vert f\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}\frac{\mathcal{B}(\gamma ,\mu )}{\Gamma
(\mu )}\left\Vert (t_{2}-a)^{\mu }-(t_{1}-a)^{\mu }\right\Vert ,\end{aligned}$$which tends to zero as $t_{2}\rightarrow t_{1},$ independent of $z\in
\mathbb{B}_{R}$, where $\mathcal{B(\cdot },\mathcal{\cdot )}$ is a Beta function. Thus we conclude that $\mathcal{T}(\mathbb{B}_{R})$ is equicontinuous on $\mathbb{B}_{r}$ and therefore is relatively compact. As a consequence of Steps 1 to 3 together with Arzela-Ascoli theorem, we conclude that $\mathcal{T}:\mathbb{B}_{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{B}_{R}$ is completely continuous operator.
Step 4: The Mönch condition is satisfied.Let $\mathcal{V}$ be a subset of$\ \mathbb{B}_{R}$ such that $\mathcal{V\subset }\overline{co}\left( \mathcal{T}(\mathcal{V})\cup \{0\}\right) .$ $\mathcal{V}$ is bounded and equicontinuous, and therefore the function $t\longrightarrow {\large \alpha }(\mathcal{V(}t\mathcal{)})$ is continuous on $J_{1}.$ By (H2)-(H3), Lemma 2.6, and the properties of the measure ${\large \alpha },$ for each $t\in J_{2}$$$\begin{aligned}
{\large \alpha }(\mathcal{V(}t\mathcal{)}) &\leq &{\large \alpha }(\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{V})(t)\cup \{0\})\leq {\large \alpha }(\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{V})(t)) \\
&\leq &\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{(t-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\left(
c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{\tau
_{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu -1}\rho (s){\large \alpha }(\mathcal{V}(s))ds \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d(t-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\left(
c+d-A\right) }\right\vert \frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{-\gamma +\mu }\rho (s){\large \alpha }(\mathcal{V}(s))ds
\\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\mu )}\int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{\mu -1}\rho (s){\large \alpha }(\mathcal{V}(s))ds \\
&\leq &\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{(b-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\left(
c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}}{\Gamma (\mu )}\left(
\int_{a}^{\tau _{k}}(\tau _{k}-s)^{(\mu -1)q}ds\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}\left\Vert \rho \right\Vert _{L^{p}}m{\large \alpha }(\mathcal{V}(b)) \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d(b-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\left(
c+d-A\right) }\right\vert \frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}\left(
\int_{a}^{b}(b-s)^{(-\gamma +\mu )q}ds\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}} \\
&&\times \left\Vert \rho \right\Vert _{L^{p}}{\large \alpha }(\mathcal{V}(b))+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\mu )}\left( \int_{a}^{t}(t-s)^{(\mu -1)q}ds\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}\left\Vert \rho \right\Vert _{L^{p}}{\large \alpha }(\mathcal{V}(b)).\end{aligned}$$where we have used the fact that $$\frac{1}{q}<1\Longrightarrow \frac{1}{(\mu -1)q+1}<\frac{1}{\mu },\text{ }0<\mu <1,$$and$$\frac{1}{q}<1\Longrightarrow \frac{1}{(-\gamma +\mu )q+1}<\frac{1}{(-\gamma
+\mu )},\text{ }0<\mu <\gamma <1.$$Hence$$\begin{aligned}
{\large \alpha }(\mathcal{V}(t)) &\leq &\big(\frac{m}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{(b-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda
_{k}(\tau _{k}-a)^{\mu }}{\Gamma (\mu +1)} \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right) }\right\vert \frac{(b-a)^{\mu }}{\Gamma (-\gamma +\mu )}+\frac{(t-a)^{\mu }}{\Gamma (\mu +1)}\big)\left\Vert \rho \right\Vert _{L^{p}}<1.\end{aligned}$$It follows that$$\left\Vert {\large \alpha }(\mathcal{V})\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }}(1-L^{\ast
})\leq 0.$$
This means $\left\Vert {\large \alpha }(\mathcal{V})\right\Vert _{L^{\infty
}}=0,$ i.e. ${\large \alpha }(\mathcal{V}(t))=0$ for all $t\in J_{2}.$ Thus $\mathcal{V}(t)$ is relatively compact in $E$. In view of Arzela-Ascoli theorem, $\mathcal{V}$ is relatively compact in $\mathbb{B}_{R}.$ An application of Theorem 2.13 shows that $\mathcal{T}$ has a fixed point which is a solution of HNBVP (\[e8.1\])-(\[e8.2\]). The proof is complete.
An example \[Sec5\]
===================
We consider the Hilfer fractional differential equation with nonlocal boundary condition$$\begin{cases}
D_{0^{+}}^{\mu ,\nu }z(t)=f\big(t,z(t)\big),\qquad t\in (0,1],0<\mu
<1,0\leq \nu \leq 1, \\
I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }\big[\frac{1}{4}z(0^{+})+\frac{3}{4}z(1^{-})\big]=\frac{2}{5}z(\frac{2}{3}),\qquad\mu \leq \gamma =\mu +\nu -\mu \nu ,\end{cases}
\label{3}$$where $ f\big(t,z(t)\big)=\frac{1}{16}t\sin \left\vert z(t)\right\vert,$ $\mu=\frac{1}{3},$ $\nu=\frac{1}{4}$, $\gamma =\frac{1}{2}$, $c=\frac{1}{4}$, $d=\frac{3}{4}$, $\lambda_{1}=\frac{2}{5}$ and $\tau_{1}=\frac{2}{3}.$ Let $E=\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $J_{2}=(0,1].$
Clearly we can see that $\sqrt{t}f\big(t,z(t)\big)=\frac{1}{16}\sqrt[3]{t}\sin{z(t)}\in C([0,1],
\mathbb{R}^{+}),$ and hence $f\big(t,z(t)\big)\in C_{\frac{1}{2}}([0,1],\mathbb{R}^{+}).$ Also, observe that, for $t\in (0,1]$ and for any $z\in C_{1-\frac{1}{2}}([0,1],\mathbb{R}^{+})$: $$\left\Vert f\big(t,z(t)\big)\right\Vert =\left\Vert \frac{1}{16}t\sin
\left\vert z(t)\right\vert \right\Vert \leq \frac{1}{16}t\left\Vert
z(t)\right\Vert .$$ Therefore, the conditions (H1) and (H2) is satisfied with $\rho (t)=\frac{1}{16}t.$ Select $p=\frac{1}{2},$ we have $\displaystyle\left\Vert p\right\Vert
_{L^{\frac{1}{2}}}=\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L^{\frac{1}{2}}}=\left(
\int_{0}^{1}\left\vert \frac{1}{16}s\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{2}}ds\right) ^{2}=\frac{1}{48}$. It is easy to check that conditions in (H3) are satisfied too. Indeed, by some simple computations with $q=\frac{1}{2}$, we get $$\Lambda _{q,\mu ,\gamma }:=\frac{\Gamma (q(\mu -1)+1)\Gamma (q(\gamma -1)+1)}{\Gamma (q(\mu +\gamma -2)+2)}=\frac{\Gamma (\frac{2}{3})\Gamma (\frac{3}{4})}{\Gamma (\frac{17}{12})},$$$$\Delta _{q,\mu ,\gamma }:=\frac{\Gamma (q(\mu -\gamma )+1)\Gamma (q(\gamma
-1)+1)}{\Gamma (q(\mu -1)+2)}=\frac{\Gamma (\frac{3}{4})\Gamma (\frac{11}{12})}{\Gamma (\frac{5}{3})},$$$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}:=&\bigg(\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{\left(
\Lambda _{q,\mu ,\gamma }\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}}{\left(c+d-A\right) }\frac{
\lambda _{1}}{\Gamma (\mu )}(\tau _{1}-a)^{\gamma +\mu -1}\bigg)+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right)}\right\vert\\
&\times \frac{\left( \Delta_{q,\mu ,\gamma }\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}}
{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\mu )}+\frac{\left( \Lambda _{q,\mu ,\gamma }\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}}{\Gamma (\mu)}\big((b-a)^{\mu }\big)\left\Vert\rho
\right\Vert _{L^{p}}\simeq 0.03<1\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
L^{\ast}:=&\big(\frac{m}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\frac{(b-a)^{\gamma -1}}{\left(
c+d-A\right) }\sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{\lambda _{k}(\tau _{k}-s)^{\mu }}{\Gamma
(\mu +1)}+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\left\vert \frac{d}{\left( c+d-A\right)}\right\vert\\
&\times\frac{(b-a)^{\mu }}{\Gamma (-\gamma +\mu )}+\frac{(b-a)^{\mu }}{\Gamma (\mu +1)}\big)\left\Vert \rho \right\Vert _{L^{p}}\simeq 0.14<1,
\quad (m=1).\end{aligned}$$ An application of Theorem \[th8.1\] implies that problem (\[3\]) has a solution in $C_{1-\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}([0,1],\mathbb{R}
^{+})$.
[99]{} Abbas, S., Benchohra, M., Lazreg, J.E. and Zhou, Y. *A survey on Hadamard and Hilfer fractional differential equations: analysis and stability*, Chaos Soliton Fract., **102** (2017), 47–71.
Abdo, M.S. and Panchal, S.K., *Fractional integro-differential equations involving $\psi $-Hilfer fractional derivative*, Adv. Appl. Math. Mech., **11** (2019), no. 2, 338–359.
Abdo, M.S. and Panchal, S.K., *Fractional Boundary value problem with $\psi -$Caputo fractional derivative*, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Math. Sci.) (To appear).
Abdo, M.S. and Panchal, S.K., and Bhairat, S.P., *Existence of solution for Hilfer fractional differential equations with boundary value conditions*, (Under review) (2019), 18 pages.
Abdo, M.S. and Panchal, S.K., and Bhairat, S.P., *On existence of solution to nonlinear $\psi-$Hilfer Cauchy-type problem*, (Under review) (2019), 17 pages. https://arxiv:submit/2860867\[math.CA\] 26 Sept 2019.
Agarwal, R.P., Benchohra, M., Hamani, S., *A survey on existence results for boundary value problems of nonlinear fractional differential equations and inclusions*, Acta. Appl. Math., **109** (2010), 973–1033. DOI 10.1007/s10440-008-9356-6.
Bhairat, Sandeep P., *Existence and stability results for fractional differential equations involving generalized Katugampola derivative*, (In press) Studia U.B.B. Math., 2019, 15 pages. ar.Xiv:1709.08838 \[math.CA\].
Bhairat, Sandeep P., and Dhaigude, D.B., *Existence of solutions of generalized fractional differential equation with with nonlocal initial condition*, Mathematica Bohemica, **144** (2019), no. 2, 203–220. DOI: 10.21136/MB.2018.0135-17.
Bhairat, Sandeep P., *Existence and continuation of solution of Hilfer fractional differential equations*, J. Math. Modeling, **7** (2018), no. 1, 1–20. DOI:10.22124/jmm.2018.9220.1136.
Bhairat, Sandeep P., *New approach to existence of solution of weighted Cauchy-type problem,* (Under review) (2019). ar.Xiv.1808.03067\[math.CA\].
Bhairat, Sandeep P., and Dhaigude, D.B., *Local existence and uniqueness of solutions for Hilfer-Hadamard fractional differential problem*, Nonlinear Dyn. Syst. Theory, **18** (2018), no. 2, 144–153. http://e-ndst.kiev.ua144.
Bhairat, Sandeep P., *On existence and approximation of solutions for Hilfer fractional differential equations*, (Under review) arXiv:1704.02464v2 \[math.CA\], 2017.
Dhaigude, D.B., and Bhairat, Sandeep P., *Existence and uniqueness of solution of Cauchy-type problem for Hilfer fractional differential equations*, Commun. Appl. Anal., **22** (2018), no. 1, 121–134. DOI: 10.12732/caa.v22i1.8.
Diethelm, K., *The Analysis of Fractional Differential Equations*, J Math. Anal. Appl., **265** (2004), 229–248. doi:10.1006/jmaa.2000.7194.
Furati, K.M., and Kassim, M.D., *Existence and uniqueness for a problem involving Hilfer fractional derivative*, Comput. Math. Applic., **64** (2012), 1616–1626.
Furati, K.M., and Tatar, N.E., *An existence result for a nonlocal fractional differential problem*, J. Fractional Cal., **26** (2004), 43–54.
Gaafar, F.M., *Continuous and integrable solutions of a nonlinear Cauchy problem of fractional order with nonlocal coditions*, J. Egypt. Math. Soc., **22** (2014), 341–347. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joems.2013.12.008.
Granas, A., and Dugundji, J., *Fixed Point Theory*, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003.
Gonzalez, C., Melado, A.J., and Fuster, E.L., *A Mönch type fixed point theorem under the interior condition,* J. Math. Anal. Appl., **352** (2009), 816-–821. doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.11.032.
Hilfer, R., *Applications of Fractional Calculus in Physics*, World Scientific, Singapore, 2000.
Hilfer, R., Luchko, Y., and Tomovski, Z., *Operational method for the solution of fractional differential equations with generalized Riemann-Lioville fractional derivative*, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal., **12** (2009), 289–318
Kilbas, A.A., Srivastava, H.M., and Trujillo, J.J., *Theory and Applications of Fractional Differential Equations*, North-Holland Math. Stud., 204 Elsevier, Amsterdam 2006.
Monch, H., *Boundary value problem for nonlinear ordinary differential equations of second order in Banach spaces,* Nonlinear Anal., **75** (1980) no. 5, 985–999.
Sabri, T.M., Ahmed, B., and Agarwal, R.P., * On abstract Hilfer fractional integrodifferential equations with boundary conditions*, Arab J. Math. Sci., (2019), (To appear).
Vivek, D., Kanagarajan, K., and E. M. Elsayed, *Some existence and stability results for Hilfer-fractional implicit differential equations with nonlocal conditions*, Mediterr. J. Math., **15**(2018), no. 1, 1–15.
Wang, J., and Zhang, Y., *Nonlocal initial value problems for differential equations with Hilfer fractional derivative*, Appl. Math. Comput., **266** (2015) 850-859.
Szufla, S., *On the application of measure of noncompactness to existence theorems,* Rend. Semin. Mat. U. Pad., **75** (1986), 1–14.
[^1]: Corresponding author email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a new method to analyze anisotropic flow from the genuine correlation among a large number of particles, focusing on the practical implementation of the method.'
address:
- ' Service de Physique Théorique, CEA-Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France'
- ' Department of Theoretical Physics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005, India'
author:
- ', R S Bhalerao and J-Y Ollitrault'
title: 'Anisotropic flow from Lee–Yang zeroes: a practical guide'
---
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
Anisotropic collective flow is defined as a correlation between the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of an arbitrary particle and the azimuth $\Phi_R$ of the impact parameter in a non-central nucleus–nucleus collision. It is commonly characterized by the Fourier coefficients of the single-particle distribution [@Voloshin:1994mz] $$\label{vn}
v_n \equiv {\left\langle \cos(n(\phi-\Phi_R)) \right\rangle},$$ where ${\langle \ldots \rangle}$ here denotes an average over many particles and events. In particular, elliptic flow $v_2$ is recognized as a sensitive probe of thermalization at RHIC [@Gyulassy:2004].
While anisotropic flow is by definition a collective effect that involves many particles, it has mostly been analyzed using methods based either on a study of two-particle correlations [@Danielewicz:hn; @Ollitrault:1997di; @Poskanzer:1998yz] or on the cumulants of correlations between a few (in practice, up to 8) particles [@Borghini:2001vi]. We recently proposed a new method of analysis [@Bhalerao:2003yq; @Bhalerao:2003xf] that remedies this limitation, and extracts flow from the correlation between a large number of particles instead of only a few. In the following, we introduce the practical recipes for implementing the method, referring the reader to Refs. [@Bhalerao:2003yq; @Bhalerao:2003xf] for theoretical justifications.
Integrated flow {#s:integrated}
===============
For a given centrality bin, the first step in the analysis is to obtain an estimate of the flow integrated over some phase-space region (typically corresponding to the acceptance of a detector or a set of detectors). We define [*integrated flow*]{} as the average over events $$\label{Vn}
V_n \equiv {\left\langle \sum_{j=1}^M w_j \cos(n(\phi_j-\Phi_R)) \right\rangle},$$ where the sum runs over all particles detected in an event. As is usual in flow analyses, $w_j$ is a weight attributed to the $j$-th particle so as to maximize the integrated flow value. Further details regarding the choice of weights can be found in Ref. [@Borghini:2001vi]. With unit weights, and neglecting for simplicity multiplicity fluctuations, $V_n = Mv_n$, where $v_n$ is an average of the Fourier coefficient (\[vn\]) over the phase space covered by the detector.
To derive an estimate of the integrated flow $V_n$ (for practical purposes, $n=2$ at RHIC and LHC, $n=1$ at AGS and below), one should first compute for each event the complex-valued function[^1] $$\label{g(ir)}
g^\theta(\rmi r) \equiv
\prod_{j=1}^M [ 1 + \rmi r\,w_j\cos(n(\phi_j-\theta))]$$ for various values of the real positive variable $r$ and of the angle $\theta$ ($0\leq\theta <\pi/n$; in practice, 4 or 5 equally spaced values of $\theta$ are enough as shown in Ref. [@Bhalerao:2003xf]). The $\phi_j$ are the [*measured*]{} azimuthal angles of the particles, using a fixed reference in the laboratory, and the product runs over [*all*]{} particles. Please note that the method is stable against effects, like multiple hits or showering, which bias the results of other methods of analysis, so that one should not refrain from using all detected particles, combining information from different detectors: increasing the multiplicity results in smaller statistical uncertainties on the flow estimates.
Together with values of $g^\theta(\rmi r)$, one should in each event compute the sums $$\label{Qx,Qy}
Q_x \equiv \sum_{j=1}^M w_j\cos(n\phi_j), \qquad
Q_y \equiv \sum_{j=1}^M w_j\sin(n\phi_j),$$ as well as their squares ${Q_x}^2$ and ${Q_y}^2$.
Next, one should average $g^\theta(\rmi r)$ over events for each value of $r$ and $\theta$: $$\label{G(ir)}
G^\theta(\rmi r)\equiv {\left\langle g^\theta(\rmi r) \right\rangle}_{\!\rm evts} \equiv
\frac{1}{{N_{\rm evts}}} \sum_{\rm events} g^\theta(\rmi r),$$ where ${N_{\rm evts}}$ is the number of events used in the analysis. This is also a good time to compute the averages over events ${\langle Q_x \rangle}$, ${\langle Q_y \rangle}$ and ${\langle {Q_x}^2+{Q_y}^2 \rangle}$.
For every $\theta$ value, one must then look for the position $r_0^\theta$ of the first positive minimum of [*the modulus*]{} $|G^\theta(\rmi r)|$. An estimate of the integrated flow $V_n$ is given by $$\label{Vn(theta)}
V_n^\theta\{\infty\} \equiv \frac{j_{01}}{r_0^\theta},$$ where $j_{01} \simeq 2.40483$ is the first zero of the Bessel function $J_0$. If the detector acceptance has reasonable azimuthal symmetry, the estimates do not depend on $\theta$ up to statistical fluctuations (see below).[^2] One eventually averages $V_n^\theta\{\infty\}$ over $\theta$. This yields a new estimate $V_n\{\infty\}$ with smaller statistical errors. This estimate is then used to compute the resolution parameter, which measures the relative strength of flow compared to finite-multiplicity fluctuations: $\chi\equiv V_n\{\infty\}/\sigma$ [@Ollitrault:1997di], with $\sigma$ given by $$\label{sigma}
\sigma^2 \equiv
{\left\langle {Q_x}^2 + {Q_y}^2 \right\rangle} - {\left\langle Q_x \right\rangle}^2 - {\left\langle Q_y \right\rangle}^2 -V_n\{\infty\}^2.$$
The relative statistical error on $V_n^\theta\{\infty\}$ due to the finite number of events is $$\label{dVn(theta)}
\fl\frac{{\left\langle (\delta V_n^\theta\{\infty\})^2 \right\rangle}}{V_n^2}=
\frac{1}{2{N_{\rm evts}}\, j_{01}^2\,J_1(j_{01})^2} \left[
\exp\!\left(\frac{j_{01}^2}{2\chi^2}\right) +
\exp\!\left(\!-\frac{j_{01}^2}{2\chi^2}\right) J_0(2j_{01}) \right],$$ where $J_1$ is the spherical Bessel function of order 1. The statistical uncertainty on the estimate $V_n\{\infty\}$ is a about a factor of 2 smaller [@Bhalerao:2003xf].
Differential flow {#s:differential}
=================
Once integrated flow estimates have been obtained, one can turn to the analysis of [*differential flow*]{}, i.e., the flow of particles of a given type in a definite phase-space window, which we shall call “protons” for the sake of brevity. A “proton” azimuth will be denoted by $\psi$, and the corresponding differential flow $v_p(p_T,y)$ by $v'_p$. Using an estimate of integrated flow in harmonic $n$, as e.g. $V_n^\theta\{\infty\}$, one can derive an estimate of $v'_p$ in any harmonic $p$ which is a multiple of $n$, i.e., $p=mn$ with $m$ integer.
Now, for a given angle $\theta$, with the help of the values of $r_0^\theta$ and $V_n^\theta\{\infty\}$ determined following the recipe of Sec. \[s:integrated\], an estimate of $v'_{mn}$ is given by $$\label{vmn(theta)}
\fl
\frac{{v'}_{mn}^\theta\{\infty\}}{V_n^\theta\{\infty\}} \equiv
\frac{J_1(j_{01})}{J_m(j_{01})}\, {\rm Re}\left(
\frac{\displaystyle{\left\langle g^\theta(\rmi r_0^\theta)\,
\frac{\cos(mn(\psi-\theta))}
{1+\rmi r_0^\theta w_\psi\cos(n(\psi-\theta))} \right\rangle}_{\!\!\psi}}
{\displaystyle\rmi ^{m-1}
{\left\langle g^\theta(\rmi r_0^\theta)\sum_j \frac{w_j\cos(n(\phi_j-\theta))}
{1+\rmi r_0^\theta w_j\cos(n(\phi_j-\theta))} \right\rangle}_{\!\!\rm evts}} \right).$$ In the denominator, the average is over events and the sum runs over all particles in each event. By contrast, the average ${\langle \ldots \rangle}_\psi$ in the numerator is over [*protons*]{}, and we have denoted by $w_\psi$ the weight associated with a proton. Please note that the sum in the denominator need only be computed once per event (it is actually the derivative of $g^\theta(ir)$ at the minimum $r_0^\theta$), while the quantity to be averaged in the numerator varies from one proton to the other, even for protons within the same event. Finally, Re denotes the real part of the (complex-valued) ratio.
Denoting by $N'$ the total number of “protons” in the phase-space bin under study, the statistical uncertainty on the estimate ${v'}_{mn}^\theta\{\infty\}$ is $$\label{dv'mn(theta)}
\fl
{\left\langle (\delta{v'}_{mn}^\theta\{\infty\})^2 \right\rangle} =
\frac{1}{4N'J_m(j_{01})^2} \left[
\exp\!\left(\frac{j_{01}^2}{2\chi^2}\right) +
(-1)^m\exp\!\left(\!-\frac{j_{01}^2}{2\chi^2}\right) J_0(2j_{01}) \right].$$ As in the case of integrated flow, averaging the various estimates ${v'}_{mn}^\theta\{\infty\}$ results in a new estimate $v'_{mn}\{\infty\}$ with reduced statistical error bars (by a factor $\simeq$ 2). Regarding the effects of detector anisotropies, they are the same as above too [@Bhalerao:2003xf]: a $\theta$-dependence of ${v'}_{mn}^\theta\{\infty\}$ and a multiplicative factor between the “true” $v'_{mn}$ and its estimate $v'_{mn}\{\infty\}$.
Finally, let us briefly mention systematic errors inherent to the method. A careful study in Ref. [@Bhalerao:2003xf] allowed us to conclude that the relative error due the interplay of nonflow effects and higher harmonics (in particular $v_{2n}$) is of order $$\label{dVn(inf)syst}
\frac{\delta v'_{mn}\{\infty\}}{v'_{mn}} = \Or\!\left(\frac{1}{M}\right) +
\Or\!\left(\frac{1}{(Mv_n)^2}\right) + \Or\!\left(\frac{v_{2n}}{Mv_n^2}\right).$$ The relative error on integrated flow estimate $V_n\{\infty\}$ is of the same order of magnitude. Actually, in the analysis of higher harmonics ($m>1$), an extra error term arises $$\delta v'_{mn}\{\infty\}= \Or\!\left(\frac{v'_{(m-1)n}}{M v_n}\right).$$ Unlike the previous term, this is an absolute systematic error, not a relative error on the flow. With any other method of flow analysis, the systematic error will always be larger (or at least equal).
Discussion
==========
The method of analysis we presented above is simple to implement: compute values of the generating function (\[G(ir)\]) and find the first minimum of its modulus, then Eq. (\[Vn(theta)\]) gives you the integrated flow. Knowing the position of the minimum, you can then compute in a second pass through the data the quantities in the right-hand side of Eq. (\[vmn(theta)\]) and deduce differential flow. Nothing more is required.
In addition, the method is conceptually rich. The minimum of $|G^\theta(\rmi r)|$ is in fact compatible with a zero of $G^\theta(z)$, where $z$ is a complex variable. The mere existence of such a zero [*close to the origin and scaling with the inverse of the system size*]{} ($V_n$ in Eq. (\[Vn\]) is roughly proportional to the multiplicity $M$) signals the presence of collective effects. This is analogous to Lee–Yang theory of phase transitions [@LeeYang:1952] in which the zeroes of the partition function come closer to the origin with increasing system size if, and only if, there is a phase transition. Since anisotropic flow is a collective effect, Lee–Yang zeroes definitely are the most natural method to analyze flow.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
Voloshin S and Zhang Y 1996 C [**70**]{} 665 Gyulassy M 2004 these proceedings
Danielewicz P and Odyniec G 1985 B [**157**]{} 146 Ollitrault J-Y 1997 [*Preprint*]{} nucl-ex/9711003 Poskanzer A M and Voloshin S A 1998 C [**58**]{} 1671 Borghini N, Dinh P M and Ollitrault J-Y 2001 C [**64**]{} 054901 Bhalerao R S, Borghini N and Ollitrault J-Y 2004 B [**580**]{} 157 Bhalerao R S, Borghini N and Ollitrault J-Y 2003 A [**727**]{} 373 Yang C N and Lee T D 1952 404
[^1]: In Refs. [@Bhalerao:2003yq; @Bhalerao:2003xf] we used a different generating function. The one defined in Eq. (\[g(ir)\]), which is introduced in Appendix A of Ref. [@Bhalerao:2003xf], actually yields more accurate results for higher harmonics $v_{2n}$, $v_{3n}$ when analyzing differential flow. However, both forms of generating functions are actually equivalent for the most part, and the computations of Ref. [@Bhalerao:2003xf] can easily be adapted to the present function Eq. (\[g(ir)\]).
[^2]: For an anisotropic detector, $V_n^\theta\{\infty\}$ shows an oscillatory pattern that can be computed in terms of the Fourier coefficients of the detector acceptance-efficiency profile. There is an extra proportionality factor between $V_n\{\infty\}$ and $V_n$ that can also be calculated and is close to unity in most cases, see Ref. [@Bhalerao:2003xf] for details.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A system of unitary transformations providing two optimal copies of an arbitrary input cubit is obtained. An algorithm based on classical Boolean algebra and allowing one to find any unitary transformation realized by the quantum CNOT operators is proposed.'
author:
- |
V.N.Dumachev[^1] S.V.Orlov\
Voronezh Militia Institute, Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russia
title: Cloning of Qubits of a Quantum Computer
---
It is known that an arbitrary quantum state
$$\left| {\psi }\right\rangle _{0}=\alpha \left| {0}\right\rangle _{0}+\beta
\left| {1}\right\rangle _{0}, \label{eq1}$$
cannot be copied exactly (cloned). The no-cloning theorem was proved in \[1\]. However, Buzek and Hillery \[2\] found a unitary transformation entangling two qubits $\left| {\psi }\right\rangle _{12}=\left| {00}%
\right\rangle _{12}$ with the input qubit $\left| {\psi }\right\rangle _{0}
$ so that the output state has the form
$$\left| {\Psi ^{out}}\right\rangle =\left| {\Phi _{0}}\right\rangle
_{01}\left| {0}\right\rangle _{2}+\left| {\Phi _{1}}\right\rangle
_{01}\left| {1}\right\rangle _{2}, \label{eq2}$$
where
$$\label{eq3}
\begin{array}{l}
\left| {\Phi _{0}} \right\rangle = \sqrt {\frac{{1}}{{6}}} \left( {2\alpha
\left| {00} \right\rangle + \beta \left| {01} \right\rangle + \beta \left| {%
10} \right\rangle} \right), \\
\left| {\Phi _{1}} \right\rangle = \sqrt {\frac{{1}}{{6}}} \left( {2\beta
\left| {11} \right\rangle + \alpha \left| {01} \right\rangle + \alpha \left|
{10} \right\rangle} \right).%
\end{array}%$$
The reduced qubit density operators $\rho _{0}^{out}$, $\rho _{1}^{out}$ and $\rho _{2}^{out}$ at the output are related to the input density operator $\rho ^{in}$ in as
$$\rho _{0,1}^{out} = \frac{{5}}{{6}}\rho ^{in} + \frac{{1}}{{6}}\rho _{ \bot
}^{in} ,$$
$$\rho _{2}^{out} = \frac{{2}}{{3}}\rho ^{in} + \frac{{1}}{{3}}\rho _{ \bot
}^{in} .$$
Here $\rho _{\bot }^{in}=\left| {\psi _{\bot }}\right\rangle
_{0}\left\langle {\psi _{\bot }}\right| $, where $\left| {\psi _{\bot }}%
\right\rangle _{0}=\alpha \left| {1}\right\rangle _{0}-\beta \left| {0}%
\right\rangle _{0}$ is the state orthogonal to the input state, $\alpha
=e^{i\varphi }sin\left( {\vartheta /2}\right) $, and $\beta =cos\left( {%
\vartheta /2}\right) $. The quality of obtained copies is specified by the cloning accuracy F, which is determined by the overlap of the input and output states \[3\]
$$F = \frac{{1}}{{4\pi} }\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} {d\varphi} \int\limits_{0}^{%
\pi} {\left\langle {\psi ^{in}} \right|\rho ^{out}\left| {\psi ^{in}}
\right\rangle sin\vartheta d\vartheta} .$$
Thus, the output qubits $\rho _{0}^{out}$ and $\rho _{1}^{out}$ consist of $%
\frac{{5}}{{6}}$ fraction of the input qubit $\rho ^{in}$ in and $\frac{{1}}{%
{6}}$ fraction of an admixture. The qubit $\left| {\psi }\right\rangle _{2}$ is auxiliary and called cloning. Gisin and Massar \[4\] proved analytically that representation (3) of the output qubits is optimal, i.e., maximizes the average accuracy of the correspondence between the input and output qubits.
The sequence of actions for cloning qubits is represented in the form of a universal quantum cloning machine. For its operation, it is necessary to prepare preliminary the entangled state of two qubits
$$\label{eq4}
\left| {\Psi ^{prep}} \right\rangle = C_{1} \left| {00} \right\rangle +
C_{2} \left| {01} \right\rangle + C_{3} \left| {10} \right\rangle + C_{4}
\left| {11} \right\rangle$$
by applying unitary operators to zeroth qubits:
$$\left| {\Psi ^{prep}}\right\rangle =R_{1}\left( {\theta _{3}}\right)
P_{21}R_{2}\left( {\theta _{2}}\right) P_{12}R_{1}\left( {\theta _{1}}%
\right) \left| {00}\right\rangle _{12}.$$
Here,
$$R\left( {\theta }\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \theta & -\sin \theta \\
\sin \theta & \cos \theta
\end{array}%
\right)$$
is the turning operator of a qubit and
$$P_{12}\left| {x,y}\right\rangle =\left| {x,x\oplus y}\right\rangle
\label{eq5}$$
is the CNOT operator, where $\oplus $ is the modulus-2 summation. The resulting set of equations
$$\label{eq6}
\begin{array}{l}
cos\theta _{1} cos\theta _{2} cos\theta _{3} + sin\theta _{1} sin\theta _{2}
sin\theta _{3} = C_{1} \\
sin\theta _{1} cos\theta _{2} cos\theta _{3} - cos\theta _{1} sin\theta _{2}
sin\theta _{3} = C_{2} \\
cos\theta _{1} cos\theta _{2} sin\theta _{3} - sin\theta _{1} sin\theta _{2}
cos\theta _{3} = C_{3} \\
cos\theta _{1} sin\theta _{2} cos\theta _{3} + sin\theta _{1} cos\theta _{2}
sin\theta _{3} = C_{4}%
\end{array}%$$
has the solution
$$cos^{2}\theta _{1} = \frac{{C_{2}^{2} - C_{3}^{2}} }{{1 - 2C_{3}^{2} -
2C_{4}^{2}} } + cos^{2}\theta _{3} \frac{{1 - 2C_{2}^{2} - 2C_{4}^{2}} }{{1
- 2C_{3}^{2} - 2C_{4}^{2}} },$$
$$\label{eq7}
cos^{2}\theta _{2} = \frac{{C_{3}^{2} + C_{4}^{2} - cos^{2}\theta _{3}} }{{1
- 2cos^{2}\theta _{3}} },$$
$$cos^{2}\theta _{3}=\frac{{1}}{{2}}\left( {1\pm \frac{{1-2C_{3}^{2}-2C_{4}^{2}%
}}{{1-4\left( {C_{1}^{2}C_{4}^{2}+C_{2}^{2}C_{3}^{2}}\right) }}\sqrt{%
1-4\left( {C_{1}^{2}C_{4}^{2}+C_{2}^{2}C_{3}^{2}}\right)
+8C_{1}C_{2}C_{3}C_{4}}}\right) .$$
**Table 1.**
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N $\left( C_{1},C_{2},C_{3},C_{4}\right) $ cos$^{2}\theta _{1}$ cos$% cos$^{2}\theta _{3}$ sign$\left( \cos \theta _{i},\sin $\left| {\Psi ^{out}}\right\rangle $
^{2}\theta _{2}$ \theta _{i}\right) $
---- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 2,1,1,0\right) $ $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp $1\mp \dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{3}$ $\frac{1}{2}% $\left. $\left.
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) $ \left( 1\mp \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) $ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{c}
\left( ---,+++\right) \\ P_{21}P_{02}P_{10}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle \\
\left( +++,+-+\right)% P_{12}P_{20}P_{01}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle%
\end{array}% \end{array}%
\right. $ \right. $
2 $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 2,1,0,1\right) $ $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}% $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp \dfrac{2}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ $\left. $\left.
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ \right) $ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{c}
\left( +++,-+-\right) \\ P_{21}P_{10}P_{02}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle \\
\left( +++,+++\right)% P_{10}P_{20}P_{02}P_{01}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle%
\end{array}% \end{array}%
\right. $ \right. $
3 $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 2,0,1,1\right) $ $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}% $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ $\left. $\left.
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ \right) $ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{c}
\left( +++,-+-\right) \\ P_{12}P_{01}P_{20}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle \\
\left( +++,+++\right)% P_{01}P_{02}P_{20}P_{10}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle%
\end{array}% \end{array}%
\right. $ \right. $
4 $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 1,2,1,0\right) $ $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\pm $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}% $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp \dfrac{2}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ $\left. $\left.
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ \right) $ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{c}
\left( ---,+++\right) \\ P_{20}P_{10}P_{01}P_{0\overline{2}}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle \\
\left( +++,+-+\right)% P_{21}P_{10}P_{0\overline{2}}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle%
\end{array}% \end{array}%
\right. $ \right. $
5 $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 1,2,0,1\right) $ $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\pm $1\mp \dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{3}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}% $\left. $\left.
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) $ \left( 1\mp \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) $ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{c}
\left( +++,-+-\right) \\ P_{12}P_{\overline{2}0}P_{01}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle \\
\left( +++,+++\right)% P_{21}P_{0\overline{2}}P_{10}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle%
\end{array}% \end{array}%
\right. $ \right. $
6 $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 1,1,2,0\right) $ $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}% $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\pm \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ $\left. $\left.
\dfrac{2}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ \right) $ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{c}
\left( ---,+++\right) \\ P_{01}P_{02}P_{20}P_{\overline{1}0}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle \\
\left( +++,+-+\right)% P_{12}P_{0\overline{1}}P_{20}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle%
\end{array}% \end{array}%
\right. $ \right. $
7 $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 1,1,0,2\right) $ $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\pm $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}% $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\pm \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ $\left. $\left.
\dfrac{2}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ \right) $ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{c}
\left( +++,-+-\right) \\ P_{12}P_{0\overline{1}}P_{\overline{2}0}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle \\
\left( +++,+++\right)% P_{01}P_{02}P_{\overline{2}0}P_{\overline{1}0}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}%
\end{array}% \right\rangle%
\right. $ \end{array}%
\right. $
8 $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 1,0,2,1\right) $ $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp $1\mp \dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{3}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}% $\left. $\left.
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) $ \left( 1\pm \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) $ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{c}
\left( +++,-+-\right) \\ P_{21}P_{02}P_{\overline{1}0}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle \\
\left( +++,+++\right)% P_{12}P_{20}P_{0\overline{1}}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle%
\end{array}% \end{array}%
\right. $ \right. $
9 $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 1,0,1,2\right) $ $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\pm $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}% $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\pm \dfrac{2}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ $\left. $\left.
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ \right) $ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{c}
\left( +++,-+-\right) \\ P_{21}P_{\overline{1}0}P_{0\overline{2}}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle \\
\left( +++,+++\right)% P_{20}P_{10}P_{0\overline{1}}P_{0\overline{2}}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}%
\end{array}% \right\rangle%
\right. $ \end{array}%
\right. $
10 $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 0,1,1,2\right) $ $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\pm $1\mp \dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{3}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}% $\left. $\left.
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) $ \left( 1\pm \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) $ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{c}
\left( ---,+++\right) \\ P_{21}P_{0\overline{2}}P_{\overline{1}0}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle \\
\left( +++,+-+\right)% P_{12}P_{\overline{2}0}P_{0\overline{1}}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle%
\end{array}% \end{array}%
\right. $ \right. $
11 $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 0,1,2,1\right) $ $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}% $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\pm \dfrac{2}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ $\left. $\left.
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ \right) $ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{c}
\left( ---,+++\right) \\ P_{21}P_{\overline{1}0}P_{02}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle \\
\left( +++,+-+\right)% P_{20}P_{10}P_{0\overline{1}}P_{02}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle%
\end{array}% \end{array}%
\right. $ \right. $
12 $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 0,2,1,1\right) $ $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\pm $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}% $\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1\mp \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ $\left. $\left.
\dfrac{2}{\sqrt{5}}\right) $ \right) $ \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{c}
\left( ---,+++\right) \\ P_{12}P_{01}P_{\overline{2}0}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle \\
\left( +++,+-+\right)% P_{01}P_{02}P_{\overline{2}0}P_{10}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle%
\end{array}% \end{array}%
\right. $ \right. $
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the second stage, the quantum cloning machine mixes input qubit (1) with prepared state (4):
$$\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle =\left| {\psi }\right\rangle _{0}\left| {%
\Psi ^{prep}}\right\rangle =\alpha \left( {C_{1}\left| {000}\right\rangle
+C_{2}\left| {001}\right\rangle +C_{3}\left| {010}\right\rangle +C_{4}\left|
{011}\right\rangle }\right) +\beta \left( {C_{1}\left| {100}\right\rangle
+C_{2}\left| {101}\right\rangle +C_{3}\left| {110}\right\rangle +C_{4}\left|
{111}\right\rangle }\right) , \label{eq8}$$
so as to obtain optimal state (2) at the output
$$\left| {\Psi ^{out}}\right\rangle =\left| {\Phi _{0}}\right\rangle
_{01}\left| {0}\right\rangle _{2}+\left| {\Phi _{1}}\right\rangle
_{01}\left| {1}\right\rangle _{2}=\sqrt{\frac{{1}}{{6}}}\left( {2\alpha
\left| {000}\right\rangle +\beta \left| {010}\right\rangle +\beta \left| {100%
}\right\rangle +2\beta \left| {111}\right\rangle +\alpha \left| {011}%
\right\rangle +\alpha \left| {101}\right\rangle }\right) \label{eq9}$$
Comparing Eqs. (3) and (9), we obtain only 12 different combinations of admissible parameters $C_{1},C_{2},C_{3},$ and $C_{4}$, for which solution (7) gives the angles for operators $R_{1}\left( {\theta _{1}}\right) $, $%
R_{2}\left( {\theta _{2}}\right) $, $R_{1}\left( {\theta _{3}}\right) $ (see columns 2–5 in Table 1). The sixth column of Table 1 shows the signs of the rotation angles of $R\left( {\theta }\right) $.
Now, we obtain transformations converting input state (8) (with known $%
C_{1},C_{2},C_{3},$ and $C_{4}$) to output state (9) only in terms of CNOT operators (5). We represent the total transformation operator as
$$\left| {\Psi ^{out}} \right\rangle _{xyz} = P\left( {x,y,z} \right)\left| {%
\Psi ^{in}} \right\rangle _{xyz} = \left| {p_{1} \left( {x,y,z}
\right),p_{2} \left( {x,y,z} \right),p_{3} \left( {x,y,z} \right)}
\right\rangle$$
where $p_{i}\left( {x,y,z}\right) $ are the logical functions of three Boolean variables.
Let us find this function for the first row of Table 1.
**Table 1.** Truth table for functions $p_{i}$
$x$ $y$ $z$ $p_{1}$ $p_{2}$ $p_{3}$
----- ----- ----- --------- --------- ---------
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 1
0 1 0 1 0 1
0 1 1 \* \* \*
1 0 0 1 1 1
1 0 1 1 0 0
1 1 0 0 1 0
1 1 1 \* \* \*
Here, asterisks mean arbitrary values.
Since the CNOT operator can realize only linear Boolean functions, only two of eight different combinations are suitable. For one of them, we represent the set of disjunctive normal forms in terms of the Zhegalkin polynomials:
$$\begin{array}{l}
p_{1}=\bar{x}\&y\&\bar{z}\vee \bar{x}\&y\&z\vee x\&\bar{y}\&\bar{z}\vee x\&%
\bar{y}\&z=x\oplus y, \\
p_{2}=\bar{x}\&\bar{y}\&z\vee \bar{x}\&y\&z\vee x\&\bar{y}\&\bar{z}\vee
x\&y\&\bar{z}=x\oplus z, \\
p_{3}=\bar{x}\&\bar{y}\&z\vee \bar{x}\&y\&\bar{z}\vee x\&\bar{y}\&\bar{z}%
\vee x\&y\&z=x\oplus y\oplus z.%
\end{array}%
. \label{eq10}$$
Then,
$$\left| {\Psi ^{out}}\right\rangle _{xyz}=\left| {p_{1},p_{2},p_{3}}%
\right\rangle =\left| {x\oplus y,x\oplus z,x\oplus y\oplus z}\right\rangle
=P_{21}P_{02}P_{10}\left| {\Psi ^{in}}\right\rangle _{xyz}.$$
The other rows in Table 1 are filled similarly. To describe the CNOT operator with inversion, we introduce the notation
$$P_{1\bar {2}} \left| {x,y} \right\rangle = P_{12} \left| {x,\bar {y}}
\right\rangle = \left| {x,x \oplus \bar {y}} \right\rangle = P_{12} R_{2}
\left( {\frac{{\pi} }{{2}}} \right)\left| {x,y} \right\rangle ,$$
where $R\left( {\frac{{\pi }}{{2}}}\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0%
\end{array}%
\right) $ is the NOT operation.
The lower half of row 2 in Table 1 describes the operation of the Buzek–Hillery quantum cloning machine \[5\], whereas the upper half of row 2, describes its optimized variant. It is seen that the output state $\left| {%
\Psi ^{out}}\right\rangle $ can be obtained by three CNOT transformations, only two of which involve the input qubit (see figure). The equatorial qubits of the first row were studied in \[6\] without discussing the method of their production.
In summary, we obtained the set of unitary transformations producing two copies of an arbitrary input qubit. This transformation is optimal, because it maximizes the average accuracy of correspondence between the input and output qubits. The algorithm allowing one to find any unitary transformation realized by the quantum CNOT operators is proposed on the basis of classical Boolean algebra.
**REFERENCES**
1\. W. K. Wooters and W. H. Zuker, Nature 299, 802 (1982).
2\. V. Buzek and M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1844 (1996).
3\. R. F. Werner, quant-ph/9804001.
4\. N. Gisin and S. Massar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2153 (1997).
5\. V. Buzek, S. L. Braunstein, M. Hillery, and D. Bru, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3446 (1997).
6\. Heng Fan, Keiji Matsumoto, and Xiang-Bin Wang, quant-ph/0101101.
Translated by R. Tyapaev
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Minkowski space, namely $\R^3$ endowed with the quadradic form $-\d t^2+\d x^2+\d y^2$, is the local model of 3 dimensionnal flat spacetimes. Recent progress in the description of globally hyperbolic flat spacetimes showed strong link between Lorentzian geometry and Teichmüller space. We notice that Lorentzian generalisations of conical singularities are useful for the endeavours of descripting flat spacetimes, creating stronger links with hyperbolic geometry and compactifying spacetimes. In particular massive particles and extreme BTZ singular lines arise naturally. This paper is three-fold. First, prove background properties which will be useful for future work. Second generalise fundamental theorems of the theory of globally hyperbolic flat spacetimes. Third, defining BTZ-extension and proving it preserves Cauchy-maximality and Cauchy-completeness.'
author:
- Léo Brunswic
bibliography:
- 'note.bib'
title: BTZ extensions of globally hyperbolic singular flat spacetimes
---
*Laboratoire de Mathématiques d’Avignon\
Université d’Avignon et des pays du Vaucluse*
**Léo Brunswic\
\
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
============
Context and motivations
-----------------------
The main interest of our study are [*singular flat globally hyperbolic Cauchy-complete spacetimes*]{}. This paper is part of a longer-term objective : construct correspondances between spaces of hyperbolic surfaces, singular spacetimes and singular Euclidean surfaces. A central point which underlies this entire paper as well as a following to come is as follows.
Starting from a compact surface $\Sigma$ with a finite set $S$ of marked points, the Teichmüller space of $(\Sigma,S)$ is the set of complete hyperbolic metric on $\Sigma\setminus S$ up to isometry. The universal cover of a point of the Teichmüller space is the Poincaré disc $\H^2$ which embbeds in the 3-dimensional [*Minkowki space*]{}, denoted by $\E^{1,2}$. Namely, Minkoswki space is $\R^3$ endowed with the undefinite quadratic form $-\d t^2+\d x^2+\d y^2$ where $(t,x,y)$ are the carthesian coordinates of $\R^3$ and the hyperbolic plane embbeds as the quadric $\{-t^2+x^2+y^2=-1, t>0\}$. It is in fact in the cone $C=\{t>0, -t^2+x^2+y^2<0\}$ which direct isometry group is exactly the group of isometry of the Poincaré disc : $\SO_0(1,2)$. A point of Teichmüller space can then be described as a representation of the fundamental group $\pi_1\left(\Sigma\setminus S\right)$ in $\SO_0(1,2)$ which image is a lattice $\Gamma$.
If the set of marked points is trivial, $S=\emptyset$, then the lattice $\Gamma$ is uniform. The hyperbolic surface $\H^2/\Gamma$ embeds into $C/\Gamma$ giving our first non trivial examples of flat globally hyperbolic Cauchy-compact spacetimes.
If on the contrary, the set of marked point is not trivial, $S\neq \emptyset$, then the lattice $\Gamma$ contains parabolic isometries each of which fixes point-wise a [*null*]{} ray on the boundary of the cone $C$. The cusp of the hyperbolic metric on $\Sigma \setminus S$ correspond bijectively to the equivalence classes of these null rays under the action of $\Gamma$. More generally, take a discrete subgroup $\Gamma$ of $\SO_0(1,2)$. The group $\Gamma$ may have an elliptic isometries [*i.e.*]{} a torsion part. Therefore, on the one hand $\H^2/\Gamma$ is a complete hyperbolic surface with conical singularities. On the other hand, $C/\Gamma$ is a flat spacetime with a Lorentzian analogue of conical singularities : [*massive particles*]{}. This spacetime admits a connected sub-surface which intersects exactly once every rays from the origin in the cone $C$. Furthermore, this sub-surface is naturally endowed with a riemannian metric with respect to which it is complete.
As an example, consider the modular group $\Gamma=\mathrm{PSL}(2,\Z)$. A fundamental domain of the action of $\mathrm{PSL}(2,\Z)$ on $\H^2$ is decomposed into two triangles isometric to the same ideal hyperbolic triangle $T$ of angles $\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\frac{\pi}{3}$ . The surface $\H^2/\Gamma$ is then obtained by gluing edge to edge these two triangles (see [@ratcliff_foundation] for more details about the modular group). The [*suspension*]{} of the hyperbolic triangle $T$ is $\mathrm{Susp}(T)=\R_+^*\times T$ with the metric $-\d t^2 + t^2\d s_T^2$. It can be realised as a cone of triangular basis in Minkoswki space as shown on figure \[fig:modular\].a. An edge of the triangulation of $\H^2/\Gamma$ corresponds to a face of one of the two suspensions, then the suspensions can be glued together face to face accordingly. In this way we obtain this way a flat spacetime but the same way the vertices of the triangulation give rise to conical singularities, the vertical edges will give rise to singular lines in our spacetime. There are three singular lines we can put in two categories following the classification of Barbot, Bonsante and Schlenker [@Particules_1; @Particules_2].
- Two [*massive particles*]{} going through the conical singularities of $\H^2/\Gamma$. The corresponding vertical edges are endowed with a negative-definite semi-riemannian metric.
- One [*extreme BTZ-line*]{} toward which the cusp of $\H^2/\Gamma$ seems to tend like in figure \[fig:modular\].b. The corresponding vertical edge is endowed with a null semi-riemannian metric.
The spacetime $C/\Gamma$ can be recovered by taking the complement of the extreme BTZ-line. Still, we constructed something more which satisfies two interesting properties.
- Take a horizontal plane in Minkoswki space above the origin. It intersects $\mathrm{Susp}(T)$ along a Euclidean triangle. The gluing of the suspensions induces a gluing of the corresponding Euclidean triangles. We end up with a [*polyhedral surface*]{} which intersects exactly once every rays from the origin : our singular spacetime with extreme BTZ-line have a polyhedral [*Cauchy-surface*]{}.
- This polyhedral surface is compact. Therefore, the spacetime with extreme BTZ-line is [*Cauchy-compact*]{} when $C/ \Gamma$ is merely [*Cauchy-complete*]{}.
------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
a\) A fundamental domain of $\mathrm{PSL}(2,\Z)$ in $\H^2$. b\) An embedding in $\E^{1,2}$ and its suspension.
{width="0.46\linewidth"} {width="0.46\linewidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
[Fundamental domain of the modular group and its suspension.]{}\[fig:modular\] The fundamental domain of the modular group is represented on the left in the Poincaré disc. The triangles $[AB\infty]$ and $[CB\infty]$ are symetric with respect to the line $(B\infty)$. The modular group sends the edge $[BC]$ on the edge $[BA]$ via an elliptic isometry of angle $\pi$. It sends the edge $[A\infty]$ to $[C\infty]$ via a parabolic isometry of center $\infty$. On the right is depicted the natural embedding of this fundamental domain in Minkoswki space in deep blue. The light blue cone of triangular basis is its suspension. The null cone of Minkoswki space is in red. The stereograpic projection of the Poincaré disc is depicted on the horizontal plane $\{t=0\}$ .
This paper is devoted to the description of the process by which BTZ-lines are added and how it interacts with global properties of the spacetime : [*global hyperbolicity*]{}, [*Cauchy-completeness*]{} and [*Cauchy-maximality*]{}. Since a general theory of such singular spacetimes is lacking, part of the paper is devoted to background properties. A following paper will be devoted to the construction of singular Euclidean surfaces in singular spacetimes as well as a correspondance between hyperbolic, Minkowskian and Euclidean objects. Some compactification properties will also be dealt with.
Structure of the paper and goals
--------------------------------
The paper gives the definition of [*singular spacetimes*]{} as well as [*Cauchy-something*]{} properties and develop some basic properties in section \[subsection:sing\_spacetime\_defi\]. Its primary objectives are the following
I. Define a notion of [*BTZ-extension*]{} and prove a maximal BTZ-extension existence and uniqueness theorem. This is Theorem \[theo:BTZ\_ext\] in Section \[sec:catch\_BTZ\].
II. Prove that Cauchy-completeness and Cauchy-maximality are compatible with BTZ-extensions. This is Theorem \[theo:BTZ\_Cauchy-completeness\] in section \[sec:complete\_stability\].
Some secondary objectives are needed both to complete the picture and to the proofs of the main theorems.
i. Prove local rigidity property which is an equivalent of local unicity of solution of Einstein equations in our context. This ensure we have a maximal Cauchy-extension existence and uniqueness theorem, much alike the one of Choquet-Bruhat-Geroch, stated in Section \[subsec:choquet\_bruhat\]. The local rigidity is done in Section \[subsubsec:local\_rigidity\].
ii. Prove the existence of a smooth Cauchy-surface in a globally hyperbolic singular spacetime. Theorem \[theo:smooth\] proves it in Section \[subsec:smooth\].
iii. Show that in a Cauchy-maximal spacetime, BTZ-singular lines are complete in the future and posess standard neighborhoods. A proof is given in Section \[subsec:choquet\_bruhat\]
Global properties of regular spacetimes {#sec:reg_spacetimes}
---------------------------------------
### $(G,X)$-structures {#sec:G_X}
$(G,X)$-structures are used in the preliminary of the present work and may need some reminders. Let $X$ be a topological space and $G \subset \mathrm{Homeo}(X)$ be a group of homeomorphism. The couple $(G,X)$ is an analytical structure if two elements of $G$ agreeing on a non trivial open subset of $X$ are equal.
Given $(G,X)$ an analytical structure and $M$ a Hausdorff topological space, a $(G,X)$-structure on $M$ is the data of an atlas $(\U_i,\varphi_i)_{i\in I}$ where $\varphi_i : \U_i \rightarrow \V_i\subset X$ are homeomorphisms such that for every $i,j\in I,$ there exists an element $g\in G$ agreeing with $\varphi_j \circ \varphi_i^{-1}$ on $\V_i\cap \phi_i(\U_j\cap \U_i)$. A manifold together with a $(G,X)$-structure is a $(G,X)$-manifold.
The morphisms $M\rightarrow M'$ of $(G,X)$-manifolds are the functions $f:M\rightarrow M'$ such that for all couples of charts $(\U,\varphi)$ and $(\U',\varphi')$ of $M$ and $M'$ respectively, $\varphi'\circ f\circ \varphi^{-1} : \varphi(\U\cap f^{-1}(\U')) \rightarrow \varphi'(\U')$ is the restriction of an element of $G$. Given a local homeomorphism $f:M\rightarrow N$ between differentiable manifolds, for every $(G,X)$-structure on $N$, there exists a unique $(G,X)$-structure on $M$ such that $f$ is a $(G,X)$-morphism.
Writing $\widetilde M $ the universal covering of a manifold $M$ and $\pi_1(M)$ its fundamental group, there exists a unique $(G,X)$-structure on $\widetilde M$ such that the projection $\pi: \widetilde M \rightarrow M$ is a $(G,X)$-morphism.
Let $M$ be a $(G,X)$-manifold. There exists a map $\D:\widetilde M \rightarrow X$ called the developping map, unique up to composition by an element of $G$ ; and a morphism $\rho: \pi_1(M) \rightarrow G$, unique up to conjugation by an element of $G$ such that $\D$ is a $\rho$-equivariant $(G,X)$-morphism.
Actually, the analyticity of the $(G,X)$-structure ensure that every $(G,X)$-morphism $\widetilde M\rightarrow X$ is a developping map.
### Minkowski space {#sec:H2_E_1_2}
The only analytical structure we shall deal with is minkowskian.
Let $\E^{1,2}=\left(\R^3, q \right)$ be the Minkowski space of dimension 3 where $q$ is the bilinear form $-\d t^2+\d x^2+\d y^2$ and $t,x,y$ denote respectively the carthesian coordinates of $\R^3$.
A non zero vector $u\in\E^{1,2}\setminus \{0\}$ is spacelike, lightlike or timelike whether $q(u,u)$ is positive, zero or negative. A vector is causal if it is timelike or lightlike. The set of non zero causal vectors is the union of two convex cones, the one in which $t$ is positive is the future causal cone and the other is the past causal cone.
A continuous piecewise differentiable curve in $\E^{1,2}$ is future causal (resp. chronological) if at all points its tangent vectors are future causal (resp. timelike). The causal (resp. chronological) future of a point $p\in \E^{1,2}$ is the set of points $q$ such that there exists a future causal (resp. chronological) curve from $p$ to $q$ ; it is written $J^+(p)$ (resp. $I^+(p)$).
Consider a point $p \in \E^{1,2}$, we have
- $I^+(p)=\{q\in \E^{1,2}~|~ q-p \text{ future timelike}\}$
- $J^+(p)=\{q\in \E^{1,2}~|~ q-p \text{ future causal or zero}\}$
The causality defines two order relations on $\E^{1,2}$, the causal relation $<$ and the chronological relation $\ll$. More precisely, $x<y$ iff $y\in J^+(x)\setminus \{x\}$ and $x\ll y $ iff $y\in I^+(x)$. One can then give the most general definition of causal curve. A causal (resp. chronological) curve is a continous curve in $\E^{1,2}$ increasing for the causal (resp. chronological) order. A causal (resp. chronological) curve is [*inextendible* ]{} if every causal (resp. chronological) curve containing it is equal. The causal order relation is often called a [*causal orientation*]{}.
The group $\isom(\E^{1,2})$ of affine isometries of $\E^{1,2}$ preserving the orientation and preserving the causal order is the identity component of the group of affine isometries of $\E^{1,2}$. Its linear part $\SO_0(1,2)$ is the identity component of $\SO(1,2)$.
A linear isometry either is the identity or possesses exactly one fixed direction. It is elliptic (resp. parabolic, resp. hyperbolic) if its line of fixed points is timelike (resp. lightlike, resp. spacelike). Any $(\isom(\E^{1,2}),\E^{1,2})$-manifold, is naturally causally oriented.
Since there are no ambiguity on the group, we will refer to $\E^{1,2}$-manifold
### Globally hyperbolic regular spacetimes {#sec:class_theo}
A characterisation of $\E^{1,2}$-manifolds, to be reasonable, needs some assumptions.
A subset $P\subset M$ of a spacetime $M$ is acausal if any causal curve intersects $P$ at most once.
A $\E^{1,2}$-manifold $M $ is globally hyperbolic if there exists a topological surface $\Sigma$ in $M$ such that every inextendible causal curve in $M$ intersects $\Sigma$ exactly once. In particular $\Sigma$ is acausal. Such a surface is called a Cauchy-surface.
A Cauchy-embedding $f:M\rightarrow N$ between two globally hyperbolic manifolds is an isometric embedding sending a Cauchy-surface (hence every) on a Cauchy-surface.
We say that $N$ is a Cauchy-extension of $M$.
A piecewise smooth surface is called [*spacelike*]{} if every tangent vector is spacelike. Such a surface is endowed with a metric space structure induced by the ambiant $\E^{1,2}$-structure. If this metric space is metrically complete, the surface is said complete.
A spacetime admitting a metrically complete piecewise smooth and spacelike Cauchy-surface is called Cauchy-complete.
There is a confusion not to make between Cauchy-complete in this meaning and “metrically complete” which is sometimes refered to by “Cauchy complete” : here, the spacetime is not even a metric space.
Geroch and Choquet-Bruhat [@MR0250640] proved the existence and uniqueness of the maximal Cauchy-extension of globally hyperbolic Lorentz manifolds satisfying certain Einstein equations (see [@ringstrom] for a more modern approach). Our special case correspond to vacuum solutions of Einstein equations. There thus exists a unique maximal Cauchy-extension of a given spacetime.
Mess [@mess] and then Bonsante, Benedetti, Barbot and others [@barbot_globally_2004], [@andersson:hal-00642328], constructed a characterisation of maximal Cauchy-complete globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,n}$-manifolds for all $n\in\N^*$. This caracterisation is based on the holonomy. We are only concerned in the $n=2$ case.
Massive particle and BTZ white-hole {#sec:mass}
-----------------------------------
### Definition and causality {#sec:mass_def}
Lorentzian analogue in dimension 3 of conical singularities have been classified in [@Particules_1]. We are only interested in two specific types we describe below : massive particles and BTZ lines. Massive particles are the most direct Lorentzian analogues of conical singularities. A Euclidean conical singularity can be constructed by quotienting the Euclidean plane by a finite rotation group. The conical angle is then $2\pi/k$ for some $k\in \N^*$. The same way, one can construct examples of massive particles by quotienting $\E^{1,2}$ by some finite group of elliptic isometries.
The general definitions are as follow. Take the universal covering of the complement of a point in the Euclidean plane. It is isometric to $\E_\infty^2:=(\R_+^*\times \R, \d r^2+r^2\d \theta^2)$. The translation $(r,\theta)\mapsto (r,\theta+\theta_0)$ are isometries, one can then quotient out $\E^{2}_\infty$ by some discrete translation group $\theta_0\Z$. The quotient is an annulus $\R_+^*\times \R/2\pi\Z$ with the metric $\d r^2+\theta_0 r^2 \d \theta^2$ which can be completed by adding one point. The completion is then homeomorphic to $\R^2$ but the total angle around the origin is $\theta_0$ instead of $2\pi$. Define the model of a massive particle of angle $\alpha$ by the product of a conical singularity of conical angle $\alpha$ by $(\R,-\d t^2)$.
Let $\alpha\in \R_+^*$. The singular plane of conical angle $\alpha$, written $\E^{2}_\alpha$, is $\R^2$ equipped with the metric expressed in polar coordinates $$\d r^2 + \frac{\alpha}{2\pi} r^2 \d \theta ^2.$$
The metric is well defined and flat everywhere but at $0$ which is a singular point. The space can be seen as the metric completion of the complement of the singular point. The name comes from the fact the metric of a cone in $\E^3$ can be written this way in a suitable coordinate system. While Euclidean cones have a conical angle less than $2\pi$, a spacelike revolution cone of timelike axis in Minkowski space is isometric to $\E^{2}_\alpha$ with $\alpha$ greater that $2\pi$. We insist on the fact that the parameter $\alpha$ is an arbitrary positive real number.
\[def:mass\_part\] Let $\alpha $ be a positive real number. We define : $$\E^{1,2}_\alpha := (\R\times \E^2_\alpha, \d s^2)
\text{ with } \d s ^2 = -\d t^2+\d r^2+\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} r^2 \d \theta^2$$ where $t$ is the first coordinate of the product and $(r,\theta)$ the polar coordinates of $\R^2$ (in particular $\theta\in \R/2\pi \Z$).
The complement of the singular line $\sing(\E^{1,2}_\alpha):= \{r=0\}$ is a spacetime called the regular locus and denoted by $Reg(\E^{1,2}_\alpha)$. For $p\in \sing(\E^{1,2}_\alpha)$, we write $]p,+\infty[$ (resp. $[p,+\infty[$) for the open (resp. closed) future singular ray from $p$. We will also use analogue notation of the past singular ray from $p$.
Start from a massive particle model space of angle $\alpha\leq 2\pi$, write $\alpha=\frac{2\pi}{\cosh(\beta)}$ and use the coordinates given in definition \[def:mass\_part\]. Consider the following change of coordinate. $$\left\{\begin{array}{lcl} {\tau} & = & t
\cosh\left(\beta\right) - r \sinh\left(\beta\right) \\ \mathfrak{r} & =
& \displaystyle\frac{r}{\cosh\left(\beta\right)} \\ {\theta'} & = &
\theta \end{array}\right.$$ In the new coordinates, writing $\omega=\tanh(\beta)$, the metric is $$\d s_\omega^2 = \mathfrak{r}^{2} \mathrm{d} \theta^2+\mathrm{d} \mathfrak{r}^2 -(1-\omega^2)\d \tau^2-2\omega\d \mathfrak{r}\d\tau.$$
Varying $\omega$ in $]-1,1[$, we obtain a continuous 1-parameter family of metrics on $\R^3$ which parametrises all massive particles of angle less than $2\pi$. The metrics have limits when $\omega$ tends toward $\omega=-1$ or $\omega=1$. The limit metric is non-degenerated, Lorentzian and flat everywhere but on the singular line $\mathfrak r=r=0$. Again the surfaces $\tau=Cte$ are non singular despite the ambiant space is. Since the coordinate system of massive particles will not play an important role hereafter, with a slight abuse of notation, we use $r$ instead of $\mathfrak{r}$ coordinate.
\[def:BTZ\]The BTZ white-hole model space, noted $\E^{1,2}_0$, is $\R^3$ equipped with the metric $$\d s^2 = -2\d \tau \d r + \d r^2+ r^2\d \theta^2$$ where $(\tau,r,\theta)$ are the cylindrical coordinates of $\R^3$. The singular line $\sing(\BTZ):=\{r=0\}$ is the BTZ line and its complement is the regular locus $Reg(\BTZ)$ of $\E^{1,2}_0$. For $p\in \sing(\E^{1,2}_0)$, we write $]p,+\infty[$ (resp. $[p,+\infty[$) for the open (resp. closed) future singular ray from $p$. We will also use analogue notation of the past singular ray from $p$.
\[rem:foliation\]
- For $\alpha \in \R_+$, notice that the surfaces $\{\tau=\tau_0\}$ are isometric to the Euclidean plane but are not totally geodesic. These surfaces give a foliation of $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$ by surfaces isometric to $\E^2$, which is in particular non-singular.
- The ambiant Lorentzian space is singular since the metric 2-tensor of $Reg(\E^{1,2}_\alpha)$ does not extend continuously to $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$. Though, as long as $c \in \C^1_{pw}$ then $s\mapsto \d s^2 (c'(s))$ is piecewise continuous. It can thus be integrated along a curve.
Let $\alpha\in \R_+$. The causal curves are well defined on the regular locus of $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$. The singular line is itself timelike if $\alpha>0$ and lightlike if $\alpha=0$. We have to define an orientation on the singular line to define a time orientation on the whole $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$. All the causal curves in $Reg(\E^{1,2}_\alpha)$ share the property that the $\tau$ coordinate is monotonic, then we orientate $\sing(\E^{1,2}_\alpha)$ as follows. Curves can be decomposed into a union of pieces of $\sing(\E^{1,2}_\alpha)$ and of curves in the regular locus potentially with ending points on the singular line. Such a curve is causal (resp. chronological) if each part is causal and if the $\tau$ coordinate is increasing. The causal future of a point $p$, noted $J^+(p)$ is then defined as the set of points $q$ such that there exists a future causal curve from $p$ to $q$. Causal/chronological future/past are defined the same way.
Let $\alpha \in \R_+$ and let $p,q$ be two points in $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$. Define the closed diamond from $p$ to $q$ : $$\overline{\Diamond_p^q}=J^+(p)\cap J^-(q)$$ and the open diamond from $p$ to $q$ : $${\Diamond_p^q}=Int(J^+(p)\cap J^-(q))$$
Notice that $\Diamond_p^q=I^+(p)\cap I^-(q)$ if $\alpha>0$. However, if $\alpha=0$ and $p$ is on the singular line then $I^+(p)=Int(J^+(p))\setminus ]p,+\infty[$, therefore $I^+(p)\cap I^-(q) = \Diamond_p^q\setminus ]p,+\infty[$.
The next proposition justifies the name of BTZ white-hole.
\[lem:BTZ\_causal\_curve\] Let $c=(\tau,r,\theta) \in \C^0(]0,1[,\BTZ)$.
(i) If $c$ is future causal (resp. timelike), then $r$ is increasing (resp. strictly increasing).
(ii) If $c$ is causal future, then $c$ can be decomposed uniquely into $$c=\Delta\cup c^{0}$$ where $c^0=c\cap Reg(\E^{1,2}_0)$ and $\Delta\subset \sing(\E^{1,2}_0)$ are both connected (possibly empty). Furthermore, $\Delta$ lies in the past of $c^0$.
Remark that we chose the limit $\omega \rightarrow 1$ to define BTZ white-hole. The limit $\omega\rightarrow -1$ is also meaningful. Its regular part is isometric to $Reg(\BTZ)$ as a Lorentzian manifold but the time orientation is reversed. This limit is called BTZ black-hole. We will not make use of them even though one could extend the results presented here to include BTZ black-holes.
Useful neighborhoods of singular points in $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$ are as follows. Take some $\alpha\in\R_+$ and consider the cylindrical coordinates used in the definition of $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$. A tube or radius $R$ is a set of the form $\{r<R\}$, a compact slice of tube is then of the form $\{r\leq R, a\leq \tau\leq b\}$ for $\alpha=0$ or $\{r\leq R, a\leq t\leq b\}$ for $\alpha>0$. The abuse of notation between $r$ and $\mathfrak{r}$ may induce an imprecision on the radius which may be $R$ or $R/\cosh(\beta)$. However, the actual value of $R$ being non relevant, this imprecision is harmless. More generally an open tubular neighborhood is of the form $\{r<f(\tau), a<\tau<b\}$ where $a$ and $b$ may be infinite.
{width="6cm"} {width="8cm"}
[Causal cones in model spaces.]{}\[figure:causality\] On the left is represented the model space $\E^{1,2}_\pi$. The vertical dotted line is the singular line $\Delta_{\E^{1,2}_\pi}$. On this line are represented two singular points $p$ and $q$ together with causal future and causal past of $p$ in grey. The segment $[p,q]$ is outlined. A tube $\mathcal T$ of radius $R$ is represented in brown The angular coordinate is represented by $\theta$. On the right is represented the model space $\E^{1,2}_0$ with the vertical dotted line as the singular line $\sing(\E^{1,2}_0)$. A singular point $p$ and a regular point $q$ are represented with their causal future. The causal future of $p$ is in green. We have depicted the tube $\T$ containing $q$ in his boundary. The blue surface is the union of future lightlike geodesics starting from $q$. It does not enter the tube $\T$. The causal past of $p$ is the black ray below $p$. The other part of the singular line is the dotted ray above $p$; it is the complement of $I^+(p)$ in the interior of $J^+(p)$.
### Universal covering and developping map {#subsubsec:isometries}
Let $\alpha$ be a non-negative real number.
If $\alpha>0$, the universal covering of $Reg(\E^{1,2}_\alpha)$ can be naturally identified with $$(\R\times \R^*_+\times \R, -\d t^2+\d r^2+r^2\d \theta^2).$$
Define $$\E^{1,2}_\infty := \left(\R \times \R_+^*\times \R,-\d t^2+\d r^2+r^2\d \theta^2 \right).$$
Let $\Delta$ be the vertical timelike line through the origin in $\E^{1,2}$, the group of isometries of $\E^{1,2}$ which sends $\Delta$ to itself is isomorphic to $\SO(2)\times\R$. The $\SO(2)$ factor corresponds to the set of linear isometries of axis $\Delta$ and $\R$ to the translations along $\Delta$. The group of isometries of $\E^{1,2}_\infty$ is then the universal covering of $\SO(2)\times\R$, namely $\isom(\E^{1,2}_\infty)\simeq\widetilde{\SO}(2)\times \R$. The regular part $Reg(\E^{1,2}_\alpha)$ is then the quotient of $\E^{1,2}_\infty$ by the group of isometries generated by $(\tau,r,\theta)\mapsto (\tau,r,\theta+\alpha)$. We will simply write $\alpha\Z$ for this group. There is a natural choice of developping map $\D$ for $\E^{1,2}_\infty$ : the projection onto $\E^{1,2}_\infty/2\pi\Z$. Indeed, $\E^{1,2}_\infty / 2\pi\Z$ can be identified with the complement of $\Delta$ in $\E^{1,2}$. In addition, $\D$ is $\rho$-equivariant with respect to the actions of $\isom(\E^{1,2}_\infty)$ and $\isom(\E^{1,2})$ where $\rho$ is the projection onto $\isom(\E^{1,2}_\infty)/2\pi\Z \subset \isom(\E^{1,2})$. The image of $\rho$ is then the group of rotation-translation around the line $\Delta$ with translation parallel to $\Delta$. This couple $(\D,\rho)$ induces a developping map and an holonomy choice for the regular part of $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$ which is $(\D,\rho_{|\alpha\Z})$. We get common constructions, developping map and holonomy for every $Reg(\E^{1,2}_\alpha)$ simultaneously.
Assume now $\alpha=0$ and let $\Delta$ be a lightlike line through the origin in $\E^{1,2}$. Notice that there exists a unique plane of perpendicular to $\Delta$ containing $\Delta$ since the direction of $\Delta$ is lightlike. Let $\Delta^\perp$ be the unique plane containing $\Delta$ and perpendicular to $\Delta$, we have $I^+(\Delta)=I^+(\Delta^\perp)$. The causal future of $\Delta$ is $J^+(\Delta)=I^+(\Delta)\cup \Delta$. The isometries of $\E^{1,2}$ fixing $\Delta$ pointwise are parabolic isometries with a translation part in the direction of $\Delta$. The universal covering $\widetilde{Reg}(\E^{1,2}_0)$ can be identified with $\R\times \R^*_+\times \R$ endowed with the metric $-2\d \tau \d r +\d r^2+ r^2 \d \theta^2$.
\[prop:BTZ\_fund\] Let $ \widetilde{Reg}(\BTZ) $ be the universal covering of the regular part of $\BTZ$.
- The developping map $\D: \widetilde{Reg}(\BTZ)\rightarrow \E^{1,2}$ is injective;
- the holonomy sends the translation $(t,r,\theta)\mapsto (t,r,\theta+2\pi) $ to some parabolic isometry $\gamma$ which pointwise fixes a lightlike line $\Delta$;
- the image of $\D$ is the chronological future of $\Delta$.
Parametrize $\widetilde{Reg}(\BTZ)$ by $\left( \R\times \R_+^*\times \R, -2 \d \tau \d r + \d r^2 + r^2 \d \theta^2\right)$. The fundamental group of $Reg(\BTZ)$ is generated by the translation $g : (\tau,r,\theta) \mapsto (\tau,r,\theta+2\pi)$. We use the carthesian coordinates of $\E^{1,2}$ in which the metric is $-\d t^2+\d x^2 + \d y^2$.
Let $\Delta= \R\cdot (1,1,0)$, let $\gamma$ be the linear parabolic isometry fixing $\Delta$ and sending $(0,0,1)$ on $(1,1,1)$. Then define $${\displaystyle\D:\begin{array}{l|rcl}
& \displaystyle \widetilde{Reg}(\BTZ) & \longrightarrow & \displaystyle \E^{1,2} \\
& \displaystyle \left(\tau,r,\frac{\theta}{2\pi}\right) & \longmapsto & \displaystyle
\begin{pmatrix}t \\ x \\ y\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} \tau + \frac{1}{2}r\theta^2 \\ \tau + \frac{1}{2}r\theta^2 -r \\ -r\theta \end{pmatrix}
\end{array}}.$$ A direct computation shows that $\D$ is injective of image $I^+(\Delta)$ and one can see that
(i) $\D$ is a $\E^{1,2}$-morphism ;
(ii) $\D(g\cdot (\tau,r,\theta)) = \gamma\D(\tau,r,\theta)$.
From $(i)$, $\D$ is a developping map and from $(ii)$ the associated holonomy representation sends the translation $g$ to $\gamma$.
We obtain a homeomorphism $\overline {\D} : Reg(\E^{1,2}_0)\rightarrow I^+(\Delta)/\langle \gamma \rangle$
\[rem:BTZ\_angle\] Let $\D$ be a developping map of $Reg(\BTZ)$, let $\gamma$ be a generator of the image of the holonomy associated to $\D$. Let $\lambda\in \R^*_+$ and let $h$ be a linear hyperbolic isometry of $\E^{1,2}$ which eigenspace associated to $\lambda$ is the line of fixed points of $\gamma$. The hyperbolic isometry $h$ defines an isometry $Reg(\BTZ)\rightarrow Reg(\BTZ)$.
The pullback metric by $h$ is $$\d s^2_{\lambda}=-2\d \tau \d r + \d r^2+\lambda^2 r^2 \d \theta^2.$$ Therefore, the above metric on $\R^3$ is isometric to $\BTZ$ for every $\lambda>0$.
This allows to generalizes remark \[rem:foliation\] above. For all $\lambda > 0$, the coordinates of $\BTZ$ above induce a foliation $\{\tau=\tau_0\}$ for $\tau_0\in \R$. Each leaf is isometric to $\E^{2}_\lambda$.
{width="7cm"} {width="8cm"}
[Tubular neighborhood of a BTZ point and its development]{} On the left, a tubular subset of $\E^{1,2}_0$. On the right its development into $\E^{1,2}$. Colors are associated to remarkable sub-surfaces and their developments.\[fig:neighborhood\_BTZ\]
### Rigidity of morphisms between model spaces {#subsubsec:local_rigidity}
The next proposition is a rigidity property. A relatively compact subset of $\E^{1,2}$ embeds in every $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$, however we prove below that the regular part of a neighborhood of a singular point in $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$ ($\alpha\neq 2\pi$) cannot be embedded in any other $\E^{1,2}_\beta$. Furthermore, the embedding has to be the restriction of a global isometry of $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$. This proposition is central to the definition of singular spacetime.
\[prop:isom\]Let $\alpha,\beta\in \R_+$ with $\alpha\neq 2\pi$, and let $\U$ be an open connected subset of $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$ containing a singular point and let $\phi$ be a continuous function $\U\rightarrow \E^{1,2}_\beta$.
If the restriction of $\phi$ to the regular part is an injective $\E^{1,2}$-morphism then $\alpha=\beta$ and $\phi$ is the restriction of an element of $\isom(\E^{1,2}_\alpha)$.
One can assume that $\U$ is a compact slice of tube around the singular line without loss of generality. We use the notation introduced in section \[subsubsec:isometries\].
Assume $\alpha\beta\neq 0$. Lift $\phi$ to $\widetilde \phi: \widetilde{Reg}(\U)\subset \E^{1,2}_\infty \rightarrow \E^{1,2}_\infty$ equivariant with respect to some morphism $\chi:\alpha\Z\rightarrow \beta\Z$. Writing $D$ the natural projection $\E^{1,2}_\infty\rightarrow \E^{1,2}$, $D_{|\widetilde {Reg}(\U)}$ and $D\circ \widetilde \phi$ are two developping map of $Reg(\U)$ and a thus equal up to composition by some isometry $\gamma\in \isom(\E^{1,2})$, we will call the former standard and the latter twisted. Their image is a tube of respective axis $\Delta=\{r=0\}$ for the former and $\gamma \Delta$ for the latter. Furthermore, writing $\rho$ the projection of $\isom(\E^{1,2}_\infty)\rightarrow \isom(\E^{1,2})$, $\gamma\cdot\rho_{|\alpha\Z}\cdot \gamma^{-1}=(\rho \circ \chi)$.
Assume $\gamma \Delta \neq \Delta$, since the image of $D$ avoids $\Delta$, so does the twisted development of $\U$. It is then a slice of tube which does not intersect $\Delta$ and it is included in some half-space $H$ of $\E^{1,2}$ which support plane contains $\Delta$ the vertical axis. Then, by connectedness of $\U$, the image of $\widetilde \phi$ is included in some sector $\{\theta_0\leq \theta \leq \theta_0+\pi\}$. However, the image should be invariant under under $\chi(\alpha\Z)$, and the only subgroup of $\beta\Z$ letting such a sector invariant is the trivial one. Consequently $\chi=0$, thus the lift $\phi: \U \rightarrow \E^{1,2}_\infty$ is well defined and $D\circ \widetilde \phi$ is injective, then so is $D_{|\widetilde {Reg}(\U)}$. Furthermore, $\rho(\alpha)=0$, thus $\alpha=2\pi n$ for some $n$ greater than two. Then $D$ cannot be injective on some loop $\{r=\varepsilon,t=t_0\}$ in $\U$. Absurd.
Thus $\gamma \Delta=\Delta$, the linear part of $\gamma$ is an elliptic element of axis $\Delta$ and the translation part of $\gamma$ is in $\Delta$. The isometry $\gamma$ is then in the image of $\rho$, one can then assume $\gamma=1$ by considering $\widetilde \gamma^{-1}\widetilde \phi$ intead of $\widetilde \phi$ with $\rho(\widetilde \gamma)=\gamma$. In this case, $D\circ \widetilde \phi: = D$ then $\widetilde \phi$ is a translation of angle $2\pi n$, one can then choose the lift $\widetilde \gamma$ of $\gamma$ such that $n=0$. Consequently, $\widetilde \phi$ is the restriction to $\widetilde{Reg}(\U)$ of an element of $\isom(\E^{1,2}_\infty)$, $\phi$ is then a covering and the morphism $\chi$ is then the restriction of the multiplication $\isom(\E^{1,2}_\infty)\xrightarrow{\times n} \isom(\E^{1,2}_\infty)$, then $\alpha\Z=n\beta\Z$ and using again the injectivity of $\phi$ on a standard loop, one get $\alpha=\beta$.
Assume $\alpha\beta=0$, one obtain in the same way a morphism $\varphi$ such that $\rho_\alpha = \rho_\beta\circ \varphi$ induced by a lift $\widetilde \phi: \widetilde \U\subset \widetilde{Reg(\E^{1,2}_\alpha)}\rightarrow \widetilde{Reg(\E^{1,2}_\beta)}$. However, $\mathrm{Im} \rho_\alpha$ is generated by an elliptic isometry if $\alpha>0$ and a parabolic one if $\alpha=0$, then $\alpha$ cannot be zero if $\beta$ is not and reciprocally. Then $\alpha=\beta=0$. One again gets two developments of $\U$ the standard one and the one twisted by some $\gamma$, the standard image contains a horocycle around a lightlike line $\Delta$ and is invariant exactly under the stabilizer of $\Delta$. The twisted image is then invariant exactly under the stabilizer of $\gamma \Delta$. Therefore, the image of $\chi$ is in the intersection of the two and is non trivial. Remark that the only isometries $\gamma$ such that $\gamma\mathrm{Stab}(\Delta)\gamma^{-1}\cap \mathrm{Stab}(\Delta)\neq \{1\}$ are exactly $\mathrm{Stab}(\Delta)$. Finally, $\gamma$ stabilizes $\Delta$ and one can conclude the same way as before.
The core argument of the proof above shows that without the hypothesis of injectivity, $\phi$ shall be induced by a branched covering $\E^{1,2}_\alpha\rightarrow \E^{1,2}_\beta$. Thus $\alpha=n\beta$ for some $n$ and actually knowing that $\alpha=\beta$ gives that $\phi$ is an isomorphism if $\alpha\neq 0$.
Beware that $\E^{1,2}_0$ is a branched covering of itself since, using cylindrical coordinates $\R\times \R_+\times \R/2\pi\Z$, the projection $\R/2\pi\Z\rightarrow \R/(\frac{2\pi}{p}\Z)$, for instance, induces an isometric branched covering $\R\times \R_+\times \R/2\pi\Z \rightarrow \R\times \R_+\times \R/2\pi\Z$, the former with the metric $-\d \tau\d r +\d r^2+r^2\d \theta^2$ and the latter with the metric $-\d \tau\d r +\d r^2+\frac{1}{p^2}r^2\d \theta^2$. Both are coordinate systems of $\E^{1,2}_0$ from Remark \[rem:BTZ\_angle\]. Thus one couldn’t get rid of the injectivity condition that easily.
Singular spacetimes {#subsection:sing_spacetime_defi}
-------------------
A singular spacetime is a patchwork of different structures. They can be associated with one another using their regular locus which is a natural $\E^{1,2}$-manifold. Such a patchwork must be given by an atlas identifying part of $M$ to an open subset of one of the model spaces, the chart must send regular part on regular part whenever they intersect and the regular locus must be endowed with a $\E^{1,2}$-structure.
\[def:singular\_spacetime\] Let $A$ be a subset of $\R_+$. A $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold is a second countable Hausdorff topological space $M$ with an atlas $\mathcal A=(\U_i,\phi_i)_{i\in I}$ such that
- For every $(\U,\phi) \in \mathcal A$, there exists an open set $\V$ of $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$ for some $\alpha \in A$ such that $\phi : \U \rightarrow \V$ is a homeomorphism.
- For all $(\U_1,\phi_1),(\U_2,\phi_2) \in \mathcal A,$ $$\phi_{2}\circ \phi^{-1}_{1}\left[Reg(\phi_{1}(\U_2\cap \U_1))\right]\subset Reg(\phi_{2}(\U_1\cap\U_2))$$ and the restriction of $\phi_{2}\circ \phi^{-1}_{1}$ to $Reg(\phi_{1}(\U_1\cap \U_2))$ is a $\E^{1,2}$-morphism.
For $\alpha \in A\setminus\{2\pi\}$, $\sing_\alpha$ denote the subset of $M$ that a chart sends to a singular point of $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$, and $\sing_{2\pi}=\emptyset$.
In the following $A$ is a subset of $\R_+$ and $M$ is a $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold. It is not obvious from the definition that a singular point in $M$ does not admit charts of different types. We need to prove the regular part $Reg(M)$ and the singular parts $\sing_\alpha(M), \alpha\in\R_+$ form a well defined partition of $M$.
$\left(\sing_\alpha\right)_{\alpha\in A}$ is a family of disjoint closed submanifolds of dimension 1.
Let $\alpha \in \R_+\setminus\{2\pi\}$ and let $p\in \sing_\alpha$ be a singular point, there exists a chart $\phi:\U\rightarrow \V$ around $p$ such that $\V\subset \E_{\alpha}$ and such that $\phi(p) \in \sing(\E_\alpha)$. For any other chart $\phi':\U'\rightarrow \V'$, $\phi'\circ\phi^{-1}(Reg(\V)\cap \phi(\U'))\subset Reg(\V')$ thus $\sing_\alpha \cap \U= \phi^{-1}(\sing(\E^{1,2}_\alpha))$. Since $\phi$ is a diffeomorphism and $\sing(\E_\alpha^{1,2})$ is a closed 1-dimensional submanifold of $\E_\alpha^{1,2}$, so is $\sing_\alpha\cap \U$. For $p\in Reg(M)$ and $\U$ a chart neighborhood of $p$, we have $\sing_\alpha\cap \U=\emptyset$. Then $\sing_\alpha$ is a closed 1-dimensional submanifold.
Let $\alpha,\beta \in \R_+^2$ and assume there exists $p\in \sing_\alpha\cap \sing_\beta$. There exists charts $\phi_\alpha : \U_\alpha \rightarrow \V_\alpha$ $\phi_\beta : \U_\beta \rightarrow \V_\beta$ such that $\phi_\alpha(p) \in \Delta_{\E_{\alpha}^{1,2}}$ and $\phi_\beta(p) \in \Delta_{\E_{\beta}^{1,2}}$. Then, writing $\V_\alpha'= Reg(\V_\alpha \cap \phi_\alpha(\U_\beta))$ and $\V_\beta'= Reg(\V_\beta \cap \phi_\beta(\U_\alpha))$, $\phi_\beta\circ \phi_\alpha^{-1} : \V_\alpha' \rightarrow \V'_\beta$ is an isomorphism of $\E^{1,2}$-structures. Since $\V'_\alpha$ is the regular part of an open subset of $\E^{1,2}_\alpha$ containing a singular point, from Proposition \[prop:isom\] we deduce that $\alpha=\beta$.
Let $M,N$ be $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifolds. A continous map $\phi:M\rightarrow N$ is a $\E_A^{1,2}$-morphism if $\phi_{|Reg(M)}^{|Reg(N)}:Reg(M)\rightarrow Reg(N)$ is a $\E^{1,2}$-morphism.
A morphism $\phi$ is an isomorphism if it is bijective.
Consider a $\E^{1,2}_A$-structure $\mathcal A$ on a manifold $M$ and consider thiner atlas $\mathcal A'$. The second atlas defines a second $\E^{1,2}_A$-structure on $M$. The identity is an isomophism between the two $\E^{1,2}_A$-structures, they are thus identified.
\[prop:liouville\]Let $M$ and $N$ be connected $\E_A^{1,2}$-manifolds. Let $\phi_1,\phi_2 : M \rightarrow N$ be two $\E^{1,2}_A$-morphisms. If there exists an open subset $\U\subset M$ such that $\phi_{1|\U}=\phi_{2|\U}$ then $\phi_1=\phi_2$.
Since $M$ and $N$ are 3-dimensionnal manifolds and since $Sing(M)$ and $Sing(N)$ are embedded 1-dimensional manifolds, $Reg(M)$ and $Reg(N)$ are open connected and dense. Since $Reg(M)$ is a connected $\E^{1,2}$-structure, $\phi_{1|Reg(M)}=\phi_{2|Reg(M)}$. By density of $Reg(M)$ and continuity of $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$, $\phi_1=\phi_2$.
We end this section by an extension to singular manifold of a property we gave for the BTZ model space.
\[lem:past\_BTZ\] Let $M$ a $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold then
- a connected component of $\sing_0(M)$ is an inextendible causal curve ;
- every causal curve $c$ of $M$ decomposes into $c=\Delta\cup c^0$ where $\Delta=c\cap \sing_0(M)$ and $c^0=c\setminus \sing_0(M)$. Furthermore, $\Delta$ and $c^0$ are connected and $\Delta$ is in the past of $c^0$.
A connected component $\Delta$ of $\sing_0(M)$ is a 1-dimensional submanifold, connected and locally causal. Therefore, it is a causal curve. Since it is closed, it is also inextendible.
Assume $\Delta$ is non empty and take some $p\in \Delta$. Let $q\in J^-(p)$ and let $c':[0,1]\rightarrow J^-(p)$ be a past causal curve such that $c'(0)=p$ and $c'(1)=q$. Then write : $$I=\{s\in [0,1]~|~ c([0,s])\subset \Delta\}.$$
- $0\in I$ so $I$ is not empty.
- Take $s\in I$, $c'(s)$ is of type $\E^{1,2}_0$ and in a local chart $\U$, $J^-_\U(c'(s))$ is in the singular line around $c'(s)$. Thus for some $\varepsilon>0$, $c'(]s,s+\varepsilon[)\subset \Delta_{c'(s)}=\Delta$. Thus $[0,s+\varepsilon]\subset I$ and $I$ is open.
- Let $s=\sup I$, $c'(]s-\varepsilon,s[)\subset S^0$. By closure of $S^0$, $\Delta$ is closed thus $c'(s)\in \Delta$ and $s\in I$. Then $I$ is closed.
Finally, $I=[0,1]$ and $q\in \Delta$. We conclude that $\Delta$ is connected that there is no point of $c^0$ in the past of $\Delta$.
Global hyperbolicity and Cauchy-extensions of singular spacetimes {#sec:global_struct}
==================================================================
We remind a Geroch characterisation of globally hyperbolic of regular spacetime and extend it to singular one. We extend the smoothing theorem of Bernal and Sanchez and the the Cauchy-Maximal extension theorem by Geroch and Choquet-Bruhat. We also prove that a BTZ line is complete in the future if the space-time is Cauchy-maximal.
Global hyperbolicity, Geroch characterisation {#sec:geroch}
---------------------------------------------
Let $M$ be a $\E_{A}^{1,2}$-manifold, the causality on $M$ is inherited from the causality and causal orientation of each chart, we can then speak of causal curve, acausal domain, causal/chronological future/past, etc. The chronological past/future are still open (maybe empty) since this property is true in every model spaces. We define global hyperbolicity, give the a Geroch splitting theorem and some properties.
Let $P \subset M$ be a subset of $M$.
- The future Cauchy development of $P$ is the set $$D^+(P)=\{x\in M | \forall c:[0,+\infty[ \rightarrow M \text{~inextendible past causal curve}, c(0)=x\Rightarrow c\cap P\neq \emptyset \}$$
- The past Cauchy development of $P$ is the set $$D^-(P)=\{x\in M | \forall c:[0,+\infty[\rightarrow M \text{~inextendible future causal curve}, c(0)=x\Rightarrow c\cap P\neq \emptyset \}$$
- The Cauchy development of $P$ is the set $D(P)=D^+(P)\cup D^-(P)$
A Cauchy-surface in a $\E^{1,2}_{A}$-manifold is a $\C^0$-surface $\Sigma\subset M$ such that all inextendible causal curves intersects $\Sigma$ exactly once.
In particular if $\Sigma$ is a Cauchy-surface of $M$ then $\D(\Sigma)=M$.
If a $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold has a Cauchy-surface, it is globally hyperbolic.
The following theorem gives a fundamental charaterisation of globally hyperbolic spacetimes. Neither Geroch nor Bernal and Sanchez have proved this for singular manifolds but the usual arguments apply. The method is to define a time function as a volume function : $$T(x)=\ln \frac{\mu(I^-(x))}{\mu(I^+(x))}$$ where $\mu$ is a finite measure on a spacetime $M$. Usually, one uses an absolutely continuous measure, however such a measure put a zero weight on the past of a BTZ point. The solution in the presence of BTZ lines is to put weight on the BTZ lines and choosing a measure which is the sum of a 3 dimensional absolutely continuous measure on $M$ and a 1 dimensional absolutely continuous measure on $\sing_0(M)$. The definition of causal spacetime along with an extensive exposition of the hierachy of causality properties can be found in [@MR2436235] and a direct exposition of basic properties of such volume functions in [@MR962333].
\[theo:geroch\]Let $M$ be a $\E^{1,2}_{A}$-manifold, $(i)\Leftrightarrow (ii)$.
(i) $M$ is globally hyperbolic.
(ii) $M$ is causal and $\forall p,q\in M, \overline \Diamond_p^q$ is compact.
If $\Sigma$ is a Cauchy-surface of $M$ then there exists a homeomorphism $M \xrightarrow{\phi}\R\times \Sigma$ such that for every $C\in \R$, $\phi^{-1}(\{C\}\times \Sigma)$ is a Cauchy-surface.
See [@Oneil]
The topology generated by the open diamonds $\Diamond_p^q$ is called the [*Alexandrov topology*]{}. In the case of globally hyperbolic spacetimes, the Alexandrov topology coincides with the standard topology on the underlying manifold.
\[lem:future\_closed\] Let $M$ be a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold and let $K_1,K_2$ be compact subsets. Then
- $J^+(K_1)\cap J^-(K_2)$ is compact ;
- $J^+(K_1)$ and $J^-(K_2)$ are closed.
The usual arguments apply since they can be formulated using only the Alexandrov topology, the compactness of closed diamonds and the metrisability of the topology.
Let $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ be a sequence in $J^+(K_1)\cap J^-(K_2)$, there exists sequences $(p_n)_{n\in\N}\in K_1^\N$ and $(q_n)_{n\in\N} \in K_2^\N$ such that $x_n\in \overline \Diamond_{p_n}^{q_n}$ for all $n\in\N$. Extracting a subsequence if necessary, one can assume $p_n\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow +\infty}p $ and $q_n\xrightarrow {n\rightarrow +\infty} q$ for some $p\in K_1$ and $q\in K_2$. There exists a neighborhood of $p$ of the form $J^+(p')$ and a neighborhood of $q$ of the form $J^-(q')$ for some $p'$ and $q'$. The sequences $(p_n)_{n\in\N}$ and $(q_n)_{n\in\N}$ enters respectively $J^+(p')$ and $J^-(q')$, then for $n$ big enough, $x_n\in \overline \Diamond_{p'}^{q'}$. This subset is compact, thus one can extract a subsequence of $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ converging to some $x_\infty\in \overline\Diamond_ {p'}^{q'}$. Take a sequence $(p'_n)_{n\in\N}$ of such $p'$’s converging toward $p$ and a sequence $(q'_n)_{n\in\N}$ of such $q'$’s converging toward $q$. Since each $J^+(p'_n)$ is a neighborhood of $p$ and each $J^-(q'_n)$ is a neighborhood of $q$ then forall $n$, $x_k\in \overline\Diamond _{p'_n}^{q'_n}$ for $k$ big enough. Finally, by compactness of $\overline \Diamond_{p'_n}^{q'_n}$, the limit $$x_\infty \in \bigcap_{n\in\N}\overline \Diamond_{p'_n}^{q'_n}=\overline\Diamond_ {p}^{q}\subset J^+(K_1)\cap J^-(K_2)$$
Let $x_n\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow +\infty} x$ be a converging sequence of points of $J^+(K_1)$. There exists a neighborhood of $x$ of the form $J^-(q)$, by global hyperbolicity of $M$, $J^-(q)\cap J^+(K_1)$ is compact and contains every points of $x_n$ for $n$ big enough. Thus $x\in J^-(q)\cap J^+(K_1)$ and $x\in J^+(K_1)$. We prove the same way that $J^-(K_2)$ is closed.
Cauchy-extension and Cauchy-maximal singular spacetimes {#subsec:choquet_bruhat}
-------------------------------------------------------
Extensions and maximality of spacetimes are usually defined via Cauchy-embeddings as follows.
Let $M_1,M_2$ be globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_{A}$-manifolds and let $\phi:M_1\rightarrow M_2$ be a morphism. $\phi$ is a Cauchy-embedding if it is injective and sends a Cauchy-surface of $M_1$ on a Cauchy-surface of $M_2$.
The definition can be loosen twice, first by only imposing the existence of a Cauchy-surface of $M_1$ that $\phi$ sends to a Cauchy-surface of $M_2$, it is an exercise to prove that this implies that every Cauchy-surfaces is sent to a Cauchy-surface. Second, injectivity along a Cauchy-surface implies injectivity of $\phi$.
We remind that a spacetime is Cauchy-maximal if every Cauchy-extension is trivial. The proof of the Cauchy-maximal extension theorem given by Choquet-Bruhat and Geroch have been improved by Jan Sbierski in [@sbierski_geroch]. This new proof has the advantage of not using Zorn’s lemma, it is thus more constructive. The existence and uniqueness of a Maximal Cauchy-extension of a singular spacetime can be proven re-writing the proof given by Sbierski taking some care with the particles. Indeed, it is shown in [@Particules_1] that collisions of particles can make the uniqueness fail. The rigidity Proposition \[prop:isom\] ensures the type of particles is preserved and is an equivalent of local uniqueness of the solution of Einstein’s Equation in our context. The proof of separation given by Sbierski has to be adapted to massive particles of angle greater than $2\pi$ to fully work. It can be done without difficulties and the main ideas of the proof are used in section \[sec:extension\_BTZ\_1\] for BTZ extensions, so we don’t rewrite a proof of the theorem here.
\[theo:cauchy\_max\_ext\] Let $M$ be a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold. Then, there exists a maximal Cauchy-extension of $M$ among $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold. Furthermore, it is unique up to isomorphism.
See [@sbierski_geroch].
We now prove in a Cauchy-maximal spacetime a BTZ line is complete in the future and there is a standard neighborhood of a future BTZ ray.
\[prop:tube\] Let $M$ be Cauchy-maximal $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold and let $p$ be a BTZ point in $\sing_0(M)$.
Then, the future BTZ ray from $p$ is complete and there exists a future half-tube neighborhood of $[p,+\infty[$ of constant radius.
Consider $\Sigma$ a Cauchy-surface of $M$. The connected component $\Delta$ of $p$ in $\sing_0(M)$ is an inextendible causal curve thus it intersects the Cauchy-surface $\Sigma$ exactly once say at $q\in \Sigma \cap \Delta$. There exists a neighborhood $\overline \U$ of $q$ isomorphic via some isometry $\phi:\overline \U\rightarrow \E^{1,2}_0$ to $$\{\tau \in [\tau_1,\tau_2], r \leq R \} \subset \E^{1,2}_0$$ for some positive $R$ and reals $\tau_1,\tau_2\in \R$. Take this neighborhood small enough so that the surface $\{\tau=\tau_2,r<R\}$ is achronal in $M$. Consider the open tube $\mathcal T=\{\tau> \tau_1, r<R\}\subset \E^{1,2}_0$ and $\U=Int(\overline \U)$. Define
- $M_0=M\setminus J^+\left(\phi^{-1}(\{\tau=\tau_2, r\leq R\})\right)$ ;
- $M_2=\left(M_0\coprod \mathcal T \right)/\sim$ with $x\sim y \Leftrightarrow \left(x\in \U, y\in \mathcal T \text{ and } \phi(x)=y \right)$.
$\Sigma$ is a Cauchy-surface of $M_0$ and $M$ is Cauchy-extension of $M_0$. In order to prove that $M_2$ is a $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold, we only need to prove it is Hausdorff. Indeed $\phi$ is an isomorphism thus the union of the atlases of $M_0$ and $\mathcal T$ defines a $\E^{1,2}_A$-structure on $M_2$.\
\
Let $x,y \in M_2$, $x\neq y$ and let $\pi$ be the natural projection $\pi:M_0\coprod \mathcal T \rightarrow M_2$. If $x,y \in \pi(\U)$, consider $x_1 =\pi^{-1}(x)\cap \U$, $x_2=\pi^{-1}(x)\cap \mathcal T$, $y_1 =\pi^{-1}(y)\cap \U$, $y_2=\pi^{-1}(y)\cap \mathcal T$. Consider disjoint open neighborhoods $\V_{x_1}$ and $\V_{y_1}$ of $x_1$ and $y_1$. Notice that $\V_x:=\pi^{-1}(\pi(\V_{x_1}))=\V_{x_1}\cup \phi(\V_{x_1})$ and that $\V_y:=\pi^{-1}(\pi(\V_{y_1}))=\V_{y_1}\cup \phi(\V_{y_1})$. Therefore $\V_x$ and $\V_y$ are open and disjoint neighborhoods of $x$ and $y$. Notice that $\pi^{-1}(\overline {\pi(\U)})=\overline \U \cup \{\tau\in ]\tau_1,\tau_2],r<R\}$. Clearly, if $x$ and $y$ are in $M_2\setminus \overline {\pi(\U)}$, then they are separated.
Then remains when $x,y\in \partial \pi(\U)=\pi(\partial \U))\cup \pi(\{\tau=\tau_2\})$. Assume $x,y\in \partial \pi(\U)$ and consider $x_1\in \overline \U$, $y_1\in \overline \U$ such that $\pi(x_1)=x$ and $\pi(y_1)=y$. Take two disjoint open neighborhoods $\V_{x_1}$ and $\V_{y_1}$ of $x_1$ and $y_1$ in $M_0$. We have $\pi^{-1}(\pi(\V_{x_1}))=\V_{x_1}\cup \phi(\V_{x_1}\cap \U)$ and $\pi^{-1}(\pi(\V_{y_1}))=\V_{y_1}\cup \phi(\V_{y_1}\cap \U)$. Then $x$ and $y$ are separated. The same way, we can separate two points $x,y\in \pi(\{\tau=\tau_2,r<R\})$. Assume $x= \pi(x_1)$ with $x_1\in \partial \overline \U$ and $y= \pi(y_1)$ with $y_1\in \{\tau=\tau_2,r<R\}$. The point $x_1$ is not in $\phi^{-1}(\{\tau=\tau_2\})$ by definition of $M_0$. Therefore, the $\tau$ coordinate of $\phi(x_1)$ is less than $\tau_2$. Take a neighborhood $\V_{x_1} $of $x_1$ such that $\phi(\V_{x_1}\cap \U)\subset \{\tau< \tau_2-\varepsilon\}$ for some $\varepsilon >0$. Then, take $\V_{y_2}=\{\tau>\tau_2-\varepsilon,r<R\}$. We get $\pi^{-1}(\pi(\V_{x_1}))=\V_{x_1}\cup \phi(\U\cap \V_{x_1})$ and $\pi^{-1}(\pi(\V_{x_2}))=\V_{x_2}\cup \phi^{-1}(\{\tau\in ]\tau_2-\varepsilon,\tau_2[\})$. Therefore, $\pi(\V_{x_1})$ and $\pi(\V_{y_1})$ are open and disjoint. Finally, $M_2$ is Hausdorff.
Consider a future inextendible causal curve in $M_2$ say $c$ and write $\Pi=\{\tau=\tau_2,r<R\}\subset \mathcal T$. The curve $c$ can be decomposed into two part : $c_0=c\cap M_0$ and $c_1=c\cap J^+(\pi(\{\tau=\tau_2,r<R\}))$. These pieces are connected since $\Pi$ is achronal in $\mathcal T$ and $\phi^{-1}(\Pi)$ is achronal in $M$. Therefore, $c_1$ and $c_0$ are inextendible causal curves if not empty. if $c_1$ is non empty, then it intersects $\Pi$ since $D^+_{\mathcal T}(\Pi)=\{\tau\geq \tau_2,r<R\}$ and then $c_0$ is non empty. Therefore, $c_0$ is always non empty. $c_1$ does not intersect $\Sigma$ and $c_0$ interests $\Sigma$ exactly once thus $c$ interests $\Sigma$ exactly once.
We obtain the following diagram of extensions by maximality of $M$ $$\xymatrix{
&M\ar@{=}[dr]&\\
M_0\ar[ur] \ar[dr]&&M\\
&M_2\ar[ur]&
}$$ where the arrows are Cauchy-embedding. Therefore, the connected component of $p$ in $\sing_0(M)$ is complete in the future and has a neighborhood isomorphic to $\mathcal T$.
Smoothing Cauchy-surfaces in singular space-times {#subsec:smooth}
-------------------------------------------------
The question of the existence of a smooth Cauchy-surface of a regular globally hyperbolic manifold has been the object of many endeavours. Seifert [@MR1555366] was the first one to ask wether the existence of a $\C^0$ Cauchy-surface was equivalent to the existence of a $\C^1$ one, he gave an proof which turns out to be wrong. Two recent proofs are considered (so far) to be correct : one of Bernal and Sanchez [@sanchez_smooth] and another by Fathi and Siconolfi [@MR2887877] . We give their result in the case of $\E^{1,2}$-manifolds.
\[sanchez\]Let $M$ be a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}$-manifold, then there exists a spacelike smooth Cauchy-surface of $M$.
We apply their theorem to a globally hyperbolic flat singular spacetime. First we need to define what we mean by spacelike piecewise smooth Cauchy-surfaces. Recall that a smooth surface in $\E^{1,2}$ is [*spacelike*]{} if the restriction of the Lorentzian metric to its tangent plane is positive definite.
\[defi:sing\_cauchy\] Let $M$ be a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold and let $\Sigma$ be a Cauchy-surface of $M$.
- $\Sigma$ is smooth (resp. piecewise smooth) if $\Sigma \cap Reg(M)$ is smooth (resp. piecewise smooth);
- $\Sigma$ is spacelike (piecewise) smooth $\Sigma \cap Reg(M)$ is (piecewise) smooth and spacelike.
\[theo:smooth\] Let $M$ be a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold, then there exists a spacelike smooth Cauchy-surface of $M$.
Let $\Sigma_1$ be a Cauchy surface of $M$.
- Let $\left(\Delta_i\right)_{i\in\Lambda}$ be the connected components of $\sing_0(M)$. Each connected component is an inextendible causal curve intersecting $\Sigma_1$ exactly once.
Let $p_i=\Delta_i\cap \Sigma_1$ for $i\in \Lambda_0$. Let $i\in \Lambda_0$, consider $\U_i\simeq \{\tau \in [\tau^-_i,\tau^+_i], r\leq R_i\}$ a tube neighborhood of $p_i$. Let $\mathbb D_i^-= \{\tau=\tau^-_i, r\leq R\}$. The past set $I^-(\Sigma_1\cap \U_i)$ is an open neighborhood of the ray $J^-(p_i)\setminus \{p_i\}$. Therefore, noting $q_i=\mathbb D^-_i \cap J^-(p_i)$, the past of $\Sigma_1$ contains a neighborhood of $q_i$ in $\mathbb D_i$. Reducing $R_i$ if necessary, one can assume $\mathbb D_i^-\subset I^-(\Sigma_1)$ and reducing $R_i$ even more we can assume $\mathbb D_i^+:=\{\tau=\tau_i^+,r\leq R_i\}\subset J^+(p_i)$. In the same way, we index the connected components of the set of massive particles by $\Lambda_{\text{mass}}$. We have $\bigcup_{\alpha>0} \sing_{\alpha}(M) = \bigcup_{j\in \Lambda_{\text{mass}}} (\Delta_j)$ and $p_j=\Delta_j\cap \Sigma_1 $ for $j \in \Lambda_{\text{mass}}$. Since $\Lambda\cup \Lambda_{\text{mass}}$ is enumerable, one can construct $(U_{i_n})_{n\in \N}$ by induction such that for all $n\in \N$, $\U_{i_{n+1}}$ is disjoint from $J^{\pm}(\U_{i_{k}})$ for $k\leq n$. Then define $$N= \left( \bigcup _{i\in \Lambda }
J^+(\mathbb D^+_i )
\cup J^-(\mathbb D_i^-)\right)\cup
\left(\bigcup_{j\in \Lambda_{\text{mass}}}
J^+(p_j)\cup
J^-(p_j)
\right)$$ and $$M'=Reg(M\setminus N).$$ The closed dimonds of $M'$ are compact, thus by Theorem \[theo:geroch\], $M'$ is a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}$-manifold. Theorem \[sanchez\] then ensures there exists a smooth Cauchy surface $\Sigma_2$ of $M'$. We need to extend $\Sigma_2$ to get a Cauchy-surface of $M$.
- We write $\mathbb D_R$ the compact disc of radius $R$ in $\E^2$ and $\mathbb D_R^*:=\mathbb D_R\setminus\{0\}$. Consider a massive particle point $p_j$ for some $j\in \Lambda_{\text{mass}}$ and a tube neighborhood $\U\simeq \{t \in [t^-,t^+], r\leq R\}$ of $p_j$ in $M$. We may assume the $t$ coordinate of $p_j$ to be $0$, $t^-=-t^+$ and $R=t^+$ so that $\{t=t^+\}$ is exactly the basis of the cone $J^+(p_j)$ in $\U$ and $\{t=t^-\}$ is exactly the basis of the cone $J^-(p_j)$ in $\U$. Consider the projection $${\displaystyle\pi:\begin{array}{l|rcl}
& \displaystyle (\Sigma_2\cap \U)\cup \{p_j\} & \longrightarrow & \displaystyle \mathbb D_R \\
& \displaystyle (t,r,\theta) & \longmapsto & \displaystyle (r,\theta) \end{array}}$$ where $(t,r,\theta)$ are the cylindrical coordinates of $\U$. The projection $\pi$ is continuous. Notice that for $r_0\in ]0,R]$ and $\theta_0 \in \R/2\pi\Z$, the causal curves $\{r=r_0,\theta=\theta_0,t\in ]-r_0,r_0[\}$ are inextendible in $M'$. They thus intersect $\Sigma_2$ exactly once and $\pi$ is thus bijective. Let $(q_n)_{n\in \N}$ be a sequence of points of $\Sigma$ such that the $r$ coordinates tends to $0$. Writing $r_n $ and $t_n$ the $r$ and $t$ coordinates of $q_n$ for $n\in \N$, we have $|t_n|< r_n$ thus $q_n\rightarrow p_j$. Since $\U$ is compact, $\Sigma_2\cap \U\cap \{r\geq R_1\}$ is compact, it follows that $(\Sigma_2\cap \U)\cup \{p_j\}$ is compact. Then $\pi$ is a homeomorphism.
Consider now a BTZ point $p_i$ for some $i\in \Lambda_0$ and a chart neighborhood of $p_i$ as in the first step. Again, the Cauchy-surface $\Sigma_2$ is trapped between $\mathbb D^+_i$ and $\mathbb D_i^-$, the projection $\pi:\Sigma_2\cap \U\rightarrow \mathbb D_R^*$ is bijective and open thus a homeomorphism. Write $\pi^{-1}=(\tau,Id)$ and let $(a_n)_{n\in \N},(b_n)_{n\in \N}$ be two sequences of points of $\mathbb D_R^*$ which tend to $0$. By compactness, we can assume $\left(\tau(a_n)\right)_{n\in \N}$ and $\left(\tau(b_n)\right)_{n\in\N}$ converge to some $\tau_a$ and $\tau_b$ respectively. If $\tau_a<\tau_b$ then for $n$ big enough $(\tau_a,0))\in I^-(\pi^{-1}(b_n))$ which is open. Therefore, there exists $n,m \in \N$ such that $\pi^{-1}(a_n) \in I^-(\pi^{-1}(b_m))$. Since $\Sigma_2$ is acausal this is absurd and $\tau_a=\tau_b$. Then $\pi^{-1}$ can be extended to a homeomorphism $\mathbb D_R \rightarrow \left(\Sigma_2\cap \U\right) \cup \{q_i\}$ for some $q_i\in \Delta_i$.
Define $\Sigma=\Sigma_2\cup\{p_j: j \in \Lambda_{\text{mass}}\} \cup \{q_i : i \in \Lambda\}=\overline \Sigma_2$, it is a topological surface smooth on the regular part.
- We need to show $\Sigma_2$ is a Cauchy-surface of $M$. Let $c$ be a future causal inextendible curve in $M$. Notice that $N$ can be decomposed
$$N=N^+\cup N^- \quad \text{where} \quad
N^\pm = \bigcup_{i\in \Lambda_0}J^\pm(\mathbb D_i^\pm) \bigcup _{j\in \Lambda_{\text{mass}}} J^\pm(\{p_j\})$$ is the future complete part (the union of the $J^+$ parts) and $N^-$ is the past complete part (the union of the $J^-$ parts). A future causal curve entering $N^+$ cannot leave $N^+$ and a future causal curve leaving $N^-$ cannot re-enter $N^-$. Therefore, $c$ is decomposed into three connected pieces $c=c^-\cup c^0\cup c^+ $, the pieces $c^-,c^0,c^+$ being in $N^-$, $M\setminus N$ and $N^+$ respectively.
- If $c^0=\emptyset$ then $c\subset n N$ thus $c\cap \Sigma_1\subset N\cap \Sigma=\bigcup_{j\in \Lambda_{\text{mass}}} \{p_j \} $. The curve $c$ can then only intersect $\Sigma$ at a massive particle point, but such points of $\Sigma$ are in $\Sigma_1$ which is a Cauchy-surface of $M$. Therefore, $c$ intersects $\Sigma$ exactly once at $p_j$ for some $j\in \Lambda_{\text{mass}}$.
- If $c^0\neq \emptyset$, then by Lemma \[lem:BTZ\_causal\_curve\], $c^0$ decomposes into a BTZ part $\Delta$ and a non BTZ-part $c^1$ with $\Delta$ in the past of $c^1$. Then $c=c^-\cup \Delta \cup c^1 \cup c^+$.
- If $c^1\neq \emptyset$, then $c^1$ is an inextendible causal curve in $M'$ and thus intersect $\Sigma_2$, thus $\Sigma$, exactly once. If $q_i\in\Delta$ for some $i\in \Lambda_0$, then $q_i\in J^-_M(\Sigma_2)\setminus \Sigma_2 = I^-(\Sigma_2)$. However, $I^-(\Sigma_2)$ is open and $q_i\in \overline{\Sigma_2}$, thus $I^-(\Sigma_2)\cap \Sigma_2\neq \emptyset$ which is absurd since $\Sigma_2$ is acausal in $M'$. Thus $c\cap \Sigma=c^1\cap \Sigma$ which is a singleton.
- If $c^1=\emptyset$, then $\Delta$ is inextendible and thus a connected component of $\sing_0(M\setminus N)$. Such a connected component contains exactly one of the $(q_i)_{i\in \Lambda} $ thus $c\cap \Sigma=\Delta\cap \Sigma$ is a singleton.
\[lem:local\_param\] Let $\Sigma$ a picewise spacelike Cauchy-surface of $M$ and write $\mathbb D_R=\{r\leq R\}\subset \E^2$. For all $p\in \Sigma$, there exists a tube neighborhood $\U\simeq \T\subset \E^{1,2}_\alpha$ of $p$ such that
- $\T=\{\tau \in [\tau_1,\tau_2],r\leq R\}$ if $\alpha=0$ ;
- $\T=\{t \in [t_1,t_2],r\leq R\}$ if $\alpha>0$ ;
- $\Sigma\cap \U=\{(f(r,\theta),r,\theta) : (r,\theta) \in \mathbb D_R\}$ for some $f:\mathbb D_R\rightarrow \R$ which is piecewise smooth on $\mathbb D_R^*$.
Steps 1 and 2 of the proof of Theorem \[theo:smooth\] give a continuous parametrisation. The parametrisation is piecewise smooth since the projection is along lightlike line or timelike line which are transverse to the spacelike Cauchy-surface.
The Riemann metric on $Reg(\Sigma)$ induces a length space structure on $Reg(\Sigma)$ and a distance function on $Reg(\Sigma)\times Reg{\Sigma}$. In the next proposition, we extend this length space structure on the whole $\Sigma$ by proving $C^1_{pw}$ curve to the whole $\Sigma$
Let $M$ be a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold and let $\Sigma$ a piecewise smooth spacelike Cauchy-surface. Then the distance function on $Reg(\Sigma)\times Reg{\Sigma}$ extends continuously to $\Sigma\times \Sigma$.
We just have to prove it in the neighborhood of a singular point. There are two cases wether the singular point is BTZ or massive. Let $p \in \Sigma\cap \sing_0$, consider a local parametrisation given by Lemma \[lem:local\_param\] by a disc of radius $R>0$ in a compact tube neighborhood $\U$ of $p$. Take a curve on $\Sigma\cap \U$, $c=(\tau(r), r, \theta_0)$ for $r\in[R,0]$, it is absolutely continuous on $[R,0[$. Since $\Sigma$ is spacelike using the metric of BTZ model space given in Definition \[def:BTZ\], we have $1-2\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial r}\geq 0$ almost everywhere and $$\begin{aligned}
{length} (c)&=&\int_{0}^R \sqrt{1-2\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial r} }\d r \\
&\leq & \int_{0}^R \sqrt{1+1-2\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial r} }\d r\\
&\leq&\int_{0}^R \left(2-2\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial r} \right)\d r\\
&\leq & 2R-2\left(\tau(R)-\tau(0)\right)
\end{aligned}$$ Then the distance induced by the Riemann metric on $Reg(\Sigma)$ extends continuously to $p$.
Let $p \in \Sigma\cap \sing_\alpha$ for some $\alpha>0$, consider a local parametrisation given by Lemma \[lem:local\_param\] by a disc of radius $R>0$ in a compact tube neighborhood $\U$ of $p$. Take a curve on $\Sigma\cap \U$, $c=(t(r), r, \theta_0)$ for $r\in[R,0]$, it is absolutely continuous on $[R,0[$. Since $\Sigma$ is spacelike using the metric of massive particle model space given in \[def:mass\_part\], $1-\left(\frac{\partial t}{\partial r}\right)^2\geq 0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{length} (c)&=&\int_{0}^R \sqrt{1-\left(\frac{\partial t}{\partial r}\right)^2 }\d r \\
&\leq & R
\end{aligned}$$ Then the distance induced by the Riemann metric on $Reg(\Sigma)$ extends continuously to $p$.
Let $M$ be a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold, $M$ is Cauchy-complete if there exists a piecewise smooth spacelike Cauchy-surface (in the sense of definition \[defi:sing\_cauchy\]) which is complete as metric space.
Fathi and Siconolfi in [@MR2887877] proved a smoothing theorem applicable in a wider context than the one of semi-riemannian manifolds. However their result does not apply naively to our singularities. Consider $M$ a differentiable manifold, their starting point is a [*continuous cone field*]{} i.e. a continuous choice of cones in $T_x M$ for $x\in M$. If one start from a spacetime using our definition, a natural cone field associate to each point $x$ the set of future pointing causal vectors from $x$. However, as shown on figure \[fig:cone\_BTZ\] this cone field is **discontinuous** at every singular points!
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------
{width="0.45\linewidth"} {width="0.45\linewidth"}
{width="0.45\linewidth"} {width="0.45\linewidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------
[Futur Cones and limit futur cones in the tangent plane of a singular point.]{}\[fig:cone\_BTZ\] We draw cones of future pointing causal vectors in $T_{p}\E^{1,2}_\alpha$ with $\alpha= 2\pi \sqrt{1-\omega^2}$ and $p\in \sing(\E^{1,2}_\alpha)$ in the $(\tau,\mathfrak{r},\theta)$ coordinates. The red cone $C_0$ represents the cone of future pointing causal vectors at $p$ and the blue cone represents the radial limit toward $p$ of the cone of future pointing causal vectors. When $\omega=0$ (i.e. $\alpha=2\pi$), there the vertical line is not singular anymore and the red and blue cones blend.
It would be possible to construct a continous cone field wich contains the one of future causal vectors. Providing this new cone field is globally hyperbolic (in the sense of Fathi and Siconolfi) one could then apply the smoothing theorem and recover an everywhere smooth Cauchy-surface. This procedure might be slightly simpler and is much stronger since it allows to control both the position and the tangent plane of the Cauchy-surface. We didn’t write this here since we also needed Lemma \[lem:local\_param\] and we should have written the first two steps of the presented method anyway. Later on in this paper, we will need to control Cauchy-completeness of Cauchy-surfaces which presents, to our knowledge, the same difficulties using either Fathi-Siconolfi theorem or our method.
Still, it would be nice to have an extended Fathi-Siconolfi theorem which directly applies. This would require to weaken the continuity hypothesis to some semi-continuity hypothesis which seems reasonable considering the methods they used.
Catching BTZ-lines : BTZ-extensions {#sec:catch_BTZ}
===================================
In the example of the modular group presented in the Introduction, we added BTZ-lines to a Cauchy-maximal spacetime. Therefore, the usual Cauchy-maximal extension theorem doesn’t catch them. Since we want to add BTZ-lines to some given manifold whenever it is possible, we define BTZ-extensions and prove a corresponding maximal BTZ-extension theorem.
BTZ-extensions, definition and properties {#sec:extension_BTZ_1}
-----------------------------------------
Consider the regular part of $\E^{1,2}_0$. It is a Cauchy-maximal globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}$-manifold and should be naturally extended into $\E^{1,2}_0$. To get this we need new extensions. Let $A\subset \R_+$ be a subset containing $0$.
Let $M_1,M_2$ be two globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$ manifolds and $\phi: M_1 \rightarrow M_2$ a morphism of $\E^{1,2}_A$-structure.
If $\phi$ is injective and the complement of its image in $M_2$ is a union (possibly empty) of BTZ lines then $\phi$ is a BTZ-embedding and $M_2$ is a BTZ-extension of $M_1$.
The following lemmas ensure that two BTZ lines cannot be joined via an extension and that the BTZ-lines cannot be completed in the future via BTZ-extensions.
\[lem:separation\_BTZ\] Let $M_1$ and $M_2$ be two globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifolds, and $M_1 \xrightarrow{\phi} M_2$ a BTZ extension. Let $p,q \in \sing_0(M_1)$, if $p$ and $q$ are in the same connected component of $\sing_0(M_2)$ then they are in the same connected component of $\sing_0(M_1)$.
The connected component of $p$ in $\sing_0(M_2)$ is an inextendible causal curve we note $\Delta$. We may assume $p\in J^-_{M_2}(q)$. Since every point of $[p,q]$ is locally modeled on $\E^{1,2}_0$, we can construct a tube neighborhood of $[p,q]$ of some radius $R$. Take some regular point $q'$ in the chronological future of $q$ in the tube neighborhood. The diamond $J^-_{M_1}(q')\cap J^+_{M_1}(p)$ is compact, thus $[p,q]\subset \overline {I^+(p)\cap I^-(q')}\subset J^-_{M_1}(q')\cap J^+_{M_1}(p)\subset M_1$.
\[lem:descente\_BTZ\] Let $M_1$ and $M_2$ be two globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifolds, and $M_1 \xrightarrow{\phi} M_2$ a BTZ extension. Let $p,q \in \sing_0(M_2)$.
If $p\in J^-_{M_2}(q)$ and $p\in M_1$ then $q \in M_1$.
Take some tube neighborhood $\mathcal T$ of radius $R$ of $[p,q]$. Take some point $q'\in \left(\partial J^+_{M_2}(q)\right)\cap \T$ then $p\in I^-_{M_2}(q')$. The diamond $\overline \Diamond_p^{q'}$ in $M_1$ is compact and its interior is the open diamond $\Diamond_p^{q'}$. The latter is relatively compact in $M_2$ and the former contains its closure in $M_2$ which contains $[p,q]$. Thus $[p,q]$ is in $M_1$.
Maximal BTZ-extension theorem {#sec:extension_BTZ_2}
-----------------------------
We can now address the maximal BTZ-extension problem for globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifolds. More precisely, we prove the following theorem.
\[theo:BTZ\_ext\]Let $A\subset \R_+$, let $M$ be a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold.
There exists a maximal BTZ-extension $\overline M$ of $M$. Furthermore it is unique up to isometry.
Again, we mean that a spacetime is BTZ-maximal if any BTZ-extension is surjective hence an isomophism. The proof has similarities with the one of the maximal Cauchy-extension theorem. Let $M$ a spacetime and consider two BTZ-embeddings $f:M_0\rightarrow M_1$ and $g:M_0\rightarrow M_2$.
Define $M_1\wedge M_2$ the union of extensions $M$ of $M_0$ in $M_1$ such that there exists a BTZ-embedding $\phi_M:M\rightarrow M_2$ with $\phi_M\circ f= g$.
Define $${\displaystyle\phi:\begin{array}{l|rcl}
& \displaystyle M_1\wedge M_2 & \longrightarrow & \displaystyle M_2 \\
& \displaystyle x & \longmapsto & \displaystyle \phi_M(x) \text{ if x} \in M \end{array}}$$
This function $\phi$ is well defined since each $\phi_M$ is continuous and $f(M_0)$ is dense in $M_1$.
$\phi$ is a BTZ-embedding.
The image of $\phi$ contains the image of $M_0$ thus its complement in $M_2$ is a subset of $\sing_0(M_2)$. We must show $\phi$ is injective.
Let $N_1$ and $N_2$ be two subextensions of $M_1$ together with BTZ-embeddings $\phi_i:N_i \rightarrow M_2$. Let $(x,y)\in N_1\cup N_2$ be such that $\phi(x)=\phi(y)=p\in M_2$. Notice that $I^+(p)\subset M_2\setminus \sing_0(M_2)$ thus $$\emptyset\neq I^+(p)=\phi_1(I^+(x))=\phi_2(I^+(y))\subset g(M_0).$$ Then $I^+(x)=f\circ g^{-1}(I^+(p))=I^+(y)$ and $x=y$.
Define the least common extension of $M_1$ and $M_2$ : $$M_1\vee M_2=(M_1\coprod M_2)/(M_1 \wedge M_2)$$ where the quotient is understood identifying $M_1\wedge M_2$ and $\phi(M_1\wedge M_2)$. The define the natural projetction $$\pi:M_1 \coprod M_2 \rightarrow M_1\vee M_2.$$
The following diagram sums-up the situation.
$$\xymatrix{
&M\ar[r]\ar@{-->}[ddr]^{\phi_{M}} &M_1\wedge M_2\ar@{-->}[dd]^{\phi}\ar[r]& M_1\ar[dr] & \\
M_0\ar[drr]^g\ar[ur]^f&& && M_1\vee M_2&&&&\\
&&M_2\ar[urr]&}$$ Notice that $M_1\vee M_2$ need not be Hausdorff. There could be non spearated points, i.e. points $p,q$ such that for every couple of open neighborhoods $(\U,\V)$ of $p$ and $q$, $\U\cap \V\neq \emptyset$.
Define $C=\{p\in M_1\wedge M_2 ~|~ \pi(p) \text{ is not separated} \}$
The following Propositions prove that $(M_1\wedge M_2) \cup C$ is a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold to which $\phi$ extends. Thus it is a sub-BTZ-extension common to $M_1$ and $M_2$. It will prove that $C=\emptyset$.
$(M_1\wedge M_2) \cup C$ is open and $\phi$ extends injectively to $(M_1\wedge M_2) \cup C$.
Since $M_1\wedge M_2$ is a $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold we shall only check the existence of a chart around points of $C$. The set $C$ is in the complement of $M_1\wedge M_2$ and thus is a subset of $\sing_0(M_1)$. Let $p\in C$ and $p'\in M_2$ such that $\pi(p)$ and $\pi(p')$ are not separated in $M_1\vee M_2$. Let $\U_p\xrightarrow{\psi_p} \V_p\subset \E^{1,2}_0$ a chart around $p$ and $\U_{p'}\xrightarrow{\psi_{p'}} \V_{p'}\subset \E^{1,2}_\alpha$ a chart around $p'$. Since $\pi(p)$ and $\pi(p')$ are not separated, there exists a sequence $(p_n)_{n\in\N} \in Reg(M_1)^\N$ such that $\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} p_n =p$ and $\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\phi(p_n)=p'$. Take such a sequence, notice that forall $n\in\N$, $\phi(I^+(p_n))=I^+(\phi(p_n))$ and that $I^+(p) \subset \bigcup_{n\in\N} I^+(p_n)$ and $I^+(p')\subset \bigcup_{n\in\N} I^+(\phi(p_n))$. We then get $\phi(I^+(p))=I^+(p')$. Therefore, taking smaller $\U_p$ and $\U_{p'}$ if necessary, we may assume, $\U_p$ connected and $\phi(I^+(p)\cap \U_p)=I^+(p')\cap \U_{p'}$ then $$\psi_{p'} \circ \phi \circ \psi_p^{-1}: I^+(\psi_p(p))\cap \V_p \rightarrow I^+(\psi_{p'}(p'))\cap \V_{p'}$$ is an injective $\E^{1,2}$-morphism. The future of a point in $\V_p$ is the regular part of a neighborhood of some piece of the singular line in $\E^{1,2}_0$. Thus, by Proposition \[prop:isom\], $\alpha=0$ and $\psi_{p'} \circ \phi \circ \psi_p^{-1}$ is the restriction of an isomophism of $\E^{1,2}_0$ say $\gamma_p$.
Choose such neighborhood $\U_p$, such $\psi_p,\psi_{p'}$ and such $\gamma_p$ for all $p\in C$. The subset $(M_1\wedge M_2) \cup \bigcup_{p\in C}\U_p$ is open thus a $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold and the $\E^{1,2}_A$-morphism $${\displaystyle\overline \phi:\begin{array}{l|rcl}
& \displaystyle (M_1\wedge M_2) \cup \bigcup_{p\in C}\U_p & \longrightarrow & \displaystyle M_2 \\
& \displaystyle x & \longmapsto & \displaystyle \left \lbrace \begin{array}{ll}
\phi(x)& \text{ if } x\in M_1\wedge M_2\\
\psi_{p'}^{-1}\circ \gamma \circ \psi_p(x)&\text{ if }x \in \U_p
\end{array}
\right. \end{array}}$$ is then well defined by Lemma \[prop:liouville\]. Notice that for all $p\in C$ and all $q \in \sing_0(\U_p)$, the points $\pi(q)$ and $\pi\circ \overline \phi(q)$ of $M_1\vee M_2$ are not separated. Therefore, either $q\in C$ or $\pi(q)=\pi\circ \overline \phi(q)$ thus $$(M_1\wedge M_2) \cup \bigcup_{p\in C}\U_p=(M_1\wedge M_2) \cup C$$ and thus $(M_1\wedge M_2) \cup C$ is open.
It remains to show that $\overline \phi$ is injective. If $p,q\in (M_1\wedge M_2 )\cup C$ have same image by $\overline \phi$ then the image by $\overline \phi$ of any neighborhood of $p$ intersects the image of any neighborhood of $q$. This intersection is open and thus contains regular points. We can construct sequences of regular points $p_n\rightarrow p$ and $q_n\rightarrow q$ such that $\phi(p_n)=\phi(q_n)$. By injectivity of $\phi$, $\forall n\in\N, p_n=q_n$ and thus, since $M_1$ is Hausdorff, $p=q$.
$(M_1\wedge M_2) \cup C$ is globally hyperbolic.
Write $M=(M_1\wedge M_2)\cup C$ and let $p,q\in M$, we now show that $J^-_M(q)\cap J^+_M(p)$ is compact. We identify $M_0$ and $f(M_0)\subset M_1$. If $p\notin \sing_0(M_1)$, $J^+(p)\subset M\setminus \sing_0(M_1)\subset M_0 $ and $J^-_{M}(q)\cap J^+_M(p)= J^-_{M_0}(q)\cap J^+_{M_0}(p)$ which is compact. Assume now $p$ is of type $\E^{1,2}_0$. Let $(x_n)\in M^\N$ be sequence such that $\forall n\in\N, x_n \in J^+_M(p)\cap J^-_M(q)$. By compactness of $J^+_{M_1}(p)\cap J^-_{M_1}(q)$, we can assume $ (x_n)$ converges to some $x\in \sing_0(M_1)$.
Consider some compact tube slice neighborhood $\T$ of $[p,x]$ in $M_1$, the subset $M\cap [p,x]$ is open in $[p,x]$ and contains $p$. Consider $I=\{y\in [p,x] ~|~ [p,y]\subset M\}$. The set $I$ is connected and open in $[p,x]$. Take an increasing sequence $(y_n)_{n\in\N}\in I^\N$, it converges toward some $y_\infty \in [p,x]$. Take some compact diamond neighborhood $\overline\Diamond_p^{p'}$ of $]p,y_\infty[$ inside $\mathcal T$. We can take $p' \in \partial J^+(y_\infty)$ so that $p'\in M_0\cap \T$. The diamond $\phi(\Diamond_p^{p'})$ of $M_2$ is relatively compact thus one can extract a converging subsequence of $\phi (y_n)$ toward some $y'_\infty \in M_2$. Therefore $\pi(y'_\infty)$ and $\pi(y_\infty)$ are not separated and $y_\infty \in M$. Finally, $M\cap [p,x]$ is closed and $I=[p,x]$. Finally, $x\in M$, the sequence $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ has a converging subsequence in $J^+_M(p)\cap J^-_M(q)$.
$M_1\vee M_2$ is Hausdorff.
$(M_1\wedge M_2)\cup C$ is a BTZ-extension of $M_0$ inside $M_1$ with a BTZ-embedding into $M_2$. Therefore it is a subset of $M_1\wedge M_2$ by maximality of $M_1\wedge M_2$. Finally, $C=\emptyset$.
The construction above of a least common extension show that the family of BTZ-extensions of $M_0$ is a right filtered family and can thus take the direct limit of all such extensions. Consider a family of representants of the isomorphism classes $(M_i)_{i\in I}$ together with BTZ-embeddings $\phi_{ij}: M_i\rightarrow M_j $ whenever it exists. The direct limit of this family is $$\overline M_0 = \varinjlim_{i\in I} M_i =\left(\coprod_{i\in I} M_i\right) / \sim$$ where $x\sim y \Leftrightarrow \exists (i,j), \phi_{ij}(x)=y$.
It remains to check that the topology of such a limit is second countable. The proof is an adaptation of the arguments of Geroch given in [@MR0234703].
A remarks on Cauchy and BTZ-extensions {#sec:extension_BTZ_3}
---------------------------------------
One may ask what happens if one takes the Cauchy-extension then the BTZ-extension. Is the resulting manifold Cauchy-maximal? The answer is no as the following example shows.
\[exam:mixed\_extension\] Let $M_0=\{\tau<0,r>0\}$ be the past half tube in cylindrical coordinates of $\E^{1,2}_0$ and let $p=(\tau=0,r=0)$. The spacetime be $M_0$ is regular and globally hyperbolic. Let $M_1$ be its maximal Cauchy-extension, $M_2$ the maximal BTZ-extension of $M_1$ and $M_3$ the maximal Cauchy-extension of $M_2$.
- $M_0=Reg(\E^{1,2}_0)\setminus J^+(\{\tau=0\})$
- $M_1=Reg(\E^{1,2}_0)\setminus J^+(p)$.
- $M_2=\E^{1,2}_0\setminus J^+(p)$
- $M_3=\E^{1,2}_0$
{width="3.5cm"} {width="3.5cm"} {width="3.5cm"} {width="3.5cm"}
[Successive maximal Cauchy-extension and BTZ-extension of a past half tube in $\BTZ$.]{} In red the initial half tube, in black the BTZ line missing. In blue its Cauchy-extension then the BTZ line is caught via the BTZ-extension. In green the final Cauchy-extension
Let $M_0$ be a globally hyperbolic singular manifold, $M_1$ its maximal Cauchy-extension, $M_2$ the maximal BTZ-extension of $M_1$, $M_3$ the maximal Cauchy-extension of $ M_2$.
Then $M_3$ is both Cauchy-maximal and BTZ-maximal.
Cauchy-completeness and extensions of spacetimes {#sec:complete_stability}
================================================
Is the Cauchy-completeness of a space-time equivalent to the Cauchy-completeness of the maximal BTZ-extension ? The answer is yes and the whole section is devoted to the proof of this answer. We then aim at proving the following theorem.
\[theo:BTZ\_Cauchy-completeness\]Let $M$ be a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_{A}$-manifold without BTZ point, the following are equivalent.
(i) $M$ is Cauchy-complete and Cauchy-maximal.
(ii) There exists a Cauchy-complete and Cauchy-maximal BTZ-extension of $M$.
(iii) The maximal BTZ-extension of $M$ is Cauchy-complete and Cauchy-maximal.
The proof decomposes into four parts. When taking a BTZ-extension, the Cauchy-surface changes. The proof of the theorem needs to modify Cauchy-surfaces in a controlled fashion. The first part is devoted to some lemmas useful to construct good spacelike surfaces. The other two parts solve the causal issues proving that the surfaces constructed using the first part are indeed Cauchy-surfaces. Pieces are put together in the fourth part to prove the theorem.
Surgery of Cauchy-surfaces around a BTZ-line {#sec:surgery}
--------------------------------------------
We begin by an example illustrating the situation we will soon manage.
Consider $\E^{1,2}_0$ endowed with its coordinates $(\tau,r,\theta)$ and the Cauchy-surface $\Sigma:= \{\tau=1\}$. The regular part of $\Sigma$, $\Sigma^*:=Reg(\Sigma)$, is not a Cauchy-surface of the regular part of $\E^{1,2}_0$ since its Cauchy development is $Reg(\E^{1,2}_0)\setminus J^+(\{\tau=1,r=0\})$. The problem is that a curve such as $\{\tau=2r+\tau_0,\theta=\theta_0 \}$ is causal, inextendible in $Reg(\BTZ)$ and doesn’t intersects $\Sigma^*$ for $\tau_0>0$. A solution consists in noticing that $\Sigma^*$ coincides with $\H^2_0 := \left\{\tau =\frac{1+r^2}{2r}\right\}$ on $\{r=1,\tau=1\}$. Therefore, we can glue the piece of $\H^2_0$ inside the tube of radius 1 with the plane $\{\tau=1\}$ outside the tube of radius 1 and get a complete Cauchy-surface $\Sigma_1$ of the regular part of $\E^{1,2}_0$. See figure \[fig:collage\_exemple\] below.
-------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
[A)]{} [B)]{}
[{width="0.45\linewidth"} ]{} {width="0.45\linewidth"}
-------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
[Two acausal surfaces, the boundary of their Cauchy development, two different gluings.]{} \[fig:collage\_exemple\]
A) The blue plane represents the surface $\Sigma^*=\{\tau=1,r>0\}$ and the red surface is $\H_0^2$.
B) The gluing $\Sigma_1$ of $\H^2_0 \cap \{r\leq 1\}$ with $\Sigma^*\cap\{r\geq 1\}$. It is a Cauchy-surface of $\BTZ$.
Let $M$ be a Cauchy-complete spacetime. Starting from a complete Cauchy-surface $\Sigma$ of $M$, we need construct a complete Cauchy-surface of $M\setminus \Delta$ where $\Delta$ is a BTZ line. This is done locally around the singular line : the intersection of $\Sigma$ with the boundary of a tube neighborhood of $\Delta$ gives a curves and the second point of the main Lemma \[lem:curve\_extension\] below show that such a curve can be extended to a complete surface avoiding the singular line of $\E^{1,2}_0$. This procedure is the heart of the proof of $(ii)\Rightarrow (i)$ in Theorem \[theo:BTZ\_Cauchy-completeness\].
To obtain $(i)\Rightarrow (iii)$, half of the work consists in doing the opposite task. Let $M$ be a Cauchy-complete spacetime. Starting from a complete Cauchy-surface of $M$, we construct a complete Cauchy-surface of its maximal BTZ extension by modifying locally a Cauchy-surface of $M$ around a singular line. We start from the intersection of the Cauchy-surface of $M$ along the boundary of a tube around a singular line, this gives us a curve on a boundary of a tube in $\E^{1,2}_0$. The first point of the main Lemma \[lem:curve\_extension\] below show that such a curve can be extended to a complete surface which cuts the singular line of $\E^{1,2}_0$.
Define $\mathbb D_R$ the Euclidean disc of radius $R>0$ and $\mathbb D_R^*$ the punctured Euclidean disc of radius $R>0$.
We identify frequently $\mathbb D_R$ with its embedding in $\{\tau=0,r\leq R\}$.
\[lem:curve\_extension\] Let $\mathcal T$ be a closed future half-tube in $\E^{1,2}_0$ of radius $R$ and let $\tau_{\Sigma}^R : \partial \mathbb D_R \rightarrow \R_+$ be a smooth function. Then
(i) there exists a piecewise smooth function $\tau_\Sigma: \mathbb D_R\rightarrow \R_+$ extending $\tau_\Sigma^R$ which graph is acausal, spacelike and complete;
(ii) there exists a piecewise smooth function $\tau_\Sigma:\mathbb D_R^*\rightarrow \R_+$ extending $\tau_\Sigma^R$ which graph is acausal, spacelike and complete.
Before proving Lemma \[lem:curve\_extension\], we need to do some local analysis in a tube of $\E^{1,2}_0$. We begin by a local condition for acausality.
\[lem:surface\_causal\] Let $R>0$ and let $\mathcal T:=\{\tau>0, r\leq R\}$ be a **closed** future half tube in $\BTZ$ of radius $R$ in cylindrical coordinates. Let $\tau_\Sigma\in \C^{1}( ]0,R] \times \R/2\pi\Z, \R_+^*)$ and $\Sigma = \mathrm{Graph}(\tau_\Sigma)=\{(\tau_\Sigma(r,\theta),r,\theta) : (r,\theta) \in \mathbb D^*\}$, then $(i)\Leftrightarrow (ii)\Leftrightarrow (iii)$.
(i) $\Sigma$ is spacelike and acausal
(ii) $\Sigma$ is spacelike
(iii) $\displaystyle 1-2\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial r}-\left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial \theta}\right)^2 >0 $
Beware that spacelike is a local condition but acausal is a global one. The implication $(i)\Rightarrow (ii)$ is obvious.
Writing $\delta =\left(1-2\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial r}-\left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial \theta}\right)^2\right)$ from direct computations : $$\d s_\Sigma^2 =\delta \d r^2 + \left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial\tau_\Sigma }{\partial \theta}\d r-r \d \theta \right)^2.$$ and let $c(s)=\tau_\Sigma(r(s), \theta(s)),s\in ]s_*,s^*[$ be some path on $\Sigma$, then : $$\frac{\d s_{c}^2}{\d s^2} = (r')^2\delta(s) +\left(\frac{\partial\tau_\Sigma}{\partial \theta}\frac{r'}{r}-r\theta' \right)^2$$ $\Sigma$ is spacelike iff its Riemann metric is postive definite iff $\delta>0$ thus $(ii)\Leftrightarrow (iii)$.
To prove $(iii)\Rightarrow (i)$ take a smooth future causal curve $c=(\tau,r,\theta)$ such that $c(0)\in \Sigma$, i.e. $\tau_\Sigma(r(0),\theta(0))=\tau(0)$. Since $\tau'$ is increasing, reparametrizing $c$ if necessary, we can assume $\tau'>0$. Let $f:s\mapsto \tau(s)-\tau_\Sigma(r(s),\theta(s))$ so that $f(s)=0$ if and only if $c(s)\in \Sigma$, notice $f(0)=0$. On the one hand, since $c$ is causal, we have $$r'\geq 0 \quad\text{and}\quad 2\tau'(s)r'(s)\geq (r')^2+r^2(\theta')^2.$$ On the other hand, using $\delta>0$, if $r'>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
2\left(\frac{\d}{\d s}\tau_\Sigma(r,\theta) \right)r'&=& 2\left(\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial \theta}\theta'+\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial r} r'\right)r' \\
&<&2\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial \theta}\theta'r'+(r')^2-\left(\frac{r'}{r}\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial \theta} \right)^2\\
&\leq & -\frac{\left(2\theta' r'\right)^2-4\left(-\frac{(r') ^2}{r^2}\right)(r')^2}{-4\frac{(r')^2}{r^2}}\\
&=& r^2 (\theta')^2+(r')^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Let $s \in \R$, if $r'(s)>0$ then the computation above shows $f'(s)>0$. If $r'(s)=0$ then $\theta'(s)=0$ thus $f'(s)=\tau'(s)>0$. Thus $f$ is increasing, thus injective. Finally $f$ cannot be naught twice and $c$ cannot intersect $\Sigma$ twice. $\Sigma$ is thus acausal.
\[lem:surface\_complete\] Using the same notation as in Lemma \[lem:surface\_causal\] we have :
1. $\Sigma$ is spacelike and complete if\
$\exists C>0, \forall (r,\theta)\in \mathbb D_R^*,$ $$1-2\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial r}-\left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial \theta}\right)^2\geq\frac{C^2}{r^2}$$ Furthermore, in this case the Cauchy development of $ \Sigma$ is $\T\setminus \Delta$.
2. If $\Sigma$ is spacelike and complete then, $$\lim_{(r,\theta) \rightarrow 0}\tau_\Sigma(r,\theta) = +\infty$$
We use the same notations as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:surface\_causal\]. We insist on the fact that $\T$ is **closed**, which means for instance that $\Sigma$ has a boundary parametrised by $\partial \mathbb D_R$. It also means that a curve ending on the boundary of $\T$ can be extended since it has an ending point.
1. Let $C>0$ be such as $\delta>\frac{C^2}{r^2}$. It suffice to prove that a finite length curve in $\Sigma$ is extendible. Let $\gamma:\R\rightarrow \Sigma$ be a finite length piecewise smooth curve on $\Sigma$. Write $\gamma(s)=(\tau_\Sigma(r(s),\theta(s)),r(s),\theta(s))$ for $s\in \R$ and $l(\gamma)$ its length. Since $l(\gamma)\geq \int_{\R} |r'(s)|\frac{C}{R} \d s$ and $l(\gamma)<+\infty$, then $r'\in \L^1$ and $r$ converges as $s\rightarrow +\infty$, let $r_\infty:= \lim_{s\rightarrow +\infty} r(s)$.
For all $a\in \R$, $l(\gamma) \geq \left|\int_0^a \frac{C|r'(s)|}{r(s)}\d s \right|\geq C \left|\ln\left(\frac{r(0)}{r(a)}\right) \right|$. Thus $$\forall a \in \R, ~~r(a)\geq r(0) e^{-\frac{1}{C}l(\gamma)}>0$$ and thus $r_\infty>0$.
Take $A >0$ such as $\forall s\geq A, r(s)\in [r_*,r^*]$ with $r_*=r_\infty/2$ and $r^*=(r_\infty+R)/2$ then for all $b\geq a \geq A$ : $$\begin{aligned}
l(\gamma)&\geq& \int_{[a,b]} r \left|\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial \theta}\frac{r'}{r^2}-\theta' \right| \\
&\geq& \int_{[a,b]} r_*\left|\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial \theta}\frac{r'}{r^2}-\theta' \right|\\
&\geq& \int_{[a,b]} r_*\left(\left|\theta' \right|-\left|\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial \theta}\frac{r'}{r^2}\right|\right)\\
&\geq& r_*\int_{[a,b]}
\left|\theta' \right|
-r_*
\left(\max_{(r,\theta) \in [r_*,r^*]\times \R/2\pi\Z}\left|\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial \theta}\right|\right) \
\int_{[a,b]}\left|\frac{r'}{r^2}\right|
\end{aligned}$$ By integration by part, noting $F$ a primitive of $|r'|$, and for some constant $C'>0$. $$l(\gamma)\geq r_*\int_{[a,b]}
\left|\theta' \right|
-C'\left( \left[ \frac{F}{r^2} \right]_a^b+2\int_a^b \frac{F r'}{r^3}\right)$$ Since $\int_\R |r'|<+\infty$, $F$ is bounded and can be chosen positive. Set $B= \sup_{s\in \R} R(s)$, thus for some $C'',C'''>0$, $$\forall b>A, ~~~ l(\gamma)+ C'' \geq C'''\int_{[a,b]}|\theta'|$$ Which proves that $\int_{[a,+\infty[}|\theta'| \d s<+\infty$, so that $\theta(s)$ converges as $s\rightarrow +\infty$. Consequently, $\tau(r,\theta)$ converges in $\Sigma$. Since $\T$ is **closed**, the curve $\gamma$ is then extendible. We conclude that $\Sigma$ is complete.\
\
Let $c=(\tau_c,r_c,\theta_c):\R\rightarrow \mathcal T \setminus \Delta$ be an inextendible future oriented causal curve. We must show that $c$ intersects $\Sigma$. Since $c$ is future oriented, $\tau_c$ is increasing and $r_c$ is non-decreasing. Both functions have then limits at $\pm\infty$. Let $r^*=\lim_{s\rightarrow +\infty} r_c(s)$, $r_*=\lim_{s\rightarrow -\infty} r_c(s) $, $\tau_* =\lim_{s\rightarrow -\infty}\tau_c(s) $ and $\tau^* =\lim_{s\rightarrow +\infty}\tau_c(s) $. Since $r_c$ is non-decreasing, $r^*>0$ and since $\tau_c$ is increasing, $\tau'_c>0$. Assume $\tau^*<\infty$, then $\tau'_c \in L^1([0,\infty[)$. We have on $[0,+\infty[$: $$\begin{aligned}
(r_c')^2 +r_c ^2 (\theta')^2 -2 r_c' \tau_c' &\leq& 0 \\
(\theta')^2 &\leq& \frac{(\tau_c')^2-(\tau_c' -r_c')^2}{r_c^2} \\
|\theta'|&\leq & \frac{1}{r_c(0)}\tau_c'
\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\theta' \in \L^1([0,+\infty[)$ and $\theta$ has a limit at $+\infty$. The same way, we have :
$$|r_c'-\tau'_c| \leq \tau_c'$$ Thus $(r_c'-\tau_c')\in L^1([0,\infty[)$ and so is $r'_c$. Since $r$ has a non zero limit at $+\infty$ and $\T$ is **closed**, $c$ is extendible ; therefore, $\tau^*=+\infty$.
Since $r^*\in ]0,R]$ and since $\tau^*=+\infty$, $$\exists s_0 \in \R, \forall s> s_0, ~~ \tau_c(s)> \left(\max _{[r^*/2, r^*] \times \R/2\pi\Z} \tau_\Sigma\right) \geq \tau_\Sigma(r_c(s),\theta_c(s))$$
Similar arguments can be used to prove that either $\tau_*=0 $ or $r_*=0$. Furthermore, one may check that the assumption implies that $\lim_{r\rightarrow 0} \left( \min_{\theta \in \R/2\pi\Z}\tau_\Sigma(r,\theta)\right) =+\infty$. This implies that $\min \tau_\Sigma >0$.
Assume $\tau_*=0$, since $\min \tau_\Sigma>0$, we have : $$\exists s_0 \in \R, \forall s< s_0, ~~\tau_c(s)< \min \tau_\Sigma \leq \tau_\Sigma(r_c(s),\theta_c(s))$$ If on the contrary we assume $\tau_*>0$ and $r_*=0$ then $$\exists r\in \R_+^*, \min_{]0,r]\times \R/2\pi\Z} \tau_\Sigma > \tau_*$$ For such an $r\in \R_+^*$, $$\exists s_0\in \R, \forall s<s_0,~~ \tau_c(s)<\tau_\Sigma(r_c(s),\theta_c(s))$$
In any case, by continuity, there exists $s\in \R$ such that $\tau_c(s)= \tau(r_c(s),\theta_c(s))$ and thus such that $c(s)\in \Sigma $.
2. Since $\Sigma$ is spacelike the point $(ii)$ of Lemma \[lem:surface\_causal\] ensures that $$1-2\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial r}-
\left(\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial \theta}\right)^2 \geq 0$$ on $]0,R]\times \R/2\pi\Z$. Consider a sequence $(r_n,\theta_n)\rightarrow 0$, we assume $r_{n+1}<\frac{1}{2}r_{n}$, one can construct an inextendible piecewise continuously differentiable curve $c=(\tau_c,r_c,\theta_c):]0,R]\rightarrow \Sigma$ such that
- $\forall s\in ]0,R],~r_c(s)=s$
- $\forall n\in \N,~\theta_c(r_n)=\theta_n$
- $\forall r\in ]0,R],~ |\theta'_c(r)|\leq \frac{2}{r_n} $
Writing $l(c)$ the length of $c$, we have : $$\begin{aligned}
l(c)&=& \int_{0}^{R} \sqrt{1+r^2\theta_c'(r)^2-2 \tau'_c(r)}\\
&\leq& \int_{0}^{R} \sqrt{5-2 \tau'_c(r)}
\end{aligned}$$ The integrand is well defined since $1+r^2\theta_c'(r)^2-2 \tau_c'(r)>0$. We deduce in particular that $\tau_c'\leq 5/2$ and thus $-\tau_c'\geq |\tau'_c|-5$. By completeness of $\Sigma$, the length $l(c)$ of $c$ is infinite thus $\int_{0}^{R}\sqrt{|\tau_c'|}=+\infty$ and thus $\int_0^{+\infty}|\tau'_c|=+\infty$. Finally, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}{\tau_\Sigma(r_n,\theta_n)}=\lim_{r\rightarrow 0}\tau_c (r)=\int_0^R\left(-\tau_c'\right)+ \tau(R) \geq \int_0^{R}\left(|\tau_c'| -5\right)+\tau(R)=+\infty$$
<!-- -->
(i) Define $\displaystyle\tau_\Sigma (r,\theta)= \tau_\Sigma^R(\theta)+M\left(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R}\right)$ with $\displaystyle M= 1+ \max_{\theta\in \R/2\pi\Z}\left| \frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma^R}{\partial \theta}\right|^2$.\
Then : $ \frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial \theta} = \frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma^R}{\partial \theta}$ and $\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma}{\partial r} = -\frac{M}{ r^2}$. So that : $$\begin{aligned}
\delta&=&1-\left(-\frac{M}{ r^2} \right) -\frac{1}{r^2}\left(\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma^R}{\partial \theta} \right)^2\\
&=&1+ \frac{M-\left(\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma^R}{\partial \theta} \right)^2}{r^2}\\
&=&1+ \frac{1+ \max_{\theta\in \R/2\pi\Z}\left| \frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma^R}{\partial \theta}\right|^2-\left(\frac{\partial \tau_\Sigma^R}{\partial \theta} \right)^2}{r^2}\\
&>&\frac{1}{r^2}
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the surface $\Sigma:=\mathrm{Graph}(\tau_\Sigma)$ is spacelike and complete.
(ii) Define $$\tau_\Sigma(r,\theta)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\left(\frac{2r-R}{R}\right)^2\tau^R_\Sigma(\theta)+M\left(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R}\right)& \text{If } r\in [R/2,R] \\
\frac{M}{R}& \text{If } r\in[0,R/2]
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $M$ is big enough so that the causality condition is satisfied on $[R/2,R]\times \R/2\pi\Z$. The graph of $\tau_\Sigma$ is spacelike and compact.
Cauchy-completeness and de-BTZ-fication {#sec:de-BTZ}
---------------------------------------
We give ourselves $M$ a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$ spacetime for some $A\subset \R_+$. One can check that taking a BTZ line away doesn’t destroy global hyperbolicity.
$M\setminus \sing_0$ is globally hyperbolic.
$M$ is causal and so is $M\setminus \sing_0$. Let $p,q\in M\setminus \sing_0$, consider a future causal curve $c$ from $p$ to $q$ in $M$. By Proposition \[lem:BTZ\_causal\_curve\], we have a decomposition $c=\Delta\cup c^0$. Then $p\in \Delta$ or $\Delta=\emptyset$ and since $p\notin \sing_0$, $\Delta=\emptyset$, then $c\subset M\setminus \sing_0$. We deduce that the closed diamond from $p$ to $q$ in $M\setminus \sing_0$ is the same as the one in $M$. The latter is compact by global hyperbolicity of $M$, then so is the former.
We aim at proving the $(ii)\Rightarrow (i)$ of Theorem \[theo:BTZ\_Cauchy-completeness\].
\[prop:Theo\_part\_1\] If $M$ is Cauchy-complete and Cauchy-maximal then so is $M\setminus \sing_0$.
A proof is divided into Propositions \[prop:complement\_complete\] and \[prop:cauchy\_max\]. The method consists in cutting a given complete Cauchy-surface which intersects the singular lines around each singular lines then use Lemma \[lem:curve\_extension\] to replace the taken away discs by a surface that avoids the singular line. We then check that the new surface is a Cauchy-surface and prove that the new manifold is Cauchy-maximal.
We assume $M$ Cauchy-complete and Cauchy-maximal, write $\Sigma$ a piecewise smooth spacelike and complete Cauchy-surface of $M$.
\[prop:complement\_complete\] $M\setminus \sing_0(M)$ is Cauchy-complete.
Let $M'=M\setminus \sing_0(M)$. Let $\Delta$ be a BTZ-like singular line. We construct a complete Cauchy-surface $\Sigma_2$ of the complement of a $\Delta$. The set of singular line being discrete, this construction extend easily to any number of singular line simultaneously.
From Proposition \[prop:tube\] there exists a neighborhood of $\Sigma \cap \Delta$ isometric to a future half tube $\mathcal T= \{\tau>0, r\leq R\}$ of radius $R \in \R_+^*$ such that $\Sigma \cap \partial \mathcal T$ is an embedded circle. Let $ \mathcal T \cap \Sigma =\mathrm{ Graph}(\tau_\Sigma)$ with $\tau_\Sigma : [0,R]\times \R/2\pi\Z \rightarrow \R_+^*$. From Lemma \[lem:curve\_extension\], there exists $\tau_{\Sigma_2}: \mathbb D_R^*\rightarrow \R_+^*$ such that $\tau_{\Sigma_3}=\tau_\Sigma$ on $\partial \mathbb D_R$ and $\mathrm{Graph}(\tau_{\Sigma_2})$ is acausal, spacelike and complete and futhermore, the Cauchy development $D(\mathrm{Graph}(\tau_{\Sigma_2}))=Reg(\mathcal T)$. Let $\Sigma_2$ the surface obtained gluing $\Sigma\setminus \T$ and $\mathrm{Graph}(\tau_{\Sigma_2})$ along $\Sigma \cap \partial \T $. Since $\Sigma$ and $\mathrm{Graph}(\tau_{\Sigma_2})$ are spacelike and complete then so is $\Sigma_2$.
We now show $\Sigma_2$ is a Cauchy-surface of $M\setminus \sing_0(M)$Let $c$ be an inextendible causal curve in $M'$, if $\inf(c)\in \sing_0(M)$ then one can extends it by adding the singular ray in its past to obtain an inextendible causal curve $\overline c$ in $M$. The curve $\overline c$ intersects $\Sigma$ exactly once at some point $p\in \Sigma$.
- Assume $p \notin \mathcal T$, then $p \in \Sigma \setminus \T = \Sigma_2 \setminus \T$ and $c$ intersects $\Sigma_2$. Consider $c_1$ a connected component of $\overline c\cap T$. Notice $D(\Sigma\cap \T)=\T$, thus $c_1$ is not inextendible in $\T$ and thus $c_1$ leaves $\T$ at some parameter $s_1$. Then $c_1$ can be extended to $$c_2=c_1\cup \{\tau> \tau_0, r=R,\theta=\theta_0\}$$ for $c_1(s_1)=(\tau_0,R,\theta_0)$, which is inextendible in $\T$. The curve $c_2$ thus intersects $\Sigma$, but since $c_1\cap \Sigma=\emptyset$ then $c_2$ intersects $\Sigma$ on the ray we added, and thus $\tau_\Sigma(R,\theta_0)> \tau_0$. The regular part of $c_2$ is inextendible in $Reg(\T)$ and thus intersects $\Sigma_2$ exactly once and since $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma_2$ agree on $\partial \T$ then $Reg(c_2)$ intersects $\Sigma_2$ on the added ray, and thus $c_1\cap \Sigma_2=\emptyset$. Finally, $c$ intersects $\Sigma_2$ exactly once.
- Assume $p\in \T$, then consider $c_1$ the connected component of $p$ in $\overline c \cap \T$. Either $c_1$ is inextendible or it leaves $\T$ and can be extended by adding some ray $\{\tau>\tau_0, r=R, \theta=\theta_0\}$. Either way, write $c_2$ the inextendible extension of $c_1$ in $\T$. The regular part $Reg(c_2)$ is inextendible in $reg(\T)$ and thus intersects $\Sigma_2 \cap \T$ exactly once. It cannot intersect $\Sigma_2$ on an eventually added ray $\{\tau>\tau_0, r=R, \theta=\theta_0\}$ other wise $c_2$ would intersect $\Sigma$ twice. Then $Reg(c_2) \cap \Sigma_2 \in Reg(c_1)\subset c\cap \T$ and thus $c$ intersects $\Sigma_2$. The curve $c$ cannot intersect $\Sigma_2$ outside $\T$ thus every point of $c\cap \Sigma_2$ are in $\T$. Let $c_3$ another connected component of $\overline c\cap \T$. It cannot be inextendible otherwise it would intersect $\Sigma$, thus it leaves $\Sigma$ and can be extended by adding some ray $\{\tau> \tau_0,r=R,\theta=\theta_0\}$, we obtain an inextendible curve $c_4$. This curve intersects $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma_2$ exactly once. Since $p\in c_1$ and $\overline c \cap \Sigma =\{p\}$, we have $c_3\cap \Sigma=\emptyset$ and $c_4\cap \Sigma \in \{\tau> \tau_0,r=R,\theta=\theta_0\}$. Therefore, $c_4\cap \Sigma=c_4\cap \Sigma_2\neq \emptyset$ and, again, $c_3$ does not intersect $\Sigma_2$.
Finally, $c$ intersect $\Sigma_2$ exactly once.
$\Sigma_2$ is thus a Cauchy-surface of $M\setminus \sing_0(M)$.
\[prop:cauchy\_max\] $M\setminus \sing_0$ is Cauchy-maximal.
Write $M_0=M\setminus \sing_0$, take $M_1$ a Cauchy-extension of $M_0$ and write $i:M_0\rightarrow M $ the natural inclusion and $j:M_0\rightarrow M_1$ the Cauchy-embedding. Consider $M_2=(M\coprod M_1)/M_0$. Note $\pi:M\coprod M_1\rightarrow M_2$ the natural projection, $\pi$ is open. Assume $M_2$ is not Hausdorf. Let $(p,q)\in M\times M_1$ such that for all $\U$ neighborhood of $p$ and $\V$ neighborhood of $q$, $\pi(\U)\cap\pi(\V)\neq \emptyset$. Take a sequence $(a_n)_{n\in \N} \in M_0^\N$ such that $\lim i(a_n)=p$ and $\lim j(a_n)=q$. Since $j\circ i^{-1}:M_0\rightarrow j(M_0)$ is a $\E^{1,2}_A$-isomorphism, $$\begin{aligned}
j\circ i^{-1}\left(I^+(p)\right)&=&j\circ i^{-1}\left[Int\left( \bigcap_{N\in \N} \bigcup_{n\geq N} I^+(i(a_n))\right) \right]\\
&=&Int\left(\bigcap_{N\in \N} \bigcup_{n\geq N} I^+\left(j(a_n)\right)\right)\\
&=&I^+(q)\cap j(M_0)\\
\end{aligned}$$ Consider a chart neighborhood $\U$ of $p$ and a chart neighborhood $\V$ of $q$ and assume $\U=\Diamond_{p^-}^{p^+}$ and $\V=\Diamond_{q^-}^{q^+}$. The image $j\circ i^{-1}(p^+)$ is in $I^+(q)$ thus $\Diamond^{j\circ i^{-1}(p^+)}_{q^-}$ is a neighborhood of $q$ and so is $\Diamond^{j\circ i^{-1}(p^+)}_{q^-} \cap \Diamond_{q^-}^{q^+}$. Then $I^+(q)\cap j(M_0) \cap \Diamond^{j\circ i^{-1}(p^+)}_{q^-} \cap \Diamond_{q^-}^{q^+}\neq \emptyset$ and we take some $a^+\in M_0$ such that $i(a^+)\in I^+(p)\cap \U$ and $j(a^+) \in I^+(q)\cap \V$, so $$\U\supset j\circ i^{-1}\left(\Diamond_p^{i(a^+)}\right) =\Diamond_{q}^{j(q^+)}\subset \V.$$ Then, from Proposition \[prop:isom\], $\U$ and $\V$ are in the same model space and $p$ and $q$ are of the same type. However, since $\sing_0(M_0)=\emptyset$ we also have $\sing_0(M_1)=\emptyset$, thus $q$ in not a BTZ point and $p\in M_0$. Finally, $j\circ i^{-1}(p)=q$ and $\pi(p)=\pi(q)$. Therefore, $M_2$ is Hausdorff.
A causal analysis as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:complement\_complete\] shows $M_2$ is a Cauchy-extension of $M$. Since $M$ is Cauchy-maximal, $M_2=M$ and $M_1=M_0$. Finally, $M_0$ is Cauchy-maximal
Propositions \[prop:cauchy\_max\] and \[prop:complement\_complete\] give respectively Cauchy-completeness and Cauchy-maximality of $M\setminus \sing_0(M)$.
Cauchy-completeness of BTZ-extensions {#sec:BTZ-fication}
-------------------------------------
We prove that every BTZ-extension of a Cauchy-complete globally hyperbolic spacetime is Cauchy-maximal and Cauchy-complete. Let $M_0$ be a Cauchy-complete Cauchy-maximal globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_A$-manifold. We denote by $M_1$ the maximal BTZ-extension of $M_0$ and by $M_2$ the maximal Cauchy-extension of $M_1$. We assume $M_0\subset M_1\subset M_2$ and take $\Sigma_0$ a Cauchy-surface of $M_0$. The first step is to ensure ensure that $\Sigma_0$ can be parametrised as a graph around a BTZ-line of $M_1$.
\[lem:add\_BTZ\_param\] Let $\Delta$ be a connected component of $\sing_0(M_2)$. For $R>0$, write $\mathbb D_R = \{\tau=0,r\leq R\}$ in $\BTZ$.
For all $p\in \Delta \cap (M_1 \setminus M_0)$, there exists $\U$ a neighborhood of $]p,+\infty[$ such that
- we have an isomophism $\D: \U \rightarrow \mathcal T \subset \BTZ$ with $\T=\{\tau\geq 0, r\leq R \}$ for some $R>0$;
- we have a smooth function $\tau_{\Sigma_0} : \mathbb D_R^*\rightarrow \R_+ $ such that $$\D(\Sigma_0\cap \U)= \mathrm{Graph}(\tau_{\Sigma_0})$$ and $\{\tau\leq \tau_{\Sigma_0}\}\subset M_0$.
From Proposition \[prop:tube\] the BTZ-line are complete in the future in $M_2$ and there are charts around future half of BTZ-lines in $M_2$ which are half tube of some constant radius. Consider such a tubular chart of radius $R$ around a BTZ half-line $\Delta$ of $M_2$ which contains a point in $M_1\setminus M_0$ and take a point $p\in \Delta\cap (M_1\setminus M_0)$. We assume $p$ has coordinate $\tau=0$ and that $\U=\{-\tau^*<\tau <\tau^*, r\leq R \} \subset M_1$ for some $\tau^*>0$ and that $\V=\{-\tau^*<\tau, r\leq R \} \subset M_2$. Consider future causal once broken geodesics defined on $\R_+^*$ of the form $$c_{\theta_0}(s)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\displaystyle (s/2,s,\theta_0) & \text{if}~~ s\leq R\\ \displaystyle (s/2,R,\theta_0) & \text{if}~~s> R \end{array} \right.$$ where $\theta_0 \in \R/2\pi\Z$. These curves parametrise the boundary of $J^+(p)\cap \V$. These curves are in the regular part of $M_2$ and start in $M_0$. Each connected component of the intersection of these curve with $M_0$ is an inextendible causal curve. Take the first connected component, it intersects $\Sigma_0$ exactly once. Let $B$ be the connected component of $p$ in the boundary of $J^+(p)\cap \V \cap M_1$. Let $b:\R/2\pi\Z\rightarrow \Sigma_0\cap B$ be the function $b:\theta \mapsto (\tau(\theta),r(\theta))$ which parametrizes $\Sigma\cap B$. We have $B$ and $\Sigma_0$ are transverse since $B$ is foliated by causal curves and $\Sigma_0$ is spacelike, thus $B\cap \Sigma_0$ is a topological 1-submanifold and $b$ is continuous and bijective. Then $b$ is a homeomorphism and the $r$ coordinate on $B\cap \Sigma_0$ reaches a minimum $R'>0$. In the tube $\{r\leq R', \tau>-\tau^*\}$, consider the future causal curves defined on $\R_+^*$, $$c_{r_0,\theta_0}(s)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\displaystyle (s/2,s,\theta_0) & \text{if}~~ s\leq r_0\\ \displaystyle (s/2,r_0,\theta_0) & \text{if}~~s> r_0 \end{array} \right.$$ for $r_0 \in ]0,R'[$ and $\theta \in \R/2\pi\Z$. The intersection point with $\Sigma_0$ cannot be on the piece $s\in ]0,r_0]$ while this piece is on a causal curve $c_{\theta_0}$ and that $r_0<R'$. Thus, $\Sigma_0$ intersects all such curves on the piece $s>r_0$ and the projection $\pi:\V\rightarrow \mathbb D^*$ restricted to $\Sigma\cap \V$ is continous and bijective. we obtain a parametrisation of $\Sigma_0$ as the graph of some function $\tau_\Sigma:(r,\theta)\mapsto \tau_{\Sigma_0}$ in the tubular chart of radius $R'$. $$\Sigma_0 = \mathrm{Graph}(\tau_{\Sigma_0})\quad \tau_{\Sigma_0}(r,\theta)>\frac{1}{2}r>0$$ Since $\pi$ is a projection along lightlike lines and $\Sigma_0$ is spacelike, $\tau_{\Sigma_0}$ is smooth. Furthermore, by definition of the curves $c_{r_0,\theta_0}$ the portion of curve before intersecting $\Sigma_0$ is in $M_0$ and thus we get a domain $$\left\{r\in ]0,R'], \theta\in \R/2\pi\Z, \tau \in \left]-\tau^*, \tau_{\Sigma_0}(r,\theta)\right]\right\}$$ included into $M_0$.
\[prop:Theo\_part\_2\_a\]$M_1$ is Cauchy-complete and Cauchy-maximal.
The proof is divided into 3 steps. First we show that BTZ line in $M_1$ are complete in the future and future half of BTZ-lines of $M_1$ are contained in a tube neighborhood of some radius. Second we modify the smooth spacelike and complete Cauchy-surface $\Sigma_0$ of $M_0$ to obtain smooth spacelike and complete Cauchy-surface of $M_1$. Third, we show that $(M_2\setminus \sing_0(M_2)$ is a Cauchy-extension of $M_0$ and conclude.
1. Consider a BTZ line $\Delta$ in $M_2$. Consider $\T$ a closed half-tube neighborhood of radius $R>0$ around $]p,+\infty[$ for some $p\in \Delta \cap (M_1\setminus M_0) $ given by Lemma \[lem:add\_BTZ\_param\]. Write $\tau_{\Sigma_0}$ the parametrisation of $\Sigma_0$ by $\mathbb D_R$ and $\T'=Reg(\T)=\T\setminus \Delta$. Consider the complement of $M_0$ in the half-tube $\T'$, substract its future to $M_0$ and then add the full half-tube, namely:
$$M=\T'\cup \left(M_0\setminus \left(J^+(\T'\setminus M_0) \right)\right).$$
Since $\Sigma_0\cap \T = \mathrm{Graph}(\tau_{\Sigma_0})$ and $J^-_{\T'}(\Sigma_0)\subset M_0$, then $J^+(\T'\setminus M_0)\subset J^+(\Sigma_0)$ and thus $\Sigma_0\subset M$. Let $c$ be an future inextendible causal curve in $M$. Remark that by construction of $M$, the curve $c$ cannot leave $\T'\setminus M_0$. Therefore, since $c$ is connected, $c$ decomposes into two connected consecutive parts : a $M_0$ part and then a part in $\T'\setminus M_0$.
- Assume $c \cap (T'\setminus M_0) \neq \emptyset$. Since $\Sigma_0$ is spacelike and complete by Lemma \[lem:surface\_complete\] $\lim_{(r,\theta) \rightarrow 0}\tau_{\Sigma_0}(t,\theta)=+\infty$. The intermediate value theorem then ensures that $c$ intersects $\Sigma_0\cap \T'$. Furthermore, once in $T'\setminus M_0$, the curve $c$ stays in $T'\setminus M_0$ thus $c\cap M_0$ is an inextendible causal curve of $M_0$ which intersects $\Sigma_0$. exactly once. Then, $c$ intersects $\Sigma_0$ exactly once.
- Assume $c \cap (T' \setminus M_0) = \emptyset$. The curve $c$ is then a causal curve in $M_0$ and any inextendible extension of $c$ in $M_0$ intersects $\Sigma_0$ exactly once. Such an inextendible extension cannot leaves $J^+(\T'\setminus M_0)$ once it enters it, therefore its intersection point with $\Sigma_0$ is on $c$.
Therefore $\Sigma_0$ is a Cauchy-surface of $M$, $M$ is a Cauchy-extension of a neighborhood of $\Sigma_0$ in $M_0$ and by unicity of the maximal Cauchy-extension Theorem \[theo:cauchy\_max\_ext\], $M$ is a subset of $M_0$. Finally, $M_0$ contains $\T'$ and thus $M_1$ contains $\T$.
2. Consider a BTZ line $\Delta$ in $M_2$ and a tube neighborhood $\T_\Delta$ of $\Delta$ given by Lemma \[lem:add\_BTZ\_param\]. Let $\tau_{\Sigma_0}$ be the parametrisation of $\Sigma_0$ inside $\T_\Delta$. From step one, $\T_\Delta$ is in $M_1$ thus from Lemma \[lem:curve\_extension\], one can extend $\Sigma_0\cap \partial \T_\Delta$ to some smooth spacelike complete surface $\mathrm{Graph}(\tau_{\Delta})$ in $\T_\Delta$ parametrised by $\mathbb D_R$ for some $R$. The number of BTZ-line being enumerable, one can choose the neighborhoods $\T$ around each BTZ-line such that they don’t intersect. Thus this procedure can be done around every BTZ-line simultaneously. A causal discussion as in Proposition \[prop:complement\_complete\] shows that the surface $$\Sigma_1:=(\Sigma_0\setminus \bigcup_{\Delta}\T_\Delta) \cup \bigcup_{\Delta}\mathrm{Graph}(\tau_{\Delta})$$ is a piecewise smooth spacelike and complete Cauchy-surface of $M_1$. Therefore, $M_1$ is **Cauchy-complete**.
3. Consider now $M=\left(M_2\setminus \sing_0(M_2)\right)$ and $c$ a future inextendible causal curve $c$ in $M$. The curve $c$ can be extended to some $c'$ inextendible curve of $M_2$. From Lemma \[lem:curve\_extension\], $c'$ decomposes into two connected consecutive part : $\Delta$ its BTZ part, then $c^0$ its non-BTZ part. By definition of $M$, $\Delta=c'\setminus c$ and $c^0=c$. Since $M_2$ is a Cauchy-extension of $M_1$, the curve $c'$ intersects $\Sigma_1$ exactly once. On the one hand, $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_0$ coincides outside the tubes $\mathcal T_\Delta$. On the other hand, notice that an inextendible causal curve inside a $\T_\Delta$ intersects $\Sigma_0\cap \T$ if and only if it interests $\mathrm{Graph}(\tau_\Delta)$. Thus $c'$ also intersects $\Sigma_0$ exactly once and thus $c$ intersects $\Sigma_0$ exactly once. We deduce that $M$ is a Cauchy-extension of $M_0$ and, by maximality of $M_0$, we obtain $M=M_0$. Therefore, $M_2=M_1$ and $M_1$ is **Cauchy-maximal**.
Proof of the Main Theorem
-------------------------
Let $M$ be a globally hyperbolic $\E^{1,2}_{A}$-manifold without BTZ point, the following are equivalent.
(i) $M$ is Cauchy-complete and Cauchy-maximal.
(ii) There exists a Cauchy-complete and Cauchy-maximal BTZ-extension of $M$.
(iii) The maximal BTZ-extension of $M$ is Cauchy-complete and Cauchy-maximal.
The implication $(iii) \Rightarrow (ii)$ is obvious The implication $(ii)\Rightarrow (i)$ is given by Propositions \[prop:Theo\_part\_1\]. The implication $(i)\Rightarrow (iii)$ is given by Proposition \[prop:Theo\_part\_2\_a\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The influence of random surface inhomogeneities on spectral properties of open microresonators is studied both theoretically and experimentally. To solve the equations governing the dynamics of electromagnetic fields the method of eigen-mode separation is applied previously developed with reference to inhomogeneous systems subject to arbitrary external static potential. We prove theoretically that it is the gradient mechanism of wave-surface scattering which is the highly responsible for non-dissipative loss in the resonator. The influence of side-boundary inhomogeneities on the resonator spectrum is shown to be described in terms of effective renormalization of mode wave numbers jointly with azimuth indices in the characteristic equation. To study experimentally the effect of inhomogeneities on the resonator spectrum, the method of modeling in the millimeter wave range is applied. As a model object we use dielectric disc resonator (DDR) fitted with external inhomogeneities randomly arranged at its side boundary. Experimental results show good agreement with theoretical predictions as regards the predominance of the gradient scattering mechanism. It is shown theoretically and confirmed in the experiment that TM oscillations in the DDR are less affected by surface inhomogeneities than TE oscillations with the same azimuth indices. The DDR model chosen for our study as well as characteristic equations obtained thereupon enable one to calculate both the eigen-frequencies and the *Q*-factors of resonance spectral lines to fairly good accuracy. The results of calculations agree well with obtained experimental data.'
author:
- 'E.M. Ganapolskii'
- 'Z.E. Eremenko'
- 'Yu.V. Tarasov'
title: |
THE EFFECT OF RANDOM SURFACE INHOMOGENEITIES ON MICRORESONATOR SPECTRAL PROPERTIES:\
THEORY AND MODELING AT MILLIMETER WAVE RANGE
---
Introduction
============
Nowadays microresonators (disk-, ring-, and spherical-shaped) evoke considerable interest because new possibilities have recently opened up to develop these types of resonators in the optical frequency range and to utilize them as oscillation systems for optical lasers [@bib:Polman04]. When used in lasers, such oscillation systems offer a number of serious advantages, among which are low-threshold currents, a high quality of the radiation spectrum, etc. Microresonators manufactured as a dielectric disk whose diameter is large as compared to the wave length of the radiation are nothing else but the open quasi-optical dielectric disk resonators which have long been known in the resonator technology for their potential to effectively sustain the electromagnetic (EM) field inside the resonator volume. The retention of the field is provided due to the total internal reflection (TIR) from the resonator side boundaries of waves making up resonance oscillations. As a result, EM oscillations of whispering gallery (WG) type arise. As far as their excitation is not accompanied by the additional dissipative loss, superhigh quality factors are achieved in the DDRs. Specifically, in laser systems, in spite of DDR’s microscopic dimensions (the disk diameter is normally about a few $\mu$m large), the quality factors can reach the order of $10^8$ and even more [@bib:Vahala03].
The high quality factors of the DDRs, that are often prepared from doped silicon, are generally provided not only due to extremely small loss attainable in this material but also governed by resonator geometry and the perfection of the crystal it is made of. With a certain number of inhomogeneities (local and/or non-local, random and/or regular) in the resonator material, the ray picture of EM fields in the resonator changes dramatically as against its perfectly homogeneous counterpart. The inhomogeneities give rise to local violation of TIR conditions and in this way result in additional energy loss which is evident in the quality factor drop. From the above said there arises the problem of studying the effect produced by random inhomogeneities in the DDRs on their spectral characteristics.
In the theoretic analysis of the radiation loss of the DDR two types of inhomogeneities are normally distinguished. To the first type the inhomogeneities of volume nature belong, which are related to regular or random spatial variations of the permittivity in the bulk of the material the DDR is made of. The other class of inhomogeneities includes the so called “surface” imperfections normally related to the deviation of the DDR shape from the ideal cylindrical one. The influence of bulk random inhomogeneities on the resonance spectrum was previously studied by the present authors in the particular case of cavity resonators filled with randomly distributed dielectric particles [@bib:GanErTar07]. It was found that the physical mechanism through which inhomogeneities affect resonator spectrum is basically the intermode scattering. In the case of quasi-optical cavity resonator the peculiar feature of this type of scattering is the selective impact of inhomogeneities on different resonance lines. The most affected lines appear to be those which are the least separated on the frequency axis, whereas solitary lines are subjected to much lesser influence. Owing to such a selective effect of random inhomogeneities, the originally dense spectrum of the quasi-optical cavity resonator is considerably rarefied.
In Refs. [@bib:Little97; @bib:Gorod00; @bib:Oraevsk2002; @bib:Borselli2004], the investigations were undertaken into the impact of *surface* inhomogeneities on spectral properties of open dielectric resonators of cylindrical and spherical shape. The influence of boundary roughness upon the resonance lines was described by means of the simplified quasi-geometric approach where EM oscillations scattering due to edge inhomogeneities is taken into account by incorporating into the wave equation the fictitious polarization currents (PC) randomly distributed in space [@bib:Kuznetsov83]. In particular, within the framework of the model adopted in Ref. [@bib:Little97] the electromagnetic fields close to the resonator side surface were considered as being excited by randomly distributed near-surface current sources whose physical parameters were phenomenologically expressed through statistical characteristics of boundary asperities. It was precisely the radiation produced by these sources that led to the radiation loss of the resonator and, consequently, to the quality factor reduction.
Such an essentially phenomenological approach to the description of the effect produced by the roughness of open resonator boundaries on its spectral properties cannot be reckoned as satisfactory. The volume current method suggested in Ref. [@bib:Kuznetsov83], which formed the basis for the PC concept, is, to a large extent, rough and approximate. In this method, the radiation loss is most frequently calculated using Green function of the Helmholtz equation. The particular form of this function is normally chosen proceeding from the prospective solution of wave equation in the far wave zone. Meanwhile, the very notion of the far zone is poorly defined for multiple sources located around the periphery of the quasi-optical DDR we deal with in this particular work. Specifically, when deriving characteristic equations for open DDR eigen-frequencies, one needs to join EM field components exactly at the boundaries of the system under consideration. At this point a significant uncertainty can arise because the actual external fields subject to *local* joining with the internal ones in the presence of surface roughness can deviate considerably from the fields approximated into the boundary vicinity from large distances, i.e. from the far wave zone.
To correctly determine the EM fields near the random-inhomogeneous resonator surface the theories specially adapted for the description of classic and/or quantum wave scattering by rough interfaces should be applied (see, e.g., Refs. [@bib:BassFuks79; @bib:Ogilvy91; @bib:Voronovich94]). These theories are generally applicable to the cases where wave scattering by random rough surfaces is in a sense weak. Typically, this implies fluctuations of system boundaries to be relatively small in height and sufficiently smooth, so that the applicability of Rayleigh hypothesis [@bib:Rayleigh1907; @bib:Rayleigh45] was not violated. However, for confined systems like the DDR considered in this work the issues pertinent to wave scattering by surface inhomogeneities appear to be much more complicated. Firstly, in practice the inhomogeneities are not always small enough, as well as sufficiently smooth, therefore the conditions for scattering weakness are easily violated. Moreover, as the resonance ray trajectories in high-*Q* resonators are periodic, the effect of oscillation scattering caused by the boundary roughness is “path”-accumulated. Scattering can become strong even though the asperities are small-in-height and smooth. This makes the applicability of the above-mentioned theories of rough-surface scattering in the case of high-quality resonators highly questionable.
In Refs. [@bib:MakTar98; @bib:MakTar01], the novel transport theory was developed for waveguide-shaped systems with random rough boundaries. In the framework of this theory it was revealed that the wave scattering resulting from fluctuations of inter-media surfaces can be efficiently described in terms of two physical mechanisms, namely, the *amplitude* and the *gradient* ones. For the first mechanism it is just the mean-square height of the asperities that serves as a main guiding parameter, whereas for the second one the mean slope of the asperities or, in other words, their sharpness, plays the decisive role. Both of these mechanisms contribute additively to the scattering amplitude, but partial probabilities pertaining to them may differ essentially. It was shown in [@bib:MakTar98; @bib:MakTar01] that, in most cases, the role of the gradient scattering appears to be prevalent. Yet there have been no experimental confirmations of this fact in the literature so far.
Apart from peculiar problems associated with surface nature of scattering in edge-disordered resonators, some more questions arise which need to be resolved when studying the spectra of DDRs subject to surface inhomogeneities. Among these questions, particularly, are those related to the vector nature of fields which are excited in these essentially non-integrable systems. It is known that even for ideal cylindrical DDRs the electrical- and magnetic-type oscillations cannot be separated in the strict sense. They always remain to the certain extent intermixed [@bib:Vainstein88]. This fact renders theoretic analysis of such systems spectra rather sophisticated. Spectral properties of DDRs without random inhomogeneities were examined in a number of theoretical papers (see, e.g., Refs. [@bib:IvanovKalin1988; @bib:Peng96; @bib:Anino97]). Yet, in deriving characteristic equations some inexact *a priori* assumptions where used, which still require both theoretical grounding and experimental corroboration.
In our present study, one of the goals is to investigate theoretically the physical mechanisms responsible for widening resonance lines of dielectric microresonators with random surface inhomogeneities. In view of such systems being non-integrable, it is necessary to elaborate an appropriate theoretical model allowing for sufficiently accurate determination of both the frequency spectrum and the quality factors of resonance lines. Yet another goal of this study is to corroborate experimentally which of the physical mechanisms does play a dominant role in the scattering of EM oscillations excited in microresonators with random rough side boundaries.
From the theoretical viewpoint, the spectrum analysis in our study is carried out in terms of scalar potentials, specifically, electrical and magnetic Hertz functions [@bib:Vainstein88]. We formulate the conditions wherein these potentials make independent contributions to EM fields in the resonator, which is equivalent to decoupling the oscillations of TE and TM polarization. The Helmholtz equation for Hertz potentials in an irregular-shaped open resonator is equivalent to Schrödinger equation for electrons moving in the piecewise continuous space subject to random potential. Owing to this one can extend the results obtained in the present study to quantum systems as well, in particular, to open quantum dots having random rough boundaries.
To solve wave equations in the rough-bounded resonator, the eigen-mode separation method is used, previously developed with reference to waveguide-like systems subject to arbitrary static potential [@bib:Tar00; @bib:Tar03; @bib:Tar05]). Using this method, the originally posed statistical problem of determining the fields in three-dimensional DDR with complex, randomly rough, side boundary is rigorously reduced to the set of one-dimensional dynamic equations that contain some *effective* random potentials. We show that under the conditions where gradient scattering mechanism is dominant, the boundary roughness effect on the resonator spectrum can be described through certain renormalization of mode wave numbers and azimuth indices of the Bessel functions in the characteristic equation. The values of renormalized wave numbers and mode indices decrease as the asperities get sharpened, which is consistent with a decrease in the resonator *Q*-factor. We are thus led to the conclusion that the observed reduction of resonant line quality factors results not from the extra dissipative loss but rather from EM field intermode Rayleigh scattering induced by random surface inhomogeneities. The imperfection of the resonator shape results in the local violation of the TIR conditions. This leads to additional radiation loss of EM energy and, hence, to a decrease in the level of localization of EM fields inside the resonator.
Since characteristic dimensions of surface inhomogeneities in actual microresonators are always quite small (of the order of nanometers), to verify our theoretical findings experimentally we have decided upon the method of simulation with macroscopic devices. As a model system we have employed a millimeter wave quasi-optical resonator made of a circular teflon disk. WG oscillations of TE and TM types were excited in the disk using a special waveguide antenna. The inhomogeneities of the resonator side boundary were made in the form of teflon bracket-bars randomly attached to the outside cylindrical surface. Our experimental results have demonstrated excellent qualitative agreement with the developed theory as regards spectral lines widening caused by the resonator side boundary roughness. Furthermore, the relatively simple model of the DDR field distribution, which was adopted in our study, enabled us to calculate both the *Q*-factors and the frequencies of the resonance lines with quite satisfactory accuracy. The calculations appeared to be in fair conformity with our experimental data.
Theoretical model and derivation of basic equations
===================================================
Consider an open disk resonator as a finite-height cylinder made of the dielectric material with permittivity $\varepsilon_0$. Plain-parallel end boundaries of the cylinder traverse the central axis ($z$) at points $z_{\pm}=\pm H/2$ (see Fig. \[fig1\]), the side boundary ($S$) is formed by the generatrix passing parallel to $z$-axis along closed contour $C$
\[.9\][![(Color online) The sketch of the dielectric cylindrical resonator with a randomly rough side wall. Vectors $\mathbf{n}$ and $\mathbf{n_0}$ point out the local normal directions to the rough ($S$) and to the smoothed resonator side surface, respectively. \[fig1\]](Figures/Fig_1.eps "fig:")]{}
whose distance from the central axis is given by $$\label{SideBound}
r(\varphi)=R+\xi(\varphi)\ ,\qquad\qquad \varphi\in[-\pi,\pi]\ ,$$ $R$ is the radius of the averaged (i.e., ideally circular) contour $C_0$ containing no random bends. The function $\xi(\varphi)$ will be regarded as the Gaussian random process with a zero mean value, $\big<\xi(\varphi)\big>=0$, and binary correlation function $$\label{BinCorr}
\big<\xi(\varphi)\xi(\varphi')\big>=\sigma^2W(\varphi-\varphi')\ .$$ Here, $\sigma$ is the mean-square height of boundary asperities, $W(\varphi)$ is the dimensionless function which has a unit maximal value at zero argument and falls to parametrically small values at angle distance $\varphi_c\ll 1$ (the correlation angle). The angle brackets in Eq. denote statistical averaging over the ensemble of realizations of random function $\xi(\varphi)$. In what follows, for the estimation purposes, along with angle parameter $\varphi_c$ we will use another correlation parameter, viz., arc correlation length $s_c=\varphi_cR$. Both the random function $\xi(\varphi)$ and the regular $W(\varphi)$ will be thought of as periodic with period $2\pi$.
It is well known that in general the EM field of an open dielectric resonator can be given as a superposition of oscillations of electric and magnetic types (TM and TE polarized, respectively) [@bib:Vainstein88]. The vector fields of both of these types can be expressed in terms of scalar potentials, $U(\mathbf{r})$ and $V(\mathbf{r})$ (the so-called electric and magnetic Debye potentials), which meet the same Helmholtz equation but are subject to different joining conditions at the resonator boundaries. In arbitrarily shaped resonators TM and TE oscillations are essentially intermixed, being strictly decoupled only in the case of sufficiently symmetric systems such as, e.g., an infinite dielectric cylinder [@bib:Vainstein88] or a dielectric sphere [@bib:Oraevsk2002]. Below it will be shown that TM and TE oscillations can also be decoupled (with high accuracy, though approximately) in the case of the cylindrical DDR of arbitrary thickness. This fact opens an opportunity to extend the conclusions of the present work to electronic microresonance systems, e.g., partially open quantum dots.
In studying oscillations in the DDR with randomly rough side boundaries we first reduce the problem of wave scattering at the boundary to the problem of scattering in the bulk of the resonator of ideal circular form. The Helmholtz equation for scalar wave field $\Psi(\mathbf{r})$, whose role is played by one of the above-mentioned potentials, after rewriting it in cylindrical coordinates and using the conformal coordinate transformation, $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{r} &=& \frac{r}{1+\xi(\varphi)/R}\ ,\notag \\
\label{coord_transform}
\widetilde{\varphi} &=& \varphi \ ,\\\notag
\widetilde{z} &=& z\ ,\end{aligned}$$ is reduced to the form $$\label{GreenEqMain}
\left[\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+
\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\varphi^2}+
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}+K^2(r,z)
-\hat{V}^{(h)}-\hat{V}^{(s)}\right]
\Psi(r,\varphi,z)=0$$ (the tilde signs over coordinate variables from here on are omitted). Here, $K^2(r,z)=k^2\varepsilon(r,z)$, $$\label{Epsilon(r,z)}
\varepsilon(r,z)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\varepsilon_0+i/\tau_0&,\qquad (r,z)\in\Omega \\[6pt]
1&,\qquad (r,z)\not\in\Omega
\end{array}\right.\ ,$$ $1/\tau_0$ is the phenomenological frequency parameter which takes into account dissipative and other uncontrollable losses in the system, except for the radiation loss, $\Omega$ is the bulk region occupied by the dielectric. Effective potentials $\hat{V}^{(h)}$ and $\hat{V}^{(s)}$ in Eq. are the operators whose coordinate representation reads
\[Potentials\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{heightPot}
& \hat{V}^{(h)} = -\left[K^2(r,z)+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial
z^2}\right]
\left[\beta^2(\varphi)-1\right]\ ,\\
\label{slopePot}
& \hat{V}^{(s)} = \left[\frac{\xi'(\varphi)}{R\beta(\varphi)}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}+\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}
\frac{\xi'(\varphi)}{R\beta(\varphi)}\right]\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
-\left[\frac{\xi'(\varphi)}{R\beta(\varphi)}\right]^2
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\
,\\[6pt]
\notag
& \beta(\varphi)=1+\xi(\varphi)/R\ .\end{aligned}$$
Indices “$h$” and “$s$” specifying potentials indicate that the corresponding potential is mainly governed either by fluctuations in the asperity height (i.e. by height function $\xi(\varphi)$) or by fluctuations in the asperity slope (i.e., by slope function $\xi'(\varphi)$). Such a subdivision of the potentials, with regard to the asymptotic suppression of correlations between functions $\xi(\varphi)$ and $\xi'(\varphi)$ over angle intervals that are large as compared to the correlation angle, urges one to consider potentials and as corresponding to different physical wave-surface scattering mechanisms [@bib:MakTar98; @bib:MakTar01]. We will below refer to these mechanisms as the amplitude (or the height, *h*) and the gradient (or the slope, *s*) scattering mechanisms, respectively.
Subsequently we will examine the boundary asperities which are sufficiently small in hight so as to meet inequality $$\label{SmallHeight}
\sigma\ll R\ .$$ In contrast to the widespread belief (see, e.g., Ref. [@bib:BassFuks79]), this does not necessarily imply that the surface-roughness-induced scattering be regarded as weak. We note, for example, that the local value of the potential is estimated by the parameter $\sigma/s_c$, which may take an arbitrary absolute value provided the condition is met. The true conditions for the scattering to be classified as weak will be provided below, based on the operator technique applied to perform the principal calculations.
Separation of azimuth modes in randomly rough disk resonator {#Mode_Separation}
============================================================
The potentials $\hat{V}^{(h)}$ and $\hat{V}^{(s)}$ in Eq. , that account for inhomogeneity of the resonator side-boundary, are defined not quite conveniently from the viewpoint of subsequent use of perturbation theories. The inconvenience relates to non-zero average value of the potential . By separating this average, we can rewrite Eq. as $$\label{PsiEq-alt}
\bigg[(1+\Xi^2)\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+
\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\varphi^2}+
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}+K^2(r,z)
-\hat{V}^{(h)}-\hat{V}^{(s1)}-\hat{V}^{(s2)}\bigg]
\psi(r,\varphi,z)=0\ ,$$ where two different slope potentials are introduced instead of potential Eq. , which have zero mean values, viz.
\[SlopePots-defs\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SlPot-1}
\hat{V}^{(s1)} =& \frac{1}{R}\left[\xi'(\varphi)
\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}+\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}
\xi'(\varphi)\right]\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\ ,\\
\label{SlPot-2}
\hat{V}^{(s2)} =& -\left[{\xi'}^2(\varphi)/R^2-\Xi^2\right]
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r\frac{\partial}{\partial
r}\ .\end{aligned}$$
The parameter $\Xi$ in Eqs. and , which is defined as $$\label{Xi-def}
\Xi^2=\frac{1}{R^2}
{\ensuremath{\big<\left[\xi'(\varphi)\right]^2\big>}}
\sim\frac{\sigma^2}{s_c^2}\ ,$$ serves as a measure for the mean-square slope of boundary asperities.
Considering that irregularities of the resonator side surface are aligned paraxially, they cannot result in additional scattering along axis $z$ except for the partial reflection produced by the initial step change in this direction of the permittivity of the medium. This makes it possible to remove from Eq. the dependence on the coordinate $z$ with the model method similar to the one we use when analyzing the spectrum of homogeneity-free DDR (see Appendix \[Unperturbed\_spectrum\]). Specifically, we assume the dependence of the mode wave function on the coordinate $z$ to have the same form used to find $s$- and $a$-solutions for the ideal-shaped resonator (for the particular $E_z$-symmetric solution this dependence is given in Eqs. and ). Afterwards, equation , being divided by the factor of $1+\Xi^2$, is reduced to the following form, $$\label{PsiEq-alt-renorm}
\bigg[\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+
\frac{1}{(1+\Xi^2)r^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\varphi^2}+
\widetilde{K}_{\bot}^2(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})
-\widetilde{{V}}^{(h)}(z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})-\widetilde{\hat{V}}^{(s1)}-
\widetilde{\hat{V}}^{(s2)}\bigg]
\Psi(r,\varphi|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=0\ ,$$ where
\[Renormed\_parameters\] $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\label{K-renorm}
\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^2(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})&=
\frac{1}{1+\Xi^2}\left\{
\begin{array}{clcl}
\big[\varepsilon\theta(R-r)+\theta(r-R)\big]k^2-k_z^2 &\ \text{,}&\qquad |z|&<H/2 \\
k^2+\varkappa_z^2 &\ \text{,}&\qquad |z|&>H/2
\end{array}\ ,\right.\\
\label{V(h)-renorm}
\widetilde{{V}}^{(h)}(z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})&=
-\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^2(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\left[\beta^2(\varphi)-1\right]\
.\end{aligned}$$
The tilde signs over the potentials in Eq. denote their renormalization by the factor of $\big(1+\Xi^2\big)^{-1}$. Equation actually describes two-dimensional fields because symbol $z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr}$ acts not as the current axial coordinate but stands for some axial index specifying in which domain of the $z$-axis — either $|z|<H/2$ or $|z|>H/2$ — the solution to Eq. is sought.
In the azimuth mode representation, equation assumes the form $$\label{Psi-Azim_repr}
\left[\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^2(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})-\frac{\widetilde{n}^2}{r^2}
-\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}_{n}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\right]
\Psi_{n}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})-\sum_{m\neq n}
\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{nm}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\Psi_{m}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=0\ .$$ Here, $$\label{U_nm-def}
\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{nm}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=\oint
d\varphi{\ensuremath{\bm{\langle}\varphi,n\bm{|}}}\widetilde{V}(r,\varphi|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr}){\ensuremath{\bm{|}\varphi,m\bm{\rangle}}}$$ is the matrix element of the entire potential $\widetilde{V}(r,\varphi|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=
\widetilde{{V}}^{(h)}(z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})+\widetilde{\hat{V}}^{(s1)}+
\widetilde{\hat{V}}^{(s2)}$, which is taken between eigen-functions of the azimuth part of the Laplace operator (see Appendix \[Unperturbed\_spectrum\]), $\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}_{n}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})
\equiv\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{nn}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})$, the index $n$ changes to ${\widetilde{n}=n\big/\sqrt{1+\Xi^2}}$. Later we will refer to matrix elements $\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}_{n}$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{nm}$ as the intra- and inter-mode potentials, respectively.
In the general case it is rather difficult to immediately solve the infinite set of coupled equations . However, the solution can be obtained in terms of the operator technique previously developed by the present authors with reference to waveguide-type random systems of arbitrary dimensionality [@bib:Tar00; @bib:Tar03] and advantageously applied afterwards to the analysis of bulk-disordered cavity resonators [@bib:GanErTar07]. The above technique, as applied to the problem touched upon in the present paper, is adapted in Appendix \[Mode\_separation\]. The advantage of the technique is that it can be used to derive precise closed equations for wave functions of each of the azimuth modes, namely, $$\label{Psi_n-separate}
\left[\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial
r}r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^2(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})-\frac{\widetilde{n}^2}{r^2}
-\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}_{n}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})-
\hat{\mathcal T}_n\right]
\Psi_{n}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=0\ .$$ Here, along with local intra-mode potential $\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}_{n}$, the operator potential $\hat{\mathcal
T}_n$ arises, which rigorously allows for the inter-mode scattering. The structure of this potential, though well-recognized, is quite complicated to be operated with at an arbitrary scattering intensity. Yet, the estimations we provide in the next section substantially simplify the *T*-potential in Eq. in different limiting cases, and in this way they allow one to obtain the oscillation spectrum of a randomly rough DDR in almost all physically sensible situations.
Spectrum of the DDR with weakly rough side boundary {#Rough_Specrum}
===================================================
Hereinafter we will refer to the system as weakly rough one if r.m.s. height of its boundary asperities meets inequality . As the potentials in Eq. are of the operator nature, we will estimate their strength using standard definition of the operator norm [@bib:KolmFom68; @bib:Kato66]. For our purposes the formula $$\label{norm_def}
{\ensuremath{\big<\big\|\hat{\mathsf A}\big\|^2\big>}}=\sup_{0\neq\psi\in\mathbb{X}}
\frac{{\ensuremath{\big<(\hat{\mathsf A}\psi,\hat{\mathsf A}\psi)\big>}}}{(\psi,\psi)}$$ is the most appropriate, in which the parenthesis symbolize the scalar product on the functional space $\mathbb{X}$ consisting of the class of solutions to Eq. with no random potentials.
To estimate the potentials in Eq. we first calculate their azimuth matrix elements. For relatively small-height asperities the “height” potential ${\widetilde{V}}^{(h)}$ equals approximately ${\widetilde{V}}^{(h)}(z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\approx
-2\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^2(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\xi(\varphi)/R$. Mode matrix elements of this potential are $$\label{Unm(h)}
\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{nm}^{(h)}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=
-\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^2(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle
\lessgtr})\frac{\widetilde{\xi}(n-m)}{R}\
,$$ $\widetilde{\xi}(n)$ is the Fourier transform of the function $\xi(\varphi)$. Matrix elements of the “slope” potentials $\widetilde{\hat{V}}^{(s1)}$ and $\widetilde{\hat{V}}^{(s2)}$ are equal, respectively,
\[Unm-alt\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{=Unm(s1)-alt}
& \widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{nm}^{(s1)}(r)=
-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}(1+\Xi^2)R}\left(n^2-m^2\right)\widetilde{\xi}(n-m)
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\ ,\\
\label{=Unm(s2)-alt}
& \widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{nm}^{(s2)}(r)=
\frac{1}{2\pi(1+\Xi^2) R^2}\sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty}
(n-l)(l-m)\left[\widetilde{\xi}(n-l)\widetilde{\xi}(l-m)-
{\ensuremath{\Big<\widetilde{\xi}(n-l)\widetilde{\xi}(l-m)\Big>}}\right]
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r\frac{\partial}{\partial
r}\ .\end{aligned}$$
The efficiency of intra-mode scattering
---------------------------------------
We will ignore the role of the potential for the intra-mode scattering proceeding from the following considerations. It is evident that under condition the uniform azimuth mode of this potential can result, at most, in relatively small ($\sim \sigma/R$) renormalization of the unperturbed “in-plane energy” $\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^2(r|z)$. Yet, in the case we consider below even this does not occur. We will regard the asperities as not only being small in height but also as small-scaled ones in the sense that the inequality holds $$\label{Small-scale}
s_c\ll R\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad\varphi_c\ll 1\ .$$ In this limit the uniform mode of the random process $\xi(\varphi)$ with parametric accuracy ($\widetilde{\xi}(0)\sim\sigma\varphi_c$) can be put equal to zero, since the process is nearly ergodic within the interval of the angle variable change.
Gradient potential is not involved in the intra-mode scattering by its definition, so that only the potential should be taken into account, where one must let $m=n$. We use as trial functions in Eq. the solutions of Eq. with random potentials equal to zero, i.e., Bessel function $J_{\widetilde{n}}\big[\widetilde{K}_{\perp}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})r\big]$ in the interval $0<r<R$ and Hankel function $H^{(1)}_{\widetilde{n}}\big[\widetilde{K}_{\perp}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})r\big]$ in the domain $R<r<\infty$. Such a choice is justified provided the intra-mode scattering has a slight impact on the mode energies. Then we arrive at the following estimate for the potential $\widetilde{{\mathcal{V}}}_{n}$ norm, $$\label{Vn-norm_estim}
{\ensuremath{\big<\big\|\widetilde{{\mathcal{V}}}_{n}\big\|^2\big>}}\sim
\frac{\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^4}{(1+\Xi^2)^2R^4}{\ensuremath{\Big<\bigg[
\sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty}l^2\Big(\big|\widetilde{\xi}(l)\big|^2-
{\ensuremath{\big<\big|\widetilde{\xi}(l)\big|^2\big>}}\Big)\bigg]^2\Big>}}\ .$$ After averaging Eq. using correlation equality $$\label{BinCorr-Fourier}
{\ensuremath{\big<\widetilde{\xi}(k)\widetilde{\xi}^*(l)\big>}}=
\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma^2\widetilde{W}(k)\delta_{kl}\ ,$$ which immediately stems from Eq. ($\widetilde{W}$ is the Fourier transform of correlation function $W(\varphi)$), we obtain $$\label{Vn-norm_estim-fin}
{\ensuremath{\big<\big\|\widetilde{{\mathcal{V}}}_{n}\big\|^2\big>}}\sim
\frac{\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^4}{(1+\Xi^2)^2}\left(
\frac{\sigma}{R}\right)^4\sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty}
l^4\widetilde{W}^2(l)\approx\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^4\frac{\sigma}{R}
\frac{\big(\sigma/s_c\big)^3}{\big(1+\sigma^2/s_c^2\big)^2}\ .$$ It can be readily seen that the factor standing at $\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^4$ in the right-hand side of Eq. is, in view of Eq. , small as compared to unity. This substantiates the above assumption about the intra-mode scattering weakness.
Comparative estimations of inter-mode potentials
------------------------------------------------
The inter-mode scattering rate in our resonator is up to the norm of the operator $\hat{\mathsf{R}}$ entering *T*-matrix .
*1. The “amplitude” inter-mode scattering.*
When estimating the norm of the “height” item $\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{(h)}$ in the operator $\hat{\mathsf{R}}$ one is faced with a need to evaluate the expression $$\label{R(h)_estim-alt}
{\ensuremath{\big<\big\|\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{(h)}\big\|^2\big>}}\sim
\frac{1}{\|\psi\|^2}\sum_k\int\limits_0^{\infty}rdr
\sum_{m_1,m_2\neq
k}\int\limits_0^{\infty}r_1dr_1\int\limits_0^{\infty}r_2dr_2
G^{(V)}_{k}(r,r_1){G^{(V)}_{k}}^*(r,r_2)
{\ensuremath{\Big<\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{km_1}^{(h)}(r_1){\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{km_2}^{(h)*}}(r_2)\Big>}}
\psi_{m_1}(r_1)\psi_{m_2}^*(r_2)$$ (in order not to overload subsequent formulae we omit axial index $z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr}$, as this cannot lead to misunderstanding; function $G^{(V)}_{k}(r,r_1)$ is introduced in Appendix \[Mode\_separation\]). The simultaneous presence in Eq. of both the integrals over radial coordinate $r$ and the sums over mode indices stems from the definition of the functional space where the operator $\hat{\mathsf{R}}$ is effective.
In view of Eqs. and the correlator in the integrand of Eq. is calculated to $$\label{CorrUkm1Ukm2}
{\ensuremath{\Big<\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{km_1}^{(h)}(r_1){\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{km_2}^{(h)*}}(r_2)\Big>}}=
2\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left(\frac{\sigma}{R}\right)^2
\widetilde{K}^2_{\perp}(r_1)\widetilde{K}^{2*}_{\perp}(r_2)
\widetilde{W}(k-m_1)\delta_{m_1m_2}\ .$$ By substituting this into Eq. and assuming the asperity correlation function to have the Gaussian form, viz. ${W(\varphi)=\exp\big(-\varphi^2/2\varphi_c^2\big)}$, we arrive at the following estimate for the height term in the inter-mode scattering operator, $$\label{R(h)_estim-alt(fin)}
{\ensuremath{\big<\big\|\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{(h)}\big\|^2\big>}}\sim
(\widetilde{K}_{\perp}\sigma)^2\ .$$ The Rayleigh parameter $k\sigma$, to whose square the right-hand side of Eq. is proportional, may take small or large values, depending upon the relationship between mean-square height of the asperities and the wave length of the excited oscillations. According to the value of this parameter we will distinguish between weak ($k\sigma\ll 1$) and strong ($k\sigma\gg 1$) inter-mode scattering caused by the “height” potential.
*2. The “gradient” inter-mode scattering.*
This type of scattering between different azimuth modes is related to the availability in Eq. of the potentials . Their correlators needed to estimate the operator norms of items $\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{(s1)}$ and $\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{(s2)}$ in the operator $\hat{\mathsf{R}}$, are equal, respectively,
\[CorrUkm1Ukm2\_(ab)\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CorrUkm1Ukm2(s1)}
{\ensuremath{\Big<\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{km_1}^{(s1)}(r_1)
{\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{km_2}^{(s1)*}}(r_2)\Big>}} =&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{\sigma^2}{(1+\Xi^2)^2R^2}(k^2-m_1^2)^2\widetilde{W}(k-m_1)\delta_{m_1m_2}
\frac{1}{r_1}\frac{\partial}{\partial r_1}\cdot\frac{1}{r_2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r_2} \
,\\[12pt]
{\ensuremath{\Big<\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{km_1}^{(s2)}(r_1){\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{km_2}^{(s2)*}}(r_2)\Big>}}=&
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2(1+\Xi^2)^2R^4}
\left(\frac{1}{r_1}\frac{\partial}{\partial r_1}r_1\frac{\partial}{\partial r_1}\right)
\left(\frac{1}{r_2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r_2}r_2\frac{\partial}{\partial r_2}\right)
\notag\\
\label{CorrUkm1Ukm2(s2)}
&\times
\sum_{l_1,l_2=-\infty}^{\infty}
(k-l_1)(l_1-m_1)(k-l_2)(l_2-m_2)
{\ensuremath{\Big<\widetilde{\xi}(k-l_1)\widetilde{\xi}(l_1-m_1)
\widetilde{\xi}^*(k-l_2)\widetilde{\xi}^*(l_2-m_2)\Big>}}
\ .\end{aligned}$$
Assuming the function $\xi(\varphi)$ to be the Gaussian random process, the equality can be partially simplified as the double sum over $l_1$ and $l_2$ is reduced to the single one, $$\label{Sum_l_1l_2-result}
\sum_{l_1,l_2=-\infty}^{\infty}\ldots\ =
4\pi\sigma^4\delta_{m_1m_2}\sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty}
(k-l)^2(l-m_1)^2\widetilde{W}(k-l)\widetilde{W}(l-m_1)\ .$$ Then the alternate substitution of correlation functions into Eq. in place of the height potential correlator results in the following estimation formulas for operators $\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{(s1)}$ and $\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{(s2)}$,
\[R(s1s2)\_nrm-estim\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{R(s1)_nrm-estim}
{\ensuremath{\big<\big\|\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{(s1)}\big\|^2\big>}} &\sim
\frac{\Xi^2}{(1+\Xi^2)^2}\cdot\frac{1}{\varphi_c^2} \ ,\\[6pt]
\label{R(s2)_nrm-estim}
{\ensuremath{\big<\big\|\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{(s2)}\big\|^2\big>}} &\sim
\left(\frac{\Xi^2}{1+\Xi^2}\right)^2(\widetilde{K}_{\perp}R)^2\ .
\end{aligned}$$
The collation of norms and reveals that the height and the gradient scattering mechanisms, given their effect is evaluated as a function of roughness statistical parameters and radial components of the azimuth mode wave vectors, can essentially compete against one another. However, the general statement boils down to the fact that it is the gradient scattering which is prevalent in the most part of the parameter region. The amplitude scattering mechanism can also dominate, but this is the case for quite smooth asperities only and for oscillations of very large azimuth indices. One can conclude from Eqs. and that for the amplitude scattering to be dominant it is necessary, first, that the average tangent of the asperity angle of slope obey the condition
\[Height\_dominate\] $$\label{R(h)>R(s2)}
\overline{\tan\theta}\sim\frac{\sigma}{s_c}\ll
\left(\frac{\sigma}{R}\right)^{1/2}\ .$$ Secondly, the inequality must be fulfilled $\left(K_{\perp}R\right)^2\gg \Xi^2\left(R/s_c\right)^2$, which is admissible for oscillations with quite large mode indices, i.e., $$\label{R(h)>R(s1)}
n\gg\left(\frac{R}{s_c}\right)^2\ .$$
If only one of the inequalities fails to hold (indeed, this is the case for the overwhelming majority of parameters from the above-mentioned set), the gradient scattering appears to be dominating.
Whispering gallery modes of the rough-side DDR
----------------------------------------------
Based on the above estimations, equation , that governs the azimuth mode spectrum of the resonance system under study can be substantially simplified if one considers the limiting cases of weak and strong scattering. As is seen from Eq. , for small r.m.s. height of the asperities (in the sense of inequality ) the intra-mode scattering due to potential $\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}_{n}$ is weak, thereby making it possible to disregard it in the main approximation.
As far as the inter-mode scattering is concerned, it is not straightforward to estimate it in the same way as the intra-mode one. From Eqs. and it follows that inter-mode scattering should be classified either as weak or strong one depending upon whether the operator $\hat{\mathsf{R}}$ norm is small or large as compared with unity. If the inter-mode scattering resulting from both the amplitude and the gradient potentials is thought of as weak one, which occurs when two inequalities hold simultaneously
\[Weak\_intermode\_scatt\] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Weak_intermode(h)}
k\sigma \ll 1\ ,\\[6pt]
\label{Weak_intermode(s1)}
\frac{\sigma}{s_c} \ll \frac{s_c}{R}\ ,
\end{gathered}$$
the potential $\hat{\mathcal T}_n$ in Eq. can be ignored with parametric accuracy. In this instance the resonator spectrum can be obtained from the equation which differs from the initial unperturbed one simply by renormalizing both the mode index ($n\to\widetilde{n}$) and the radial wave number ($K_{\perp}\to\widetilde{K}_{\perp}$). In the parameter region where both of the inequalities are satisfied this renormalization is extremely small ($\Xi\ll\varphi_c$) and can be safely disregarded.
Conditions , that indicate the inter-mode scattering weakness, can be easily violated. By virtue of peculiar technology, when manufacturing micro- and nano-sized quantum resonance systems it is normally difficult to obey, e.g., inequality which corresponds to extreme smoothness of surface inhomogeneities. Moreover, inequality is fulfilled within only limited, i.e., long-wavelength, part of the resonator bandwidth.
If, at least, one of the conditions is violated, the inter-mode scattering fails to be classified as a weak one in the sense that the norm of scattering operator $\hat{\mathsf{R}}$ in the potential becomes large as against the unity. Nevertheless, in this case one may as well simplify the *T*-potential by expanding it in a series in the inverse scattering operator, $\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{-1}$. The expression between the projection operators in Eq. is identically transformed as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal U}
\left(\openone-\hat{\mathsf{R}}\right)^{-1}\hat{\mathsf{R}}= &
-\hat{\mathcal U}+\hat{\mathcal
U}\left(\openone-\hat{\mathsf{R}}\right)^{-1}=
-\hat{\mathcal U}-\hat{\mathcal U}\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{-1}
\left(\openone-\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{-1}\right)^{-1} \notag\\
\label{T_matr-large_R}
=& -\hat{\mathcal U}-\hat{\mathcal U}\,\hat{\mathcal U}^{-1}
\hat{\mathcal{G}}^{(V)-1}\left(\openone-\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{-1}\right)^{-1}
\approx -\hat{\mathcal U}-\hat{\mathcal{G}}^{(V)-1}-
\hat{\mathcal{G}}^{(V)-1}\hat{\mathcal
U}^{-1}\hat{\mathcal{G}}^{(V)-1}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Here we use the symbolic notation $\hat{\mathcal{G}}^{(V)-1}$ for the full (i.e., including the whole set of azimuth modes) Green operator with no intermode potentials. As a result of “coating” Eq. with the projection operators $\bm{P}_n$ the first term in its right-hand side is eliminated, and the operator acting on the wave function in Eq. assumes the following approximate form, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial
r}r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^2(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr}) & -\frac{\widetilde{n}^2}{r^2}
-\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}_{n}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})-\hat{\mathcal T}_n=
\hat{G}_n^{(V)-1}-\hat{\mathcal T}_n
\notag\\
\label{Diff_oper(R>>1)}
& \approx 2\hat{G}_n^{(V)-1}+\bm{P}_n\hat{\mathcal{G}}^{(V)-1}\hat{\mathsf{R}}^{-1}\bm{P}_n
\approx 2\left[\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial
r}r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^2(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})-\frac{\widetilde{n}^2}{r^2}\right]\ .\end{aligned}$$ By comparing the expression in the right-hand side of Eq. with the one in its left-hand side, with potentials $\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}_{n}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})$ and $\hat{\mathcal T}_n$ set to zero, one can notice that the limiting cases of weak and strong (in the sense of the operator $\hat{\mathsf{R}}$ norm) inter-mode scattering differ from one another solely by doubling the wave operator in the latter case. Clearly, such doubling implies that in strong surface scattering the amplitude of the excited oscillations is twice as small as the one in the weak scattering limit. However, it is evident that the change in the common factor multiplying the wave operator cannot reveal itself in dispersion relations.
We thus have demonstrated that the formal algebraic structure of the wave operator remains basically unchanged under conditions of weak and strong scattering. In both of these cases the wave operator differs slightly from its unperturbed form. The main difference between dispersion relations for resonators with perfect and rough side boundaries is that in the latter case the initial transverse wave parameter ${K}_{\perp}(r|z)$ and the mode index $n$ are renormalized by the gradient factor of $(1+\Xi^2)^{-1/2}$. This enables us to immediately write down the dispersion equations for a DDR with random inhomogeneous side boundary based upon the results given in Appendix \[Unperturbed\_spectrum\]. Specifically, for a rough-bounded DDR the oscillation spectrum is governed by the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Main_disp_eq-rough}
\left[\frac{\varepsilon}{\widetilde{k}_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}}\cdot
\frac{{J_{\widetilde{n}}}'(\widetilde{k}_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}R)}
{J_{\widetilde{n}}(\widetilde{k}_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}R)}-
\frac{1}{\widetilde{k}_{\perp}}\cdot\frac{{H_{\widetilde{n}}^{(1)}}'(\widetilde{k}_{\perp}R)}
{H_{\widetilde{n}}^{(1)}(\widetilde{k}_{\perp}R)}\right]
\Bigg[\frac{1}{\widetilde{k}_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}}\cdot
\frac{{J_{\widetilde{n}}}'(\widetilde{k}_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}R)}
{J_{\widetilde{n}}(\widetilde{k}_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}R)} -
\frac{1}{\widetilde{k}_{\perp}}\cdot\frac{{H_{\widetilde{n}}^{(1)}}'(\widetilde{k}_{\perp}R)}
{H_{\widetilde{n}}^{(1)}(\widetilde{k}_{\perp}R)}\Bigg]=
\frac{\widetilde{n}^2}{R^2}(\varepsilon-1)^2
\frac{k_z^2\widetilde{k}^2}{{(\widetilde{k}_{\perp}^{\varepsilon})}^4\widetilde{k}_{\perp}^4}\
,\end{aligned}$$ which has to be supplemented with additional relationships between $k$ and $k_z$, the latter resulting from joining the fields at the end interfaces. In Eq. , the notations are introduced $\big(\widetilde{n},\widetilde{k},\widetilde{k}_{\perp}^{\varepsilon},\widetilde{k}_{\perp}\big)=
\big(n,k,k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon},k_{\perp}\big)\big/\sqrt{1+\Xi^2}$, the wave numbers $k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}$ and $k_{\perp}$ are defined in Eq. .
As the additional connection between wave parameters $k$ and $k_z$ in the case of a perfect cylindrical resonator equation is obtained for $E_z$-symmetric oscillations. For $E_z$-antisymmetric oscillations Eq. holds. One can easily check that in going from unperturbed wave equation to equation describing the DDR with rough side wall the equations derived through joining EM field components at the end boundaries of the dielectric disk remain unchanged.
Finally, proceeding from the above calculations we are led to conclude that with any roughness of the DDR side wall, which is basically restricted by the smallness condition , to obtain the oscillation spectrum one can make use of the relationship Eq. mainly coincident in form with the dispersion equation for an infinitely long dielectric cylinder. As a supplementary condition to interconnect the lengthwise and transverse wave vector components equation or should be applied, depending upon $E_z$-symmetry of the desired solution. The fundamental difference of Eq. from its perfect-cylinder counterpart is the renormalization of basic wave parameters, which is governed by geometric properties of the asperities. A special emphasis should be placed on the fact that it is exactly the gradient scattering mechanism, not the amplitude one, that most crucially affects the DDR spectrum. This particular fact makes itself evident in that the renormalization of wave parameters in Eq. is dictated not by the height-type parameters, such as, e.g., Rayleigh parameter $k\sigma$ or the ratio $\sigma/R$, but is mainly regulated by the mean-square slope of the asperities against the unperturbed resonator boundary, which is specified by parameter $\sigma/s_c$.
Experimental results and discussion {#Experiment}
===================================
The main goal of experimental studies in this work was to validate our theory as regards microresonator spectra and the effect of random surface inhomogeneities on them. The point is that essential assumption adopted in the theory is that it virtually does not consider electromagnetic fields radiated from the resonator external edges into the corner regions labeled by numbers 4 and 4$'$ in Fig. \[fig5\] (see Appendix \[Unperturbed\_spectrum\]). At the same time, without making quite complex calculations one cannot make *a priori* statements about these fields being small enough to neglect them in calculating the resonator spectrum. Yet another goal of the experiment was to examine our theoretical findings concerning the physical mechanism that adequately describes the influence of random surface inhomogeneities on microresonator spectral properties.
The studies of the microresonator spectrum were performed through modeling these quite small systems in the millimeter wave band. For this purpose we used a quasioptic dielectric disk resonator. Physically, oscillation properties of this macroscopic system are identical with properties of silicon microresonators used as oscillation systems in real optical lasers. Our resonator was made of teflon whose permittivity is not significantly far from unity ($\varepsilon=2.08$) and whose dielectric loss in the millimeter range are fairly small ($\tan\delta\cong 2.3 \times 10^{-4}$). In the model DDR, whispering gallery oscillations were excited with the EM field concentrated at the periphery of the disk, in the narrow region close to its side boundary. This enabled us to use the disk core to fix it in the level position without introducing additional dissipative losses to the experiment. The source of WG modes was positioned close to the resonator side boundary. Its role was played by the waveguide antenna powered by the microwave generator. The antenna was fabricated as a waveguide tapered along the short wall, whose butt end was positioned near the resonator side surface. The receiving antenna was made identical to the source antenna and was placed at the diametrically opposite point off the disk.
Thin dielectric bracket-bars were used as the inhomogeneities of the resonator side boundary. They were attached to the DDR side surface. The basic requirement imposed on the inhomogeneities was for them not to cause noticeable additional dissipative losses. To this end, the bracket-bars
\[.75\][![Schematic view of the experimental DDR with surface inhomogeneities: 1 — teflon disk; 2 — superimposed teflon bracket-bars (inhomogeneities); 3, 4 — the exciting and receiving waveguide antennas; $d$ — the gap between the antenna and the DDR’s side surface, which is used to tune the coupling of antenna with the resonator. The diameter of the DDR is 102 mm, the thickness is 7.6 mm. The inhomogeneities dimensions are: the length, the width, and the thickness 7.6 mm, 3 mm, and 2 mm, respectively. \[fig2\]](Figures/Fig_2.eps "fig:")]{}
were made of the same teflon as the resonator body. The inhomogeneities distribution on the resonator side surface was random and varied for each different realization. In Fig. \[fig2\], the general view of the resonator is shown along with the exciting and the receiving antennas as well as with the attached teflon bracket-bars.
In order to excite TE or TM oscillations in the resonator, two different configurations of antenna-versus-resonator were used. For TE oscillations the antenna magnetic field was directed along the resonator axis, $z$. To achieve this, the wide plate of the waveguide was aligned parallel to this axis. In the case of TM oscillations, along the axis $z$ the electric field was directed. For this purpose the wide side of the antenna was oriented transversely.
By changing the distance between the exciting waveguide butt end and the resonator side boundary, as well as the angle between them, we were able to adjust the coupling between the antenna and the resonator to optimize it. As the optimal coupling we accepted the one whereby the additional loss caused by the antenna was much less than the eigen-loss in the resonator. At the same time, it was necessary to keep the level of the coupling sufficient for spectral lines to be traceable. The pattern of whispering gallery EM fields in the DDR in known to be very sensitive to the frequency variation. Therefore the resonator-to-waveguide coupling is different for each of the modes. Based upon this, we established the optimal coupling for each of the spectral lines separately while carrying out the measurements in a wide frequency range.
Spectral measurements with the model resonator were made in the on-pass regime using millimeter waveband standing-wave ratio meter. Since the experiments were conducted over a wide range of frequencies and for large number of realizations of surface inhomogeneities, all spectral measurements were rendered automatic. The signal from the ratio meter was sent to the computer and processed by means of the especially designed program to find both the frequencies and the quality factors of resonance lines. The accuracy of the measurements was 0.01% and 5% for the resonance frequencies and the quality factors, respectively.
To identify the spectral lines, it was necessary to determine the value of azimuth index for each of the lines in the absence of inhomogeneities. To this end, the miniature rotating probe made of a thin metal plate was used, which we inserted into the region at the resonator disk where the electric field antinode was positioned. In so doing, the source was tuned to the frequency of the particular spectral line. When the probe rotated about the resonator axis, the signal registered by the receiver varied in time at the rate the probe passed across the regions with electric field loops. This enabled us to determine the desired mode index through the measurements of the signal modulation frequency. In Fig. \[fig3\], the results of numerical calculations of the resonator spectrum are shown along with spectral measurements data. As seen from Fig. \[fig3\]a, the measured spectra of TE and TM modes correlate well with the calculated spectra. The difference between spectral line frequencies found from Eq. , including intrinsic
![(Color online) The collation of theoretic and experimental data for the DDR with perfect cylindrical boundaries: the dependence a) of spectral line frequency and b) of the logarithm of quality factor on the azimuth index $n$. For $\mathrm{TM_{n,1}}$ mode: 1 —calculation, 2 — experiment; for $\mathrm{TE_{n,1}}$ mode: 3 — calculation, 4 — experiment. \[fig3\]](Figures/Fig_3a.eps "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"} ![(Color online) The collation of theoretic and experimental data for the DDR with perfect cylindrical boundaries: the dependence a) of spectral line frequency and b) of the logarithm of quality factor on the azimuth index $n$. For $\mathrm{TM_{n,1}}$ mode: 1 —calculation, 2 — experiment; for $\mathrm{TE_{n,1}}$ mode: 3 — calculation, 4 — experiment. \[fig3\]](Figures/Fig_3b.eps "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"}
dissipation loss in the dielectric, and experimentally measured frequencies is no more than 1%. The quality factors obtained in the experiment (as shown in Fig. \[fig3\]b) are smaller than those calculated theoretically. We attribute this to the fact that the measured $Q$-factor includes not only eigen-loss in the resonator material but also is affected by the loss resulting from coupling with the antenna. From the diagrams in Fig. \[fig3\] one can observe the nearly equidistant character of the spectrum (the frequency interval $\Delta\nu\cong 0.7$ GHz), which is typical for open resonators with WG-type oscillations [@bib:Vainstein88], as well as the exponential dependence on the mode index $n$ of the calculated and the measured $Q$-factors.
Our calculations suggested, and that was experimentally confirmed, that for TM oscillations the resonator quality factor is significantly larger than that for TE oscillations, both of them being taken with the same azimuth index. This suggests that in the case of TM oscillations the DDR has the property to more efficiently retain electromagnetic field in its volume than the resonator with TE oscillations does. We have thus established that both the theoretical model of the resonator we have chosen for our calculations and the characteristic equations obtained thereupon have found impressive experimental confirmations.
According to the findings of our theory, the main physical mechanism for EM field scattering by random inhomogeneities of the resonator side boundaries is the gradient mechanism. The scattering arisen due to fluctuations in the asperity slope can be allowed for by way of modification of the cylindrical functions indices along with the wave numbers in the characteristic equation Eq. . The modification reduces to multiplying the parameters $n$, $k$, $k_{\perp}$ and $k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}$ by factor of $\chi=\left(1+\Xi^2\right)^{-1/2}<1$. In order to identify the main scattering mechanism experimentally and thus to check the developed theory it was necessary to estimate the value of the parameter $\Xi$ starting from the parameters relevant to a particular experiment. We were governed by the following considerations. Setting the correlation length equal to an average distance between the centers of the attached dielectric bracket-bars, i.e., $s_c=2\pi R/N$, where $N$ is the total number of the bracket-bars, with Gaussian distributed inhomogeneities we obtain $$\label{Xi-estim}
\chi=\left[1+\left(\frac{\sigma N}{R}\right)^2\right]^{-1/2}\ .$$ It can be easily seen that the parameter $\chi$ tends to decrease with an increasing number of bracket-bars, which leads to a decrease in the effective wave number $\widetilde{k}$ and the effective mode index $\widetilde{n}$. Since the dependence of the quality factor on the mode index is nearly exponential, $Q\approx
\mathrm{e}^{\widetilde{n}}$, the availability of surface inhomogeneities should result in the decrease in the resonator quality factor, whose origin is not an additional dissipative loss.
According to our theory, with a small number of inhomogeneities the effect of slope-controlled scattering must be fairly slight (the parameter $\Xi$ decreases with lowering $N$). Therefore the value of quality factor must be weakly dependent on $N$ as well. Such was indeed the case in our experiments whose results are depicted in Fig. \[fig4\].
\[.58\][![(Color online) The $Q$-factor curves versus the number of inhomogeneities on the resonator side surface. $\mathrm{TM}_{44,1}$ oscillations: 1 — theory, 2 — experiment; $\mathrm{TE}_{44,1}$ oscillations; 3 — theory, 4 — experiment. Calculations were carried out at $\sigma=3.5$ mm and $R=51$ mm. \[fig4\]](Figures/Fig_4.eps "fig:")]{}
In the same figure, the curves $Q(N)$ are plotted for comparison, which are calculated from characteristic equation including modification factor $\chi$ and the dissipation loss in the resonator material. The loss was taken into consideration phenomenologically, by adding the imaginary part to permittivity $\varepsilon$, see Eq. . With the statistical nature of our measurements (the averaging is done over a large number of realizations of the bracket-bar set), the agreement between theoretical and experimental results appears to be quite satisfactory. This suggests that, since both in our theory and in the numerical calculations based upon it the slope scattering mechanism alone is taken into account, the qualitative agreement between theory and experiment unambiguously corroborates the dominant role of this particular type of wave-surface scattering.
As is also seen from Fig. \[fig4\], the influence of surface inhomogeneities on the DDR spectrum differs significantly for TE- and TM-type oscillations. The quality factors of TE oscillations are to a far larger extent subjected to the resonator boundary roughness as against the factors of TM oscillations. With a given number of inhomogeneities, the $Q$-factor of TE oscillations is noticeably smaller than that of TM oscillations. This fact, which is quite important for practical applications of microresonators in laser oscillation systems, was given certain attention in Ref. [@bib:Borselli2004]. Yet in the present work it has been comprehensively substantiated.
Conclusion {#Conclusion}
==========
To summarize, we have investigated spectral properties of a dielectric disk resonator with randomly rough side boundary both theoretically and experimentally. It is shown that the azimuth modes of the resonator oscillations can be rigorously separated at whatever level of surface inhomogeneities. This allowed us to obtain the asymptotically exact dispersion equations which are valid over a wide range of the roughness parameters. The only requirement imposed on the inhomogeneities and effectively utilized in the calculations was that their mean-square height be small as compared with the unperturbed (i.e., non-rough) disk resonator radius.
In deriving dispersion relations, we have shown that electromagnetic wave scattering resulting from the boundary roughness can be described in terms of two fundamentally different physical mechanisms, specifically, the amplitude (the height) scattering mechanism and the gradient (the slope) mechanism. For the first of them, the ratio of the mean height of the asperities to the oscillation wavelength (the Rayleigh parameter) acts as the main guiding parameter whereas for the gradient mechanism the mean slope of the asperities relative to the unperturbed resonator boundary plays the same role. Our estimations have revealed that it is exactly the gradient scattering that is of primary importance for the formation of rough resonator spectrum. The effect of this type of scattering can be described through the approximate dispersion equation that differs from the analogous equation for the ideally circular DDR by the gradient renormalization of the basic wave parameters, i.e,, the mode wave numbers and the azimuth index.
Our theory aimed at describing the influence of random surface inhomogeneities on microresonator spectral properties analytically is actually of model nature. The point is that it does not incorporate the electromagnetic fields radiated from the resonator into external angle sectors. To neglect these fields theoretically is quite a challenge. Therefore, to verify the conclusions of our approximate (to the certain extent) theory we have made experimental measurements on the model millimeter wave band dielectric disk resonator. Surface inhomogeneities were presented by teflon bracket-bars of relatively small cross-section, which were attached randomly to the resonator side boundary. For the perfect-wall resonator, i.e. the resonator with no inhomogeneities attached, our measurement data have demonstrated excellent agreement with the developed theory concerning both the frequency spectrum and the quality factors of spectral lines. Close qualitative agreement is also attained with regard to the effect produced on the resonator spectrum by random surface inhomogeneities placed at the side boundary. First, we have confirmed the theoretical predictions about the leading role of the gradient scattering mechanism in describing the effect of random rough boundaries. Second, we ascertained that the system of model dispersion equations we have obtained herein is quite effective in describing the open microresonator spectra.
Besides, our experiments have revealed that the effect produced by the surface inhomogeneities of the DDR on the TE and TM oscillation spectra is fundamentally different. The TM oscillations quality factor exceeds significantly the analogous factor for the TE oscillations, being yet less affected by surface inhomogeneities. In our work this particular fact, which is essential for the production of microresonator-based lasers, has been theoretically and experimentally validated.
This work was partially supported by the Science and Technology Center of Ukraine (STCU), project No. 4114.
Model spectrum of ideal cylindrical DDR {#Unperturbed_spectrum}
=======================================
Proceeding from the methodology considerations, we outline the technique for deriving dispersion equations for cylindrical finite-size resonator with perfectly smooth bounding surfaces.
Consider equation without potentials $\hat{V}^{(h)}$ and $\hat{V}^{(s)}$. Upon going to Fourier representation over angle variable $\varphi$ using the complete set of eigenfunctions ${\ensuremath{\bm{|}\varphi,n\bm{\rangle}}}=(2\pi)^{-1/2}\exp(-in\varphi)$, where $n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\ldots\ $, the equation for $n$-th angular component of the wave function becomes $$\label{Psi_eq-unperturbed}
\left[\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial
z^2}+K^2(r,z)-\frac{n^2}{r^2}\right]\Psi_n(r,z)=0\ .$$ The function $\Psi_n(r,z)$ is sought to be finite as $r\rightarrow
0$, whereas at $r\rightarrow\infty$ and $|z|\to\infty$ the radiation conditions are meant to be fulfilled.
It is difficult to find the explicit solution of Eq. in the entire domain of variables $r$ and $z$. Yet basically there is no need to make use of such a solution. It will suffice to obtain dispersion relations which are not strictly valid but satisfied with good accuracy. We will seek a desired solution in the model form, as was done, e.g., in Refs. [@bib:IvanovKalin1988; @bib:Peng96], imposing the pair of basic requirements. One of the requirements is to fulfil fundamental boundary conditions at zero and infinite distances from the resonator center, while the other is to provide correct joining of the EM field components at the dielectric disk interfaces.
By representing the solution of Eq. as a sum of $E_z$-symmetric and $E_z$-antisymmetric summands (hereinafter we will specify them by indices ($s$) and ($a$), respectively) we will seek the Debye potentials in the form given below,
\[Un(s)\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Un(s)-1}
&\hspace{-1cm} U_{n1}^{(s)}(r,z)=A_n^{e(s)}J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\cos k_zz\ ,\\
\label{Un(s)-2}
&\hspace{-1cm} U_{n2}^{(s)}(r,z)=B_n^{e(s)}H_n^{(1)}(k_{\perp}r)
\cos k_zz\ ,\\
\label{Un(s)-3}
&\hspace{-1cm} U_{n3}^{(s)}(r,z)=C_n^{e(s)}J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\exp(-\varkappa_z|z|)\ ,\end{aligned}$$
\[Vn(s)\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Vn(s)-1}
& V_{n1}^{(s)}(r,z)=A_n^{m(s)}J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\sin k_zz\ ,\\
\label{Vn(s)-2}
& V_{n2}^{(s)}(r,z)=B_n^{m(s)}H_n^{(1)}(k_{\perp}r)
\sin k_zz\ ,\\
\label{Vn(s)-3}
& V_{n3}^{(s)}(r,z)=C_n^{m(s)}J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\exp(-\varkappa_z|z|){\ensuremath\mathrm{\,sgn\,}}z\ .\end{aligned}$$
In Eqs. and , the subscripts 1, 2, 3
\[.7\][![The areas on the half-plane $(r,z)$ between which the joining of EM fields is performed. The shaded region is filled up with the dielectric. \[fig5\]](Figures/Fig_5.eps "fig:")]{}
correspond to the regions (see Fig. \[fig5\]) which are labeled with corresponding numbers. The wave parameters $k_{\perp}$, $k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}$ and $\varkappa_z$ are given by
\[Wave\_parameters\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Wave_parameters-k_perp}
&& k_{\perp}^2 = k^2-k_z^2 \ ,\\
\label{Wave_parameters-ek_perp}
&&{(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon})}^2 = \varepsilon k^2-k_z^2\ ,\\
\label{Wave_parameters-kappa_z}
&& \varkappa_z^2 = k^2(\varepsilon-1)-k_z^2 \ .\end{aligned}$$
By representing EM field components in terms of the potentials and and by joining the in- and the out- field components at the resonator side boundary (i.e., between regions 1 and 2) we obtain the well-known equation that couples together wave parameters $k$ and $k_z$ [@bib:Vainstein88], $$\label{Main_disp_eq}
\left[\frac{\varepsilon}{k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}}
\frac{{J_n}'(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}R)}{J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}R)}-
\frac{1}{k_{\perp}}\frac{{H_n^{(1)}}'(k_{\perp}R)}{H_n^{(1)}(k_{\perp}R)}\right]
\Bigg[\frac{1}{k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}}
\frac{{J_n}'(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}R)}{J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}R)}-
\frac{1}{k_{\perp}}\frac{{H_n^{(1)}}'(k_{\perp}R)}{H_n^{(1)}(k_{\perp}R)}\Bigg]=
\frac{n^2}{R^2}(\varepsilon-1)^2
\frac{k_z^2k^2}{{(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon})}^4k_{\perp}^4}\ .$$ In order to obtain yet another coupling equation for the same wave parameters we join the tangential components of the field at the end boundary ${z=H/2}$. This leads to the set of equations
\[End\_matching\] $$\begin{aligned}
& k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}{J_n}'(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\bigg[-k_z\sin\frac{k_zH}{2}A_n^{e(s)} +
\varkappa_z\exp\big(-\varkappa_zH/2\big)C_n^{e(s)}\bigg] \notag\\
&\hspace{5cm} +\frac{n}{r}J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\,k\bigg[\sin\frac{k_zH}{2}A_n^{m(s)}-
\exp\big(-\varkappa_zH/2\big)C_n^{m(s)}\bigg]=0\ ,\\
& k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}{J_n}'(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\,k\bigg[\sin\frac{k_zH}{2}A_n^{m(s)} -
\exp\big(-\varkappa_zH/2\big)C_n^{m(s)}\bigg]\notag\\
&\hspace{5cm} +\frac{n}{r}J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\bigg[-k_z\sin\frac{k_zH}{2}A_n^{e(s)} +
\varkappa_z\exp\big(-\varkappa_zH/2\big)C_n^{e(s)}\bigg]=0\ , \\
& k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}{J_n}'(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\bigg[k_z\cos\frac{k_zH}{2}A_n^{m(s)} +
\varkappa_z\exp\big(-\varkappa_zH/2\big)C_n^{m(s)}\bigg] \notag\\
&\hspace{5cm} -\frac{n}{r}J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\,k\bigg[\varepsilon \cos\frac{k_zH}{2}A_n^{e(s)} -
\exp\big(-\varkappa_zH/2\big)C_n^{e(s)}\bigg]=0\ ,\\
& k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}{J_n}'(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\,k\bigg[\varepsilon \cos\frac{k_zH}{2}A_n^{e(s)} -
\exp\big(-\varkappa_zH/2\big)C_n^{e(s)}\bigg] \notag\\
&\hspace{5cm} -\frac{n}{r}J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\bigg[k_z\cos\frac{k_zH}{2}A_n^{m(s)} +
\varkappa_z\exp\big(-\varkappa_zH/2\big)C_n^{m(s)}\bigg]=0\ ,\end{aligned}$$
where the number of the unknowns (to the latter we assign not only constant factors included in Eqs. and ) but also the functions ${J_n}'(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)$ and $(n/r)J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)$) exceeds the number of the equations thus obtained. The situation can be improved if one adds to the system a pair of equalities resulting from joining the EM field normal components at the same end boundary, specifically,
\[Norm\_comp\_EH\] $$\begin{aligned}
A_n^{e(s)}\cos\frac{k_zH}{2} & =
\frac{1}{\varepsilon}C_n^{e(s)}\exp\big(-\varkappa_zH/2\big)\ ,\\
A_n^{m(s)}\sin\frac{k_zH}{2} & =
C_n^{m(s)}\exp\big(-\varkappa_zH/2\big)\ .\end{aligned}$$
Using Eqs. and we arrive at a set of four coupled equations which can be naturally combined in pairs, viz.
\[EesEms-eqs\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EesEms-eqs1}
& \left\{
\begin{aligned}
k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}{J_n}'(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\left(\varkappa_z-\frac{k_z}{\varepsilon}\tan\frac{k_zH}{2}\right)
C_n^{e(s)}=0\ ,\\
\frac{n}{r}J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\left(\varkappa_z-\frac{k_z}{\varepsilon}\tan\frac{k_zH}{2}\right)
C_n^{e(s)}=0\ ,
\end{aligned} \right.
\\
\label{EesEms-eqs2}
& \left\{
\begin{aligned}
k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}{J_n}'(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\left(\varkappa_z+k_z\cot\frac{k_zH}{2}\right)
C_n^{m(s)}=0\ ,\\
\frac{n}{r}J_n(k_{\perp}^{\varepsilon}r)
\left(\varkappa_z+k_z\cot\frac{k_zH}{2}\right)
C_n^{m(s)}=0\ .
\end{aligned} \right.\end{aligned}$$
Since the Bessel functions do not vanish simultaneously with their derivatives, one can satisfy Eqs. in two ways. The first one is to equate the expression in parenthesis of Eq. to zero, putting the constant ${C_n^{m(s)}=0}$ in Eqs. . Alternatively, the parenthesis in Eq. can be set equal to zero concurrently with the coefficient $C_n^{e(s)}$ in Eqs. . As can be readily seen from Eqs. and , the former solution corresponds to the TM-type oscillations whereas the latter is consistent with TE polarization. Both of these cases can be combined into one equation of the following form $$\label{k_kz-sim}
\bigg(\underbrace{\varkappa_z-\frac{k_z} {\varepsilon}\tan\frac{k_zH}{2}}_{\mathrm{TM}}\bigg)
\bigg(\underbrace{\varkappa_z+k_z\cot\frac{k_zH}{2}}_{\mathrm{TE}}\bigg)=0
\ .$$ The lower curly brackets in Eq. indicate the polarization which correlates with vanishing the expression in the corresponding parenthesis. By carrying out the calculations similar to those given above, for $E_z$-antisymmetric solution of Eq. we arrive, instead of Eq. , at the equality $$\label{k_kz-asim}
\bigg(\underbrace{\varkappa_z-k_z\tan\frac{k_zH}{2}}_{\mathrm{TE}}\bigg)
\bigg(\underbrace{\varkappa_z+\frac{k_z} {\varepsilon}\cot\frac{k_zH}{2}}_{\mathrm{TM}}\bigg)=0\ .$$ Note that the relationships , and were previously obtained in Ref. [@bib:IvanovKalin1988], although the latter two of them were of somewhat different form. In that paper, however, polarization of the excited EM field was not discussed at all. At first glance, from our derivation of Eqs. and it may seem that TM- and TE-type oscillations in the DDR of finite thickness can be perfectly separated, at least, with no regard for the boundary inhomogeneity. As a matter of fact, this is not the case because one must take into account the inaccuracy, i.e., the model character of wave solutions and used when deriving dispersion relations. These solutions, as well as the analogous ones for the antisymmetric case, are well adapted for joining the in- and the out- field components at the boundaries between regions 1–2 and 1–3 in Fig. \[fig5\]. The fields in region 4 are not taken into consideration, which must inevitably result in some “overflow” of the spectrum obtained in such a way.
It is a difficult task to correctly evaluate the possibility to neglect the fields in the 4-th region in Fig. \[fig5\] without resorting to rigorous calculations. Nevertheless, by now there does not exist a rigorous theory for a finite thickness DDR, even in the seemingly simple case where the boundaries are perfectly smooth. For this reason, in order to test the results we obtained by the model calculations we choose to compare the spectrum resulting from Eqs. , , with the one measured in the experiment.
Mode separation in two-dimensional wave equation with arbitrary scattering potential {#Mode_separation}
====================================================================================
Consider the equation for Green function of Eq. without rendering both the physical nature of mode potentials and their absolute value concrete, $$\label{G-Azim_repr}
\left[\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^2(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})-\frac{\widetilde{n}^2}{r^2}
-\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}_{n}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\right]
G_{nn'}(r,r'|z)-\sum_{m\neq n}\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{nm}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})
G_{mn'}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=
\frac{1}{r}\delta(r-r')\delta_{nn'}\ .$$ Along with the exact Green function, which has a matrix structure in variables $n$ and $r$, we introduce for each of the azimuth modes the trial mode propagator, which is assumed to obey the closed equation $$\label{Trial_G-alt}
\left[\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^2(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})-\frac{\widetilde{n}^2}{r^2}
-\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}_{n}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\right]
G^{(V)}_{n}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=\frac{1}{r}\delta(r-r')$$ resulting from Eq. providing that the inter-mode scattering is disregarded. We will use the notation $\hat{G}^{(V)-1}_{n}$ for the operator in square brackets of Eq. . The initial equation can then be recast as $$\label{1D-trial-suppl}
\hat{G}^{(V)-1}_{n}G_{nn'}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=
\frac{1}{r}\delta(r-r')\delta_{nn'}+
\sum_{m\neq n}\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{nm}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})
G_{mn'}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\ ,$$ or, in the equivalent integral form, as $$\label{1D-trial-suppl-int}
G_{nn'}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=
G_{n}^{(V)}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\delta_{nn'}+
\sum_{m\neq n}\int\limits_0^{\infty}r_1dr_1
G_{n}^{(V)}(r,r_1|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})
\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{nm}(r_1|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})
G_{mn'}(r_1,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\ .$$ By setting in Eq. index $n\neq n'$ and then re-labelling all mode indices we can write this equation as the equation for solely inter-mode components of the Green matrix $\|G_{mn}\|$, the intra-mode ones being thought of as known functions, $$\label{G_mn-integr_eq}
G_{mn}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})-\sum_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k\neq m}{k\neq n}}
\int\limits_0^{\infty}r_1dr_1G_{m}^{(V)}(r,r_1|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})
\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{mk}(r_1|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})
G_{kn}(r_1,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=
\int\limits_0^{\infty}r_1dr_1G_{m}^{(V)}(r,r_1|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})
\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{mn}(r_1|z)G_{nn}(r_1,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\ .$$ At this stage we introduce three operators, $\hat{\mathcal{G}}^{(V)}$, $\hat{\mathcal U}$ and $\hat{\mathsf{R}}$, which are assumed to act in the reduced coordinate-mode space $\mathsf{\overline M}_n$ consisting of the half-axis $r\geqslant 0$ and the entire set of mode indices except for particular index $n$. The operators are specified by their matrix elements
\[G(V)\_U-matr\_elements-suppl\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GV-matr_element-suppl}
& {\ensuremath{\bm{\langle}r,n\bm{|}}}\hat{\mathcal{G}}^{(V)}{\ensuremath{\bm{|}r',m\bm{\rangle}}} =
G^{(V)}_{n}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\delta_{nm}\ ,\\
\label{U-matr_element-suppl}
& {\ensuremath{\bm{\langle}r,n\bm{|}}}\hat{\mathcal U}{\ensuremath{\bm{|}r',m\bm{\rangle}}}=\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{nm}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})
\frac{1}{r}\delta(r-r')\ ,\\
\label{R-matr_element-suppl}
& {\ensuremath{\bm{\langle}r,n\bm{|}}}\hat{\mathsf{R}}{\ensuremath{\bm{|}r',m\bm{\rangle}}}=
G^{(V)}_{n}(r,r'|z)\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}_{nm}(r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\ .\end{aligned}$$
Equation can now be recast as the matrix equality $$\label{G_mn-integr_eq2}
{\ensuremath{\bm{\langle}r,m\bm{|}}}\big(1-\hat{\mathsf{R}}\big)\hat{\mathcal{G}}{\ensuremath{\bm{|}r',n\bm{\rangle}}}=
{\ensuremath{\bm{\langle}r,m\bm{|}}}\hat{\mathsf{R}}\bm{P}_n\hat{\mathcal{G}}{\ensuremath{\bm{|}r',n\bm{\rangle}}}\ ,$$ or, equivalently, in the general operator form as $\bm{P}_m\big(1-\hat{\mathsf{R}}\big)\hat{\mathcal{G}}\bm{P}_n=
\bm{P}_m\hat{\mathsf{R}}\bm{P}_n\hat{\mathcal{G}}\bm{P}_n$. Here, $\bm{P}_n$ is the projection operator whose action reduces to assigning the value $n$ to the nearest mode index of an arbitrary operator standing adjacent to it, either to the left or right. Multiplying both sides of the operator equality thus obtained by the operator $\big(1-\hat{\mathsf{R}}\big)^{-1}$ whose regularity was substantiated in Ref. [@bib:Tar00] we arrive at the integral relation between the non-diagonal and diagonal mode matrix elements of the Green function, viz. $$\label{Gmn->Gnn-suppl}
G_{mn}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=
{\ensuremath{\bm{\langle}r,m\bm{|}}}\big(1-\hat{\mathsf{R}}\big)^{-1}
\hat{\mathsf{R}}\bm{P}_n\hat{\mathcal{G}}{\ensuremath{\bm{|}r',n\bm{\rangle}}}=
\big(\hat{K}_{mn}\hat{G}_{nn}\big)(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})\ .$$ Setting in Eq. index $n'=n$ and substituting the inter-mode propagators in the form we eventually obtain the closed equation for intra-mode Green function $G_{nn}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})$, $$\label{Gnn_eq-suppl}
\left[\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+\widetilde{K}_{\perp}^2(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})-\frac{\widetilde{n}^2}{r^2}
-\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}_{n}(r|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})-
\hat{\mathcal T}_n\right]
G_{nn}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})=\frac{1}{r}\delta(r-r')\ .$$ Here, $\hat{\mathcal T}_n$ is the operator that accounts for the inter-mode scattering (it is just the $T$-matrix well-known in quantum scattering theory [@bib:Newton68; @bib:Taylor72]), which has the form $$\label{T_oper-suppl}
\hat{\mathcal T}_n=\bm{P}_n\hat{\mathcal U}
\big(\openone-\hat{\mathsf{R}}\big)^{-1}\hat{\mathsf{R}}\bm{P}_n\
.$$ Trial Green function $G^{(V)}_{n}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})$ entering operator potential through matrix elements obeys equation and the same boundary conditions just like the desired mode propagator $G_{nn}(r,r'|z_{\scriptscriptstyle\lessgtr})$.
Equation along with Eq. determines the entire Green function of wave equation and serves as a basis for deriving the system of uncoupled equations for azimuth components of the sought-for wave function.
[cc]{}
A. Polman, B. Min, J. Kalkman, T.J. Kippenberg, and K.J. Vahala, Appl. Phys. Lett. **84**, 1037 (2004).
K.J. Vahala, Nature **424**, 839 (2003).
E.M. Ganapolskii, Z.E. Eremenko, and Yu.V. Tarasov, **75**, 026212 (2007).
B.E. Little, J.-P. Laine, and S.T. Chu, Opt. Lett. **22**, 4 (1997).
M.L. Gorodetsky and A.D. Pryamikov, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B **17**, 1051 (2000).
A.N. Oraevsky, Quantum Electron.**32**(5), 377 (2002).
M.Borselli, K.Srinivasan, P.E. Barclay, and O.Painter, Appl. Phys. Lett. **85**, 3693 (2004).
M. Kuznetsov and H.A. Haus, IEEE J. Quan. Elec. **19**, 1505 (1983).
F.G. Bass and I.M. Fuks, [*Wave Scattering from Statistically Rough Surfaces*]{} (New York: Pergamon, 1979)
J.A. Ogilvy, *Theory of Wave Scattering from Random Rough Surfaces* (IOP Pub., Bristol, UK, 1991).
A.G. Voronovich, *Wave Scattering from Rough Surfaces* (Springer Verlag, 1994).
Lord Rayleigh, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A **79**, 399 (1907).
Lord Rayleigh, *The Theory of Sound*, (Dover, New-York, 1945).
N.M. Makarov and Yu.V. Tarasov, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **10**, 1523 (1998).
N.M. Makarov and Yu.V. Tarasov, , 235306 (2001).
L. A. Vainshtein, *Electromagnetic Waves* \[in Russian\] (Radio i Svyaz, Moscow, 1988).
E.Ivanov and V.I. Kalinichev, Radiotechnika \[in Russian\], No. 10, 86 (1988).
H. Peng, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech. **44**, 848 (1996).
G. Annillo, M. Cassettari, I. Longo, and M. Martinelli, Chem. Phys. Lett. **281**, 306 (1997).
Yu.V. Tarasov, , 395 (2000).
Yu.V. Tarasov, Low. Temp. Phys. **29**, 45 (2003).
Yu.V. Tarasov, **71**, 125112 (2005).
A.N. Kolmogorov, S.V. Fomin . *Elements of the Theory of Functions and Functional Analysis* (Dover, New York, 1961).
T. Kato. *Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators* (Springer, Berlin, 1966).
R. Newton. [*Scattering Theory of Waves and Particles*]{} (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968).
J.R. Taylor. [*Scattering Theory. The Quantum Theory on Nonrelativistic Collisions*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1972).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Theoretical arguments for a new higher-color quark sector, based on Pomeron physics in QCD, are briefly described. The electroweak symmetry-breaking, Strong CP conservation, and electroweak scale CP violation, that is naturally produced by this sector is also outlined.
A further consequence is that above the electroweak scale there will be a radical change in the strong interaction. Electroweak states, in particular multiple $W$’s and $Z$’s, and new, semi-stable, very massive , baryons, will be commonly produced. The possible correlation of expected phenomena with a wide range of observed Cosmic Ray effects at and above the primary spectrum knee is described.
Related phenomena that might be seen in the highest energy hard scattering events at the Fermilab Tevatron, some of which could be confused with top production, are also briefly discussed.
---
-0.5in 6.5in 9.00in 1.5=0.5in -0.5in
plus 1000pt minus 1000pt \#1 \#1[= to]{} \#1[ to]{} \#1 \#1 \#1[ to 2]{} \#1
\#1[ to 1in]{} \#1
\#1\#2[[\#1\#2]{}]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ 2 \#1\#2 \#3]{}]{} \#1[\#1|]{} \#1[| \#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1\#2[\#1|. \#2 ]{} \#1[/]{} \#1[| \#1|]{} \#1[\#1 ]{} \#1 \#1\#2[[0=1=1>0.51-.500-.50-.5110>1 .50-.51]{}]{} \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1 \#1[{.]{} \#1 \#1[=$^{#1}$=]{} = \#1 \#1,[by1 =1 \[\#1\]==,\[\#1\]=]{} \#1[-\#1-]{} \#1[(\#1)]{} plus 1000pt minus 1000pt \#1 \#1[= to]{} \#1[ to]{} \#1 \#1 \#1[ to 2]{} \#1
\#1[ to 1in]{} \#1
\#1\#2[[\#1\#2]{}]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ 2 \#1\#2 \#3]{}]{} \#1[\#1|]{} \#1[| \#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1\#2[\#1|. \#2 ]{} \#1[/]{} \#1[| \#1|]{} \#1[\#1 ]{} \#1 \#1\#2[[0=1=1>0.51-.500-.50-.5110>1 .50-.51]{}]{} \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1 \#1[{.]{} \#1 \#1[=$^{#1}$=]{} = \#1 \#1,[by1 =1 \[\#1\]=\#1@=,\[\#1\]=]{} \#1[-\#1-]{} \#1/\#2
\#1[$^{#1}$ ]{} \#1
\#1
\#1\#2\#3[[**\#1**]{}, \#2 (19\#3)]{} \#1[\[\#1\]]{} \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1[(\#1)]{}
[**NEW STRONG INTERACTIONS ABOVE THE ELECTROWEAK SCALE**]{}
Alan R. White[^1]\
High Energy Physics Division\
Argonne National Laboratory\
Argonne, IL 60439\
Invited talk presented at the 8th International Symposium on Very High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions, July 1994, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.
The physics of very high energy Cosmic Rays, as seen in Mountain Emulsion Chambers and Extensive Air Showers, is predominantly that of strong interaction fragmentation and diffraction. It is well known in the Cosmic Ray community that a significant number of effects now suggest the existence of new strong interaction physics at energies around $10^{16}$ eV or higher. The most radical proposal being[@nik; @dy] that the famous “knee”, in the induced incoming energy spectrum, around this value is actually evidence for new physics rather than a discontinous change in the primary spectrum. The corresponding center of mass threshold for hadron-hadron scattering is $\sqrt{s} \sim 3-5$ TeV. This implies that the new physical processes can probably not be seen directly at the Fermilab Tevatron but, as I shall discuss, the physics involved might be glimpsed in the highest energy virtual processes .
I have studied the QCD Pomeron responsible for diffraction for many years, and for some time have advocated the theoretical necessity for a new, [**higher-color**]{}, quark sector. From my analysis[@arw1] this new sector is directly required for the consistency of the Pomeron with both confinement and perturbative QCD at high-energy. Remarkably such a sector can replace the unaesthetic Higgs sector of the Standard Model (in partial analogy with technicolor) and provide an essentially complete mechanism for mass generation in the electroweak sector. This links the strong and electroweak interactions in a direct manner and, in particular, implies that the electroweak scale is explained as a second QCD scale. As I have studied this possibility more and more seriously, I have gradually realized that other deep puzzles of the Standard Model may also be resolved. For example, the problems of Strong CP Conservation and CP Violation at the Electroweak Scale.
In this talk I will first explain qualitatively why the new quark sector is required in QCD and also describe the dynamical electroweak symmetry-breaking and CP properties that result. I will then spend the remainder of the talk elaborating on the essential feature for this conference. That is, not very far [**above the electroweak scale there will be a radical change in the strong interaction**]{}. Electroweak states, in particular multiple $W's$ and $Z's$, and new semi-stable baryons, will be commonly produced. We anticipate that diffractive production of the new states will be a major (if not the major) effect. Clearly this will dramatically change the nature of Cosmic Ray showers and the states they produce above such energies. Although very difficult to predict in any detail, I will suggest that the new phenomena to be expected have the right characteristics to explain, qualitatively, a wide range of observed Cosmic Ray effects, including the following.
- [Strong attenuation of family production, as observed in emulsion chambers, together with a sharp change in the electromagnetic and hadronic energy spectra.]{}
- [Small $X_{max}$ for high-energy air showers with $E^0 \sim 10^{17}$ eV together with a fast rise of $X_{max}$ as the energy increases.]{}
- [Shorter “hadronic” interaction length in emulsion and lead chambers.]{}
- [Anomalous penetration in the atmosphere and in detectors, often involving the production of intense “halos”.]{}
- [Coplanarity of multi-halos.]{}
- [Large $p_{\perp}$ production of “Centauros” - with low electromagnetic energy, and “Chirons” - with apparent anomalously low $p_{\perp}$ in secondary showers.]{}
- [Excess of (underground) muon pairs with large separation.]{}
- [Large zenith angle excess of high-energy air showers and azimuthal asymmetry in $\gamma$ and hadron family production.]{}
In general the situation seems very interesting and a reasonable case can be made that the type of modification of the strong interaction that I am arguing for is actually being observed in the highest energy Cosmic Rays. Of course, many of the above Cosmic Ray effects suffer from low statistics and it will remain essential that they be observed in accelerator experiments if they are to be confirmed and studied. The LHC will cover most of the relevant energy range but it is a decade away from operating. As I discuss at the end of the talk, it is also possible that the accumulating number of very high energy hard scattering events at the Fermilab Tevatron (mostly involving photon and weak vector boson states) could be a glimpse of the physics involved. Indeed [**this physics might well be closely correlated with top production**]{} and there could be confusion, experimentally, between new and expected production processes.
In pre-QCD days the Pomeron was a phenomenological object - a Regge pole which (essentially) was thought to reflect the low $k_{\perp}$ multiperipheral production of multiple pions (with, say, $<n> ~ \sim 10-20$). As illustrated in Fig. 1, $$\eqalign{
\sigma_T = \Sigma \int d\Omega_n |A_n|^2 ~\sim~ s^{\alpha_{\spom}(0) - 1}}
\auto$$ so that $\sigma_T \sim C$ requires $\alpha_{\spom}(0) = 1$. [**Pomeron**]{} (reggeon) [**Field Theory**]{} had both a phenomenological and, via reggeon unitarity, a theoretical basis[@arw2] as an effective field theory accounting for all the additional diffractive and absorptive effects that unitarity requires must accompany multiperipheral pion production. High-mass diffraction determines the magnitude of the triple Pomeron coupling. Multi-Pomeron diagrams can be thought of as representing multiplicity fluctuations. That is, an N-Pomeron state appearing on some part of the rapidity axis is associated with a multiplicity fluctuation of N times the average multiplicity in that rapidity interval. The origin of some reggeon graphs is illustrated in Fig. 2.
The renormalization group can be applied to Pomeron Field Theory and, with a triple Pomeron coupling, there is a [**Critical Pomeron**]{} solution[@mpt] for $\alpha_{\spom}(0) = 1$. This gives $\sigma_T ~\sim ~ (ln s)^{\eta}$ where $\eta$ is an anomalous dimension. The Critical Pomeron is the only known theoretical description of rising total cross-sections which satisfies [**all $s$ and $t$ - channel unitarity constraints.**]{}
Within Pomeron Field Theory we can study what happens if we initially violate unitarity by setting $\alpha_{\spom}(0) > 1$. The result is a new [**Super-Critical Pomeron**]{} phase[@arw2] in which there is a Pomeron condensate - giving rise to the vacuum production of Pomerons! At first sight, it is difficult to understand how the vacuum production of Pomerons could possibly have a physical interpretation. However, a detailed study of the structure of the induced graphs,the transverse momentum singularities that appear, and the resultant reggeon unitarity properties, leads to the following remarkable result.
Vacuum production of Pomerons directly produces additional particle pole factors in reggeon graphs that correspond to [**vector reggeon intermediate states**]{}. Consequently, the phase-transition when $\alpha_{\spom}(0) > 1$ involves the conversion of the divergences in rapidity (due to $\alpha_{\spom}(0) > 1$) into particle divergences in transverse momentum. In effect, if we try to make the total cross-section increase more rapidly than allowed by unitarity, a [**vector particle V is “deconfined”**]{} and appears in the theory coupling pair-wise to the Pomeron. The vector reggeon trajectory $\alpha_V(t)$ is exchange-degenerate with the Pomeron trajectory and, away from the critical point, the physical intercepts satisfy $\alpha_{\spom}(0) = \alpha_V(0) < 1$. As a result, in both the Sub-Critical and Super-Critical phases, we have $\sigma_T \to~ 0$ asymptotically. This implies that [**to obtain a rising cross-section the Pomeron must be Critical**]{}.
The Super-Critical Pomeron was discovered independently of QCD but a fundamental question is, of course, what is the physical interpretation (if any) of the Pomeron phase transition in QCD? Or, equivalently, can the vector particle V be related to a (deconfined) gluon?
In the multiperipheral model it is clear[@gt] that adding more hadron states increases $\alpha_{\spom}(0)$. Therefore, [**if**]{} there is a Regge pole Pomeron in QCD, we anticipate that adding quarks moves the Pomeron closer to criticality and that [**the Critical Pomeron might be related to QCD with the “maximum” number of quarks.**]{} All quarks become (close to) massless in the asymptotic Regge limit, and so we are led to ask - can the physics of QCD with a large number of massless quarks be related to the Pomeron phase-transition?
Several properties of (massless) QCD suggest that the Critical Pomeron does indeed occur when the number of flavors $N_f$ is a “maximum”. Since these can be described without introducing the technology of Reggeon Field Theory we briefly describe them here. $N_f = N_f^{max} = 16$ is the maximum value before asymptotic freedom is lost and (presumably) gluons are deconfined. (The deconfinement implies, of course, that there is a phase transition but can we identify the Critical Pomeron transition?) Consider first the behavior of the $\beta$-function as a function of $N_f$. It is very likely[@bz; @arw1] that at $N_f = N_f^{max}$ (and probably only at this value) the $\beta$-function develops an infra-red fixed-point, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
The scaling properties, and in particular, the variety of anomalous dimensions that develop at this fixed-point clearly could be directly related to the scaling properties of the Critical Pomeron. Indeed, it can be shown[@arw1] that in the limit of zero meson mass (which we assume to correspond to the limit of zero quark mass in QCD), the Critical Pomeron forward diffraction peak behaves as illustrated in Fig. 4. That is the diffraction pattern collapses into a simple peak that has[@arw1] the character of a massless vector singularity with an anomalous dimension, suggesting directly a relationship with a massless, fixed-point, vector theory.
Also, when $N_f = N_f^{max}$ (and [**only**]{} at this value), the first term in the $\beta$-function is small enough[@gw] that adding a triplet (“Higgs”) scalar to the theory retains asymptotic freedom of both the gauge coupling and the scalar coupling. This implies that for this “maximum” number of quarks, the (dynamical?) Higgs mechanism can break the gauge symmetry, from SU(3) to SU(2), without destroying the short-distance properties of the theory. Consequently [**a vector reggeon V, i.e. a massive gluon reggeon , can enter the theory smoothly**]{} (with no $k_{\perp}$ cut-off in particular) [**only when when $N_f = N_f^{max}$**]{}. Since the entry of V into the theory characterises the Super-Critical Pomeron we have another independent argument that $N_f = N_f^{max}$ is the critical point.
Of course, we expect confinement to be crucial for the emergence of a multiperipheral like Pomeron related to pion production etc.. The study of confinement in the Regge limit is a major topic. After an elaborate technical analysis utilising reggeon diagrams, it can be shown[@arw1] that within QCD
- [**quarks play a crucial role in the simultaneous emergence of confinement and a Regge pole Pomeron in the small $k_{\perp}$ high-energy regime**]{}
- [**the energy-dependence of small $k_{\perp}$ physics (i.e. $\alpha_{\spom}(0)$ )is strongly dependent on both $N_f$ and the $k_{\perp}$ cut-off and the Critical Pomeron occurs without a cut-off only when $N_f =
N_f^{max}$.**]{}
To remove the $k_{\perp}$ cut-off and obtain a smooth matching with QCD perturbation theory at large $k_{\perp}$, we must have a cross-section that does not go to zero asymptotically (i.e. $\alpha_{\spom}(0) = 1$), since this is what the perturbation expansion gives. Therefore, for confinement and QCD perturbation theory to coexist in the high-energy region, we must obtain the Critical Pomeron as the large $k_{\perp}$ cut-off is removed. Since this requires $N_f = N_f^{max}$, [**a further quark sector must exist!!**]{}
It is very important, however, that (assuming six flavors are known to exist)
- [**the further quark sector need not be 10 more flavors of color triplet quarks. $N_f = N_f^{max}$ is also produced by an additional flavor doublet of color sextet quarks.**]{}
From the perspective of QCD Pomeron physics, it is a remarkable coincidence that two flavors of color sextet quarks can provide[@wjm] a natural form of dynamical symmetry-breaking for the electroweak interaction which meshes perfectly with the observed experimental features. Indeed this provides a self-contained motivation for introducing the higher color quark sector which we can briefly outline as follows.
Consider adding to the Standard Model (with no scalar Higgs sector), a massless flavor doublet $(u_6,d_6)$ of color sextet quarks with the usual quark quantum numbers, except that the role of quarks and antiquarks is interchanged. For the $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ anomaly to be cancelled there must also be other fermions with electroweak quantum numbers added to the theory[@wjm; @kk], but we shall not consider this here except to note that this could be the color octet leptoquarks discussed below. We consider first the QCD interaction of the massless sextet quark sector. There is a $U(2)\otimes
U(2)$ chiral flavor symmetry. QCD chiral dynamics will break the axial symmetries spontaneously and produce four massless pseudoscalar mesons (Goldstone bosons), which we denote as $\pi^+_6,\;\pi^-_6,\;\pi^0_6$ and $\eta_6$, in analogy with the usual notation for mesons composed of $u$ and $d$ color triplet quarks.
As long as all quarks are massless, QCD is necessarily $CP$ conserving in both the sextet and triplet quark sectors. Therefore, in the massless theory we can, in analogy with the familiar treatment of flavor isospin in the triplet quark sector, define sextet quark vector and axial-vector currents $V^{\tau}_{\mu}$ and $A^{\tau}_{\mu}$ which are “isotriplets” under the unbroken $SU(2)$ vector flavor symmetry and singlet currents $v_{\mu}$, $a_{\mu}$. The pseudoscalar mesons couple “longitudinally” to the axial currents, that is $$\eqalign{ <0|A^\tau_{\mu}|\pi^{\tau}_6(q)>~\sim F_{\pi_6}q_{\mu}~~,
{}~~~~~~<0|a_{\mu}|\eta_6(q)>~\sim F_{\eta_6}q_{\mu}}
\auto$$ while the vector currents remain conserved. (Note that $a_{\mu}$ should actually contain a small admixture of the triplet quark flavor singlet axial current if it is to generate the U(1) symmetry orthogonal to that broken by the QCD $U(1)$ anomaly).
We consider next the coupling of the electroweak gauge fields to the sextet quark sector. The massless $SU(2)$ gauge fields $W^{\tau}_{\mu}$ couple to the isotriplet sextet quark currents in the standard manner, that is $$\eqalign{{\cal L}_I=gW^{\tau\mu}\Bigl(V^{\tau}_{\mu}-A^{\tau}_{\mu}\Bigr)}
\auto$$ It follows from (2) and (3) that the $\pi^+_6,\;\pi^-_6$ and $\pi^0_6$ are “eaten” by the $SU(2)$ gauge bosons and (after the hypercharge interaction is included) respectively become the third components of the $W^+,\;W^-$ and $Z^0$. Consequently, QCD chiral symmetry breaking generates masses for the $W^+,\;W^-$ and $Z^0$ with $M_W\sim g\;F_{\pi_6}$ where $F_{\pi_6}$ is [*a QCD scale*]{}. We anticipate that the relative scales of triplet and sextet chiral symmetry breaking are determined by the “Casimir Scaling” rule[@wjm], i.e. if $C_6$ and $C_3$ are sextet and triplet Casimirs respectively, then $$\eqalign{C_6\alpha_s(F^2_{\pi_6})~\sim~C_3\alpha_s(F^2_{\pi})}
\auto$$ which is consistent with $F_{\pi_6}\sim 250$ GeV!
We conclude that a sextet sector of $QCD$ produces a special version of “technicolor” symmetry breaking in which [**the electroweak scale is naturally explained as a second $QCD$ scale**]{}. Also since we are completely restricted to a flavor doublet the form of the symmetry-breaking is automatically equivalent to that of an $SU(2)$ Higgs sector and so $$\eqalign{\rho=~(M^2_W/M^2_Zcos^2\theta_W)~=~1}
\auto$$ as required by experiment.
Therefore introducing a sextet quark sector not only produces a matching of the asymptotic freedom and confinement properties of $QCD$ via the Critical Pomeron, but also gives a natural solution to the major problem of today’s Standard Model i.e. the nature of electroweak symmetry breaking. [**The sextet sector may**]{}, as we now discuss, [**also be deeply tied up[@kkw; @arw3] with the issue of Strong $CP$ conservation.**]{}
The $\eta_6$ is not involved in generating mass for the electroweak gauge bosons, but instead remains as a Goldstone boson associated with a $U(1)$ axial chiral symmetry. It is therefore an axion[@wil] in the original sense of the Peccei-Quinn mechanism[@pq] and it remains massless until triplet quark masses are added to the theory. In the present context, this involves the addition of triplet/sextet four-fermion couplings (that should ultimately be traceable to a larger unifying gauge group), which, when combined with the sextet quark condensate, provide triplet quark masses. That $CP$ remains conserved by QCD triplet quark interactions then follows from the original Peccei-Quinn argument utilising the sextet axial $U(1)$ symmetry.
At this stage another very important property of QCD with $N_f = N_f^{max}$ is crucial. It seems that renormalon singularities are completely absent in the Borel plane[@arw1; @cjm]. This implies that perturbation theory is much more convergent and that [**instanton interactions are both infra-red finite and provide all the non-perturbative physics**]{} of the theory. Instanton interactions are therefore well-defined at the lowest infra-red scale of the theory, i.e. the electroweak scale. Combining this with the extremely slow evolution of the gauge coupling, the instanton interactions are then enhanced by integration over an extremely wide size range (for the instanton involved). Consequently the $\eta_6$ can aquire a large, i.e. electroweak scale, mass as a result of electroweak scale (and higher) color instanton interactions[@arw3] and, unlike a conventional Peccei-Quinn axion, is certainly not ruled out experimentally. Indeed it may even have been seen[@kkw]. Clearly all of the particular properties of QCD with color sextet quarks play an intrinsic role in this very special resolution of the Strong CP problem.
A rather complicated set of fermion vertices is actually generated by the electroweak scale instanton interactions. Because of the distinct Casimirs involved, the singlet current $$\eqalign{J^0_{\mu}~=~a^6_{\mu}-5a^3_{\mu}}
\auto$$ is conserved in the presence of instantons (6 and 3 now denote sextet and triplet currents respectively). Consequently the minimum instanton interaction involves one quark/antiquark pair of each triplet flavor and five pairs of each sextet flavor. Combining this interaction with the existence of both sextet and triplet chiral condensates (and, also, four-fermion vertices coupling triplets and sextets) a wide assortment of fermion vertices is produced. As we discuss further in the next Section, we expect that these vertices will play a major role in strong interactions above the electroweak scale.
Finally we note that [**the sextet sector may also be responsible for $CP$ violation at the weak scale**]{}. Because the [**sextet sector has no axion**]{} the QCD interactions at this scale will naturally be [**“Strong $CP$-violating”. The familiar triplet quark hadrons will contain a small admixture of sextet quark states - which could provide their $CP$ violating interactions**]{}.
Before we go on to the the new strong interactions and their consequences for Cosmic Ray physics, we would like to emphasize the (unconventional) implication of the foregoing arguments. Namely that understanding the intricacies of the strong interaction may actually provide answers to remaining problems of the weaker interactions. Or equivalently
- [**the QCD Pomeron may be the Key to Many of the Remaining Puzzles of the Standard Model**]{}
Above the sextet chiral scale, that is the electroweak scale, the sextet sector will be a major part of the QCD interaction. $QCD_{max}$ (that is QCD with $N_f = N_f^{max}$ - via the triplet and sextet sectors) is a very different gauge theory to those conventionally studied. The gauge coupling is relatively small and effectively does not run. While the sextet sector can, presumably, be integrated out to give conventional QCD at low energies, at high energy we can expect very different behavior. Some “non-perturbative” physics will perhaps be understood via conventional non-perturbative QCD ideas in terms of sextet flux tubes etc.. However, many non-perturbative effects will surely be directly dependent on the multitude of higher-order (instanton) fermion interactions involving sextet quarks. (We have emphasized that these interactions are enhanced by the gauge coupling not running). As illustrated in Fig. 5, these interactions will generate high-order vertices coupling $W$’s, $Z$’s, and $\eta_6$’s, with $${\openup3\jot
\eqalign{ \Gamma_{mW,~nZ,~r\eta_6}~~
&\sim ~~~{F_{\pi_6}~(momentum scale)^2 \over \VEV{q_6\bar{q}_6}} ~~~
\Gamma_{(m-1)W,~nZ,~r\eta_6}\cr
&\sim ~~~{F_{\pi_6}~(momentum scale)^2 \over \VEV{q_6\bar{q}_6}} ~~~
\Gamma_{mW,~(n-1)Z,~r\eta_6}\cr
&\sim ~~~{F_{\pi_6}~(momentum scale)^2 \over \VEV{q_6\bar{q}_6}} ~~~
\Gamma_{mW,~nZ,~(r-1)\eta_6}\cr}}
\auto$$ where $\VEV{q_6\bar{q}_6}$ is the sextet condensate and $(\VEV{q_6\bar{q}_6})^{{1 \over 3}}~\sim~ F_{\pi_6}~\sim$ 250 GeV.
The $W^{+,-}$, $Z^0$ and $\eta_6$ are the “PIONS” of the sextet sector and, as we have just described, they will be multiply produced, via a “hard” interaction at the electroweak scale. Since the mass and decay properties of the $\eta_6$ are not well understood[@kkw] and it has, of course, not yet been discovered, we will concentrate mainly on multiple $W$ and $Z$ production.
Because of the Casimir effect, we anticipate that sextet states will have a stronger coupling to gluons, and hence to the Pomeron, than does the triplet sector. Therefore
- [**sextet states will have larger hadronic cross-sections than triplet states (i.e. conventional hadrons)**]{}
My work[@arw1] on high-energy hadrons interacting via the Pomeron can be heuristically understood if we visualize a hadron as a conventional bag containing quarks but with the surface containing a “topological condensate” due to instanton interactions and expanding as illustrated in Fig. 6.
- Heuristic picture of a high-energy hadron and the Pomeron as perturbative gluon exchange in a topological condensate background.
In first approximation, the Pomeron can then, as illustrated, be thought of as one gluon exchange within the overlapping topological gauge fields of the scattering hadrons. (Note that this automatically gives the “additive quark model” result that the Pomeron couples directly to a single quark in a hadron).
The topological gauge fields of the hadrons will also, via instanton interactions, be responsible for multiple $W$ and $Z$ production accompanying the perturbative gluon interaction. Therefore we conclude that a major component of the new strong interactions above the electroweak scale will be
- [**diffractive production, with very high transverse momentum, of states containing large numbers of $W$’s and $Z$’s.**]{}
This will be one major ingredient of our discussion of Cosmic Ray effects.
Next we note that the sextet quark sector will produce new BARYONS of the form $$\eqalign{~\bar{q}_6qq~,~q_6\bar{q}\bar{q}~,~\bar{q}_6\bar{q}_6q~,
{}~q_6q_6\bar{q}~,~\bar{q}_6\bar{q}_6\bar{q}_6~,~
q_6q_6q_6~,}
\auto$$ There will also be VECTOR MESONS of the form $$\eqalign{q_6\bar{q}_6}
\auto$$
The sextet quark constituent mass is presumably of the same order of magnitude or a little larger than the chiral scale and so for definiteness we will take it to be $\sim 400$ GeV. Clearly the lightest new states will be the BARYONS containing just one sextet quark. Their mass will be very close to the sextet mass i.e. $\sim 400$ GeV and since, within $QCD_{max}$, sextet and triplet baryon numbers are separately conserved, they will be very stable. We refer to BARYONS containing two (triplet) quarks as $P$’s and those containing two antiquarks as $\bar{P}$’s. The VECTOR MESONS will decay into the PIONS of the theory and so will give resonance production of $W$’s, $Z$’s and $\eta_6$’s at the TeV scale. The higher mass BARYONS will presumably decay into $P$’s and $\bar{P}$’s (together with appropriate combinations of normal hadrons).
For the next Section it will be crucial that [**the $P$’s and $\bar{P}$’s are sufficiently stable that sometimes (but not always) they survive a trip (with collisions) from near the top of the atmosphere down to mountain-top detectors.**]{}
If the $P$’s and $\bar{P}$’s are to decay, there must be a further (unifying) interaction coupling the two distinct quark sectors. At first sight this could be a high mass (GUT) gauge boson. But the absence of proton decay probably makes it very difficult to construct such a theory consistently if the BARYONS are to decay much faster than protons! An alternative[@kk] is that within the unified theory, there are further color octet quarks ($q_8$) (these could be “leptoquarks”) that enter at a mass scale just a few orders of magnitude above the electroweak scale. At this scale the unified theory can be asymptotically free even though the QCD subsector will not be. If the unified theory is chiral then in general two-fermion condensates are not gauge invariant. Gauge-invariant condensates must contain at least four fermion fields and so it is natural[@kk] to expect that, at the new high mass scale, condensates of the form $$\eqalign{ \VEV{q_8q_8q_6q_3}}
\auto$$ will exist. QCD instanton interactions, at this scale, will then produce the appropriate sextet quark decays. We therefore assume that
- [**$P$’s and $\bar{P}$’s are “semistable” with a decay rate determined by a mass scale much larger than the electroweak scale. We anticipate that their decay modes will include states containing multiple $W$’s and $Z$’s.**]{}
Clearly BARYONS can be pair-produced diffractively by the Pomeron (in particular, via an instanton interaction), also VECTOR MESONS can be produced with an accompanying $W$’s and/or $Z$’s. From the experimental evidence on the diffractive production of strange baryons[@R608] illustrated in Fig. 7, we can assume that this production process will have some important properties, which we can explain as follows.
Because the Pomeron couples predominantly to a single quark in a proton, two constituent quarks persist in the forward direction of the initial proton (with around 90% probability) during any diffractive excitation process. If a new forward going baryon is to be formed then this is achieved by the vacuum production of additional quark-antiquark pairs in the center of mass of the scattered quark and the forward going diquark system. (This process can be an instanton interaction). There are two consequences of this production mechanism which will carry over directly into the diffractive production of BARYONS.
Firstly, because only a single quark can be replaced in the fast proton if a BARYON-ANTIBARYON pair is produced
- [**there is a charge bias in the production of the forward produced BARYON - it is necessarily positively charged or neutral. Correspondingly the charge of the ANTIBARYON state produced away from the forward direction is either negative or neutral.**]{}
Secondly, if all vacuum pairs involved are produced (almost) at rest in the center of mass of the scattered quark and diquark system then, as is illustrated by the data for diffractive production of $\Lambda^0\bar{\Lambda}^0$ pairs shown in Fig. 7,
- [**the full diffractively produced state is approximately coplanar - it lies in the plane formed by the momenta of the forward going fast BARYON and the (ANTI-)BARYON with the smallest forward momentum.**]{}
With all of the properties highlighted in this Section in hand we can now try to explain at least part of the wide range of Cosmic Ray exotica.
In this Section I will go through the phenomena I listed in the Introduction, giving a brief summary of the experimental results and then describing their interpretation in terms of the physics of the last Section. Since I am not an expert I may well have misunderstood some of the phenomena involved. If so I apologize to the authors involved.
[**Strong attenuation of family production, as observed in emulsion chambers, together with a sharp change in the electromagnetic and hadronic energy spectra.**]{}
Such effects have been seen by the Chacaltaya and Pamir collaborations and more distinctively in the highest energy results of the HADRON experiment at Tien-Shan. Figs. 8(a) and 8(b) show that the combination of low family flux and small energy spectrum indices for constituent showers in the Chacaltaya/Pamir data[@cp] is not fit by any of the conventional models. As shown in Fig. 8(c), the discrepancy is less if a heavy nuclei primary composition is assumed.
Fig. 9(a) shows a possibly related effect in the data[@nik] from the HADRON experiment. The $\gamma$ spectrum of shower cores scales up to a certain energy and then softens as the energy increases. As is shown, the softening could be reproduced by a heavy primary composition but the overall intensity would be much too high. Fig. 9(b) shows that the assumption of a heavy primary composition is inconsistent with the muon multiplicity distribution obtained at Tien-Shan.
The change of the $E_{\gamma}$ spectrum suggests the existence of a physical threshold around the knee energy. It also implies that, for some fraction of the Chacaltaya/Pamir events, the primary energy may be higher than given by conventional physics models. Therefore new physics above the threshold may be involved in these events also.
My explanation of these phenomena is close to that already suggested by those working on the HADRON experiment[@nik]. At high enough energies, production of the heavy, semistable, $P$’s and $\bar{P}$’s will be a significant part of the diffractive and fragmentation cross-sections. Since these BARYONS are semi-stable they will propagate for large distances within the shower, sometimes reaching the detector. The evolution of that part of the shower energy not in the heavy BARYONS wil be normal but will clearly produce far fewer gamma and hadron families. This effect is labeled “fragmentation region disappearance" by Nikolsky[@nik] who argues that the particles involved should have a mass $\geq$ 400 GeV. This explanation achieves the same effective reduction of primary energy as heavy nuclei primaries would do, but without the high multiplicity muon production that is not seen in Fig. 9(b).
A heavy primary composition for energies around $10^{16}$ GeV is also incompatible with the Soudan 1 underground muon multiplicity[@soud]. Recent MACRO data[@mac] shown in Fig. 10(a) leads to a similar conclusion. As is shown in Fig. 10(b), the high multiplicity tail of this distribution is determined by the highest primary energies, whatever (conventional physics) composition model is utilised. [**The absence of a large number of high multiplicity muon events is clearly a major problem for any explanation of very high energy Cosmic Ray phenomena that apppeals to a large heavy nuclei composition.**]{}
[**Small $X_{max}$ for high-energy air showers with $E^0 \sim 10^{17}$ eV together with a fast rise of $X_{max}$ as the energy increases.**]{}
This is the Fly’s Eye result[@fly]. As illustrated in Fig. 11, results for the lowest energies i.e. $E^0 \sim 10^{17}$ eV, give a sufficiently low average value for $X_{max}$ that a very strong heavy nuclei composition has to be used to fit the data with conventional physics models. However, as the energy rises this average increases too fast and the distribution changes too much for a single composition model to fit the data. It is necessary to vary the composition with energy as illustrated. The initial heavy nuclei composition is again at variance with the lack of high-multiplicity underground muon events mentioned above.
My explanation here is, in part, the same as for the previous effect. At the lower end of the energy range the production of the heavy, semistable, BARYONS will reduce the development of the shower and the consequent average $X_{max}$ in the same manner as the heavy nuclei composition. However, as we get to energies high compared even to the sextet scale we can expect that, in analogy with the triplet sector, high multiplicity PION states will be the dominant sextet states produced. That is the production of $W$’s, $Z$’s and $\eta_6$’s will dominate. Since these states are all unstable the showers will develop more like normal proton showers. This could produce naturally the required energy dependence of the $X_{max}$ distribution without any dramatic change in composition.
[**Shorter “hadronic” interaction length in emulsion and lead chambers.**]{}
The results of the Chacaltaya/Pamir collaboration[@cp1] are shown in Fig. 12. Both in the Chacaltaya emulsion chambers and in the Pamir lead chambers there is a pronounced decrease in the hadronic interaction length in the highest energy showers.
I attribute this in part to the higher hadronic cross-section of those sextet BARYONS that reach the detector. Also multiple $W$, $Z$ and $\eta_6$ intermediate states will produce major decay modes involving heavy flavors, leptons, and photons, which may be partly responsible for the effect.
[**Anomalous penetration in the atmosphere and in detectors, involving the production of intense “halos” in the highest energy showers.**]{}
Examples of events which have extreme penetration in lead[@cp1] and in emulsion chambers[@cp] are shown in Fig. 13. Some of them continue producing new showers down to an extraordinary depth. At the highest energies the cores of such showers contain very intense halos recorded on X-ray films.
These effects have to be produced by BARYONS that enter the detector. Multi-halo events should presumably be interpreted as involving multi-BARYON states, although the initial production of very energetic $W$’s and $Z$’s could also be involved. In the very highest energy events there could even be VECTOR MESON resonances.
[**Coplanarity of multi-halos.**]{}
The coplanarity of multi-halos in very high energy showers is a striking phenomenon having an established statistical significance. Results from the Pamir collaboration[@pam] are illustrated in Fig. 14. The X-rays for individual events are shown as well as the energy-dependence of the alignment. A table also illustrates how conventional models fail to produce the alignment. The experimenters emphasize that the total cross-section for halo events is far too large for them to originate from minijet configurations[@hal].
My description of the alignment phenomenon in diffractive production of BARYONS provides a direct explanation of this phenomenon. It is the same as is seen in the diffractive production of strange baryons at the ISR!
[**Large $p_{\perp}$ production of “Centauros” - with low electromagnetic energy, and “Chirons” - with apparent anomalously low $p_{\perp}$ in secondary showers.**]{}
Familiar plots of hadronic versus electromagnetic energy for Chacaltaya/Pamir[@cp] data and the comparison with simulations are shown in Fig. 15. Centauro events represent the extreme of a general phenomenon that less electromagnetic energy is produced than in normal pion production events. The overall $p_{\perp}$ involved is apparently large but from their narrowness, the $p_{\perp}$ in secondary showers appears to be anomalously small. The general class of events with these $p_{\perp}$ properties are referred to as Chirons.
As we have said, BARYONS will generally be produced in the initial atmospheric collision of the Cosmic Ray primary. We can assume they will sometimes decay directly just above or in the detector. Often they will undergo secondary collisions and then decay similarly. The collisions and (or) the decay will involve very high initial $p_{\perp}$ and can take place sufficiently close to the detector that secondary $p_{\perp}$ within produced showers is normal even though they appear anomalously narrow. Since multiple $W$, $Z$ and $\eta_6$ intermediate states will again be involved, we can anticipate that in general the production of heavy flavors, taus and muons, will produce final states that will be interpreted as anomalously “hadron-rich” in the detector.
[**Excess of (underground) muon pairs with large separation.**]{}
The underground muon experiments also measure the distribution of the distance separation of muon pairs. The MACRO distributions[@mac1] are shown in Fig. 16. There is an apparent excess at large distances which would not be expected from conventional physics models. Not surprisingly, I would like to interpret the excess as evidence that $Z^0$’s are being directly produced, with a hadronic cross-section, in high-energy Cosmic Rays. Potentially $Z^0$ events could be explicitly identified. This could provide, strong, direct evidence for new physics such as I am proposing.
[**Large zenith angle excess of high-energy air showers and azimuthal asymmetry in $\gamma$ and hadron family production.**]{}
Finally I come to some further results from the HADRON experiment. Fig. 17 shows[@dy] the zenith angle dependence for high-energy showers at two energies. The straight lines are conventional physics simulations at the two energies. There is a clear excess at large zenith angle at the highest energy. Also shown, in Fig. 17(b), is the zenith angle dependence of a break in the general size (energy) spectra of the showers. It is interesting that the break is essentially independent of the zenith angle and is located at the energy of the knee, in the conventionally induced primary energy spectrum. Since showers at different angles degrade differently in the atmosphere this, in itself, suggests that there is some physics effect in the break which is not simply related to the primary spectrum. Indeed it clearly leads to the suggestion[@nik; @dy], referred to in the Introduction, that there is a “new physics” effect involved in the knee, and not just a simple change in spectrum.
In Fig. 18 we show the most exotic (and, if it should be confirmed, perhaps the most exciting) result from the HADRON experiment. A striking asymmetry in the azimuthal angular dependence[@che] of the large zenith angle showers is shown. This could perhaps be explained[@che] as due to the earth’s magnetic field if massive, [**negatively charged**]{}, particles are preferentially responsible for the showers.
I interpret these last results as evidence that in initial atmospheric collisions secondary, semi-stable, very energetic, particles are produced at varying (relatively) large angle, which are then interpreted as (separated) large zenith angle primary showers. If such secondary particles are responsible for the excess, this could explain why the spectrum break is at the same shower size independently of the zenith angle. My proposal is, of course, that the secondary particles are BARYONS. According to our diffractive production argument above, the larger angle BARYONS contributing to the larger zenith angle showers will be [**preferentially negatively charged.**]{}
It seems possible therefore that [**the azimuthal asymmetry could be explained by the charge asymmetry of the larger angle versus forward angle diffractive production of BARYON pairs**]{} described in the last Section.
If the new physics seen in Cosmic Rays were simply diffractive production of $W$ and $Z$ pairs (or perhaps $\eta_6$ pairs) then we might estimate the effective threshold to be, say, $x = (1 - M^2/s) \geq 0.96$ i.e. $$\eqalign{ \sqrt{s}~~\geq~~5~M ~~&\sim~~5~\times~160~~ GeV\cr
&\sim ~~800~ GeV}$$ and so to be visible at the Fermilab Tevatron. Indeed, it remains possible that $W$ pairs are produced, in some number, relatively far forward since this would be impossible to determine with the present detectors.
From our discussion in previous sections it is clear that the more distinctive effects involve at least BARYON pair production. The corresponding diffractive threshold would then be roughly $$\eqalign{ \sqrt{s}~~\geq~~5~M ~~&\sim~~5~\times~800~~ GeV\cr
&\sim ~~4~ TeV}$$ which is consistent with the Cosmic Ray effects. Of course, we can also expect some effects of the new sector to show up at energies well below the diffractive threshold.
Indeed we might expect the new quark sector to first show up in the highest transverse energy (but very rare) hard scattering events. Instanton interactions will provide transitions from the (light) triplet quark sector, to the sextet sector. Amongst the simplest possible states that can be produced are $W^+W^-$, $Z^0Z^0$, $\eta_6\eta_6$, $Z^0\gamma$ and $\gamma\gamma$. There were indications from UA1[@UA1] that the hard scattering cross-section for $W$ pairs is indeed anomalously large. The events at CERN were detected in the $WW \to $ leptons + 2 jet channel, which, of course, has a relatively large branching ratio. However, at the Tevatron this channel may be obscured since the background from conventional QCD processes is much larger than at the CERN collider. Nevertheless an excess of very high energy hard scattering events may be accumulating at the Tevatron (including $Z^0\gamma$ and $\gamma\gamma$ events). Although these events are not yet statistically significant, they may become so as the experiments continue to take data.
Enhanced electroweak scale instanton interactions can provide transitions from the familiar (light) triplet quark sector, not only to the sextet sector we have been discussing, but also to states that are a combination of sextet and (preferentially) heavy triplet quarks, and even to purely triplet heavy quark states. This implies that the top quark (with a mass of $\sim$ 170 Gev according to recent CDF results[@cdf]) may have a larger production cross-section than standard perturbative estimates would give. Additional states that can be produced include $$\eqalign{ W^+W^-~+ ~b\bar{b}~,~~~~Z^0Z^0~+~b\bar{b}~, ~~~...}$$ The first state can clearly be directly confused with top production. Indeed in the CDF analysis[@cdf] searching for candidate top events, a few events have been found which are candidates to be identified with the second final state. In many respects, these events strongly resemble those identified as top events, but they should not be present at all according to the Standard Model. This clearly suggests that some of the candidate top events might in fact be direct $WW + b\bar{b}$ events. CDF also has a clear $WZ$ event which has a very low probability to occur, according to the Standard Model. An instanton interaction has to conserve charge in the sextet sector but could produce a $WWZ$ state, with one $W$ in a region of phase space where it escapes detection.
We conclude that [**a glimpse of sextet quark physics at the Tevatron collider may have already been provided**]{}. As data is accumulated it should become clear whether this is indeed the case. If it is, [**there will be a lot more than top quark production that provides “new physics” in the highest-energy hard scattering events.**]{}
[99]{}
S. I. Nikolsky, [*XXIII ICRC, Calgary,*]{} [**4**]{}, 243 (1993), S. B. Shaulov, [*VII International Symposium on Very High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions,Michigan*]{} , 94 (1992).
A. R. White, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**A8**]{}, 4755 (1993).
A. R. White, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**A6**]{}, 1859 (1991).
A. A. Migdal, A. M. Polyakov and K. A. Ter-Martirosyan, [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{} [**67**]{}, 84 (1974); H. D. I. Abarbanel and J. B. Bronzan, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D9**]{}, 2397 (1974).
T. Gaisser and C-I. Tan, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D8**]{}, 3881 (1973); J. W. Dash, E. Manesis and S. T. Jones, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D18**]{}, 303 (1978).
T. Banks and A. Zaks, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B196**]{}, 189 (1982).
D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D8**]{}, 3633 (1973).
W. J. Marciano, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D21**]{}, 2425 (1980) ; E. Braaten, A. R. White and C. R. Willcox, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**A1**]{} 693 (1986).
K. Kang and A. R. White, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**A2**]{}, 409 (1987).
K. Kang, I. G. Knowles and A. R. White, [*Mod. Phys. Letts.*]{} [**A8**]{}, 1611 (1993)
A. R. White, ANL-HEP-CP-93-56 (1993).
S. Weinberg, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**40**]{}, 223 (1978); F. Wilzcek, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**40**]{}, 279 (1978).
R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**38**]{}, 1440 (1977).
A. H. Mueller, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B250**]{}, 327 (1985); C. N. Lovett-Turner and C. J. Maxwell, Durham Preprint, DTP/94/58 (1994).
R608 Collaboration, [*Phys. Letts.*]{} [**B163**]{}, 267 (1985).
Chacaltaya and Pamir Collaboration, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B370**]{}, 365 (1992).
U. Das Gupta et al., [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D45**]{}, 1459 (1992).
The MACRO collaboration, [*XXIII ICRC, Calgary,*]{} [**2**]{}, 97 (1993).
T. Gaisser et al., [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D47**]{}, 1919 (1993), P. Sokolsky, [Highlight talk, XXIII ICRC, Calgary]{} (1993).
Chacaltaya and Pamir Collaboration, [*XXIII ICRC, Calgary,*]{} [**4**]{}, 116-139 (1993).
S. A. Slavatinsky, [*VII International Symposium on Very High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions,Michigan*]{}, 3 (1992).
F. Halzen and D. A. Morris, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D52**]{}, 1435 (1990).
The MACRO collaboration, [*XXIII ICRC, Calgary,*]{} [**2**]{}, 93 (1993).
L. G. Dedenko and V. I. Yakovlev, [*XXIII ICRC, Calgary,*]{} [**4**]{}, 387 (1993).
K. V. Cherdyntseva et al., [*XXIII ICRC, Calgary,*]{} [**4**]{}, 88 (1993).
A. Bohrer - UA1 Collaboration, [*Proceedings of the 8th Topical Workshop On Proton-Antiproton Collider Physics, Italy*]{} (1989).
CDF Collaboration, [*Phys. Rev. Letts.*]{} [**73**]{}, 225 (1994), Fermilab Preprint FERMILAB-Pub-94/097-E (1994).
[**Figure Captions**]{}
- Multiperipheral pion production generating the Regge pole Pomeron.
- Varying multiplicity densities on the rapidity axis generate higher-order Pomeron diagrams.
- Evolution of the $\beta$-function with $N_f$ - (a) $N_f \sim 5,6$ (b) $N_f \sim 14,15$ (c) $N_f = 16$
- The Critical Pomeron asymptotic diffraction peak appproaches a simple peak if quark masses are sent to zero.
- Instanton interactions combined with condensates generate multiple vertices for $W$’s, $Z$’s and $\eta_6$’s,
- Coplanar diffractive production of strange baryons in experiment R608 at the ISR.
- Relation between the the family flux and power indices of the energy spectrum $\beta$ (a) for single core showers and (b) for shower clusters, in the energy range of 10-50 TeV, for the joint (J), Pamir (P) and Chacaltaya (C) chambers, compared to simulation models. (b) The single-core comparison when a heavy primary composition is used in the models.
- \(a) Energy spectra of $\gamma$-quanta and electrons in EAS cores with varying primary energies. The wide shaded strip is a simulation with primary protons, the narrow strip is with a heavy nuclei composition. (b) The experimental muon multiplicity distribution compared to simulations with 1) heavy nuclei primary composition 2) an increasing inelasticity coefficient and 3) the energy of the fragmentation region is lost from the hadron-electron cascades.
- \(a) The underground muon multiplicity distribution results from the MACRO experiment. (b) The relationship between muon multiplicities and primary energy in conventional physics simulation models.
- Average $X_{max}$ as a function of primary energy. Black dots : data. Open squares : simulation with a proton dominant primary composition. Open circles : simulation with a dominant heavy nuclei composition. Diamonds : simulation with an energy-dependent composition.
- \(a) Distribution of shower starting position for Chiron-type families observed by Chacaltaya two-storey chambers. The dotted line represents exponential decrease with the geometrical attenuation mean free path. (b) The $\Delta$T distribution of 170 hadrons with $E_{\gamma} \geq 10$ TeV in 16 high energy famlies with $E_{family} \geq 700$ TeV observed in the thick lead chambers of the Pamir experiment. (c) For comparison the $\Delta$T distribution of all hadrons in the Pamir lead chamber.
- \(a) Shower transitions with spot darkness plotted against depth for two events in the Pamir lead chambers (b) Examples of strongly penetrating, small spread, shower clusters in Chacaltaya chambers.
- a\) Darkness contours on X-ray films for 6 Pamir multicore halo events. b) The energy dependence of the percentage of four-core events satisfying $\lambda_4 \geq 0.8$ where $\lambda_4$ is a suitably defined alignment parameter. c) Table comparing alignment percentages for simulations and experimental data.
- \(a) The upper graph is a scatter plot of the number of hadrons, $N_h (E_h^{(\gamma)} \geq 4$ TeV) in a family and the fraction of the family energy carried by hadrons $Q_h ~(\equiv \sum E_h^{(\gamma)} /
\sum E_{(\gamma)} + E_h^{(\gamma)})$. Closed circles are for 173 families in the joint chambers and 135 families in the Pamir chambers, and open circles are for 121 families in the Chacaltaya chambers. The lower graph is a simulation. The primary composition assumed is - solid black dot = proton, open dot = alpha, diamond = CNO, x = heavy, + = iron. (b) Is the same as (a) but with the families selected to have lateral spread $\VEV{E^*R^*} < 300$ GeV.m.
- The MACRO distance separation for muon pairs compared with simulations (a) for muon pairs within all muon events (b) for dimuon events only.
[^1]: Work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, ContractW-31-109-ENG-38
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'T.J.C. Oude Vrielink\* $^{1}$, Y.W. Pang \*$^{2}$, M. Zhao$^{1}$, S.-L. Lee$^{2}$, A. Darzi$^{1}$ and G.P. Mylonas, *member,IEEE*$^{1}$[^1] [^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'bibfile.bib'
title: '**Surgical task-space optimisation of the CYCLOPS robotic system** '
---
INTRODUCTION
============
OPTIMISATION METHOD
===================
The core concept of the CYCLOPS is shown in Fig \[fig\_FBD\]. The cables/tendons of the CDPM are introduced via fulcrum points into a rigid peripheral structure - the scaffold - and are connected to overtubes. Commercially available flexible instruments are placed into the overtube and manipulated by the tendons. The tendons are guided via pulleys or flexible transmission conduits - e.g. Bowden cables - to remotely placed motors. The current ESD CYCLOPS system, as shown in Fig \[CYCLOPS\]a, uses additive manufacturing to create the stainless steel deployable scaffold. The design is parametric and can be optimised according to specific requirements, including anatomical constraints as well as taskspace requirements. The position of the tendon entry points into the scaffold, the attachment points on the overtube, and the overtube shape deteremine the workspace of the instruments. Forces can only be exerted in the positive direction of the cables, and thus the number of tendons $ n $ must be at least one larger than the degrees of freedom $ m $: $ n \geq m + 1 $. The redundancy in actuation requires the calculation of the optimal tension distribution that satisfies the static or dynamic equilibria of the system. Section IIa introduces the method for calculation of the workspace and the optimal tension distribution. These concepts are used for the optimisation algorithm discussed in section IIb. Section IIc shows the optimisation algorithm compared to the standard configuration, as defined in that section.
Workspace estimation and optimal tension distribution
-----------------------------------------------------
Taskspace Optimisation algorithm
--------------------------------
Comparison of Optimisation method with the standard configuration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To illustrate the effect of the optimisation algorithm, a comparison is made with the standard configuration, used as the tendon configuration in current CYCLOPS systems. The standard configuration is defined in this section. The standard configuration has the tendons placed in an equilateral triangle (projected on the YZ-plane), as this has shown to be beneficial in terms of end-effector stiffness. The front and back entry points, as well as the front and back attachment points, are placed on a separate plane . The distance between the front and rear attachment point plane is defined as $ L_{att} $. Similarly, the distance between the front and rear entry points planes are defined as $ L_{entry} $. To fit a task-space within the workspace of the standard configuration, minor optimisation is done by a grid-search over parameters $ L_{att} $ and $ L_{entry}$. A full grid-search over all variables has shown to be cumbersome and computational expensive, and therefore, has never been used in practice.
For comparison between both methods, a simple mock-up task was recorded with the data collection rig (discussed in next section), and the taskspace was placed in a convenient place for the standard configuration to reach all points in their predetermined orientations. Subsequently, our proposed optimisation method was set with the same size constraints.
The results are shown in Fig. \[fig\_baseline\]. The volume of the workspace is calculated as $34.23cm^3$ and $48.18cm^3$, for the standard and optimised configuration, respectively. Both configurations can achieve the full taskpace. It can be seen that for this specific simple taskspace, the developed optimisation method is able to achieve a configuration that is able to increase the overal workspace of the system, without comprimising the task. A more extensive comparison is shown in section IV.
![Baseline comparison between the standard configuration as defined in section IIc (left) and the optimisation method described in section IIb (right). []{data-label="fig_baseline"}](./graphics/figs/results_baseline){width="3.5in"}
DATA COLLECTION
===============
CASE-STUDY: OPTIMISATION FOR ESD
================================
Anatomical considerations
-------------------------
Task Specification
------------------
Collected Data
--------------
Optimization Parameters and Procedure Constraints
-------------------------------------------------
Comparison Method
-----------------
The optimised system is compared to the standard configuration to illustrate the benefits. The standard configuration is defined similar as described in section IIc. To account for the curvature, the tip of the instrument is placed in the centre-point of the taskspace, and the mean yaw and pitch angles from the dataset is used to set the orientation. A comparison was maid for a bowel diameter of 70mm, for a single and double-curved instrument. The double-curved case was also compared for a 60mm bowel diameter. The minimal and maximum allowable tensions for both cases are set to $1N$ and $60N$,respectively. The forces on the left instrument are determined by the collected force data, whereas the right instrument has a weight of $ F_z = 0.1N$ acting on the overtube.
Results
=======
Discussion
==========
CONCLUSIONS
===========
ACKNOWLEDGMENT {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work is supported by the ERANDA Rothshild Foundation.
[^1]: \*T.J.C. Oude Vrielink and Y.W. Pang are joint first authors
[^2]: $^{1}$HARMS Lab, Department of Surgery, Imperial College London, W2 1PF London, UK. [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: $^{2}$ Department of Computing, Imperial College London
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report 3D numerical simulations of the flow of an electrically conducting fluid in a spherical shell when an magnetic field is applied. Different spherical Couette configurations are investigated, by varying the rotation ratio between the inner and the outer sphere, the geometry of the imposed field, and the magnetic boundary conditions on the inner sphere. Either a Stewartson layer or a Shercliff layer, accompanied by a radial jet, can be generated depending on the rotation speeds and the magnetic field strength, and various non-axisymmetric destabilizations of the flow are observed. We show that instabilities arising from the presence of boundaries present striking similarities with the magnetorotational instability (MRI). To this end, we compare our numerical results to experimental observations of the Maryland experiment, who claimed to observe MRI in a similar setup.'
author:
- Christophe Gissinger
- Hantao Ji
- Jeremy Goodman
title: Instabilities in magnetized spherical Couette flow
---
Introduction
============
Spherical Couette flow, i.e. the flow between differentially rotating concentric spheres, has attracted a revival of interest in recent years. It has been shown that despite the simplicity of the problem, the flow undergoes many bifurcations as Reynolds number increases, depending in ratios of sphere radii and rotation speeds. When one considers an electrically conducting fluid and imposes magnetic field, magnetohydrodynamic effects can significantly change the purely hydrodynamical problem and lead to new instabilities. This problem has evident consequences in geophysical and astrophysical contexts (stars, planetary interiors), where setups similar to magnetized spherical Couette flow are often encountered.
This problem has also been extensively studied in cylindrical Taylor-Couette flow, i.e. the viscous flow between two differentially rotating concentric cylinders. This interest in magnetized conducting fluids confined by rotating walls has been renewed in the last decade by investigation of the magnetorotational instability (MRI) in the laboratory. The MRI is currently the best candidate to explain angular momentum transport in accretion disks around stars and black holes [@BalbusHawley91]. Balbus and Hawley, rediscovering an instability first studied by Velikhov[@Velikhov59] and Chandrasekhar [@Chandra60], have shown that a weak magnetic field can destabilize otherwise stable Keplerian flows. The MRI eventually yields a magnetohydrodynamical turbulent state, enhancing the angular momentum transport and allowing inward flow, as observed in accretion disks.
Several experiments are currently working on this instability. The Princeton experiment has been designed to observe MRI in a Taylor-Couette flow of liquid Gallium, with an axial applied magnetic field [@Ji06]. So far, MRI has not been identified, but non-axisymmetric modes have been observed when a strong magnetic field is imposed [@Nornberg10]. The PROMISE experiment, in Dresden, is based on a similar set-up, except that the applied field possesses an azimuthal component. Axisymmetric traveling waves have been obtained, and identified as being Helical MRI, an inductionless instability different from but connected to the standard MRI [@Stefani06].
On the other hand, spherical Couette flows have been widely studied, through theoretical analyses, laboratory experiments, and numerical simulations. For instance, without magnetic field but for sufficiently large Reynolds numbers, it is known that the flow can be hydrodynamically unstable to a rich variety of axisymmetric and non-axisymmetric modes. When a magnetic field is applied, additional magnetohydrodynamic effects are generated. Hollerbach [@Hollerbach94] first shows numerically that a free shear layer is created in the flow when a strong magnetic field is imposed. This configuration was later asymptotically analyzed by Kleeorin et al [@Kleeorin97] and Starchenko [@Starchenko98]. When the inner sphere is conducting, Dormy et al [@Dormy98] discovered that imposing a dipolar magnetic field yields a super-rotating jet, that is, a region of fluid with angular velocity larger than either boundary’s. This super-rotation was recently observed experimentally in the DTS experiment, using a spherical shell filled with liquid Sodium in presence of a dipolar magnetic field imposed by a permanent magnet inside the inner sphere [@Brito11],[@Nataf08]. More recently, it was shown that several non-axisymmetric instabilities are generated from these magnetized spherical Couette flows, including destabilization of the meridional return flow [@Hollerbach09],[@Travnikov11], or from the free shear layers and jets produced by the magnetic field [@Hollerbach01], [@Wei08].
A few years ago, it has been claimed that MRI was obtained in a spherical Couette flow of liquid Sodium in Maryland [@Sisan06]. In this experiment, in which the outer sphere is at rest and an external axial magnetic field is applied parallel to the rotation axis, non-axisymmetric oscillations of both velocity and magnetic fields have been observed, together with an increase of the torque on the inner sphere. Although the instability appears from a hydrodynamical state already turbulent, these oscillations have been interpreted as a signature of the MRI.
In this article, we numerically investigate magnetized spherical Couette flow for different configurations, including a setup similar to the Maryland experiment. In the first section, we present the equations and the numerical method used to study this problem. In sections II and III, we report numerical simulations with a dipolar magnetic field applied to the flow, and with a rotating outer sphere. We show that magnetized spherical Couette flow yield different non-axisymmetric instabilities with a rich variety of structures and non-linear interactions. We compare our MHD instabilities to the MRI, and highlight the striking similarities between both type of instabilities, including the enhancement of angular momentum transport and the transition to MHD turbulence. Finally, our numerical results using an axial magnetic field are directly compared to the Maryland experiment.
I Equations
============
We consider the flow of an electrically conducting fluid induced in a spherical shell. The aspect ratio of the inner sphere radius $r_i$ to the outer radius $r_o$ is set to $0.35$. $\Omega_i$ and $\Omega_o$ are respectively the angular speed of the inner and the outer sphere. The governing equations for this problem are the Navier-Stokes equations coupled to the induction equation : $$\rho{\partial {\bf u}\over \partial t} + \rho\left( {\bf u}{\bf \nabla}\right)
{\bf u}=-{\bf \nabla}P+\rho\nu{\bf \nabla}^{2}{\bf u} +{\bf j}\times{\bf B} \ .
\label{NS}$$ $${\partial{\bf B}\over\partial t}={\bf \nabla}\times\left({\bf u}\times{\bf B}\right)+{1\over\mu_{0}\sigma}{\bf \nabla}^2{\bf B} \ .
\label{ind}$$
where $\rho$ is the density, $\nu$ the kinematic viscosity, $\eta=1/(\sigma\mu_0)$ is the electrical resistivity, ${\bf u}$ is the fluid velocity and ${\bf B}$ the magnetic field. Lengths are scaled by the shell gap $l_0=r_o-r_i$, and we use the viscous time $t_0=l_0^2/\nu$ as a typical time scale. The magnetic field ${\bf B}$ is scaled by $\sqrt{\rho\mu_0\eta\Omega_i}$. The problem is thus characterized by $3$ dimensionless numbers: the Reynolds number $Re=(\Omega_i
l_0^2)/\nu$, the magnetic Reynolds number $Rm=(\Omega_i l_0^2)/\eta$ and the Elsasser number $\Lambda=B_0/\sqrt{\Omega_i\rho\mu_0\eta}$. It is also useful to define the magnetic Prandtl number $Pm=\nu/\eta$, which is simply the ratio between Reynolds numbers. The magnetic and kinetic energies reported in this article are respectively scaled by $\rho\nu\Omega_i$ and $\rho\nu^2/l_0^2$, and the torques by $\rho\nu
l_0$. These equations are numerically integrated using the PARODY code [@Dormy98],[@Christensen01]. In this code, velocity and magnetic fields are decomposed in poloidal and toroidal components and expanded in spherical harmonics. In the radial direction, a finite differences method is used on an irregular mesh, which decreases in geometrical progression towards the boundaries. Time stepping is implemented by a Crank-Nicholson scheme for the diffusive terms and an Adams-Bashforth for the non-linear terms. Depending on the values of our dimensionless numbers, typical numerical resolutions involve between $150$ and $250$ radial grid points and between $64$ and $150$ spherical harmonics degrees and orders.
Magnetized spherical Couette flow has been largely studied in an interesting series of papers [@Hollerbach01], [@Hollerbach09], [@Wei08] and some of these results are confirmed by the present work. However, these previous studies rely on the assumption that the magnetic Reynolds number $Rm$ can be neglected for very resistive fluids. This assumption greatly simplifies the governing equations, in particular the time derivative can be omitted from the induction equation (\[ind\]). This is one of the motivations for the present study, since induction processes could play an important role when describing liquid metal experiments. In particular, a finite value of $Rm$ is necessary to observe the standard magnetorotational instability. For instance, in the Maryland experiment (initially designed to observe dynamo action), the electrical conductivity of the liquid Sodium yields magnetic Reynolds numbers up to $30$, meaning that $Rm$ can no longer be neglected in the MHD equations.
II Dipolar magnetic field and global rotation
==============================================
In this section and the next one, the inner sphere is rotating such that $\Omega_i/\Omega_o=8$. The global rotation of the system is thus relatively weak. This configuration is particularly interesting in the context of MRI experiments. Indeed, in a cylindrical geometry, this choice of the rotation ratio would correspond to a system slightly below the Rayleigh stability criterion, but MRI unstable. Both spheres are taken insulating and an internal dipolar magnetic field (held by the inner sphere) is applied to the system. The magnetic Prandtl number is set to $1$ in this section.
-5mm
![Purely hydrodynamical Couette flow, obtained for $Re=2000$ and $\Omega_i/\Omega_o=8$ . Left: Radial component $u_r$ of the axisymmetric velocity. Note the strong equatorial jet in the midplane. (lines represent streamlines of the axisymmetric poloidal recirculation). Right: angular velocity in the meridional plane, showing a broad Stewartson layer on the tangent cylinder. Contours of $\Omega$ are also shown.[]{data-label="Couette"}](figure/pri0E4e3_VpoloF.pdf "fig:"){height="55mm"} ![Purely hydrodynamical Couette flow, obtained for $Re=2000$ and $\Omega_i/\Omega_o=8$ . Left: Radial component $u_r$ of the axisymmetric velocity. Note the strong equatorial jet in the midplane. (lines represent streamlines of the axisymmetric poloidal recirculation). Right: angular velocity in the meridional plane, showing a broad Stewartson layer on the tangent cylinder. Contours of $\Omega$ are also shown.[]{data-label="Couette"}](figure/pri0E4e3_VtoroF.pdf "fig:"){height="55mm"}
For small Reynolds numbers and with no magnetic field applied, the solution is axisymmetric and corresponds to the well known spherical Couette solution. It consists of a strong azimuthal flow associated with a poloidal recirculation. The Taylor-Proudman theorem states that for a sufficiently strong global rotation of the system, the velocity tends to be uniform in the $z$ direction, due to a dominant balance between the pressure gradient and the Coriolis force [@Proudman56]. As a consequence, the flow outside the tangent cylinder is in solid body rotation with the outer sphere. The difference of rotation between inner and outer spheres, together with the Taylor-Proudman constraint, yield the so-called Stewartson free shear layer, located on the tangent cylinder [@Stewartson66]. Inside the Stewartson layer, the azimuthal flow rapidly varies from the velocity of the outer sphere (outside the tangent cylinder) to a velocity intermediate between inner and outer spheres (inside the tangent cylinder). The structure of the axisymmetric component of the flow for $Re=2000$ is illustrated in figure \[Couette\], and shows a Stewartson layer developing on the tangent cylinder. Note that since these numerical simulations involve a relatively weak global rotation, the Stewartson layer is diffuse. Moreover, because of the differential rotation between the inner and the outer sphere, the poloidal recirculation is characterized by a strong equatorial jet in the midplane. A similar jet can be observed in Taylor-Couette flow with short aspect ratio (see for instance [@Kageyama04]).
-5mm
![Parameter space for a dipolar magnetic field applied to a system such that $\Omega_i=8\Omega_o$, and with insulating spheres. Green squares indicate $m=2$ hydrodynamical instabilities modified (and suppressed at large $\Lambda$) by the applied field. Red circles are MHD instabilities of the return flow or the free shear layer triggered by the magnetic field, dominated by $m=1$ and $m=2$ azimuthal wavenumbers. Black crosses indicate classical spherical Couette solutions, purely axisymetric.[]{data-label="pri_param"}](figure/pri_paramF.pdf){height="72mm"}
For sufficiently large Reynolds number, this axisymmetric state becomes unstable to non-axisymmetric perturbations. Figure \[pri\_param\] shows the different states obtained in the parameter space $(Re,\Lambda)$, and their corresponding marginal stability curves. For $Re>2000$, the destabilization of the spherical Couette flow yields a non-axisymmetric instability, strongly dominated by the azimuthal wavenumber $m=2$ (green squares in figure \[pri\_param\]).
In figure \[Stew\] (bottom), we report the structure of this hydrodynamical instability by showing the non-axisymmetric radial component of the velocity field. The non-axisymmetric pattern drifts at a constant speed in the azimuthal direction. A cut in the equatorial plane (left) shows the $m=2$ structure of the instability, and the meridional plane (right) illustrates its symmetry with respect to the equatorial plane. Following [@Hollerbach09], we denote this state by ’symmetric’, i.e. velocity and magnetic fields satisfy: $$\begin{gathered}
\left(u_r, u_\theta, u_\phi, B_r, B_\theta, B_\phi\right)(r,\theta,\phi)= \\
\left( u_r, -u_\theta, u_\phi,-B_r,B_\theta,-B_\phi\right)(r,\pi-\theta,\phi)\end{gathered}$$ whereas antisymmetric modes satisfy: $$\begin{gathered}
\left(u_r, u_\theta, u_\phi, B_r, B_\theta, B_\phi\right)(r,\theta,\phi)= \\
\left( -u_r, u_\theta, -u_\phi,B_r,-B_\theta,B_\phi\right)(r,\pi-\theta,\phi)\end{gathered}$$
In such spherical Couette flows, two distinct situations are generally considered: configurations with a strong global rotation, or configurations with the outer sphere at rest. Two types of instability are thus observed when $Re$ is increased: In the first case, the Stewartson layer is destabilized and rolls up into a series of vortices in the $(r,\phi)$ plane, leading to an equatorially symmetric mode localized on the tangent cylinder. In the second case, if $Re$ is sufficiently large, the strong equatorial jet becomes unstable by adopting a wavy structure, and yields an antisymmetric mode localized in the equatorial plane. In the present configuration, global rotation is relatively small and Reynolds numbers are large enough for both instabilities to be generated, so the interpretation is not as clear-cut. Indeed, as it can be seen in figure \[Stew\], the instability is symmetric with respect to the equator and consists of a series of vortices in the horizontal plane (i.e. the velocity perturbations are mainly horizontal), as it is expected from a Stewartson layer instability. Note however that a large part of the energy of the mode is localized in the equatorial plane, suggesting the the system is close to a transition to an equatorial jet instability.
![Top: Evolution of magnetic and velocity modes when the Elsasser number is increased, for $Re=4000$. The hydrodynamical $m=2$ non-axisymmetric instability is suppressed by the action of the applied dipolar magnetic field. Bottom: Non-axisymmetric $u_r$ showing the structure of the hydrodynamical instability in the equatorial plane (left) and in a meridional plane at $\phi=0$ (right), for $Re=4000$ and $\Lambda=0$. On the left are also indicated streamlines of the horizontal flow of the instability integrated in the $z$-direction.[]{data-label="Stew"}](figure/priE2e3_bifStewF.pdf){height="50mm"}
![Top: Evolution of magnetic and velocity modes when the Elsasser number is increased, for $Re=4000$. The hydrodynamical $m=2$ non-axisymmetric instability is suppressed by the action of the applied dipolar magnetic field. Bottom: Non-axisymmetric $u_r$ showing the structure of the hydrodynamical instability in the equatorial plane (left) and in a meridional plane at $\phi=0$ (right), for $Re=4000$ and $\Lambda=0$. On the left are also indicated streamlines of the horizontal flow of the instability integrated in the $z$-direction.[]{data-label="Stew"}](figure/pri0E2e3_Vr_equaF.pdf "fig:"){height="45mm"} ![Top: Evolution of magnetic and velocity modes when the Elsasser number is increased, for $Re=4000$. The hydrodynamical $m=2$ non-axisymmetric instability is suppressed by the action of the applied dipolar magnetic field. Bottom: Non-axisymmetric $u_r$ showing the structure of the hydrodynamical instability in the equatorial plane (left) and in a meridional plane at $\phi=0$ (right), for $Re=4000$ and $\Lambda=0$. On the left are also indicated streamlines of the horizontal flow of the instability integrated in the $z$-direction.[]{data-label="Stew"}](figure/pri0E2e3_Vr_meridF.pdf "fig:"){height="45mm"}
When a magnetic field is applied to this new hydrodynamical state, the instability can be suppressed: the flow is hydrodynamically unstable only in a limited pocket in the parameter space (suggested by the green dashed line in figure \[pri\_param\]). Figure \[Stew\] (top) shows a bifurcation diagram of the $m=2$ component of the kinetic and magnetic energies when $\Lambda$ is increased, for $Re=4000$. It illustrates the inhibiting role of the magnetic field: this $m=2$ non-axisymmetric mode is strongly damped by the applied field. It is interesting to note that the observation of the magnetic energy alone would rather suggests a destabilizing effect of the magnetic field. For $\Lambda\sim 0.35$, the instability is completely suppressed, and the solution is back to an axisymmetric state.
In addition to this stabilizing effect, the applied magnetic field is also able to drive instabilities. In figure \[pri\_param\], the red circle indicate non-axisymmetric states, different from the hydrodynamical instabilities described previously.
This has been interpreted as a destabilization of the poloidal return flow by the applied field. In recent inductionless simulations, Hollerbach [@Hollerbach09] has shown that in the presence of a weak magnetic field, the poloidal return flow is destabilized to a non-axisymmetric state. As the intensity of the magnetic field is increased, this instability continuously connects to another type of instability related to a free shear layer in the flow. Indeed, when a strong magnetic field is applied to a spherical Couette flow, the magnetic tension couples fluid elements together along the direction of magnetic field lines. This creates a particular surface $\Sigma$ in the flow, separating the region where magnetic field lines are connected to both spheres from the region where magnetic field lines are only touching one of the sphere. Depending on the region considered, the flow will behave very differently. For instance, when the applied field is dipolar, like in this section, $\Sigma$ is defined by magnetic field lines just touching the outer sphere at the equator. In this case, the fluid inside $\Sigma$, coupled only to the inner sphere, co-rotates with it, whereas fluid outside $\Sigma$ rotates at an intermediate velocity (except near the sphere boundaries). The jump of velocity on the surface $\Sigma$ therefore results in a new free layer, the so-called Shercliff layer [@Shercliff53]. This effect was first described in spherical geometry by Starchenko [@Starchenko98], who found that the thickness of this layer scales like $(\Lambda\sqrt{Re})^{-1/2}$. Like the Stewartson layer, the Shercliff layer becomes unstable to non-axisymmetric perturbations when the shear is strong enough. However, in the case of a dipolar applied field, the significance of the field lines $\Sigma$ can be completely eliminated if the Reynolds number is large enough [@Hollerbach07], and only instabilities of the return flow will remain. Despite the differences in the geometry of the applied field and in the parameter regime, it is surprising to note that our figure \[pri\_param\] is very similar to Fig.$2$ of [@Hollerbach09].
![Bifurcation diagram of the magnetic energy when the Elsasser number $\Lambda$ is increased for a fixed Reynolds number $Re=2000$. Note the non-axisymmetric destabilization of the meridional return flow by the applied field, dominated by $m=1$ and $m=2$ non-axisymmetric modes. Strong applied fields suppress these MHD instabilities.[]{data-label="ScherB"}](figure/priE4e3_bifBF.pdf){height="60mm"}
Figure \[ScherB\] shows the evolution of the non-axisymmetric components of the magnetic field when the Elsasser number is increased, for $Re=2000$. For this small Reynolds number, both Stewartson layer and equatorial jet are hydrodynamically stable to non-axisymmetric perturbations for $\Lambda=0$. As $\Lambda$ is increased from this axisymmetric state, the return flow becomes unstable, and the system undergoes a bifurcation to an $m=1$ rotating mode at $\Lambda_c=0.2$ (corresponding to red dots in figure \[pri\_param\]).
When $\Lambda$ is increased further, one observes a transfer between this $m=1$ mode and an $m=2$ structure. Figure \[Struc\_m1\] shows that the modes are still symmetric with respect to the midplane. The structure of the instability is similar to the one obtained in [@Hollerbach09] and the localization of the energy of the mode indeed suggests that the instability is related to the meridional return flow. Note however that close to the threshold, our large $Rm$ calculations lead to the generation of an $m=1$ mode, whereas inductionless simulations of [@Hollerbach09] predicted an $m=2$ mode.
When $m=1$ and $m=2$ azimuthal modes are both excited, a phase locking is achieved between these two modes, and nonlinear interactions can become important. Finally, if the Elsasser number is increased up to $1.8$, the magnetic tension of the applied magnetic field suppresses any instability, and the system comes back to an axisymmetric state.
![Structure of the MHD instability for $Re=2000$. The figure shows the radial non-axisymmetric component of the magnetic field just above the equatorial plane (left) or in a given meridional plane at $\phi=0$(right). The two top figures show the $m=1$ mode obtained for $\Lambda=0.35$ and the two bottom figures show the field obtained for $\Lambda=0.9$, dominated by the $m=2$ azimuthal wavenumber.[]{data-label="Struc_m1"}](figure/pri4E4e3_Br_equaF.pdf "fig:"){height="45mm"} ![Structure of the MHD instability for $Re=2000$. The figure shows the radial non-axisymmetric component of the magnetic field just above the equatorial plane (left) or in a given meridional plane at $\phi=0$(right). The two top figures show the $m=1$ mode obtained for $\Lambda=0.35$ and the two bottom figures show the field obtained for $\Lambda=0.9$, dominated by the $m=2$ azimuthal wavenumber.[]{data-label="Struc_m1"}](figure/pri4E4e3_Br_meridF.pdf "fig:"){height="45mm"}
![Structure of the MHD instability for $Re=2000$. The figure shows the radial non-axisymmetric component of the magnetic field just above the equatorial plane (left) or in a given meridional plane at $\phi=0$(right). The two top figures show the $m=1$ mode obtained for $\Lambda=0.35$ and the two bottom figures show the field obtained for $\Lambda=0.9$, dominated by the $m=2$ azimuthal wavenumber.[]{data-label="Struc_m1"}](figure/pri2p5E4e3_Br_equaF.pdf "fig:"){height="45mm"} ![Structure of the MHD instability for $Re=2000$. The figure shows the radial non-axisymmetric component of the magnetic field just above the equatorial plane (left) or in a given meridional plane at $\phi=0$(right). The two top figures show the $m=1$ mode obtained for $\Lambda=0.35$ and the two bottom figures show the field obtained for $\Lambda=0.9$, dominated by the $m=2$ azimuthal wavenumber.[]{data-label="Struc_m1"}](figure/pri2p5E4e3_Br_meridF.pdf "fig:"){height="45mm"}
III Comparison with MRI
=======================
At this point, we would like to briefly compare these instabilities, mainly due to the presence of boundaries, to what would be expected in a cylindrical geometry. Chandrasekhar [@Chandra60] and Velikhov [@Velikhov59] first studied the effect of an axial applied magnetic field on a Couette flow confined between two infinite cylinders. They considered rotations of the cylinders such that the flow is stable under the centrifugal instability. According to the Rayleigh criterion, this means that the rotation profile follows $\Omega\sim r^\gamma$, with $\gamma>-2$. However, this flow can be destabilized by applying an magnetic field to the system if $\gamma<0$. This powerful magnetorotational instability (MRI), later rediscovered by Balbus and Hawley in the framework of accretion disks, yields a radial outflow of angular momentum and can lead to an MHD turbulent state. The magnetic field can also have a stabilizing effect: for unstable flow satisfying $\gamma<-2$, the magnetic field is able to suppress the centrifugal instability [@Chandra61]. Finally, the MRI is also suppressed if the applied magnetic field is too strong.
Despite the fact that MRI is generally considered as a local instability (without regard to the boundaries of the system) , it is interesting to note that most of the above features are encountered in the instabilities of our finite geometry system. First, figure \[pri\_param\] shows that the MHD instability is excited only in a delimited pocket in the parameter space: it requires a finite value of the magnetic field to be unstable, but is stabilized if the applied magnetic field is too strong. Second, the critical value of the Elsasser number for restabilization rapidly increases with $Rm$, similarly to the magnetorotational instability. In addition, one can find similarities between the suppression of the hydrodynamical instability by the magnetic field and the suppression of the centrifugal instability in Taylor-Couette flow.
From an astrophysical point of view, an important characteristic of the MRI is its ability to ensure an efficient outward transport of the angular momentum and to yields accretion, and eventually turbulence. Since there are different ways to measure the level of fluctuations in our simulations, we compare three different quantities. For instance, we computed the quantity $\zeta={\sqrt{<(u_\phi-<u_\phi>)^2>}\over\sqrt{<u_\phi>^2}}$, measuring the level of fluctuation of $u_\phi$, where $<>$ denotes time averaging. The velocity is probed in the equatorial plane at $r=0.7$ and $\phi=0$. Figure \[turb\] shows the evolution of $\zeta$ when the Elsasser number is increased, for a fixed value of the Reynolds number $Re=1000$. In figure \[turb\], we also show the evolution of the parameter $\beta={<(u_\phi-<u_\phi>)(u_r-<u_r>)>\over<u_\phi>^2}$ related to the Reynolds stress, and the evolution of the excess torque $G$ applied on the inner sphere, which quantify the amount of angular momentum transported. For this value of $Re=8000$, the purely hydrodynamical state consists of a basic spherical Couette flow associated with an $m=2$ component, and the total kinetic energy is steady. As $\Lambda$ is increased, the flow becomes unstable to several azimuthal wavenumbers, and non-linear interactions rapidly lead to a chaotic evolution of the flow. As can be seen on figure \[turb\], this corresponds to a growth of the three quantities $\zeta$, $\beta$ and $G$, evidencing an increase of the level of turbulence and of the amount of angular momentum transported outward. This transition is illustrated by the two snapshots of figure \[turb\]: for $\Lambda=0$ (left), the radial flow taken at $r=(r_o+r_i)/2$ is dominated by a smooth $m=2$ perturbation. For $\Lambda=1$ however (right), far from the MHD instability onset, the velocity field appears more fluctuating and spatially disorganized. It is remarkable that the three different quantities used to measure this transition show a good agreement. This is particularly interesting for comparison between different experiments, where only either torque or velocity measurements are often available.
![Effect of the imposed magnetic field on the turbulence level, for $Re=8000$ and $\Omega_i=8\Omega_o$. Top: non-axisymmetric $u_\phi$ at the spherical surface of radius $r=1.2$ showing that for $\Lambda=0.$ (left), the flow is dominated by an $m=2$ mode due to an hydrodynamic instability, and is weakly fluctuating. Right: For $\Lambda=1$, when boundary-driven instabilities are generated by the applied field, the flow becomes more complicated and chaotic. Bottom: evolution of the turbulence intensity when the magnetic field is increased. MHD instabilities due to boundaries yield turbulent fluctuations and angular momentum transport, similarly to the MRI.[]{data-label="turb"}](figure/pri0E1e3_Vp_spherF.pdf "fig:"){height="35mm"} ![Effect of the imposed magnetic field on the turbulence level, for $Re=8000$ and $\Omega_i=8\Omega_o$. Top: non-axisymmetric $u_\phi$ at the spherical surface of radius $r=1.2$ showing that for $\Lambda=0.$ (left), the flow is dominated by an $m=2$ mode due to an hydrodynamic instability, and is weakly fluctuating. Right: For $\Lambda=1$, when boundary-driven instabilities are generated by the applied field, the flow becomes more complicated and chaotic. Bottom: evolution of the turbulence intensity when the magnetic field is increased. MHD instabilities due to boundaries yield turbulent fluctuations and angular momentum transport, similarly to the MRI.[]{data-label="turb"}](figure/pri8E1e3_Vp_spherF.pdf "fig:"){height="35mm"}
![Effect of the imposed magnetic field on the turbulence level, for $Re=8000$ and $\Omega_i=8\Omega_o$. Top: non-axisymmetric $u_\phi$ at the spherical surface of radius $r=1.2$ showing that for $\Lambda=0.$ (left), the flow is dominated by an $m=2$ mode due to an hydrodynamic instability, and is weakly fluctuating. Right: For $\Lambda=1$, when boundary-driven instabilities are generated by the applied field, the flow becomes more complicated and chaotic. Bottom: evolution of the turbulence intensity when the magnetic field is increased. MHD instabilities due to boundaries yield turbulent fluctuations and angular momentum transport, similarly to the MRI.[]{data-label="turb"}](figure/priE1e3_bifCFBF.pdf){height="50mm"}
Here again, we find that this instability plays a role similar to the MRI, by destabilizing an otherwise stable flow and leading to a strong MHD turbulent state. These striking similarities between our instability and the magnetorotational instability have important consequences for experimental studies of the MRI. In particular, it points out the difficulties to make a clear distinction between both types of instability from experimental diagnostics. In the next section, we therefore compare our numerical simulations to experimental results obtained in the Maryland experiment, which have been interpreted as non-axisymmetric MRI.
IV Comparison with experiments: axial field and outer sphere at rest
=====================================================================
In this section, we now keep the outer sphere at rest, and the applied magnetic field is purely axial, aligned with the axis of rotation. While the outer sphere is always taken insulating, two types of boundary conditions have been used for the inner sphere: insulating or conducting (with the same electrical conductivity as the fluid). This configuration is similar to the one used in the Maryland experiment. This experiment consists of Sodium flowing between an inner sphere of radius $a=0.050$ m and an outer sphere of radius $b=0.15$ m. The inner sphere is made of high conductivity copper, and an external axial magnetic field is applied coaxially using a pair of electromagnets. In [@Sisan06], the authors report that axisymmetric and non-axisymmetric modes are spontaneously excited for sufficiently large $Rm$ when a magnetic field is applied. Most of the parameter space is dominated by an $m=1$ precessing pattern, and the appearance of these instabilities is correlated with a strong increase of the torque applied on the inner sphere. Some of the non-axisymmetric modes are suppressed for large magnetic field. These results have been interpreted by the authors to be a signature of the magnetorotational instability. Note that since the outer sphere is at rest, the background flow is already very turbulent without applied field, in contrast with the initial stable laminar state generally considered in studies of MRI.
As can be seen in figure \[sis0\], the flow without magnetic field is very different from the one obtained in the previous sections, when the outer sphere was rotating: a strong equatorial jet is produced in the midplane, and no Stewartson layer is generated. It is useful to introduce the velocity exponent $\gamma=\partial \log\Omega(r)/\partial
\log r$, where $\Omega(r)$ is the rotation rate at a cylindrical radius $r$. The Rayleigh criterion for stability, $\gamma>-2$, is thus expected to be violated when the outer sphere is at rest. However, in [@Sisan06], a very weak level of turbulent fluctuations has been reported, together with a velocity exponent around $-1.5$, surprisingly close to a stable keplerian flow. In figure \[sis0\], we show the radial profile of $\gamma(r)$, for different altitudes $z$ in a purely hydrodynamical simulation. Except near the boundaries (where the flow is strongly Rayleigh unstable), stable profiles with $\gamma>-2$ can be obtained, depending on the altitude $z$ (for instance, $\gamma \sim -1$ at $z=0.2$ ). However, as the measurements are done closer to the midplane, the velocity exponent significantly decreases, and unstable profiles are obtained, with $\gamma$ much smaller than $-2$. This is also the case if $z$ is too large. This variability of the angular profile underlines the difficulties of studying the MRI in a spherical Couette flow, particularly in the absence of global rotation uniformizing the flow in the axial direction.
![Top: Structure of the spherical Couette flow when the outer sphere is now at rest, for $\Lambda=0$ (left) and $\Lambda=2$ (right), with $Re=5000$. Colors indicate azimuthal flow $u_\phi$ and streamlines show the meridional recirculation. Note the absence of Stewartson layer in the purely hydrodynamical case (no global rotation) and the generation of the Shercliff layer in the magnetized one. Bottom: Velocity exponent $\gamma$ taken at different altitude $z$, for $\Lambda=0$. Note the Rayleigh unstable profiles ($\gamma<-2$) close to the midplane.[]{data-label="sis0"}](figure/sis0E2e4_flowF.pdf "fig:"){height="50mm"} ![Top: Structure of the spherical Couette flow when the outer sphere is now at rest, for $\Lambda=0$ (left) and $\Lambda=2$ (right), with $Re=5000$. Colors indicate azimuthal flow $u_\phi$ and streamlines show the meridional recirculation. Note the absence of Stewartson layer in the purely hydrodynamical case (no global rotation) and the generation of the Shercliff layer in the magnetized one. Bottom: Velocity exponent $\gamma$ taken at different altitude $z$, for $\Lambda=0$. Note the Rayleigh unstable profiles ($\gamma<-2$) close to the midplane.[]{data-label="sis0"}](figure/siC8E2e4vPm0p01_flowF.pdf "fig:"){height="50mm"}
![Top: Structure of the spherical Couette flow when the outer sphere is now at rest, for $\Lambda=0$ (left) and $\Lambda=2$ (right), with $Re=5000$. Colors indicate azimuthal flow $u_\phi$ and streamlines show the meridional recirculation. Note the absence of Stewartson layer in the purely hydrodynamical case (no global rotation) and the generation of the Shercliff layer in the magnetized one. Bottom: Velocity exponent $\gamma$ taken at different altitude $z$, for $\Lambda=0$. Note the Rayleigh unstable profiles ($\gamma<-2$) close to the midplane.[]{data-label="sis0"}](figure/exponentF.pdf){width="60mm"}
As $Re$ is increased, the flow undergoes bifurcations to non-axisymmetric modes. Indeed, it is well known that for sufficiently large Reynolds number, the equatorial jet becomes unstable to non-axisymmetric perturbations, and gives rise to a Kelvin-Helmoltz instability. The critical wavenumber for this instability depends on the aspect ratio and on the Reynolds number. Figure \[bif\_hydro\_sis2\] shows a bifurcation diagram of the kinetic energy as $Re$ is increased. The flow bifurcates to a non-axisymmetric state at $Re=2700$, where the equatorial jet is destabilized to an $m=3$ structure. For higher $Re$, there is a transition to an $m=2$ mode. It is numerically expensive to conduct simulations at higher Reynolds numbers, but it is expected that successive bifurcations involving higher azimuthal wavenumbers eventually yield a turbulent state. It has been recently shown that these non-axisymmetric instabilities can trigger dynamo action, but only when $Pm>1$ [@Guervilly10], which will not be considered here. An important feature is that these non-axisymmetric modes are antisymmetric, in contrast with the symmetric hydrodynamical modes obtained when the outer sphere is rotating.
![Bifurcation diagram of the total kinetic energy when $Re$ is increased. The outer sphere is at rest and Elsasser number is set to zero. As $Re$ is increased, the equatorial jet adopts a wavy structure corresponding to non-axisymmetric modes, first $m=3$ then $m=2$. For larger $Re$, it is expected that the flow tends to a fully turbulent state.[]{data-label="bif_hydro_sis2"}](figure/bif_hydro_sisF.pdf){height="60mm"}
Let us now study the magnetized regime. In this section, the magnetic Prandtl number is set to $Pm=0.01$, which allows us to obtain magnetic Reynolds number $Rm$ comparable to the ones used in the Maryland experiment. In the presence of an external axial magnetic field, the system exhibits most of the features obtained with a rotating outer sphere and described in the previous section of this article. For instance, when a magnetic field is applied to the hydrodynamical state, the non-axisymmetric destabilizations of the equatorial jet can be suppressed. Various non-axisymmetric states, different from this equatorial jet instability, are also generated by the magnetic field. In figure \[sis0\]-right, we show the flow obtained when a strong axial magnetic field is applied (with a conducting inner sphere).
In this case, the particular surface $\Sigma$ (which separates flow into two regions according to whether magnetic field lines are touching both spheres or only one of them) is located on the tangent cylinder: the fluid is at rest with the outer sphere outside the tangent cylinder, while the fluid inside the tangent cylinder rotates at $\Omega_i$ (for a conducting inner sphere) or at the intermediate rate $\Omega_i/2$ (for an insulating inner sphere). The spatial extension of the Ekman recirculation is also reduced. As noted before, this shear layer becomes unstable to non-axisymmetric perturbations for sufficiently large Reynolds number. For smaller values of the applied field, the return flow instability described in the previous section is also generated.\
-4mm ![Bifurcation diagram of the magnetic energy when $\Lambda$ is increased, for $Re=5000$ and $Rm=50$, with an outer sphere at rest and an axial applied magnetic field (Maryland experiment configuration). Top: insulating inner sphere. Bottom: conducting inner sphere. In the latter case, a good agreement with the Maryland experiment is obtained, including the generation of an $m=1$ mode and increase of the torque on the inner sphere (to be compared with Fig.4 of [@Sisan06]).[]{data-label="siH"}](figure/siHE2e4vPm0p01F.pdf "fig:"){height="50mm"}
-1mm
![Bifurcation diagram of the magnetic energy when $\Lambda$ is increased, for $Re=5000$ and $Rm=50$, with an outer sphere at rest and an axial applied magnetic field (Maryland experiment configuration). Top: insulating inner sphere. Bottom: conducting inner sphere. In the latter case, a good agreement with the Maryland experiment is obtained, including the generation of an $m=1$ mode and increase of the torque on the inner sphere (to be compared with Fig.4 of [@Sisan06]).[]{data-label="siH"}](figure/siCE2e4vPm0p01bF.pdf){height="55mm"}
![Structure of the MHD instabilities for $Re=5000$ with an insulating inner sphere and an axial field, formed of vortices in the horizontal plane. Figure shows the radial non-axisymmetric component of the velocity field $u_r$ in the equatorial plane (left) or in a given meridional plane at $\phi=0$(right). The two top snapshots show the $m=2$ mode obtained for $\Lambda=0.6$ (instability related to the meridional return flow) and the two bottom snapshots show the field obtained for $\Lambda=2.$ (Shercliff layer instability).[]{data-label="shercliff_insu"}](figure/siHvizu1F.pdf "fig:"){height="45mm"} ![Structure of the MHD instabilities for $Re=5000$ with an insulating inner sphere and an axial field, formed of vortices in the horizontal plane. Figure shows the radial non-axisymmetric component of the velocity field $u_r$ in the equatorial plane (left) or in a given meridional plane at $\phi=0$(right). The two top snapshots show the $m=2$ mode obtained for $\Lambda=0.6$ (instability related to the meridional return flow) and the two bottom snapshots show the field obtained for $\Lambda=2.$ (Shercliff layer instability).[]{data-label="shercliff_insu"}](figure/siHvizu2F.pdf "fig:"){height="45mm"}
![Structure of the MHD instabilities for $Re=5000$ with an insulating inner sphere and an axial field, formed of vortices in the horizontal plane. Figure shows the radial non-axisymmetric component of the velocity field $u_r$ in the equatorial plane (left) or in a given meridional plane at $\phi=0$(right). The two top snapshots show the $m=2$ mode obtained for $\Lambda=0.6$ (instability related to the meridional return flow) and the two bottom snapshots show the field obtained for $\Lambda=2.$ (Shercliff layer instability).[]{data-label="shercliff_insu"}](figure/siHvizu3F.pdf "fig:"){height="45mm"} ![Structure of the MHD instabilities for $Re=5000$ with an insulating inner sphere and an axial field, formed of vortices in the horizontal plane. Figure shows the radial non-axisymmetric component of the velocity field $u_r$ in the equatorial plane (left) or in a given meridional plane at $\phi=0$(right). The two top snapshots show the $m=2$ mode obtained for $\Lambda=0.6$ (instability related to the meridional return flow) and the two bottom snapshots show the field obtained for $\Lambda=2.$ (Shercliff layer instability).[]{data-label="shercliff_insu"}](figure/siHvizu4F.pdf "fig:"){height="45mm"}
Figure \[siH\] shows the evolution of the magnetic energy of different azimuthal modes for $Re=5000$ and $Rm=50$ as a function of the Elsasser number $\Lambda$.
In figure \[siH\]-top, the inner sphere is insulating. In the whole range of Elsasser numbers explored here, the magnetic energy is dominated by an $m=2$ instability. At small Elsasser number ($\Lambda<0.5$), this corresponds to the hydrodynamical jet instability, equatorially antisymmetric, which extends into the magnetized regime. For $\Lambda>0.5$, a different instability occurs, which is symmetric with respect to the equator. Figure \[shercliff\_insu\] shows the structure of this instability for two different Elsasser numbers. As $\Lambda$ is increased, the oscillations gradually transits from a return flow instability associated with the meridional recirculation (top, $\Lambda=0.6$), to a Shercliff layer instability (bottom, $\Lambda=2$). In the latter case, the energy is concentrated on the tangent cylinder and consists of a series of vortices roughly independent of the $z$-direction.
![Structure of the $m=1$ instability obtained for $\Lambda=0.5$, $Re=5000$ and $Rm=50$, in the case of a conducting inner sphere. Left: non-axisymmetric $V_r$ in the meridional plane at $\phi=0$. Right: non-axisymmetric $B_r$ at the surface of the outer sphere. The structure is identical to the mode observed in the Maryland experiment, with the same equatorial and azimuthal symmetries.[]{data-label="m1Pm0p01"}](figure/siC2E2e4vPm0p01_Vr_meridF.pdf "fig:"){height="40mm"} ![Structure of the $m=1$ instability obtained for $\Lambda=0.5$, $Re=5000$ and $Rm=50$, in the case of a conducting inner sphere. Left: non-axisymmetric $V_r$ in the meridional plane at $\phi=0$. Right: non-axisymmetric $B_r$ at the surface of the outer sphere. The structure is identical to the mode observed in the Maryland experiment, with the same equatorial and azimuthal symmetries.[]{data-label="m1Pm0p01"}](figure/siC2E2e4vPm0p01_Vr_spherF.pdf "fig:"){height="40mm"}
In figure \[siH\]-bottom, the inner sphere is electrically conducting. The electrical conductivity is identical to that of the fluid, and thus smaller than the conductivity used in the Maryland experiment, where an inner sphere made of copper is used. In spite of this difference and of our lower Reynolds number, our numerical simulations show a very good agreement with the results obtained in the experiment (see for instance figure $4$ of [@Sisan06]):\
- An $m=1$ mode is generated in a range of the Elsasser number similar to the experiment. The generation of this $m=1$ mode is clearly due to the conductivity of the inner sphere. Note in particular that this instability is antisymmetric with respect to the equator, unlike Shercliff or return flow instabilities. However, the instability is still concentrated near the tangent cylinder(see figure \[m1Pm0p01\]).\
- This non-axisymmetric mode can be suppressed by a strong field, and a transition between different azimuthal wavenumbers is observed for higher fields, in agreement with the Maryland experiment.\
- The structure of the radial magnetic field, as shown in figure \[m1Pm0p01\], possesses the same symmetry with respect to the equator as the first mode obtained in the Maryland experiment. At larger Elsasser number, this $m=1$ instability is replaced by return flow instability and Shercliff layer instability, rather equatorially symmetric. This change of symmetry has also been reported in the Maryland experiment.
-The suppression of the $m=1$ mode and the generation of a smaller $m=2$ mode when the inner sphere is switched from conducting to insulating has also been observed in the Maryland experiment [@SisanThesis].\
- Finally, we computed the evolution of the excess torque applied to the inner sphere in the conducting case. Like in the previous section, as the flow becomes unstable to non-axisymmetric perturbations, we observe a strong increase of the total torque applied to the inner sphere (see the black curve in figure \[siH\]-bottom). This evolution has been interpreted as an indication of MRI in the Maryland experiment. The fact that our simulations reproduce this feature suggests that Shercliff layer and return flow instabilities are also efficient mechanisms to enhance the amount of angular momentum transported outward. However, a large amount of the augmentation of our torque for this conducting case and the one reported in the Maryland experiment could be simply due to the attachment of magnetic field lines to the inner conducting sphere. Indeed, analytical calculations of a rotating conducting sphere with a uniform axial imposed field and surrounded by an infinite medium of stationary Sodium, predict an important rise of the torque [@Goodman]. Applied to our configuration, these calculations lead to a torque of the same order of magnitude than the one reported in the figure \[siH\]. In any case, this shows that the torque measured in the Maryland experiment cannot be assumed to be a direct reflection of MRI instabilities.\
An important observation is that both Shercliff layer instability and return flow instability are inductionless instabilities, in the sense that they can be generated for arbitrary small magnetic Reynolds number if the hydrodynamical Reynolds number is large enough. Figure \[Rm0p5\] shows for instance the $m=2$ instability obtained for $Re=5000$, $Rm=0.5$, $\Lambda=1.5$ and a conducting inner sphere. Note that this $m=2$ mode is in good agreement with inductionless calculations of [@Hollerbach09], in which a similar setup is used (except for the magnetic boundary condition on the inner sphere which is insulating in [@Hollerbach09]). This underlines the difference of nature between the boundary driven instability reported here and the standard MRI (for which induction is necessary), despite the strong similarities between both instabilities.
![Structure of the non-axisymmetric component of the Shercliff layer instability for $Re=5000$, $Rm=0.5$ and $\Lambda=1.5$, with a conducting inner sphere. Left: non-axisymmetric $u_r$ in the meridional plane $\phi=0$. Right: non-axisymmetric $B_r$ at the surface of the outer sphere. Induction is not a necessary condition for the instability to be generated. []{data-label="Rm0p5"}](figure/siC6E2e4vPm0p0001_Vr_meridF.pdf "fig:"){height="40mm"} ![Structure of the non-axisymmetric component of the Shercliff layer instability for $Re=5000$, $Rm=0.5$ and $\Lambda=1.5$, with a conducting inner sphere. Left: non-axisymmetric $u_r$ in the meridional plane $\phi=0$. Right: non-axisymmetric $B_r$ at the surface of the outer sphere. Induction is not a necessary condition for the instability to be generated. []{data-label="Rm0p5"}](figure/siC6E2e4vPm0p0001_Vr_spherF.pdf "fig:"){height="40mm"}
The several similarities between our simulations and the results of the Maryland experiment emphasize the importance of considering the role of boundaries in MRI experiment. These numerical simulations indeed strongly suggest that the non-axisymmetric modes observed in the experiment are destabilizations of either the Shercliff layer (at large applied field) or the return flow (at smaller applied field), rather than the MRI. These instabilities appear to be very robust, and extend in a large region of the parameter space. This is therefore reasonable to expect them to occur in the Maryland experiment, which uses a setup similar to our numerical problem.
In addition to these non-axisymmetric modes, an $m=0$ mode equatorially symmetric has also been reported in the Maryland experiment. It is interesting to mention that this axisymmetric mode measured in the experiment has not been obtained in our numerical simulation at $Pm<1$. However, for $Pm\sim 1$, axisymmetric modes are generated in the simulations with an axial magnetic field, with or without global rotation. They seem analogous to magnetostrophic MRI modes, a modified version of the MRI in spherical geometry, possibly relevant to the Earth core [@Petitdemange10] but relying on a magnetostrophic equilibrium not achieved in our simulations. Their analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, and will be studied in a future work. This $m=0$ mode thus could be of a different nature than the non-axisymmetric ones, and may not be related to the Shercliff layer.
Conclusion
==========
In this article, the flow of an electrically conducting fluid in a spherical shell has been studied numerically. When a magnetic field is applied to the system, two different effects are observed. First, non-axisymmetric hydrodynamical bifurcations from the Stewartson layer or from the equatorial jet can be suppressed by a sufficiently strong magnetic field. But the applied field also has a destabilizing effect, by either disrupting the axisymmetry of the meridional return flow, or through a two-step process: first, an axial or dipolar applied field creates a Shercliff layer, and second, this MHD shear layer eventually becomes unstable to non-axisymmetric modes if the magnetic field is not too strong.
We have seen that this Shercliff layer instability, or the meridional return flow instability, are dominated by different azimuthal wavenumbers depending on the parameters $(Re,\Lambda)$ and the details of the configuration. These instabilities are very important in the context of laboratory studies of the magnetorotational instability. Indeed, they are relatively robust, and share a lot of characteristics with the non-axisymmetric MRI. The marginal stability curve is similar, with a destabilization occurring only in a given range of the value of the applied field. Whereas a finite value of the field is required to trigger the instability, the free energy come from the azimuthal velocity and its associated differential rotation (at least in the case of the Shercliff layer instability). Moreover, we have shown that, like the MRI, these instabilities yield an MHD turbulent state, and are very efficient to transport the angular momentum outward. It is however important to insist on the fact that Shercliff layer and return flow instabilities are inductionless (unlike the standard MRI), and rely on a different destabilization mechanism.
These similarities have important consequences for laboratory studies of the MRI. First, as was suggested in [@Hollerbach09], our numerical simulations strongly confirm that results of the Maryland experiment are related to these boundary driven instabilities rather than MRI. A very good agreement is obtained with experimental observations, including the sequence of non-axisymmetric bifurcations, the geometry of the magnetic field and the increase of the torque on the inner sphere. This work could also have interesting echos for investigation of the MRI in a cylindrical geometry. In this case, the finite geometry imposed by the experimental approach makes it impossible to obtain an ideal Couette flow or a quasi-Keplerian flow, because of the poloidal recirculation created by the viscous stress at the vertical endcaps. This problem has been circumvented by replacing the rigid endcaps at the top and the bottom by two rings that are driven independently. It has been shown that a flow profile in a short Taylor-Couette cell can be kept stable until $Re\sim
10^{6}$ if the appropriate configuration of split end caps is used [@Ji06]. Similarly, the use of such split rings in the Promise experiment has led to a significant reduction of the Ekman pumping and a much clearer identification of the HMRI [@Stefani09]. Recent three-dimensional numerical simulations [@Gissinger11] suggest that the jump of angular velocity between inner and outer rings can be reinforced by applying an axial magnetic field, and extended in the $z$ direction. This leads to the creation of a Shercliff layer very similar to the one described in this paper, which also undergoes some transition to non-axisymmetric modes. It is thus possible that similar instabilities could be generated from the Shercliff layer or from the poloidal return flow in these cylindrical MRI experiments. This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that the modes observed in the Princeton MRI experiment appear to be inductionless [@Roach10].
Finally, our numerical simulations show that investigation of the MRI in the laboratory is significantly complicated by the presence of no-slip boundaries. In spherical or cylindrical geometry, the applied magnetic field interacts with these boundaries and can trigger MHD instabilities very similar to the MRI. It could make very difficult any distinction between these instabilities and MRI in an experiment. The inductionless nature of Shercliff layer instability, in contrast to the required induction for standard MRI, may be an important key for the needed distinction between them. However, as pointed in the introduction, standard MRI continuously connects to the Helical MRI (HMRI) [@Hollerbach95], an inductionless version of the MRI which can be regarded as an inertial oscillation destabilized by resistive MHD in presence of an helical magnetic field [@Kirilov10]. In this particular case, it would be interesting to see how our boundary-driven instabilities can therefore be related to global manifestations of the MRI.
This work was supported by the NSF under grant AST-0607472, by the NASA under grant numbers ATP06-35 and APRA08-0066, by the DOE under Contract No. DE-AC02-09CH11466, and by the NSF Center for Magnetic Self-Organization under grant PHY-0821899. We have benefited from useful discussions with E. Edlund, A. Roach, E. Spence and R. Hollerbach.
Balbus, S. A. and Hawley, J. F., Astroph. Journ., [**376**]{},314-233 (1991) E. P. Velikhov, J. Sov. Phys. JETP [**36**]{}, 995 (1959) S. Chandrasekhar, Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability, (1961) Chandrasekhar S., (1960), Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 46, 253 H. Ji, M. Burin, E. Schartman and J. Goodman, Nature [**444**]{}, 343 (2006). M. Nornberg, H. Ji, E. Schartman, A. Roach, and J. Goodman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 074501 (2010). F. Stefani et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 184502 (2006) D. Sisan et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 114502 (2004) R. Hollerbach, Proc Roy Soc A, 444, 333-346 (1994) Kleeorin, N., Rogachevskii, I., Ruzmaikin, A., Soward, A. M., Starchenko, S., J. Fluid Mech. 344, 213-244. (1997) S. V. Starchenko, Phys. of Fluids, [**10**]{}, 2412-2420 (1998) E. Dormy, P. Cardin, D. Jault, Earth and Plan. Sci. Lett., [**160**]{}, 15-30, (1998) D. Brito, T. Alboussiere, P. Cardin, N. Gagniere, D. Jault, P. La Rizza, J.P. Masson, H.C. Nataf, D. Schmitt, arXiv:1102.5173v1 \[physics.geo-ph\] (2011) H.-C. Nataf, T. Alboussiere, D. Brito, P. Cardin, N. Gagniere, D. Jault, D. Schmitt, Physics Earth Planet Inter, 170, 60-72 (2008) R. Hollerbach, Proc. R. Soc., [**465**]{}, 2003-2013 (2009) V. Travnikov, K. Eckert and S. Odenbach, Acta Mechanica 2011, DOI: 10.1007/s00707-011-0452-8 R. Hollerbach and S. Skinner, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., [**457**]{}, 785-802 (2001) X.Wei and R. Hollerbach, Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 026309 (2008) Christensen et al, Phys. Earth Planet. Int, [**128**]{}, 25-34 (2001) I. Proudman, J. Fluid Mech.,1:5:505-516 (1956) K. Stewartson, J. Fluid Mech., [**26**]{}, 131-144 (1966) A. Kageyama, H. Ji and J. Goodman, J. Phys Soc. Japan, [**73**]{}, 2424 (2004) J. A. Shercliff, Mat. Proc. of the Camb. Phil. Soc., [**49**]{}, 136-144 (1953) R. Hollerbach, E. Canet, A. Fournier, Euro. Journ. of Mech. B/Fluids [**26**]{} 729-737 (2007) C. Guervilly and P. Cardin (2010) Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dynamics, 104, 221-248 D.R. Sisan, Ph.D. Thesis (2004) Jeremy Goodman, private communication. Petitdemange, L., Dormy, E., and Balbus, SA (2008), Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L15305 Stefani et al, Phys. Rev. E 80, 066303 (2009) Gissinger et al, in preparation (2011) A. Roach, E. Spence, E. Edlund, P. Sloboda and H. Ji, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., [**55**]{}: BAPS. (2010) Hollerbach et al., PRL 95, 124501 (2005) Kirillov et al., ApJ 712, 52-68, (2010)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The increased availability and brilliance of new X-ray facilities have in the recent years opened up the possibility to characterize the motion of dispersed nanoparticles in various microfluidic applications. One of these applications is the process of making strong continuous filaments through hydrodynamic alignment and assembly of cellulose nanofibrils (CNF) demonstrated by Håkansson [et al. ]{}\[Nature communications **5**, 2014\]. In this process it is vital to study the alignment of the nanofibrils in the flow, as this in turn affects the final material properties of the dried filament. Small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) is a well-suited characterization technique for this, which typically provides the alignment in a projected plane perpendicular to the beam direction. In this work, we demonstrate a simple method to reconstruct the full three-dimensional (3D) orientation distribution function (ODF) from a SAXS-experiment through the assumption that the azimuthal angle of the nanofibril around the flow direction is distributed uniformly; an assumption that is approximately valid in the flow-focusing process. For demonstrational purposes, the experimental results from Håkansson [et al. ]{}(2014) have been revised, resulting in a small correction to the presented order parameters. The results are then directly compared with simple numerical models to describe the increased alignment of CNF both in the flowing system and during the drying process. The proposed reconstruction method will allow for further improvements of theoretical or numerical simulations and consequently open up new possibilities for optimizing assembly processes, which include flow-alignment of elongated nanoparticles.'
author:
- Tomas Rosén
- Christophe Brouzet
- 'Stephan V. Roth'
- Fredrik Lundell
- 'L. Daniel Söderberg'
bibliography:
- 'REFERENCES.bib'
title: 'Evaluating alignment of elongated nanoparticles in cylindrical geometries through small angle X-ray scattering experiments'
---
![(a) Definition of the orientation of an elongated particle with unit vector $\boldsymbol{p}$ along the major axis; the polar angle of the particle to the $z$-direction is denoted with $\phi$ and the corresponding azimuthal angle in the $xy$-plane is $\theta$; the projection of the unit vector $\boldsymbol{p}$ on the viewing ($xz$) plane is denoted $\boldsymbol{p}'$ and has the angle $\chi$ with respect to the $z$-axis; (b) illustration of a flow in a typical experiment; the flow is in $z$-direction, the viewing direction is defined in negative $y$-direction; (c) a typical projection of the elongated particles in the viewing plane; (d) schematic illustration of a typical SAXS experiment.[]{data-label="fig:Paper8FlowProblem"}](Figure1-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
\[sec:Paper8Intro\] Introduction
================================
Studying the alignment of anisotropic nanoparticles or polymers in flows is relevant in many applications, for example in fibre spinning [@yang1994fiber] or creating nanostructured films [@long2012recent; @blell2016generating]. In many of these material processes, the particle shapes and orientations will have a significant effect on macroscopic properties. For example, the macroscopic electrical response of films made from carbon nanotubes is greatly affected by the alignment of the nanoparticles inside the material [@behnam2007; @allen2012; @allen2013; @shekhar2011; @simoneau2013]. Other applications relate to the influence of the orientation on macroscopic optical properties of the material such as its refractive index [@blell2016generating].
The orientation distribution of the anisotropic nanoparticles inside the material is often dependent on their dynamics in a flowing dispersed state in the process. Therefore it is of great importance to understand how the angular dynamics and alignment of nanoparticles in flows can be studied, modeled and controlled during the processing of materials. It is known that nanoparticles typically align from shear and extensional flow [@trebbin2013anisotropic; @lutz2016scanning]. However, since shear also causes rotation of particles, it can be preferable to align particles only with extensional flow [@Hakansson_NatComm].
The description of the particle orientation in the flow is usually through spherical coordinates with polar angle $\phi$ between the particle major axis and the flow ($z$) direction, and the azimuthal angle $\theta$ in the plane perpendicular to the flow (see figure \[fig:Paper8FlowProblem\]a-b). Here, the viewing direction is the negative $y$-direction, such that the viewing plane is equal to the $xz$-plane. In that plane we define the particle orientation with the projected angle $\chi$. As seen in the figure, these angles are related through\
$$\tan\chi=\tan\phi\cos\theta.
\label{eq:projectedAngle}$$ \
The nanometer-sized particles of interest are smaller than the visible wavelength of light, and the understanding of their shape and properties must rely on using other characterization techniques than standard microscopy. In solid material, there is the possibility to use highly magnified scanning/transmission electron microscopy (SEM/TEM) images or atomic force microscopy (AFM) [@hanley1992]. However, to present any statistically relevant orientation distribution function (ODF) describing the collective orientation of particles would require a substantial amount of images being analyzed. Furthermore, we will only obtain the projected angle $\chi$ on the viewing plane from these images (see figure \[fig:Paper8FlowProblem\]c) unless the nanoparticles are mono-dispersed and the out-of-plane orientation can be found through the length of the projected particle. Due to the nature of the techniques, neither SEM nor AFM are suitable for studying flowing systems of dispersed nanoparticles.
Following the increased availability and performance of synchrotron light sources, small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) has proven to be a vital tool for nanoparticle characterization in flowing dispersions (see figure \[fig:Paper8FlowProblem\]d) [@trebbin2013anisotropic; @lutz2016scanning; @ghazal2016]. With this technique, the light scattered by the particles is recorded on a detector and this information will describe the shape and size of the particles in an isotropic system. If the particles are non-spherical and show some preferential alignment, the technique will also provide a statistically relevant ODF [@stribeck]. However, when using SAXS in a transmission geometry, it is important to take into consideration that the experiment just provides the distribution of the projected angle $\chi$. Furthermore, the ODF of the polar angle $\phi$ is not easy to obtain from the projected distribution of $\chi$. This particular issue will result in a non-trivial comparison between experiments and simulations when it comes to describing the angular dynamics of nanoparticles in flows. To obtain the three-dimensional ODF with SAXS, the typical approach is by rotating the sample and thus obtaining the projected ODF from different incidence angles from which the three-dimensional orientation can be reconstructed during post-processing [@wagermaier2006spiral; @wagermaier2007scanning; @schaff2015six; @skjonsfjell2016].
![Demonstration of flow-focusing device and the process to make strong cellulose filaments from CNF; (a) the flow-focusing device with a core flow of a CNF suspension and sheath flows containing salt and water; (b) the filament production consists of three steps: (I) hydrodynamic alignment of CNF in the $z$-direction, (II) transition of the CNF from a dispersion to an arrested (gel) state, (III) drying of the gel-thread; (c) SEM image of the final dried cellulose filament with the black scale bar indicating $20$ $\mu$m; figures adapted from @Hakansson_NatComm.[]{data-label="fig:Paper8FlowFocusing"}](Figure2-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
Making new materials from cellulose
-----------------------------------
Structural materials in nature are found to have properties that can surpass the performance of their individual components[@wegst2015bioinspired], and thus offer great potential to meet the demands of a sustainable society. Using biobased nanoparticles as building blocks, there have recently been several examples of using flow alignment to control the assembly of new types of materials and composites[@Hakansson_NatComm; @hamedi2014highly; @mittal2017ultrastrong; @kamada2017flow]. Using a dispersion of cellulose nanofibrils (CNF) @Hakansson_NatComm demonstrated a process of making strong and stiff cellulose filaments that could potentially be used in new biobased composites or high performance textiles. This process is schematically illustrated in figure \[fig:Paper8FlowFocusing\] and will be described shortly. In a flow-focusing device, a dispersion of CNF is focused by a sheath flow of a NaCl solution. During the acceleration of the core flow, the fibrils are hydrodynamically aligned in the flow direction almost solely due to extensional flow. As the ions in the sheath flow are diffusing into the core, the CNF is forming a gel where the internal structure of fibrils are locked in an aligned state. After a subsequent drying of the gel thread, a continuous filament is produced with strength and stiffness that could potentially be comparable to glass fibers. The mechanical properties of the resulting filament were seen to be dependent on the degree of alignment of CNF along the filament direction. Increasing the alignment of CNF in the flow-focusing process could thus potentially lead to an even stronger material. The alignment of the CNF in the flow was studied by @Hakansson_NatComm using SAXS by quantifying the anisotropy in the scattering pattern.
In a later work, @Hakansson_SAXSALIGN demonstrated how the evolution of the ODF of particles in the flow-focusing device can be simulated. The simulated alignment based on the polar angle $\phi$ was then compared with the alignment based on the projected angle $\chi$ in the SAXS patterns in a simplified manner.
Another crucial aspect of the process is the drying of the gel thread. When water is removed from the gel, the spatial distribution of fibers is assumed to shrink radially. This radial shrinking is also believed to cause further alignment as the projected radial component of the particle symmetry axis also will decrease with the same rate. When performing scattering experiments of a dried cellulose filament, we are thus likely to measure a higher degree of alignment than what is measured in the channel. @Hakansson_NatComm characterized the alignment of the nanofibrils in the dried filament with wide angle X-ray scattering (WAXS), relying on the same principle as SAXS. This means that the mean fibril angle obtained in this study also represents the mean projected angle $\langle\chi\rangle$ and not the mean polar angle $\langle\phi\rangle$ to the fiber direction.
Objective of the present work
-----------------------------
In this work, it will be shown how the alignment based on the mean polar angle in the flow is related to the projected alignment in the viewing plane. The only assumption that is made when deriving this relationship is that the flow has cylindrical symmetry and therefore that the distribution of the azimuthal angle $\theta$ in the plane perpendicular to the flow direction is uniform. This assumption was demonstrated to be also valid in the flow-focusing process of CNF by @Hakansson_NatComm. It will also be discussed what will happen to the ODF during the drying process. It is found here that the measured (projected) alignment could be significantly lower than the alignment based on the polar angle and the discrepancy depends heavily on the type of flow or other alignment mechanism that the fibrils are subject to. However, when applying the reconstruction algorithm to obtain the ODF based on $\phi$ from the SAXS/WAXS data by @Hakansson_NatComm, it is found that the particular error for their results still is small.
The present study will have the following outline. Firstly, some background information will be provided to the reader regarding some basic techniques to study the angular dynamics of dispersed nanofibrils both numerically and experimentally using SAXS. In the following sections, the new reconstruction method will be presented and validated. Finally, in the last sections, the reconstruction method will be applied to the data by @Hakansson_NatComm along with a comparison with simple numerical models.
Theory
======
Dynamics of small particles in flows
------------------------------------
The probability of a fibril to have an orientation in the interval $\phi\in[\phi_1,\phi_2]$ and $\theta\in[\theta_1,\theta_2]$ is given by the following expression using the ODFs $\Psi_\phi$ and $\Psi_\theta$\
$$\text{Pr}[\phi_1\leq\phi\leq\phi_2,\theta_1\leq\theta\leq\theta_2]=\int_{\theta_1}^{\theta_2}\Psi_\theta d\theta\int_{\phi_1}^{\phi_2}\Psi_\phi|\sin\phi|d\phi,
\label{eq:Probability}$$ \
where the two functions are normalized according to $$2\pi\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}\Psi_\phi|\sin\phi|d\phi=1\\
\label{eq:Probability2}$$ $$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\Psi_\theta d\theta=1.\\
\label{eq:Probability3}$$
\
Throughout this work, it is going to be assumed that the azimuthal angle $\theta$ is distributed uniformly, i.e. $\Psi_\theta=1$.
In the flow-focusing process illustrated in figure \[fig:Paper8FlowFocusing\], it is reasonable to assume that the core flow of CNF is only in the $z$-direction and the velocity $\boldsymbol{u}=(u,v,w)$ does not vary in the radial direction, i.e. $ u=v=0$[@Hakansson_SAXSALIGN]. This means that $\Psi_\theta$ always will remain constant and $\Psi_\phi$ will only be dependent on the centerline velocity $w_c=w_c(z)$, the extension rate $\dot{\varepsilon}=\dot{\varepsilon}(z)=dw_c/dz$ and the rotary diffusion coefficient $D_r$. Assuming that the dispersion is dilute and the fibrils do not interact with each other and further assuming that the fibrils can be described as stiff spheroids with aspect ratio $r_p$ (major axis/minor axis), the steady state of $\Psi_\phi=\Psi_\phi(z)$ is given by the Smoluchowski equation[@doi1986theory; @Hakansson_SAXSALIGN]\
$$w_c\frac{\partial \Psi_\phi}{\partial z}=\frac{1}{\sin{\phi}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\underbrace{D_r\sin\phi\frac{\partial \Psi_\phi}{\partial \phi}}_\text{rotary diffusion}-\underbrace{\sin\phi\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t}\Psi_\phi}_\text{hydrodynamic forcing}\right),
\label{eq:CylindricalSmoluchowski}$$ \
where the angular velocity is determined by @Jeffery as:\
$$\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t} =-\dot{\varepsilon}\Lambda\frac{3}{2}\cos\phi\sin\phi$$ with $$\Lambda=\frac{r_p^2-1}{r_p^2+1}.$$ \
The assumptions made to justify this particular model are of course very questionable for the actual flow of CNF under process-relevant conditions, but will be used in this work only for the sake of discussion. The details about the derivation of this model along with improvements to account for interacting fibrils are given by @doi1986theory and @Hakansson_SAXSALIGN.
The Smoluchowski equation above is only dependent on one dimensionless parameter, called the Péclet number $Pe$ and is defined as:\
$$Pe=\frac{\dot{\varepsilon}\Lambda}{D_r},$$ \
which relates the effect of hydrodynamic forcing with the effect of Brownian rotary diffusion. For example, if $Pe=\infty$, the rotary diffusion term can be neglected in eq. (\[eq:CylindricalSmoluchowski\]). Analogously, if $Pe=0$, the hydrodynamic forcing term can be neglected. For a constant value of $Pe$ (constant extension rate and rotary diffusion), there will be an equilibrium distribution given by the solution of $d\Psi_\phi/dz=0$. The equilibrium distribution can be analytically found to be (see supplementary information for full derivation):\
$$\Psi_{\phi}^\text{eq}=\frac{\exp(-\frac{\sin^2 \phi}{2\sigma^2})}{\int_0^{2\pi}d\theta\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} \exp(-\frac{\sin^2 \phi}{2\sigma^2})|\sin \phi| \textrm{d}\phi,}
\label{eq:equlibriumDistributions}$$ with $$\sigma^2=\frac{2}{3Pe}.$$
\[sec:Paper8Alignment\] The order parameter
-------------------------------------------
To describe the collective alignment of many elongated particles in the flow, the mean of the second Legendre polynomial $S_\phi=\langle P_2(\cos\phi)\rangle$ is commonly used and sometimes called *Hermans order parameter*. This quantity is expressed as [@vanGurp]:\
$$S_\phi=\langle P_2(\cos\phi)\rangle=\left\langle\frac{3}{2}\cos^2\phi-\frac{1}{2}\right\rangle,$$ \
where the brackets denote an ensemble average over all particles. Consequently, $S_\phi=0$ if all particles are uniformly distributed and $S_\phi=1$ if the particles are perfectly aligned in the flow direction. Using the ODF $\Psi_\phi$, the order parameter $S_\phi$ can be obtained through\
$$S_\phi=\int_0^{2\pi}d\theta\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}\Psi_\phi\left(\frac{3}{2}\cos^2\phi-\frac{1}{2}\right)|\sin\phi|d\phi.$$ \
Additionally, it should be mentioned that the value of $S_\phi$ might not always be a good measure of the true ODF $\Psi_\phi$ since it corresponds to an integrated quantity. This means of course that different ODFs can correspond to the same order parameter. For example, an order parameter of $S_\phi=0$ could both mean that the system is isotropic, but could also mean that all fibers are perfectly oriented at an angle of $\phi=\arccos\sqrt{1/3}\approx 54.7^\circ$.
![(a) A [****]{} illustration of the scattering intensity on the detector in a SAXS experiment; (b) the averaged ODF $\Psi_\chi$ obtained from the SAXS experiments by @Hakansson_NatComm in the flow-focusing device at $z=2.5h$; the blue curve shows the ODF $\Psi_\chi$ normalized using eq. (\[eq:2DNorm\]) and is denoted $\Psi_\chi^\text{(2D)}$ while the red curve shows the ODF normalized with eq. (\[eq:3DNorm\]) and is denoted $\Psi_\chi^\text{(3D)}$.[]{data-label="fig:Paper8SAXSPrinciple"}](Figure3-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
SAXS experiments
----------------
The typical setup for a transmission SAXS experiment used by @Hakansson_NatComm to study the alignment of nanofibrils in a flow was illustrated previously in figure \[fig:Paper8FlowProblem\]d. The X-ray beam with wavelength $\lambda$ is illuminating the flowing dispersion in the negative $y$-direction, perpendicular to the flow ($z$) direction. Some of the incoming photons are scattered by the particles and the scattered light is a representation in the reciprocal space of the illuminated fibrils. The scattered light intensity $I$ is collected on a detector placed at a distance $D$ from the sample. A schematic illustration of the X-ray scattering intensity on the detector is given in figure \[fig:Paper8SAXSPrinciple\]a. The anisotropy in the SAXS pattern, with higher scattering intensity in the $x$-direction, reflects the fact that the sample is preferentially oriented in the $z$-direction. After background subtraction, the normalized intensity along a constant $q=(4\pi/\lambda)\sin\varphi$ provides an estimate of the ODF $\Psi_\chi$ of the projected fibril angle $\chi$.
Typically, there are two ways often used to normalize the function $\Psi_\chi$. Either the angle $\chi$ is treated as an azimuthal angle in a 2D plane and is thus normalized according to $$\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} \Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi \textrm{d}\chi =1,
\label{eq:2DNorm}$$ \
or the angle $\chi$ is treated as a representation of the polar angle in 3D space and thus normalized according to $$\int_0^{2\pi}d\theta\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} \Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi |\sin \chi| \textrm{d}\chi =1.
\label{eq:3DNorm}$$ \
The two distributions $\Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi $ and $\Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi$ are only differing with a constant scaling factor $\alpha$ such that $\Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi=\alpha \Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi$ with $$\alpha=\left(\int_0^{2\pi}d\theta\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} \Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi |\sin \chi| \textrm{d}\chi \right)^{-1}.$$ \
An illustration showing the difference in scaling of $\Psi_\chi$ is illustrated in figure \[fig:Paper8SAXSPrinciple\]b.
In the work by @Hakansson_NatComm, the order parameter obtained from the SAXS experiments is found by using the 3D normalization of $\Psi_\chi$ according to\
$$S_\chi=\int_0^{2\pi}d\theta\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}\Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi\left(\frac{3}{2}\cos^2\chi-\frac{1}{2}\right)|\sin\chi| \textrm{d}\chi.
\label{eq:Paper8schi}$$ \
Given this definition, $S_\chi$ is also equal to zero when the particles have an isotropic orientation distribution and $S_\chi=1$ if the particles are perfectly aligned in $z$-direction. However, for an arbitrary orientation distribution the two order parameters $S_\chi$ (based on the projected angle $\chi$) and $S_\phi$ (based on the polar angle $\phi$) are the same.
Method
======
\[sec:3Dto2D\] Reconstructing $\Psi_\phi$ from $\Psi_\chi$
----------------------------------------------------------
The SAXS experiments give us access to the projected ODF $\Psi_\chi$ of the ODF $\Psi_\phi$. Depending on normalization of $\Psi_\chi$ according to eqs. (\[eq:2DNorm\]) and (\[eq:3DNorm\]), the ODFs $\Psi_\chi^\text{(2D)}$ and $\Psi_\chi^\text{(3D)}$ can be obtained. To be able to reconstruct $\Psi_\phi$ from $\Psi_\chi$, we can use the different symmetries of the system. We assume here that the ODF is axi-symmetric around the flow axis $z$, meaning that the ODF depends only on $\phi$ and not on $\theta$. Following @vanGurp, the ODF $\Psi_\phi$ can be expressed as a series expansion of Legendre polynomials:\
$$\Psi_\phi=\sum_{j=0,2,4,...}^{2(N_\text{LP}-1)}\frac{2j+1}{4\pi} \langle P_j \rangle_\phi P_j(\cos \phi),
\label{eq:legendre_decomposition}$$ \
where $P_j$ is the Legendre polynomial of order $j$ and $\langle P_j \rangle_\phi=\langle P_j(\cos\phi) \rangle$ is the $j$-th order parameter of the ODF. The exact result is obtained as $N_\text{LP}\rightarrow\infty$. Note that $S_\phi$ corresponds to the second order parameter $\langle P_2 \rangle_\phi$. Here, we use only the even Legendre polynomials because the ODF follows the symmetry condition $\Psi_\phi(\phi)=\Psi_\phi(\pi-\phi)$.
In the same way, the projected ODF using the 3D normalization can also be decomposed in Legendre polynomials:\
$$\Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi=\sum_{i=0,2,4,...}^{2(N_\text{LP}-1)}\frac{2i+1}{4\pi} \langle P_i \rangle_\chi P_i(\cos \chi),
\label{eq:legendre_decomposition_chi}$$ \
with $\langle P_i \rangle_\chi=\langle P_i(\cos\chi) \rangle$.
The order parameters $\langle P_j \rangle_\phi$ and $\langle P_i \rangle_\chi$ are related through (see derivation in supplementary information)\
$$\left(
\begin{matrix}
\langle P_0 \rangle_\chi\\
\langle P_2 \rangle_\chi\\
\vdots\\
\langle P_N \rangle_\chi\\
\end{matrix}
\right)
=
\frac{\alpha}{2}
\left(
\begin{matrix}
C_{0,0} & C_{0,2}&\hdots&C_{0,N}\\
C_{2,0} & C_{2,2}&\hdots&C_{2,N}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
C_{N,0} & C_{N,2}&\hdots& C_{N,N}
\end{matrix}
\right)
\left(
\begin{matrix}
\langle P_0 \rangle_\phi\\
5\langle P_2 \rangle_\phi\\
\vdots\\
(2N+1)\langle P_{N} \rangle_\phi\\
\end{matrix}
\right)
\label{eq:link_between_orderparameters}$$ \
with $N=2(N_\text{LP}-1)$ and the $N_\text{LP}\times N_\text{LP}$ matrix $C_{i,j}$ given by\
$$C_{i,j}= \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}P_i(\cos \chi) |\sin \chi| \left(\int_{0}^{1} \frac{4 p'}{\sqrt{1-{p'}^2}} P_j(p' \cos \chi) \textrm{d}p'\right) \textrm{d}\chi,\\
\label{eq:TheMatrix_C}$$ \
for $i,j=0,2,4~...~2(N_\text{LP}-1)$. Note here that the matrix $C_{i,j}$ does not depend on the actual ODF, and can be pre-computed for a given $N_\text{LP}$.
Now, the ODF $\Psi_\phi$ based on the polar angle can be reconstructed from the projected ODF $\Psi_\chi$ using the following steps:
1. Normalize $\Psi_\chi$ in two ways according to eqs. (\[eq:2DNorm\]) and (\[eq:3DNorm\]) to obtain $\Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi$, $\Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi$ and $\alpha$.
2. Find the order parameters $\langle P_i \rangle_\chi$ using $$\langle P_i \rangle_\chi = \int_0^{2\pi}d\theta\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} \Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi P_i(\cos \chi) |\sin \chi| \textrm{d}\chi$$
3. Compute the matrix $C_{i,j}$ for the $N_\text{LP}$ first even Legendre polynomials using eq. (\[eq:TheMatrix\_C\]). The exact analytical values of the matrix $C_{i,j}$ for $N_\text{LP}=15$ is given as a separate file in the online supplementary material.
4. Inverse eq. (\[eq:link\_between\_orderparameters\]) to obtain the order parameters $\langle P_j \rangle_\phi$.
5. Reconstruct $\Psi_\phi$ using eq. (\[eq:legendre\_decomposition\]).
![Histogram for $N=10^7$ particles illustrated with the gray area; (a) the ODF $\Psi_\phi$ obtained from the Smoluchowski simulations with uni-axial extension and no rotary diffusion at $S_\phi=0.30$; (b) the angle $\theta$ is sampled from a uniform distribution; (c) the resulting ODF $\Psi_\chi^\text{(3D)}$ with a projected order parameter of $S_\chi=0.19$; the curves in (a) and (c) correspond to the reconstruction of $\Psi_\phi$ for given $N_\text{LP}$ of Legendre polynomials used to fit $\Psi_\chi^\text{(3D)}$ in (c).[]{data-label="fig:Paper8angleHistograms"}](Figure4-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
\[sec:Paper8Validation\] Validation of the reconstruction method
================================================================
To demonstrate the validity of the reconstruction, three different physical processes are numerically simulated in order to describe typical distributions of $\Psi_\phi$ that we can encounter in a flow of nanoparticles:\
1. *Uni-axial extensional flow*. The system of isotropically distributed particles at $z=0$ is stretched with a uni-axial extensional flow without any influence of rotary diffusion ($Pe=\infty$) until almost fully aligned at some downstream position $z$. On the centerline, there is thus a constant acceleration and the velocity is given by $w_c=\dot{\varepsilon}z$, with $\dot{\varepsilon}$ as an arbitrary constant extension rate and the alignment increases with $z$.
2. *Rotary diffusion*. An almost fully aligned system of particles at $z=0$ is subject to rotary diffusion without any hydrodynamic forcing $(Pe=0)$. On the centerline, there is thus no acceleration and the velocity is given by $w_c=w_0$ with $w_0$ as an arbitrary constant velocity. The alignment will then decrease with $z$.
3. *Equilibrium*. Given various constant $Pe\in]0,\infty[$, a system of isotropically distributed particles at $z=0$ is subject to a flow with constant acceleration ($w_c=\dot{\varepsilon}z$). Far downstream, as $z\rightarrow\infty$, the system will reach the equilibrium distribution given by the steady state solution $\Psi_\phi^\text{eq}$ given in eq. (\[eq:equlibriumDistributions\]).
In the cases 1 and 2, the ODF at a given downstream position $\Psi_\phi(z)$ is provided by numerically integrating the Smoluchowski equation (eq. (\[eq:CylindricalSmoluchowski\])) in Matlab R2013b. For case 3, the equilibrium ODF $\Psi_{\phi}^\text{eq}$ is given directly by eq. (\[eq:equlibriumDistributions\]) for various $Pe$. The azimuthal angle $\theta$ is distributed uniformly, i.e. $\Psi_\theta=1$.
![Illustration of how the measured projected order parameter $S_\chi$ differs from the true order parameter $S_\phi$ given the different flowing processes described in the text; the cross symbols denote the results from the reconstruction using $N_\text{LP}=10$; the arrow indicates the conditions for which the histograms in fig. \[fig:Paper8angleHistograms\] were drawn.[]{data-label="fig:Paper8ValidationReconstruction"}](Figure5-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
Given these ODFs, Monte-Carlo simulations were performed in Matlab R2013b. A total of $N=10^7$ particles are sampled, and for each particle, the orientation $(\phi,\theta)$ is randomly chosen from the distributions $\Psi_\phi$ and $\Psi_\theta$. For each particle, the projected angle $\chi$ is subsequently calculated through eq. (\[eq:projectedAngle\]), which is used to obtain the distribution $\Psi_\chi$ numerically. An example is shown in figure \[fig:Paper8angleHistograms\]. The distribution $\Psi_\phi$ in fig. \[fig:Paper8angleHistograms\]a is obtained from the simulation of the uni-axially extended system without diffusion at $S_\phi=0.3$. In order to account for the correct probability on the unit sphere, the distribution is multiplied with $|\sin\phi|$ and random numbers are generated from the distribution $\Psi_\phi|\sin\phi|$ to form the histogram in figure \[fig:Paper8angleHistograms\]a. Figure \[fig:Paper8angleHistograms\]b shows the histogram of the uniformly distributed values of $\theta$ and figure \[fig:Paper8angleHistograms\]c shows the corresponding histogram of the projected angle $\chi$ for all the particles, where the distribution is normalized according to eq. (\[eq:3DNorm\]) to form the ODF $\Psi_\chi^\text{(3D)}$.
The distribution $\Psi_\chi^\text{(3D)}$ is then used as an input for the reconstruction method described in the previous section. As seen in figure \[fig:Paper8angleHistograms\]a, the proposed method manages to almost perfectly recover the initial distribution of $\Psi_\phi$ when utilizing at least $N_\text{LP}=6$ Legendre polynomials.
In figure \[fig:Paper8ValidationReconstruction\], it is observed how the order parameter $S_\phi$ will differ from the measured projected order parameter $S_\chi$ used for example by @Hakansson_SAXSALIGN. The discrepancy is larger during the acceleration of the flow when uni-axial extension is dominating, while approaching almost a one-to-one correspondence when Brownian rotary diffusion is dominating. Regardless of which type of distributions we encounter, we find that the proposed reconstruction manages to almost exactly recover $\Psi_\phi$ from $\Psi_\chi$ with $N_\text{LP}=10$. For the highly aligned ($S_\phi\gtrsim0.9$) uni-axially strained system, the reconstruction method is more sensitive and a larger number of Legendre polynomials would be needed. Note here also that $S_\phi\approx 0.9$ when $S_\chi\approx 0.6$. It would thus be very difficult to measure any higher alignment $S_\chi>0.6$ in a SAXS experiment with a uni-axially extended dispersion. A measured value of $S_\chi\approx 0.6$ is thus actually representing a system that is close to perfect alignment in reality.
\[sec:Paper8ApplSAXS\] Application to real SAXS data
====================================================
The purpose of this study is to highlight and solve the problems that arises when comparing SAXS experiments with numerical simulations. Typically, the experiments provide the ODF $\Psi_\chi$ while the simulations provide $\Psi_\phi$. Depending of the physical process that drives an orientation distribution from isotropy to perfect alignment, or vice versa, there will be a different evolution of $\Psi_\phi$. A consequence of this is that we can measure the same projected order parameter $S_\chi$ at two points in the channel, but there might still be a difference in the alignment given by the true order parameter based on the polar angle $S_\phi$.
![(a) The ODF $\Psi_\chi^\text{(3D)}$ obtained from SAXS experiments by @Hakansson_NatComm (gray histogram) is fitted with Legendre polynomials using $N_\text{LP}=2$, $4$ and $15$; (b) the resulting reconstruction of $\Psi_\phi$; (c) the mean square error between the experiment and the model of $\Psi_\chi^\text{(3D)}$ as function of $N_\text{LP}$.[]{data-label="fig:ChoosingNLP"}](Figure6-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
To demonstrate the application of the present reconstruction, the original SAXS distributions $\Psi_\chi$ from @Hakansson_NatComm are used. The choice of $N_\text{LP}$ must be done with care due to scatter in the experimental data. Figure \[fig:ChoosingNLP\]a shows $\Psi_\chi^\text{(3D)}$ obtained at $z=2.5h$ ($h$ is the side of the quadratic cross-section of the flow-focusing device) from the SAXS experiments by @Hakansson_NatComm. Choosing $N_\text{LP}=2$ (red dashed curve) to fit $\Psi_\chi^\text{(3D)}$ is not sufficient, but on the other hand choosing $N_\text{LP}=15$ (blue thick solid curve) creates some “wiggles” in the fitted curve as the scatter in the data influences the fitting. This is even more apparent when looking at the resulting distribution of $\Psi_\phi$ in figure \[fig:ChoosingNLP\]b. When plotting the mean square error between the experimental data of $\Psi_\chi^\text{(3D)}$ and the fitted curve as function of $N_\text{LP}$ in figure \[fig:ChoosingNLP\]c it is clear that there really is no improvement of the fitting above $N_\text{LP}>4$. We therefore implement a strategy to avoid overfitting by setting a stopping criteria based on the mean square error. The details are given in the supplementary information.
Using this strategy to find $N_\text{LP}$, the reconstruction method is applied to the original data by @Hakansson_NatComm. Figure \[fig:Paper8\_SAXS\_application\]a shows how the reconstructed $S_\phi$ differs from the value of $S_\chi$. The value of $S_\phi$ is consistently higher than $S_\chi$ with a difference of around 0.05. Even though the alignment is mainly through uni-axial extension, the difference between $S_\phi$ and $S_\chi$ is much smaller than the prediction from the uni-axial extension curve in figure \[fig:Paper8ValidationReconstruction\]. This is most probably attributed to substantial rotary diffusion during the extension process. Consequently, the order parameter by @Hakansson_NatComm is actually a decent estimate of $S_\phi$.
Now, a comparison can be done with simulations using the Smoluchowski equation in eq. (\[eq:CylindricalSmoluchowski\]). As a boundary condition to the simulations, the ODF $\Psi_\phi$ at $z=-h$ is set to be the reconstructed ODF from @Hakansson_NatComm at the same position. The centerline velocity $w_c(z)$ for the same flow conditions is taken from @Hakansson_SAXSALIGN, which was obtained numerically through the two-fluid level set method with a core flow with kinematic viscosity of $\eta=40$ mPa s and sheath flow of water. This centerline velocity was also verified experimentally through micro particle tracking velocimetry ($\mu$PTV) by @Hakansson_SAXSALIGN. Further parameters used in the present simulations are $\Lambda\approx 1$ and $D_r=0.23$ rad$^2$/s, where the latter is chosen to match the experimental data as well as possible.
![Results of the reconstructed order parameter $S_\phi$ from the SAXS measurements by @Hakansson_NatComm; the results are compared with the simulations using the Smoluchowski equation (eq. (\[eq:CylindricalSmoluchowski\])); (a) order parameter as function of downstream position $z$; the arrows indicate the positions that are used for the numerical drying experiments in figure \[fig:Paper8numDryingResults\]; (b), (c) the evolution of the ODFs $\Psi_\phi$ at positions in the acceleration region of the channel and at positions after the focusing region.[]{data-label="fig:Paper8_SAXS_application"}](Figure7-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
The simulated results are illustrated with the blue line in figure \[fig:Paper8\_SAXS\_application\], where the order parameter $S_\phi$ is plotted versus the downstream position $z$. Although the model is not perfectly capturing the experiments, the qualitative appearance is fairly good and it could be potentially seen as a good model for the physical system. However, comparing the actual evolution of the ODFs at different downstream positions in figures \[fig:Paper8\_SAXS\_application\]b-c, it is found that the model does not perform very well in capturing the shape of the ODFs. This is of course not very surprising, since the model chosen for this particular comparison in eq. (\[eq:CylindricalSmoluchowski\]) relies on many questionable assumptions; one of the more crucial being that the CNF dispersion is dilute and that fibrils do not interact. For future work, in order to improve the Smoluchowski model to account for concentration effects, additional modifications are needed, for example introducing a rotary diffusion coefficient that is dependent both on the concentration and the local ODF as done by @Hakansson_SAXSALIGN.
\[sec:Paper8ApplDrying\] Application to the drying process
==========================================================
In the process described by @Hakansson_NatComm, the aligned dispersion of CNF is locked in an arrested (gel) state when exiting the flow-focusing device. The gel thread is subsequently dried afterwards to form the final filament. During the removal of water from the gel, the cylindrical thread goes from a radius of approximately 0.5 mm to 20 $\mu$m while maintaining the same length. The thread has thus shrunken radially with a ratio of $\beta=20/500=0.04$. During the drying of the CNF gel, the radial component of the fibril orientation (in the cylindrical geometry given by the gel thread) is assumed to also decrease with the same shrinking ratio $\beta$. The result is that the $z$-component of the fibril orientation increases, and thus also the fibril alignment. This radial shrinking process will be used to simulate how the fibril alignment increases during the drying of the gel thread. The detailed mathematical description of the process is given in the supplementary information and a movie illustrating how fibrils align during this process is provided in the online supplementary material.
In the numerical drying simulations, it will be assumed that the gel-transition will lock the ODF in the dispersion at a certain downstream position $z$. Therefore, the reconstructed ODF $\Psi_{\phi}$ from the SAXS experiments at four different positions after the focusing section (pointed out with the small arrows in fig. \[fig:Paper8\_SAXS\_application\]a) are used as initial ODF for the numerical drying simulations. These positions are $z=2.5h$, $4.5h$, $9.5h$ and $14.5h$. The initial orientations $\phi_0$ of the particles are randomly chosen from these ODF exactly as done previously. The initial angle $\theta_0$ is again chosen from a uniform distribution. The system is then aligned by decreasing $\beta$ from 1 to 0 to simulate the drying process.
![Results from the simulated drying process using initial ODFs $\Psi_\phi$ from four different positions: (a) $z=2.5h$, (b) $4.5h$, (c) $9.5h$ and (d) $14.5h$ obtained by reconstructing the ODFs from the SAXS experiments by @Hakansson_NatComm; the results are compared with the actual WAXS data of the dried cellulose filament in @Hakansson_NatComm.[]{data-label="fig:Paper8numDryingResults"}](Figure8-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
The resulting ODFs after the numerical drying simulations are illustrated in figure \[fig:Paper8numDryingResults\] for different shrinking ratios $\beta$ at the given downstream positions. As expected, assuming the drying process to be represented well by the radial shrinking principle, the alignment can increase substantially during the process. For example the initial distribution at $z=14.5h$ goes from an order parameter of $S_\phi\approx 0.2$ to $S_\phi\approx 0.6$ during drying. As a matter of fact, even a completely random distribution ($S_\phi=0$) is found to reach an alignment of $S_\phi=0.5$ during this process (shown as a supplementary movie). As the shrinking process starts, the fibrils oriented in the $\phi=\pm\pi/2$-plane are aligning quicker than the fibrils with lower $|\phi|$. The result is that there will be a sharp peak visible in the ODF. Assuming that there is some rotary diffusion present also during the drying process, either due to Brownian motion or fibril contacts, this peak will probably be smoothed out in reality.
To assess the validity of this principle, a comparison is made with the dried cellulose filament produced through the given flow conditions, which was presented by @Hakansson_NatComm. An ODF of the fibrils inside the filament was obtained through WAXS, which means that the presented ODF is a measurement of $\Psi_\chi$. The alignment was found to be $S_\chi=0.5$ and representing a projected mean fibril angle of $\langle \chi \rangle = \arccos \sqrt{(2S_\chi+1)/3}=35^\circ$. Assuming that the ODF of the azimuthal angle $\theta$ is uniform also in the filament, the ODF $\Psi_\phi$ is reconstructed in the same way as for the SAXS data. The order parameter with respect to the polar angle $\phi$ is found to be $S_\phi=0.61$, with a corresponding mean fibril angle of $\langle \phi \rangle = \arccos \sqrt{(2S_\phi+1)/3}=31^\circ$. The alignment is thus actually higher than what was presented by @Hakansson_NatComm. However, even though the value of $S_\phi$ was substantially ($\approx 20\%$) higher, there was only a small decrease ($\approx 11\%$) of the mean fibril angle.
The data of the dried filament by @Hakansson_NatComm is illustrated with the dashed curves in figures \[fig:Paper8numDryingResults\]a-d. Observing first the simulated ODF from the position of maximum alignment ($z=2.5h$) in figure \[fig:Paper8numDryingResults\]a, it is seen that the ODF does not approach the distribution of the filament with decreasing $\beta$. Interestingly, the ODF of the dried cellulose filament obtained through WAXS seems to be very close to the numerical drying simulations at $z=9.5h$ and $z=14.5h$ for $\beta=0.25$, assuming that the peak in the ODF is smoothed out. The close matching of the ODFs at least strengthens the hypothesis that the drying process is mainly governed by the radial shrinking principle. The indication is also that the gelling in this case occurs somewhere around $z\approx 10h$. This is also in good agreement with the results by @Hakansson_RSC. The results also suggest that we could theoretically produce a filament with an order parameter of $S_\phi\approx 0.7$ and $\langle \phi \rangle = 27^\circ$, by just controlling the gelling at the present flow conditions to occur at the position of maximum alignment, i.e. at $z=2.5h$. Of course, there are practical limitations to achieving this value as it also takes some time for the gel to form.
In conclusion, it is found here that a shrinking ratio of $\beta\approx 0.25$ seems to be enough to almost obtain the true ODF of the dried filament. In reality the expected shrinking ratio is however close to $\beta=0.04$. The reason is believed to be that the true drying process probably is a lot more intricate than this naive model, especially in the final stages of the drying. As the particle concentration increases towards the end of the drying ($\beta < 0.25$), the particles might sterically hinder each other from aligning according to our simplified model. Due to the results in this work, it is therefore hypothesized that the ODF remains almost constant during the final stages of the drying at $\beta=0.25\rightarrow 0.04$.
\[sec:Paper8concl\] Summary and conclusions
===========================================
Measuring the alignment of elongated nanoparticles (nanofibrils) is often done using small angle X-ray scattering techniques (SAXS), where the beam direction is perpendicular to the flow direction. It is however known that the anisotropic scattering resulting from an aligned system of particles reflects the anisotropy of the projected angle $\chi$ of the fibrils in the viewing plane perpendicular to the beam direction. Therefore, the typical measurement can only provide the orientation distribution function (ODF) of the projected angle $\Psi_\chi$.
In this work, we present a new way of reconstructing the three-dimensional ODF $\Psi_\phi$ (where $\phi$ is the polar angle between the fibril and the flow direction) by using $\Psi_\chi$. The additional assumption is that the distribution of the azimuthal angle $\theta$ around the flow direction is uniform, i.e. $\Psi_\theta$ is constant; an assumption that is approximately valid in dispersed particle flows through cylindrical geometries. The ODF $\Psi_\phi$ can then be used to compare with simulations of dispersed nanoparticles in order to understand more of the underlying physics. This method furthermore opens up the possibility to access the three-dimensional orientation using SAXS without having to rotate the sample, given that the assumption of cylindrical symmetry is valid.
The reconstruction method was applied to revise the experimental results by @Hakansson_NatComm, who studied the hydrodynamic alignment and assembly of cellulose nanofibrils (CNF) in a flow-focusing device to produce continuous cellulose filaments. It is found in the present work that the three-dimensional alignment (represented by the order parameter $S_\phi$) is slightly higher than the previously presented projected alignment (represented by $S_\chi$). A simple model to simulate the evolution of $\Psi_\phi$ in the flow-focusing device is applied by using the Smoluchowski equation, assuming no fibril interactions. Even though the evolution of $S_\phi$ versus downstream position could be qualitatively captured with this simple model, it is obvious that it does not simulate the true evolution of $\Psi_\phi$ as measured with SAXS.
Finally, the reconstruction was also applied to the ODF obtained through wide angle X-ray scattering (WAXS) experiments of a dried filament by @Hakansson_NatComm. It was found that the results were consistent with the assumption that the drying process is governed by a radial shrinking process as water is removed from the gel thread. To further verify this simplified model of the drying process, additional in-situ SAXS/WAXS experiments can be conducted in the future, where the structure is studied during the actual drying process similar to the study by @sen2007slow.
The results in this work opens up new possibilities to study elongated nanoparticles in cylindrical flows and quantitatively compare experiments with numerical simulations. This will potentially lead to improved models and reveal the true mechanisms behind the angular dynamics of the dispersed nanoparticles. The future improved models should then be assessed by comparing the actual three-dimensional ODF in the channel rather than comparing integrated order parameters.
Future research is also suggested in the direction of assessing the validity of a constant $\Psi_\theta$. This can possibly be found by coupling the full three-dimensional version of the Smoluchowski equation to two-fluid simulations in the three-dimensional geometry. If $\Psi_\theta$ can not be assumed to be constant, the reconstruction method presented in this work will fail and it would require other considerations to obtain $\Psi_\phi$ from a measurement of $\Psi_\chi$. However, recent advances in 3D tomographic SAXS[@schaff2015six; @skjonsfjell2016] could possibly be used also for flowing dispersions of nanoparticles. Using this technique, both $\Psi_\phi$ and $\Psi_\theta$ could possibly be obtained at a given position in space.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Karl Håkansson for sharing the data needed to demonstrate the present reconstruction method. Dr. Anders Dahlkild is also greatly thanked for his insightful comments regarding orientation distribution functions. The authors furthermore acknowledge financial support from the Wallenberg Wood Science Center (WWSC).
Supplementary Material
======================
The following files can be downloaded from <https://www.mech.kth.se/~rosen/MCSAXS/>:
1. Matlab code for reconstructing $\Psi_\phi$ from an input ODF $\Psi_\chi$ using $N_\text{LP}\in[1,15]$.
2. Movie showing how isotropically distributed particles align during a radial shrinking process.
Supplementary information: Evaluating alignment of elongated nanoparticles in cylindrical geometries through small angle X-ray scattering experiments
=====================================================================================================================================================
\
Equilibrium solution to the Smoluchowski equation
=================================================
Assuming the orientation distribution function (ODF) $\Psi$ to only be dependent on the polar angle $\phi$, the stationary Smoluchowski equation is given by:\
$$w_c\frac{\partial \Psi_\phi}{\partial z}=\frac{1}{\sin{\phi}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(D_r\sin\phi\frac{\partial \Psi_\phi}{\partial \phi}+\frac{3}{2}\dot{\varepsilon}\Lambda\cos\phi\sin^2\phi\Psi_\phi\right).$$ \
Given a constant $D_r$, $\Lambda$ and $\dot{\varepsilon}$, the solution approaches an equilibrium ODF $\Psi_\phi^\text{eq}$ at $z\rightarrow \infty$. This is obtained by the solution of $\partial \Psi_\phi/\partial z=0$, i.e. when\
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(D_r\sin\phi\frac{\partial \Psi_\phi^\text{eq}}{\partial \phi}+\frac{3}{2}\dot{\varepsilon}\Lambda\cos\phi\sin^2\phi\Psi_\phi^\text{eq}\right)=0.$$ \
Integrating both sides with respect to $\phi$, we obtain\
$$\sin\phi\left(D_r\frac{\partial \Psi_\phi^\text{eq}}{\partial \phi}+\frac{3}{2}\dot{\varepsilon}\Lambda\cos\phi\sin\phi\Psi_\phi^\text{eq}\right)=C,$$ \
with the integration constant $C$. In order for this to be valid for all values of $\phi$, the constant $C$ must equal to zero, which leads to the following ordinary differential equation of the first order:\
$$\frac{\partial \Psi_\phi^\text{eq}}{\partial \phi}+\frac{3}{2}\underbrace{\frac{\dot{\varepsilon}\Lambda}{D_r}}_{=Pe}\cos\phi\sin\phi\Psi_\phi^\text{eq}=0.$$ \
The solution of this ODE is\
$$\Psi_{\phi}^\text{eq}=A\exp(-\frac{3}{4}Pe\sin^2 \phi),$$ where the constant $A$ is found through the normalization $$\int_0^{2\pi}d\theta\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} \Psi_{\phi}^\text{eq}|\sin \phi| \textrm{d}\phi=1.$$
Theory behind the reconstruction
================================
![Same figure as fig. 1a in the main manuscript; definition of the orientation of an elongated particle with unit vector $\boldsymbol{p}$ along the major axis; the polar angle of the particle to the $z$-direction is denoted with $\phi$ and the corresponding azimuthal angle in the $xy$-plane is $\theta$; the projection of the unit vector $\boldsymbol{p}$ on the viewing ($xz$) plane is denoted $\boldsymbol{p}'$ and has the angle $\chi$ with respect to the $z$-axis.[]{data-label="fig:ParticleDef"}](ParticleDef-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="30.00000%"}
Knowing the Legendre decomposition of $\Psi_\phi$, it is possible to project the distribution in the $xz$-plane, to obtain a bi-dimensional distribution $\Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi(\chi)$. The unit vector $\boldsymbol{p}=(p_x,p_y,p_z)$ giving the particle orientation is projected in the $xz$-plane into the non-unit vector\
$$\boldsymbol{p'}=(p_x,p_z)=(\sin \phi \cos \theta, \cos \phi)=|\boldsymbol{p'}|(\sin \chi, \cos \chi),$$ \
where $|\boldsymbol{p'}|\equiv p' =\sqrt{\sin^2 \phi \cos^2 \theta + \cos^2 \phi}$. That the two expressions of $\boldsymbol{p'}$ must be the same is seen easily in figure \[fig:ParticleDef\]. The function $\Psi_\phi$ can be decomposed into the Legendre polynomials $P_j(\cos\phi)$ according to\
$$\Psi_\phi=\sum_{j=0,2,4,...}^{2(N_\text{LP}-1)}\frac{2j+1}{4\pi} \langle P_j \rangle_\phi P_j(\cos \phi),
\label{eq:legDecomp}$$ \
which means that $\Psi_\phi$ only depends on $\cos \phi = p_z$. The projection is made by integrating the ODF in the $y$-direction\
$$\Psi^\text{(2D)}_{\boldsymbol{p'}}=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \textrm{d}p_y \Psi_\phi(p_z) \delta(1-p),
\label{eq:Psi2D_w_deltaFunct}$$ \
where $p=\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2+p_z^2}=\sqrt{p_y^2+p'^2}$ and the Dirac function ensures that the integration is only done for vectors $\boldsymbol{p}$ that fulfill the requirement $|\boldsymbol{p}|\equiv p=1$ since $\boldsymbol{p}$ is a unit vector. This Dirac function can be rewritten using the relationship\
$$\delta(f(p_y))=\frac{\sum_{p_{y,0}}\delta(p_y-p_{y,0})}{|f'(p_{y,0})|}
\label{eq:deltaFunctRelation}$$ \
where $p_{y,0}$ is a real root to the function $f(p_y)$. This is applied to our case where\
$$\begin{aligned}
f(p_y)&=&1-\sqrt{p_y^2+p'^2},\\
f'(p_y)&=&-\frac{p_y}{\sqrt{p_y^2+p'^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ \
The function $f(p_y)$ has two roots at $p_{y,0}=\pm\sqrt{1-p'^2}$, which means that the delta function in eq. (\[eq:Psi2D\_w\_deltaFunct\]) can be rewritten using the relation (\[eq:deltaFunctRelation\]) as\
$$\delta(1-p) = \frac{\delta(p_y-\sqrt{1-p'^2})+\delta(p_y+\sqrt{1-p'^2})}{\sqrt{1-p'^2}}.$$ \
The integral in eq. (\[eq:Psi2D\_w\_deltaFunct\]) thus becomes\
$$\Psi^\text{(2D)}_{\boldsymbol{p'}}=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \textrm{d}p_y \Psi_\phi(p_z) \frac{\delta(p_y-\sqrt{1-p'^2})+\delta(p_y+\sqrt{1-p'^2})}{\sqrt{1-p'^2}},
\label{eq:Psi2D_w_deltaFunct2}$$ which has the solution\
$$\Psi^\text{(2D)}_{\boldsymbol{p'}}=\frac{2 \Psi_\phi(p_z) }{\sqrt{1-p'^2}},$$ \
where $\Psi^\text{(2D)}_{\boldsymbol{p'}}$ depends on $p'\in[0,1]$ and $\chi\in[-\pi,\pi]$. By symmetry, the $\chi$ range can be reduced to $[-\pi/2, \pi/2]$ and $\Psi^\text{(2D)}_{\boldsymbol{p'}}$ multiplied by a factor $2$. To obtain the 2D ODF $\Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi$ as a function of $\chi$ only, an integration is made over $p'$ since $p_z=\cos\phi=p'\cos\chi$:\
$$\Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi=\int_{0}^{1} \frac{4 p' \textrm{d}p' \Psi_\phi(p' \cos \chi)}{\sqrt{1-p'^2}}.
\label{eq:Psi2DIntegral}$$ \
The ODF $\Psi_\phi$ can be decomposed into Legendre polynomials $P_j(\cos\phi)$ according to eq. (\[eq:legDecomp\])\
$$\Psi_\phi=\sum_{j=0,2,4,...}^{2(N_\text{LP}-1)}\frac{2j+1}{4\pi} \langle P_j \rangle_\phi P_j(\underbrace{p'\cos\chi}_{\cos\phi}),$$ \
Using this, the integral in eq. (\[eq:Psi2DIntegral\]) can be re-written as\
$$\Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi=\sum_{j=0,2,4,...}^{2(N_\text{LP}-1)}\frac{2j+1}{4\pi} \langle P_j \rangle_\phi \int_{0}^{1} \frac{4 p' \textrm{d}p' P_j(p' \cos \chi)}{\sqrt{1-p'^2}}.\label{eq:legendre_decomposition_chi_2D}$$ \
This ODF is normalized according to\
$$\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} \Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi \textrm{d}\chi =1.$$
We can now consider this 2D ODF as a 3D ODF by changing only the normalization according to\
$$\Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi =\underbrace{\left(\int_0^{2\pi}d\theta\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} \Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi |\sin \chi| \textrm{d}\chi \right)^{-1}}_{\alpha}\Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi\equiv \alpha \Psi^\text{(2D)}_\chi.$$ \
Now, it is possible to decompose $\Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi$ into Legendre polynomials:\
$$\Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi=\sum_{i=0,2,4,...}^{2(N_\text{LP}-1)}\frac{2i+1}{4\pi} \langle P_i \rangle_\chi P_i(\cos \chi),
\label{eq:legendre_decomposition_chi}$$ \
where the order parameters are given by\
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle P_i \rangle_\chi &= & \int_0^{2\pi}d\theta\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} \Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi P_i(\cos \chi) |\sin \chi| \textrm{d}\chi\\
&=& 2\pi \alpha\sum_{j=0,2,4,...}^{2(N_\text{LP}-1)}\frac{2j+1}{4\pi} \langle P_j \rangle_\phi C_{i,j},\label{eq:matrix_C}\end{aligned}$$ \
using\
$$C_{i,j}=\int_{0}^{1} \frac{4 p' \textrm{d}p' }{\sqrt{1-p'^2}} \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} P_i(\cos \chi) P_j(p' \cos \chi) |\sin \chi| \textrm{d}\chi.$$ \
We now have a relationship between the order parameters $\langle P_i \rangle_\chi$ and $\langle P_j \rangle_\phi$ via an $N_\text{LP}\times N_\text{LP}$ matrix.
Choosing $N_\text{LP}$
======================
In order to choose a fit experimental data with as few Legendre polynomials as possible while still having a low error, i.e. to not have overfitting of the data, we apply the following strategy:\
1. Start with $N_\text{LP}=2$.
2. Calculate the mean square error $\varepsilon(N_\text{LP})$ between the experimental data of $\Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi$ and the corresponding fit.
3. Calculate the mean square error $\varepsilon(N_\text{LP}-1)$ between the experimental data of $\Psi^\text{(3D)}_\chi$ and the corresponding fit.
4. If $\log_{10}\varepsilon(N_\text{LP}-1)-\log_{10}\varepsilon(N_\text{LP})>0.05$, start over at step 1 with $N_\text{LP}+1$.
5. If $\log_{10}\varepsilon(N_\text{LP}-1)-\log_{10}\varepsilon(N_\text{LP})<0.05$, choose the value $N_\text{LP}-1$ for the reconstruction.
Radial shrinking model
======================
![Illustration the numerical shrinking experiment; (a) initially we consider a circular cross-section of the cylindrical geometry with radius $R_0$; a particle is place at polar coordinates ($|\boldsymbol{r}_0|,\gamma$) and orientation $(\phi_0,\theta_0)$ with the projected unit symmetry axis denoted $\boldsymbol{p}_{\text{proj,0}}$; (b) after the shrinking with factor $\beta$, the circular cross-section is reduced to a radius $\beta R_0$, the position of the particle is moved to $\beta\boldsymbol{r}_0$ and the radial component of the orientation is reduced to $\beta p_{r,0}$.[]{data-label="fig:Paper8numShrinkingPrinciple"}](RadShrinking-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
Consider a circular cross-section of a cylindrical flow of radius $R$. A particle is positioned at a certain position vector $\boldsymbol{r}_0$, which in polar coordinates is described with the distance from the center $|\boldsymbol{r}_0|$ and the angle $\gamma$ towards the $x$-direction as shown in figure \[fig:Paper8numShrinkingPrinciple\]a. The unit vectors of the cylindrical coordinates are given by $\boldsymbol{e}_r=(\cos\gamma,\sin\gamma)$ and $\boldsymbol{e}_\gamma=(-\sin\gamma,\cos\gamma)$. The particle has a certain orientation $\phi_0$ and $\theta_0$ and the projected unit direction of the particle $\boldsymbol{p}_{\text{proj},0}$ on the $xy$-plane is given by $\boldsymbol{p}_{\text{proj},0}=(p_{x,0},p_{y,0})=(\sin\phi_0\cos\theta_0,\sin\phi_0\sin\theta_0)$. The radial and azimuthal components of this projected vector are given by $p_{r,0}=\boldsymbol{p}_{\text{proj},0}\cdot\boldsymbol{e}_r$ and $p_\gamma=\boldsymbol{p}_{\text{proj},0}\cdot\boldsymbol{e}_\gamma$, respectively. The general relationships between these components and the particle orientation is given by\
$$\sin\phi_0=\sqrt{p_{r,0}^2+p_\gamma^2}, \qquad \cos\theta_0=\frac{\boldsymbol{p}_{\text{proj},0}\cdot\boldsymbol{e}_x}{\sqrt{p_{r,0}^2+p_\gamma^2}}.
\label{eq:Paper8q}$$ \
To simulate how the alignment changes as the sample is drying, we will assume that everything is shrinking radially. Going from a circular cross-section of radius $R_0$ to one with radius $R$, we will also change\
$$\frac{R}{R_0}=\frac{|\boldsymbol{r}|}{|\boldsymbol{r}_0|}=\frac{p_r}{p_{r,0}}=\beta,
\label{eq:Paper8shrinking}$$ \
where $\beta$ is defined as the shrinking ratio. During the drying, we then assume $\gamma$ and $p_\gamma$ to remain unchanged. The result is that the projected length of the symmetry axis $\boldsymbol{p}_\text{proj}$ decreases, i.e. the distribution of particles become more aligned along the $z$-direction. This process is illustrated in figure \[fig:Paper8numShrinkingPrinciple\]b. The particle positions are initially uniformly distributed on the circular cross section. Given a shrinking ratio $\beta$ and an initial distribution of $\theta_0$ and $\phi_0$, the resulting angles $\theta$ and $\phi$ after shrinking are calculated using the relations:\
$$\phi=\arcsin\sqrt{(p_{r,0}\beta)^2+p_\gamma^2},
\label{eq:Paper8PhiAfterShrinking}$$ $$\theta=\arccos\left(\frac{(\beta p_{r,0}\boldsymbol{e}_r+p_\gamma\boldsymbol{e}_\gamma)\cdot\boldsymbol{e}_x}{\sqrt{(\beta p_{r,0})^2+p_\gamma^2}}\right).
\label{eq:Paper8ThetaAfterShrinking}$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations (kHz QPOs) and the band-limited noise (BLN) in the 0.5–16 Hz range observed simultaneously on the horizontal branch (HB) and on the upper normal branch (NB) of the brightest neutron star Low-mass X-ray Binary (LMXB) Scorpius X–1 with the observations performed with the [*Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE)*]{}. We find that the twin kHz QPO frequencies are positively correlated with the flux variations taking place on the BLN time scales on the HB, in contrast to the anti-correlation held on the time scale of the normal branch oscillation (NBO) on the NB reported previously, suggesting that although they occur in sequence along the color-color tracks, the BLN and the NBO are of different origins. We also show the evidence that the frequency separation between the twin kHz QPOs decreases with the flux by $2\sim~3$ Hz on the BLN time scales, which is consistent with the trend on the longer time scale that the Z source traces the HB. This further suggests that the flux variation associated with the BLN originates from the mass accretion rate variation in the disk accretion flow. We discuss the implications of these results for our understanding of the BLN.'
author:
- Xiaofeng Cao and Wenfei Yu
title: '[Frequency Variation of the Kilohertz Quasi-periodic Oscillations and the Flux of the Band-limited Noise in Scorpius X-1]{}'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The brightest neutron star Low-mass X-ray Binaries (LMXBs) were divided into two main types, namely, the “Z" sources and the “atoll" sources, based on their spectral and timing behavior studied twenty years ago (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989). The brighter type is the “Z" sources, because they trace out roughly a Z-shape in X-ray color-color diagram (CD), which consists of three branches, called the horizontal branch (HB), the normal branch (NB), and the flaring branch (FB), respectively. The picture is yet not well understood. Recent observations of the transient Z source XTE J1701-462 have brought new clues to the formation of the tracks (Homan et al. 2007), while observations in the past decade revealed some weak neutron star LMXBs accreting at lower mass accretion rates, some of which show similarities to the atoll sources (see the review van der Klis 2006).
The power spectra of neutron star LMXBs usually contain several variability components in a wide range of frequency up to kilohertz. Aperiodic variability includes Quasi-periodic Oscillation (QPO, narrow feature) or noise (broad structure). Band-limited noise (BLN) component, formerly called high-frequency noise (HFN) in atoll sources and low-frequency noise (LFN) in Z sources, has a flat shape up to a break frequency. For the Z sources, the BLN is observed only on the HB and the very upper part of the NB. In addition to the BLN, various QPOs are observed in different branches of the Z sources. The characteristic frequencies of the variability components often vary monotonically along the tracks in the CD.
The brightest persistent neutron star LMXB is a Z source. In there are three distinct types of QPOs observed, i.e., the near 6 Hz normal-branch oscillation (NBO), the near 45 Hz horizontal-branch oscillation (HBO) with a harmonic near 90 Hz, and the kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations (kHz QPOs). The kHz QPOs and the harmonic of the HBO, were first seen in the persistent flux of from the very early RXTE observations (van der Klis et al. 1996a; 1997).
The characteristic frequencies of the X-ray variability in X-ray binaries are probably related to some characteristic time scales in the system, some of which may be used to constrain the mass and the spin of the compact object. Many authors have tried to explain these frequencies and their properties. Models for the kHz QPOs, which are based on orbital and epicyclical motions, include relativistic precession model (Stella & Vietri 1999) and sonic-point and spin-resonance model (Miller et al. 1998; Lamb & Miller 2004). Some other models for the kHz QPOs are based on disk oscillations or modes in the accretion flow, e.g., nonlinear resonance (Abramowicz & Kluzniak 2001; Abramowicsz 2005), Alfveń wave oscillation (Zhang 2004), and kink mode (Li & Zhang 2005). Models for the HBOs include magnetospheric beat-frequency models (Alpar & Shaham 1985; Lamb et al. 1985), the Lense-Thirring precession model (Stella & Vietri 1998), and the magnetically warped precessing-disk model (Lai 1999; Shirakawa & Lai 2002). For the NBO or the FBO, disk oscillation (e.g. Alpar et al. 1992), radiation-force feedback instability (Fortner et al. 1989), and the oscillation of a spherical shell (Titarchuk 2001) have been proposed. Related to , a possible explanation for the NBO and the coupling between the twin kHz QPOs and the NBO was discussed by Hor$\acute{a}$k et al. (2004). In addition, a two-oscillator (TO) model has been developed to explain several characteristic frequencies in neutron star X-ray binaries (Titarchuk & Osherovich 1999; Titarchuk et al. 1999).
The frequency correlation between these QPOs and noises has been found to occur in different source types and over a wide range of luminosities (e.g., Psaltis, Belloni, and van der Klis 1999; Belloni, Psaltis, and van der Klis 2002; van der Klis 2006). The correlations between the frequencies of the QPOs and the X-ray count rate on long-term and short-term time scales were observed as well (note: past X-ray timing measurements we discussed below were obtained with two proportional counter instruments, i.e., the Medium Energy (ME) Proportional Counter on board the European Space Agency’s X-ray Observatory (EXOSAT) and the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) on board the RXTE. Therefore the correlations between the frequencies of various QPOs and the X-ray count rate as seen with the EXOSAT and the RXTE are generally consistent). In the atoll sources on the time scales of hours to days, the kHz QPO frequency is found correlated with the X-ray count rate, but on time scales longer than days the correlation does not hold and we see the “parallel track” phenomenon (e.g., , Ford et al. 1997; , Yu et al. 1997; Méndez et al. 1999). An anti-correlation between the kHz QPO frequency and the count rate associated with the mHz QPO, which might correspond to a thermonuclear burning mode on neutron star, was also found in 4U 1608-52 (Yu & van der Klis 2002). In the Z sources on the time scales of hours to days, the kHz QPO frequencies and the X-ray count rate appear to positively correlate on the HB and sometimes anti-correlate on the NB as inferred from observations reported in the literature. In and , the kHz QPO frequencies increase from the HB to the upper NB (van der Klis et al. 1996b), while the X-ray count rate increases from the HB to the HB/NB vertex and then decreases along the upper NB (Kuulkers et al. 1994; Wijnands et al. 1997; Homan et al. 2002), therefore a positive correlation on the HB and an anti-correlation on the upper NB can be inferred. In and , the kHz QPO frequencies and the count rate increase along the HB to the HB/NB vertex (Jonker et al. 1998; Wijnands et al. 1998), so there is a positive correlation on the HB. In , the kHz QPO frequencies increase on the NB (van der Klis et al 1996a) and the X-ray count rate decreases from the HB to the NB (Dieters & van der Klis 2000), so there is an anti-correlatation on the NB (Yu et al. 2001). Similar to those of the kHz QPOs, the frequency of the HBO is correlated with the X-ray count rate as well. In general, the HBO frequency and the count rate appear to positively correlate on the HB. For example, in , the HBO frequency is positively correlated with the source count rate on the HB (Lewin et al.1992; Kuulkers et al. 1994). But the situation is complex on the NB. In , the HBO frequency increases from the HB to the HB/NB vertex and then remains approximately constant on the upper NB, while the count rate increases from the HB to the very upper NB (Wijnands et al. 1998). In , the HBO frequency increases from the HB to the HB/NB vertex and then remains approximately constant on the upper NB, while the count rate increases from the HB to the HB/NB vertex and decreases from the NB to the NB/FB vertex (Kuulkers & van der Klis 1996; Jonker et al. 1998). In , the HBO frequency increases from the HB to the middle NB and then decreases from the middle NB to the NB/FB vertex, while the count rate increases from the HB to the HB/NB vertex and decreases from the NB to the NB/FB vertex (Wijnands et al. 1996; Homan et al. 2002). Therefore on the upper NB, previous observations suggest that there is no significant correlation between the HBO frequency and the X-ray count rate in and , while there is an anti-correlation in GX 17+2. On the lower NB, a positive correlation was seen in . Similar to the atoll sources, on longer time scales, there is no correlation between the QPO frequencies and the X-ray count rate.
Previous studies show the BLN on the HB and the NBO on the NB in occur in time and frequency sequence (see Figure 2 of van der Klis et al. 1997). One may wonder if they are of similar origins. In this paper, we investigated the dependence of the kHz QPOs on the flux variation due to the BLN in . We found that on the time scales of the BLN, there is a positive correlation between the kHz QPO frequencies and the X-ray flux , and the frequency separation of the kHz QPOs deceases with the X-ray flux, which is different from what was seen for the NBO.
Observations and data analysis
==============================
The observations of performed with the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) on board the [*Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer*]{} ([*RXTE*]{}; Bradt et al. 1993) between 1996 February 14 and 2006 September 28 were used in our preliminary analysis. The high time resolution data mode is Bin mode, including B$\_$125us$\_$1M$\_$0$\_$87$\_$H, B$\_$250us$\_$1M$\_$0$\_$87$\_$H, B$\_$250us$\_$1M$\_$0$\_$249$\_$H, B$\_$250us$\_$2A$\_$0$\_$49$\_$H, or B$\_$250us$\_$2A$\_$8$\_$39$\_$H, which were used to generate the power spectrum of each observation. Data from all active Proportional Counter Units (PCUs), ranging from 3 to 5, were extracted over the whole energy range available in each data modes and rebinned to 1/[4096]{} s resolution throughout.
Study of BLN on the HB
----------------------
First, we made fast Fourier transform with lengths of 32 s to search for the observations with an average power spectrum composed of a BLN and twin kHz QPOs. We wanted to select the observations showing significant twin kHz QPOs and strong BLN on the HB. The flat top of the BLN in the observations on the HB is in the frequency range around 0.5 – 4.0 Hz, so we calculated the average power in the frequency range 0.5 – 4.0 Hz for each of these observations and picked out those with an average power greater than 5.0 (Leahy normalization). Then for each of these observations, we used transform lengths of $1/{32}$ s to generate a 32 Hz resolution average power spectrum with a Nyquist frequency of 2048 Hz. We fitted each average power spectrum in the 192–2048 Hz range with a model of the form $P(\nu)=a_1 + a_2\nu^{a_3}$, where $a_1, a_2, a_3$ are constants, to account for the dead-time-modified Poisson noise and two Lorentzian peaks for the twin kHz QPOs at high frequencies. We determined the centroid frequencies ($\nu_{2}$ for the upper and $\nu_{1}$ for the lower), the corresponding integrated powers, and their uncertainties of the kHz QPOs. We then picked out the observations in which the upper kHz QPO is strong with an integrated Leahy normalized power greater than 18. The observation IDs of the selected 5 observations are listed in Table 1 (group A). A typical average power spectrum corresponding to these observations is shown in Figure 1. It shows that the power spectrum primarily includes a BLN with a characteristic frequency around a few Hz and twin kHz QPOs. A model composed of a Lorentzian for the BLN at low frequencies, two Lorentzians for the twin kHz QPOs at high frequencies, and a power-law noise plus a constant to account for the dead-time affected Poisson noise is shown in the plot as well.
With the five observations, we intended to study the relation between the frequencies of the twin kHz QPOs and the flux variation due to the BLN. We had to average power spectra from different observations in which the frequencies of the kHz QPOs are different. Therefore we need to shift the power spectra in frequency to align the kHz QPO peaks so that we can detect QPO frequency drift when the BLN flux varies. First, we determined the frequency shift for $\nu_{2}$ in the power spectrum of each observation to be aligned at 800 Hz. This frequency shift was used later on. We sampled the power spectra according to the BLN flux. We used transform lengths of $1/{32}$ s to calculate a series of Fourier power spectra for each observation. Similar to the method used by Yu et al. (2001) but without a selection on the significance of the count rate difference, the series of power spectra were assigned into many non-overlapping pairs of successive power spectra. We compared the two average count rates of each pair of successive power spectra and constructed the following two groups of power spectra. The high flux group includes the one with a higher rate in each pair, and the low flux group includes the lower rate one. The average count rate difference ($C_{H}-C_{L}$, where $C_{H}$ and $C_{L}$ denote high and low rate respectively) between the two groups describes the flux variation at the variability frequency close to 16 Hz. After shifted by the determined frequency shift to align the upper kHz QPO at 800 Hz, the power spectra of the two groups were averaged respectively to generate two average power spectra. We fitted both average power spectra in the 192–1920 Hz range with two Lorentzian peaks and a curve of the form $P(\nu)=a_1 + a_2\nu^{a_3}$ to characterize the power spectra, and determined the central frequencies of the kHz QPOs ($\nu_{1H}$ and $\nu_{2H}$ for high flux group; $\nu_{1L}$ and $\nu_{2L}$ for low flux group). We then compared the centroid frequencies of the kHz QPOs between the two groups, and calculated frequency differences of the upper and the lower kHz QPOs ($\nu_{2H}-\nu_{2L}$ and $\nu_{1H}-\nu_{1L}$), respectively.
The difference between the average count rates of the high flux group and the low flux group is related to the Fourier power around frequency $1/{2\delta t}$. Hence, with segment duration $\delta t=1/{32}$ s, we sampled the flux variation near 16 Hz. The BLN dominates the power spectrum in the frequency range from about 0.5 Hz to 16 Hz. In order to cover this range, we constructed longer segments of duration $N\delta t$, where $N=2,3, ..., 32$, which were used to sample variations on the time scales corresponding to $16/N$ Hz. We determined the corresponding count rates and the corresponding power spectra for each N. With these power spectra, we constructed high count rate and low count rate groups of power spectra and compared the QPO frequencies in the same way as above for $N=1$. For most $N$, $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ both are higher in the high count rate group than in the lower count rate group. The frequency drifts of $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ are shown in Figure 2b and 2d as filled circles, respectively. We also show the frequency drifts over count rate difference in units of counts per 1/32 s in Figure 2c and 2e.
To study QPO frequency drifts in response to flux variations at lower frequencies than 0.5 Hz, we made fast Fourier transforms with segment duration $\delta t=0.5$ s, which resulted in power spectra with 2 Hz resolution, higher than the study of segments with a duration of $\delta t=1/{32}$ s. With these power spectra, we can sample fluctuations near 1/M Hz in the range from 0.03 Hz to 1.0 Hz with a frequency resolution 16 times smaller, where $M=1,2,3, ..., 32$. The results are shown in Figure 2 as diamonds.
For the upper kHz QPO frequency $\nu_2$, the average frequency drift corresponding to the flux variation of the BLN between 0.5 Hz and 16 Hz is $1.8\pm0.4$ Hz; for the lower kHz QPO frequency $\nu_1$, the average frequency drift is $4.4\pm0.6$ Hz. It appears that the frequency drift in $\nu_1$ is larger than that of $\nu_2$ and the peak separation $\Delta\nu$ of the twin kHz QPOs is $2.6\pm0.7$ Hz smaller for the high count rate group than that for the low count rate group. For the flux variation in the frequency range 0.03–1.0 Hz, the average frequency shifts of $\nu_2$ and $\nu_1$ are $0.9\pm0.3$ Hz and $1.6\pm0.6$ Hz, respectively, which are not as significant as those corresponding to the flux variation in the frequency range 0.5–16 Hz. This is reasonable since most of the flux variation due to the BLN is in the 1–10 Hz range.
A QPO frequency drift on longer time scales could contribute to low level of QPO frequency drift on the BLN time scales. Therefore, we compared the correlation between the kHz QPO frequency and the flux variation on the BLN time scales with that on longer time scales to judge whether the QPO frequency drift on the BLN time scales is the result of the QPO frequency drift on longer time scales. We divided the data of the five observations into segments of length 256 s. We calculated the power spectrum of each segment and determined the frequencies of the kHz QPOs and the corresponding count rate. Figure 3a and 3b shows $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ against the count rate per PCU on 256 s time scale for all selected observations. We found that on the 256 s time scale there is no apparent correlation between the frequencies of the twin kHz QPOs and the X-ray count rate. There might be a positive correlation in the observation 20053-01-01-00. We then studied whether the positive correlation on the BLN time scale we got came from 20053-01-01-00 alone. We found the lower and the upper kHz QPO frequencies drifted $2.4\pm0.6$ Hz and $4.7\pm1.0$ Hz for 20053-01-01-00 and $1.5\pm0.5$ Hz and $4.5\pm0.8$ Hz for the other four observations, respectively, suggesting that the positive correlation on the BLN time scales was not from the effect of variations on longer time scales.
Study of BLN on the NB
-----------------------
It is known that in the BLN shows up on the upper NB as well. We therefore further studied the relation between the frequencies of the twin kHz QPOs and the flux variation due to the BLN evolving from the HB to the upper NB. The segments of the observations of evolving from the HB to the upper NB during which show strong BLN and twin kHz QPOs in the power spectra were studied. The strength of the BLN and the kHz QPOs in each observation were determined in the same way as our previous analysis. We selected the observation segments during which the upper kHz QPO had a Leahy normalized integrated power greater than 4 and the average power of BLN was greater than 2 and less than 5 in the frequency range 0.5 – 4.0 Hz ( BLN with an average power greater than 5 corresponds to the HB case studied above). We made fast Fourier transform with intervals of 32 s for each continuous observation segments in these observations. We constructed three groups of segments, namely the B, C and D group, according to the BLN strength with an average power in the range 4.0–5.0, 3.0–4.0, and 2.0–3.0, respectively.The groups of observation segments are listed in Table 1 as well. The average power spectrum corresponding to each group is shown in Figure 4. Notice that we will refer to the observations with the strongest BLN on the HB we studied above as group A.
We investigated the relative frequency changes of the kHz QPOs due to the flux variation on the BLN time scales for group B, C, and D, similar to our study of group A. We repeated the analysis in the same way as what we performed to the observations of group A. In the frequency range 0.5–16 Hz, the average frequency drifts of $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ are $3.3\pm0.7$ Hz and $0.5\pm0.5$ Hz for group B, $2.5\pm0.5$ Hz and $-0.7\pm0.4$ Hz for group C, and $3.4\pm1.2$ Hz and $0.9\pm1.1$ Hz for group D, respectively. With these average drifts, we also calculated the variations of frequency separation $\Delta\nu$ of the twin kHz QPOs. They are $2.8\pm0.9$ Hz, $3.2\pm0.6$ Hz, and $2.5\pm1.7$ Hz for B, C and D group, respectively. As an example, the results corresponding to group D is shown in Figure 5.
Observations show that the BLN increases in frequency when evolves from the HB to the NB, followed by the occurrence of the NBO, fading away before the occurrence of the NBO (see van der Klis et al. 1997). A summary of the results obtained for the BLN on the HB and the upper NB, as well as the results obtained for the NBO on the NB, are shown in Figure 6. It is interesting to see that, in response to an increase of the X-ray count rate on the BLN and the NBO time scales, the kHz QPO drifts are in opposite sign and the change of $\Delta\nu$ differ significantly. This indicates that the BLN and the NBO are of distinct origins.
DISCUSSION
==========
We have analyzed [*RXTE*]{} observations of when the BLN and the twin kHz QPOs co-exist on the HB and the upper NB. We found that the frequencies of the twin kHz QPOs vary on the BLN time scales systematically. Associated with the BLN flux variation on the HB, the upper kHz QPO frequency varies by $1.8\pm0.4$ Hz, positively correlated with the BLN flux variation. On the other hand, from the HB to the very upper NB in sequence of decreasing BLN strength, the lower kHz QPO frequency is found to vary by $4.4\pm0.6$ Hz to $2.5\pm0.5$ Hz, correlating to the flux variation associated with the BLN in a positive way. Consequently, the twin kHz QPO peak separation decreases by $2.6\pm0.7$ Hz to $3.3\pm0.6$ Hz, opposite the flux variation due to the BLN. It is worth noting that on time scales longer than the BLN time scale, there is no significant correlation between the kHz QPO frequencies and the X-ray count rate among the observations. This is exactly the same ‘parallel track’ phenomenon seen in atoll sources (see the review of van der Klis 2006). The reason for this phenomenon might be that the accretion flow is composed of a disk flow and a halo flow (e.g., Kaaret et al. 1998) and only the disk flow determines the kHz QPO frequency (van der Klis 2001)
Both the upper and the lower kHz QPO frequencies are positively correlated with the flux variation on the BLN time scales on the HB. The correlation between the upper kHz QPO frequency and the BLN flux is opposite in sign to that between the upper kHz QPO frequency and the NBO flux. Besides, the scale of the frequency drift of the upper kHz QPO due to the flux variation on the time scale of the BLN on the HB and the upper NB, i.e., $1.8\pm0.4$ Hz, is much smaller than the $\sim$ 22 Hz drift in response to the NBO flux variation on the lower NB. This provides evidence that the BLN on the HB and the upper NB is probably of a different origin from the NBO. On the lower NB, the frequency of the upper kHz QPO is anti-correlated with the count rate variation on the NBO time scale (Yu et al. 2001). This is interpreted as that it probably arises from the effect of the radiative stresses on the inner disk edge which modulates the orbital frequency in the accretion flow at the NBO frequency. On the BLN time scales, the frequencies of the twin kHz QPOs are both positively correlated with the count rate, which suggest that the frequency drifts arise from the variation of the mass accretion rate.
Associated with the flux variation on the time scale of the BLN, $\Delta\nu$ decreases with increasing $\nu_2$ by a few hertz. This behavior is qualitatively consistent with the overall decreasing trend of $\Delta \nu$ with $\nu_2$ for neutron star LMXBs when the upper kHz QPO is about 910–980 Hz (see the plot in Stella & Vietri 1999). This hints that the same mechanism causes the kHz QPO frequency variations on the BLN time scales and on the longer time scales that the neutron star LMXBs move along the tracks in the color-color diagram. This also supports that the BLN corresponds to the variation of the mass accretion rate in the accretion flow. Further support of this idea is from the comparison of the variability amplitude and the corresponding frequency shift on both the BLN time scales and the time scale a Z source evolves along the tracks in the CD. The [*rms*]{} amplitude of the BLN is on the scale of about 1%. This is associated with a kHz QPO frequency drift of a few Hz. The relation between the flux variation and the kHz QPO frequency drift is quantitatively consistent with that of a Z source evolves along the tracks in the CD. The frequency range of the kHz QPOs of a few hundred Hz and the corresponding flux variation is on the scale of 50% for a Z source to tracing the HB and the NB.
In neutron star LMXBs, the accretion geometry might consist of a disk flow and a radial flow (e.g., Kaaret et al. 1998; van der Klis 2001; Yu et al. 2004). The variation of the mass accretion rate in a disk flow or in a radial flow leads to different source behaviors, which helps determine the origin of the BLN. The frequencies of the HBO and the kHz QPOs on the HB are correlated with the X-ray flux in several Z sources (Lewin et al. 1992; Kuulkers et al. 1994; Kuulkers & van der Klis 1996; van der Klis 1996a,b; Wijnands et al. 1996, 1997, 1998; Jonker et al. 1998; Dieters & van der Klis 2000; Homan et al. 2002). One possible explanation is that the HBO frequency is probably determined by the mass accretion rate through the inner disk (Wijnands et al. 1996). On the other hand, the NBO is different from the HBO. The upper kHz QPO frequency is anti-correlated with the NBO flux in (Yu et al. 2001), which suggests that the NBO probably originates from a radial flow, as in the model of Fortner et al. (1989) or Titarchuk (2001). On the BLN time scales we see a positive correlation between the kHz QPO frequency and the X-ray flux. This suggests that the BLN is very likely associated with the variation of the mass accretion rate in the disk flow, similar to the HBO, rather than the variation of the mass accretion rate of the radial flow.
As shown in van der Klis et al. (1997), the NBO in seems to emerge from the BLN on the NB. However, the BLN and the NBO in may be of distinct origins (van der Klis 2007, private communication). Our study shows clearly that the BLN and the NBO are different. Di Salvo et al. (2001) showed a similar phenomenon in an atoll source in which a broad noise component disappeared immediately before a narrow peaked component, similarly to the NBO in the Z sources, emerged around 7 Hz. The broad noise component and the narrow peaked component observed in the atoll sources may corresponds to the BLN and the NBO in , and of similar origins, respectively.
It is worth noting that the frequency separation $\Delta\nu$ of the twin kHz QPOs varies on time scales of seconds or shorter (e.g., Yu et al. 2001; this letter). On the NBO time scale when the tracks on the NB, the lower kHz QPO seems to disappear and the upper kHz QPO decreases by at least 22 Hz when the NBO flux increases from low to high (see Yu et al. 2001); on the BLN time scales when the is on the upper NB and on the HB, the frequency separation varies by about a few Hz. These suggest that the frequency separation measured on longer time scales is probably smaller than the actual separation by at least 22 Hz on the NB, and no less than a few Hz on the upper NB and the HB. Therefore, with increasing upper kHz QPO frequency in the range from 920 Hz to 1090 Hz, the $\Delta\nu$ doesn’t decrease as steeply as measured on longer time scales at least for . Since this trend has been used to constrain models (Stella & Vietri 1999; Zhang et al. 2004), while these models predict much steeper trend towards higher frequencies than the observed, further observational studies of $\Delta\nu$ at highest kHz QPO frequencies are crucial.
Conclusion
==========
We have performed a study of f the band-limited noise (BLN) in . We conclude
- Both the lower and the upper kHz QPO frequencies are positively correlated with the flux variation taking place on the BLN time scales, roughly quantitatively consistent with the kHz QPO frequency vs. the X-ray flux correlation hold along the Z track.
- The frequency separation between the two kHz QPOs decreases with increasing kHz QPO frequencies on the BLN time scales by a few hertz, consistent with the overall trend held on longer time scales at the same kHz QPO frequency range.
- Based on the above properties of the BLN which is different from those of the NBO, we conclude that the BLN likely corresponds to the variation in the mass accretion rate of the disk accretion flow.
- The results obtained for the BLN and the NBO in suggest that further observational studies of $\Delta\nu$ at highest kHz QPO frequencies are crucial for testing kHz QPO models.
We would like to thank the anonymous referee for kindness and very useful suggestions which makes this work complete. WY appreciate very useful discussions with Michiel van der Klis of the University of Amsterdam. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (10773023, 1083302, 10773004,10603002), the One Hundred Talents project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai Pujiang Program (08PJ14111), the National Basic Research Program of China (2009CB824800), and the starting funds of the Shanghai Astronomical Observatory. The study has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.
Abramowicsz, M. A. 2005, Astron. Nachr., 326, 782 Abramowicsz, M. A., & Kluzniak, W. 2001, A&A, 374, L19 Alpar, M. A., & Shaham, J. 1985, Nature, 316, 239 Alpar M. A., Hasinger G., Shaham J., & Yancopoulos S.,1992, A&A, 257, 627 Belloni, T., Psaltis, D., & van der Klis, M. 2002, ApJ, 572, 392 Bradt, H. V., Rothschild, R. E., & Swank, J. H. 1993, A&AS, 97, 355 Dieters, S. W., & van der Klis, M., 2000, MNRAS, 311, 201 Di Salvo, T., M$\acute{e}$ndez, M., van der Klis, M., Ford, E., & Robba, N. R. 2001, ApJ, 546, 1107 Ford, E., Kaaret, P., Tavani, M., Barret, D., Bloser, P., Grindlay, J., Harman, B. A., Paciesas, W. S., & Zhang, S. N. 1997, ApJ, 475, L123 Fortner, B., Lamb, F. K., & Miller, G. S. 1989, Nature, 342, 775 Hasinger, G., & van der Klis, M. 1989, A&A, 225, 79 Homan, J., van der Klis, M., Jonker, P. G., Wijnands, R., Kuulkers, E., Méndez, M., & Lewin, W. H. G. 2002, ApJ, 568, 878 Homan, J., et al. 2007, , 656, 420 Hor$\acute{a}$k, J., Abramowicz, M. A., & Kluzniak, W. 2004, PASJ, 56, 819 Jonker, P. G., Wijnands, R., van der Klis, M., Psaltis, D., Kuulkers, E., & Lamb, F. K. 1998, ApJ, 499, L191 Kaaret, P., Yu, W., Ford, E. C., & Zhang, S. N. 1998, , 497, L93 Kuulkers, E., van der Klis, M., Oosterbroek, T., Asai, K., Dotani, T., van Paradijs, J., & Lewin, W. H. G. 1994, A&A, 289, 795 Kuulkers, E., & van der Klis, M. 1996, A&A, 314, 567 Lai, D. 1999, ApJ, 524, 1030 Lamb, F. K., Shibazaki, N., Alpar, M. A., & Shaham, J. 1985, Nature, 317, 681 Lamb, F. K., & Miller, M. C. 2004, HEAD, 8, 1711L Lewin, W. H. G., Lubin, L. M., Tan, J., van der Klis, M., van Paradijs, J., Penninx, W., Dotani, T., & Mitsuda, K. 1992, MNRAS, 256,545 Li, X.-D., & Zhang, C. M. 2005, ApJ, 635, L57 Méndez, M., van der Klis, M., Ford, E. C., Wijnands, R., & van Paradijs, J. 1999, ApJ, 511, L49 Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., & Psaltis, D. 1998, ApJ, 508, 791, Psaltis, D., Belloni, T., & van der Klis, M. 1999, ApJ, 520, 262 Shirakawa, A., & Lai, D. 2002a, ApJ, 564, 361 Stella, L., & Vietri, M. 1998, , 492, L59 Stella, L., & Vietri, M. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett., 82, L117 Titarchuk, L., & Osherovich, V. 1999, ApJ, 518, L95 Titarchuk, L., Osherovich, V., & Kuznetsov, S. 1999, ApJ, 525, L129 Titarchuk, L. 2001, ApJ, 555, L45 van der Klis, M., Swank, J. H., Zhang, W., Jahoda, K., Morgan, E. H., Lewin, W. H. G., Vaughan, B., &van Paradijs, J. 1996a, APJ, 469, L1 van der Klis, M., Wijnands, R., Kuulkers, E., Lamb, F. K., Psaltis, D., Dieters, S., van Paradijs, J., Lewin, W. H. G., &Vaughan, B. 1996b, IAU Circ. 6511 van der Klis, M., Wijnands, R. A. D., Horne, K., & Chen, W. 1997, ApJ, 481, L97 van der Klis, M. 2001, , 561, 943 van der Klis, M. 2006, Compact stellar X-ray sources, 39 Wijnands, R. A. D., van der Klis, M., Psaltis, D., Lamb, F. K., Kuulkers, E., Dleters, S., van Paradijs, J., & Lewin, W. H. G. 1996, ApJ, 469, L5 Wijnands, R. Homan, J., van der Klis, M., Méndez, M., Kuulkers, E., van Paradijs, J., Lewin, W. H. G., Lamb, F. K., Psaltis, D., & Vaughan, B. 1997, ApJ, 490, L157 Wijnands, R., Homan, J., van der Klis, M., Kuulkers, E., van Paradijs, J., & Lewin, W. H. G. 1998 ApJ, 493, L87 Yu, W., Zhang, S. N., Harmon, B. A., Paciesas, W. S., Robinson, C. R., Grindlay, J. E., Bloser, P., Barret, D., Ford, E. C., Tavani, M., & Kaaret, P., 1997, ApJ, 490, L153 Yu, W., van der Klis, M., & Jonker, P., 2001, ApJ, 559, L29 Yu, W., & van der Klis, M. 2002, ApJ, 567, L67 Yu, W., van der Klis, M., & Fender, R. 2004, , 611, L121 Zhang, C. M. 2004, A&A, 423, 401
[ccccc]{} Observation ID & Group A & Group B & Group C & Group D\
10056-01-01-00&all&&&\
10056-01-01-01&all&&&\
10056-01-01-03&all&&&\
10061-01-01-01&all&&&\
20053-01-01-00&all&&&\
10056-01-01-02 & & 1 & 2 & -\
10056-01-02-00 & & 1, 2 & - & -\
10056-01-02-01 & &1 & 2, 3 & -\
10056-01-02-03 & & - & - & 1, 2, 3\
10056-01-02-04 & & - & - & 1, 2\
10056-01-03-01 & & - & 3 & 2\
10056-01-03-02 & & 3 & 1, 2 & -\
10061-01-02-00 & &- & 3 & 1, 4\
20053-01-01-01 & & 1 & 2, 3 & 4\
20053-01-01-04 & & 2 & 1, 3 & -\
20426-01-02-00 & &- & 1 & -\
20426-01-02-01 & &- & - & -\
30053-01-01-00 & &2, 3 &1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & -\
30053-01-08-00 & &- & 2 & 1\
40020-01-01-01 && - & 5 & -\
40020-01-01-07 & &- & 1, 2, 3 & -\
40020-01-03-00 & &1 & 2, 3 & -\
40020-01-03-01 & &- & 1 & -\
40706-02-08-00 & &- & - & 1\
40706-02-09-00 & &- & - & 1\
40706-02-10-00 & &- & - & 1, 2, 3, 4\
40706-02-12-00 & &- & - & 1\
70014-01-01-00 & &- & - & 1\
91012-01-01-03 & &1 & - & -\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In recent years, intrinsic two-dimensional (2D) magnetism aroused great interest because of its potential application in spintronic devices. However, low Curie temperature (*T*$_c$) and magnetic anisotropy energy (MAE) limit its application prospects. Here, using first-principles calculations based on density-functional theory (DFT), we predicted a series of stable MnXSe$_4$ (X=As, Sb) single-layer. The MAE of single-layer MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$ was 648.76 and 808.95 ${\mu}$eV per Mn atom, respectively. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations suggested the *T*$_c$ of single-layer MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$ was 174 and 250 K, respectively. The energy band calculation with hybrid Heyd-Scuseria-Ernzerhof (HSE06) function indicated the MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) were ferromagnetic (FM) half-metallic. Also it had 100% spin-polarization ratio at the Fermi level. For MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$, the spin-gap were 1.59 and 1.48 eV, respectively. These excellent magnetic properties render MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) promising candidate materials for 2D spintronic applications.'
author:
- Tengfei Hu
- Wenhui Wan
- Yingmei Li
- Yanfeng Ge
- Kaicheng Zhang
- Yong Liu
bibliography:
- '20200712Maunscript.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: 'Large magnetic anisotropy energy and robust half-metallic ferromagnetism in 2D MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb)'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Spintronics, which uses the spin degree freedom of electrons, is significant for future information technologies owing to its great promise in enhancing data processing speed and integration densities [@1; @2]. Half-metals can generate 100% spin polarized currents without any external operation and play significant roles in the spintronic applications [@3; @4]. Half-metallic materials with high *T*$_c$ and large MAE are fundamental to build practical spintronic devices that can work at room temperature [@5; @6]. In order to realize this concept at the nanoscale, the development of low-dimensional half-metallic materials with the characteristics above is a key problem. Therefore, there has been a flurry of research into magnetic half-metals, such as RbSe, CsTe, TiCl$_3$, VCl$_3$, MnX (X=P, As) and so on [@7; @8; @9; @10; @11; @12]. However, these demonstrated half-metals have serious shortcomings, such as low *T*$_c$ or MAE. Until now, intrinsic half-metallic materials with both high *T*$_c$ and large MAE are still absent in experiments.
Unlike in bulk magnetic materials, the long-range magnetic ordering in 2D structures is impossible without magnetic anisotropy, which is required for counteracting thermal fluctuations [@13]. MAE is defined as the difference between the energy corresponding to the magnetization in the in-plane and off-plane directions (MAE = E$_{//}$ - E$_{\perp}$). Therefore, a positive (negative) value of MAE indicates that the off-plane (in-plane) is easy axis. However, MAE mainly comes from the influence of spin-orbit coupling (SOC) [@14]. It is better for the magnetic ordering to resist the heat fluctuation with larger values of MAE. Noncollinear calculation showed that single-layer CrPS$_4$ exhibited the MAE of 40.0 ${\mu}$eV per Cr atom with the spins favorably aligned along the off-plane direction [@15]. Generally, long-range ferromagnetic order mainly exists in 3d transition metals and their compounds. However, 3d elements have relatively weak SOC and strong SOC can only be found in heavy elements. So we replace P with As/Sb atoms, S with Se atoms, respectively. By stability calculation, we replace Cr with Mn atoms.
In this paper, we predicted two emerging class of 2D intrinsic FM half-metallic materials (single-layer MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$). Our calculations indicated that single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) crystals were mechanically and dynamically stable, so they may be synthesized experimentally. We also demonstrated that single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) had giant MAE. The single-layer MnAsSe$_4$ (MnSbSe$_4$) have abundant states at the Fermi level in one spin direction and a band gap of 1.59 eV (1.48 eV) in the opposite spin direction, and its half-metallic band gap is 0.61 eV (0.59 eV). Furthermore, we demonstrated that the MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$ exhibited high *T*$_c$ about 174 K and 250 K, respectively.
METHODS
=======
Kohn-Sham DFT calculations were performed using the projector augmented wave method, as implemented in the plane-wave code VASP [@16; @17; @18]. The plane-wave cutoff energy was set to 500 eV. A Monkhorst-Pack special k-point mesh [@19] of $7\times7\times1$ for the Brillouin zone integration was found to be sufficient to obtain the convergence. We used a Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) type generalized gradient approximation (GGA) in the exchange-correlation functional [@20]. For the MAE calculation, the SOC was included. A conjugate-gradient algorithm was employed for geometry optimization using convergence criteria of 10$^{-7}$ eV for the total energy and 0.005 eV/[Å]{} for Hellmann-Feynman force components. We displayed that the results with Hubbard U term 5 eV for Mn [@21] as suggested by Dudarev *et al* [@22]. However, for a more accurate estimation of the band structure, the hybrid functional of HSE06 [@23] was used. Phonon dispersions were calculated by density functional perturbation theory [@24] by the Phonopy package interfaced to VASP code with a $2\times2\times1$ supercell. Moreover, a 15 [Å]{} vacuum was applied along the z axis to avoid any artificial interactions between images.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
======================
![(Color online) (a) Top view and (b) side view of single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb). The primitive cell is indicated by dotted line in (a). (c-e) Three different magnetic configurations.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Structural models of single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) are shown in Fig. \[fig1\] (a) and (b). The primitive cell is indicated by dotted line in (a), and it contains two Mn atoms. The optimized lattice parameters for MnAsSe$_4$ (MnSbSe$_4$) are a = b = 7.20[Å]{} (7.43[Å]{}). In order to identify their preferred magnetic ground-state, a FM and two antiferromagnetic (AFM) magnetic configurations were constructed. FM, X-AFM and Y-AFM are shown in Fig. \[fig1\] (c), (d) and (e), respectively. The energy difference ($\Delta$E) relative to FM configurations of MnAsSe$_4$ (MnSbSe$_4$) is 369.13 (263.90) and 518.83 (384.06) meV for X-AFM and Y-AFM orders, respectively. Therefore, FM is the ground-state. We calculated that each primitive cell was an integer magnetic moment of 8 $\mu_B$, and the local magnetic moment per Mn atom was about 4 $\mu_B$. The magnetic moment is consistent with the +3 oxidation state of Mn, so it is 4s$^0$3d$^4$ electronic configuration. The unpaired d electrons contribute the magnetism. According to the Hund’s rule and the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the four unpaired d electrons left result in the magnetic moment of 4 $\mu_B$ per Mn atom.
d$_{Mn-S1}$ d$_{Mn-S2}$ d$_{Mn-S3}$ d$_{X-S2}$ d$_{X-S3}$ d$_{X-S4}$
------------ ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -- --
MnAsSe$_4$ 2.76 2.61 2.77 2.34 2.39 2.36
MnSbSe$_4$ 2.77 2.62 2.79 2.51 2.56 2.53
: Bond lengths ([Å]{}) of single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb).[]{data-label="table1"}
C$_{11}$ C$_{12}$ C$_{22}$ ${Y_{2D}}$ MAE Easy axis
------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------ -------- -----------
MnAsSe$_4$ 64.41 11.81 57.09 62.24 648.76 c
MnSbSe$_4$ 62.63 12.18 59.41 60.26 808.95 c
: Elastic constants (N/m), Young¡¯s modulus (N/m), MAE (${\mu}$eV/Mn) and Easy axis for single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb).[]{data-label="table2"}
The structural parameters of MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) are summarized in Table \[table1\]. The bond lengths increase from MnAsSe$_4$ to MnSbSe$_4$, it makes sense because the atomic radius of Sb is larger than the As.
The MAE listed in Table \[table2\], it is important to determine the thermal stability of magnetic ordering. The MAE of MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$ is 648.76 and 808.95 ${\mu}$eV/Mn, which is larger than the previous research on CrPS$_4$ (40 ${\mu}$eV/Cr) [@15]. Clearly, the easy axis of these crystals are along the z direction. Next, we determined their mechanical stability by calculating the three independent elastic constants. As shown in Table \[table2\], the C$_{11}$ is 64.41 (62.63) N/m, C$_{12}$ is 11.81 (12.18) N/m, and C$_{22}$ is 57.09 (59.41) N/m for MnAsSe$_4$ (MnSbSe$_4$), respectively. Compared to CrPS$_4$, MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) exhibits a similar C$_{11}$, a smaller C$_{12}$ and a larger C$_{22}$ [@25]. The elastic constants fulfill the Born criteria of stability [@26], i.e., C$_{11}{>}$0, C$_{22}{>}$0 and C$_{11}$-C$_{12}{>}$0, indicating that they are mechanically stable. In-plane stiffness can be calculated by using the relation, ${Y_{2D}} = \frac{{(C_{11}^2 - C_{12}^2)}}{{{C_{11}}}}$, ${Y_{2D}}$ decreases from MnAsSe$_4$ to MnSbSe$_4$. As in-plane stiffness is a measure of rigidity, the decrease of ${Y_{2D}}$ indicates softening of the crystal [@27].
![(Color online) Theoretical phonon spectrum of single-layer MnAsSe$_4$ (a) and MnSbSe$_4$ (b) obtained from DFT calculations.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="50.00000%"}
To further confirm the stability of free-standing single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb), we calculated their phonon dispersion. As shown in Fig. \[fig2\], two materials have the same overall shape with no imaginary modes, it suggests that single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) are dynamically stable and can exist as free-standing 2D crystals.
![(Color online) Electronic band structures and DOS for single-layer MnAsSe$_4$ ((a) and (b)) and MnSbSe$_4$ ((c) and (d)). (a) and (c) using PBE+U functional, (b) and (d) using HSE06 functional.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Then, the electronic properties of single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) were investigated. Since the PBE functional usually underestimates the energy band gap, a hybrid functional in the form of the HSE06 functional was used to obtain accurate electronic structures. Fig. \[fig3\] (a) and (c) employ the PBE+U functional, (b) and (d) employ the HSE06 functional. Notably, all the band structures show the spin-up channel crosses the Fermi level, while the spin-down channel acts as a semiconductor, indicating that they are intrinsic FM half-metallic materials with 100% spin-polarization ratio. The most of previously discovered FM half-metals are realized by external conditions such as pressure and doping, the number of intrinsic 2D FM half-metallic materials are small [@28; @29; @30]. Here we found that single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) were intrinsic FM half-metals, which offer more suitable candidate materials for actual nanoscaled spintronic applications. To achieve the great prospect for half-metallic in spintronic devices, wide half-metallic gap is extremely important [@31; @32]. Herein, the PBE+U values of the half-metallic gap are 0.30 eV and 0.31 eV for MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$, respectively. For HSE06 functional, the half-metallic band gap are 0.61 and 0.59 eV for MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$, respectively, which is large enough to efficiently prevent the thermally agitated spin-flip transition. The HSE06 value of the spin-gap is 1.59 (1.48) eV for the MnAsSe$_4$ (MnSbSe$_4$), which is wide enough to prevent spin leakage.
As shown in Fig. \[fig3\], the densities of states (DOS) of MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) compounds are generally similar in shape. The contribution of MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) spin-down DOS mainly comes from Se atoms, while the contribution of other atoms is little. Larger spin exchange splitting is crucial for the application in spin-polarized carrier injection and detection. For the single-layer MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$, a large spin exchange splitting of 0.30 and 0.31 eV in the conduction band are observed (labeled as $\triangle$1 in Fig. \[fig3\] (a)). The HSE06 values of the spin exchange splitting are 0.36 and 0.33 eV for the single-layer MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$, respectively, which are larger than the CrGeTe$_3$ (0.24 eV) [@33]. Further experiments should be conducted to clarify these interesting electronic character of MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb).
Fig. \[fig4\] (a) and (b) show the charge density difference of single-layer MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$. It is defined as the difference between the charge density at the bonding point and the atomic charge density at the corresponding point. The brown (green) region represent the charge accumulation (depletion). Significant charge redistributions were observed for Mn, As/Sb and Se atoms, where the Mn and As/Sb atoms lost electrons, while the Se atoms gained electrons, meaning that there allows Mn-S bonding to be more ionic. This redistribution makes sense because Se atoms are more electronegative. The spin densities for MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$ are shown in Fig. \[fig4\] (c) and (d), one can observe that the spin-polarization mainly comes from Mn atoms while the As/Sb and Se atoms are very small, which is consistent with the magnetic moment analysis.
![(Color online) (a) and (b), Charge density difference of single-layer MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$. The brown (green) region represents the net charge gain (loss). The isosurface value is 0.006 eÅ$^{-3}$. MnAsSe$_4$ (c) and MnSbSe$_4$ (d), Isosurface of spin density with an isovalue of 0.05 eÅ$^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![(Color online) On-site magnetic moment of Mn atoms versus temperature in single-layer MnAsSe$_4$ (a) and MnSbSe$_4$ (b) based on the MC simulation.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.eps){width="50.00000%"}
The *T*$_c$ is a key parameter to the practical application of spintronic devices. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the behavior of the magnetism with temperature. Based on the Heisenberg model, the *T*$_c$ of MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) single-layer can be estimated by using MC simulations: ${H = - \sum\limits_{ < ij > } {{J_{ij}}{S_i}{S_j}}-\sum\limits_{i}A({S_{i}^{z}})^{2}}$, where $\emph{J}_{ij}$ is the exchange coupling parameter of nearest-neighbor Mn-Mn pairs, $\emph{S}_i$ represent the spin of atom $\emph{i}$, *A* is anisotropy energy parameter and $S_{i}^{z}$ is the spin component along the z direction. In order to compute the $\emph{J}$, the energies of different magnetic configurations can be regarded as $${E_{X-AFM}} = {E_0} + 4{J_x}{S^2} - 4{J_y}{S^2}-\emph{A}{S^2}, \vspace{-1ex}$$ $${E_{FM}} = {E_0} - 4{J_x}{S^2} - 4{J_y}{S^2}-\emph{A}{S^2},$$ $${E_{Y-AFM}} = {E_0} - 4{J_x}{S^2} + 4{J_y}{S^2}-\emph{A}{S^2}.$$ The quantity *E$_0$* is the ground-state energy of single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) without spin polarizations [@34] and S=2. Our results show that the total $\emph{J}_{ij}$ of MnAsSe$_4$ (MnSbSe$_4$) along the x and y directions are 11.54 (8.25) meV and 16.21 (12.00) meV, respectively. The functional relationship between magnetic moment and temperature is shown in Fig. \[fig5\], at absolute zero temperature, all the spin of Mn atoms point in the same direction, forming a strict FM order, while the magnetic moment decreases rapidly when heated. The critical point from FM to paramagnetic transition was around 174 K and 250 K for MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$, respectively. It is significantly higher than those reported before, e.g., CrI$_3$ monolayer (45 K) [@35] and MnSTe monolayer (85 K) [@36].
CONCLUSION
==========
In summary, we report two experimentally viable 2D intrinsic ferromagnetic half-metallic materials (MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$ single-layer), which expose appreciable MAE about 648.76 and 808.95 ${\mu}$eV/Mn. The MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) are mechanically and dynamically stable. We further reveal that MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) show a high *T*$_c$ about 174 K and 250 K, respectively. The band structures show that single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) have a 100% spin-polarization ratio at the Fermi level. Also, for the semiconducting channel, the spin-gap are 1.59 eV and 1.48 eV for MnAsSe$_4$ and MnSbSe$_4$, respectively. The intrinsic half-metallic with high *T*$_c$ and large MAE confer single-layer MnXSe$_4$ (X = As, Sb) as a promising functional materials for spintronic applications. We hope our study will stimulate further experimental effort in this subject.
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.11904312 and 11904313), the Project of Department of Education of Hebei Province, China(No.ZD2018015 and QN2018012) and the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province (No. A2019203507). Thanks to the High Performance Computing Center of Yanshan University.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We experimentally show that two-photon path-entangled states can be coherently manipulated by multi-mode interference in multi-mode waveguides. By measuring the output two-photon spatial correlation function versus the phase of the input state, we show that multi-mode waveguides perform as nearly-ideal multi-port beam splitters at the quantum level, creating a large variety of entangled and separable multi-path two-photon states.'
author:
- Eilon Poem
- Yehonatan Gilead
- Yaron Silberberg
title: 'Two-photon path-entangled states in multi-mode waveguides'
---
Quantum states of photons distributed between several optical paths play the central role in linear optical quantum computation [@KLM01]. In particular, entangled states, where no decomposition into a product of either single-path or single-photon states exists, are of great importance due to their non-local nature [@Bennet93; @Jennewein00]. Entangled photons states are generated either by non-linear processes in crystals [@Kwiat95], by cascaded emission of single quantum emitters [@Akopian06], or by quantum interference of non-classical light on a beam splitter [@Fattal04; @Afek10_1].
Quantum interference in arrays of beam-splitters (BSs) is used in many linear optical quantum computation schemes to create and manipulate multi-photon multi-path states [@ZZH97; @Sagi03; @Lim05]. The simplest example is the Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) interference [@HOM87]. In this fundamental effect, two identical photons input each on a different port of a 50:50 BS, cannot exit in two different ports due to destructive interference of the two possible paths. Therefore, they always exit bunched together on either one of the output ports, in an entangled state. A major obstacle on the way to the implementation of quantum optical circuits is the large number of BSs required, and the increasing complication of their alignment. One way to overcome this problem is through miniaturization of the optical circuites. Indeed, quantum interference has been recently demonstrated in integrated optical circuites composed of evanescently coupled single-mode waveguides embedded in solids [@Peruzzo10; @Sansoni12; @Obrien_arXiv]. A conceptually different route towards robust implementation of quantum optical circuites may come in the form of *multi-mode* interference (MMI) devices [@Soldano95]. These compact replacements for BS arrays, usually based on planar multi-mode waveguides (MMWs), are already used extensively in modern classical optical communication networks. They have also been proposed to be useful for creation and detection of multi-photon states [@Lim05], as they naturally implement Bell multiport BSs [@ZZH97]. A step towards their use in quantum networks was recently made with the demonstration of HOM interference of two separated photons in an MMW [@Peruzzo11]. The question still remains, however, whether entangled states, which unlike separated photons, carry relative phase information, can be coherently manipulated by MMWs.
Here we experimentally show that the answer to this question is positive. We utilize MMI in a two-mirror, tunable planar MMW [@Poem11] to implement multi-port BS arrays of up to 5 input and 5 output ports, and explore the propagation of non-classical, path-entangled two-photon states through them. We measure the two-photon correlations at the output, and find that, for any relative phase between the two paths, they agree very well with the multi-path, two-photon states expected at the output of ideal multi-port BSs.
The experimental system is described in Fig. \[fig:1\](a). States of the form $\psi_2^{\phi}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|2,0\rangle+e^{i\phi}|0,2\rangle\right)$ are created by first splitting a 404 nm continuous-wave (cw) diode-laser beam into two arms. The relative phase between the beams, $\phi$, is controlled and stabilized by a piezoelectrically movable mirror on one arm \[see Fig. \[fig:1\](a)\]. The state in the two arms at this point is $|\alpha,e^{i\phi}\alpha\rangle$, where $\alpha$ represents a coherent state of average photon number $|\alpha|^2$. Note that the single photon part of this state is $\psi_1^{\phi}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|1,0\rangle+e^{i\phi}|0,1\rangle\right)$.
![(a) The experimental setup. DL, 404 nm cw Diode laser; SF, Spatial filter; HWP, Half wave plate; PBS, Polarizing beam splitter; RR, Retroreflector; QWP, Quarter wave plate; M, Mirror; BBO, $\beta$-Barium-Borate crystal; BPF, Band-pass spectral filter; MMW, Multimode waveguide; BS, beam splitter; MMF, Multimode fiber; APD, Avalanche photodiode; CE, Correlation electronics. The thin purple (wide red) lines represent the pump (down conversion) beams. Movable parts are marked by black double arrows. (b) Calculated intensity distribution in an MMW for an input beam centered about $x=D/4$. The white boxes mark propagation lengths where various 2$\times$2 BSs are implemented. (c)-(f) Schematic diagrams showing the configurations of input and output ports used in the experiments.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](system){width="48.00000%"}
The two beams then undergo type I collinear degenerate spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) in a properly oriented 2 mm long $\beta$-Barium-Borate (BBO) crystal. In this process, each 404 nm photon transforms into two 808 nm photons propagating together. Since SPDC is much faster than the optical period, the relative phase between the two paths is kept as it was before the BBO crystal. Spectral filters are used to eliminate all remaining photons outside a 3 nm band centered at 808 nm. The two photon part of the state after the BBO and the spectral filters is thus $\psi_2^{\phi}$. There is no single-photon part, and for low enough pump powers, the content of the next order - the four photon part, is negligible. The beams are then inserted into an MMW made of two parallel metallic mirrors [@Poem11]. The distribution of one component of the optical field between the mirrors, assuming perfect reflection and paraxial propagation, is given by [@Soldano95], $$\label{Eq:field}
E(x,z)=e^{-ikz}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{A_n\sin\left[n\pi\left(x-D/2\right)/D\right]e^{i2\pi n^2z/z_0}},$$ with $k=2\pi/\lambda$ and $z_0=8D^2/\lambda$, where $D$ is the width of the MMW, $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the incident light, and the constants $A_n$ are determined by the incident field distribution. From Eq. \[Eq:field\] it can be shown that for any input, full imaging occurs at , reflection about the center of the MMW occurs at , and two-way, equal beam splitting with a relative phase of $\pi/2$ ($-\pi/2$) occurs at (). These effects are known as *general* interference [@Soldano95]. Unequal BSs, and BSs of more than two ports are also possible, but only for specific positions of a localized input beam. This is known as *restricted* interference [@Soldano95]. For example, for an input beam localized about , an unequal two-way BS will be realized at , where $m$ is an integer. This is readily seen in Fig. \[fig:1\](b), where the intensity distribution inside the MMW, calculated for a Gaussian input beam localized about , is presented. Generally, an $N$$\times$$N$ BS would be generated by restricted interference for beams localized about , for , where $p$ and $q$ are integers, and $p$ goes from 1 to $N$. For an even $q$, the BS is equal. Using Eq. \[Eq:field\], the transition matrix, , can be calculated for any $N$ [@Heaton99]. This matrix applies for coherent beams as well as for a single photon. In order to obtain the transition matrices for states of $M$ identical photons, one should sum up all the products of the single-photon matrix elements relevant to the transition between an initial, $\vec{\nu}$, and a final, $\vec{\mu}$, $M$-photon configuration, $$\label{Eq:BS_matrix_M}
\left(\mathbf{T}^{(M)}_{N,q}\right)_{\vec{\mu},\vec{\nu}}=\sqrt{\frac{N_{\vec{\mu}}}{N_{\vec{\nu}}}}\sum_{\{\vec{\sigma}_{\vec{\nu}}\}}{\prod_{j=1}^M{\left(\mathbf{T}^{(1)}_{N,q}\right)_{\mu_j,\sigma_{\vec{\nu}j}}}},$$ where $\vec{\sigma}_{\vec{\nu}}$ represent permutations of the initial configuration $\vec{\nu}$, and $N_{\vec{\nu}}$ ($N_{\vec{\mu}}$) is the number of all different permutations of the initial (final) configuration. The calculation of these $N$-port, $M$-photon transition matrix elements is, in general, a computationally difficult task, equivalent to the calculation of the permanent of a matrix. However, it is feasible for small enough $M$ and $N$, and for there even exists an analytic expression for any $M$ [@Campos89]. Given an initial wavefunction (in terms of the initial amplitudes for each distribution of the $M$ photons among the $N$ input ports), the final state, $\psi_{out}$, is readily found, and from it, any correlation function can be calculated. In particular, for a general two-photon state, the two-photon correlation probability between ports $m$ and $n$ is just $$\label{Eq:Corr_2}
P^{(2)}_{m,n}=|\langle m,n|\psi_{out}\rangle|^2,$$ where $|m,n\rangle$ is a state where one photon is on the $m^{th}$ output port, and the other is on the $n^{th}$ output port.
In our experimental setup, the length of the MMW is fixed by the length of the mirrors, $L$. However, the adjustment of the *relative* length, , is possible through the adjustment of the separation between the mirrors. For the experiments presented below the MMW was adjusted to function as 2$\times$2, 3$\times$3, 4$\times$4, and 5$\times$5 BSs. Figs. \[fig:1\](c)-(f) show the corresponding configurations of input and output ports used in these experiments. We note that due to the finite conduction of the mirrors the MMW has a slightly different relative length for different polarizations. To avoid any possible complications that may arise, the polarization of the incident photons (in both beams) was set parallel to the mirrors, such that only TE modes were excited. In order to measure two-photon correlations at the output of the MMW, the light at its output facet is split and imaged on two multi-mode fibers, each connected to a single photon detector (Si avalanche photodiode). The digital signals from the two detectors are input into correlation electronics that shorten and multiply them, yielding the rate of coincidence events in a 7 ns time window [@WhitmanCCU]. As the fibers can be placed in front of any pair of output beams \[see Fig. \[fig:1\](a)\], both auto- and cross-correlations can be measured. Since in this method, the beams are split into two also when cross-correlations are measured, the measured rate of cross-correlations would be half that predicted using Eq. \[Eq:Corr\_2\]. For the comparison of theory and experiment we therefore define the modified correlation probability, $$\label{Eq:Mod_Corr_2}
C^{(2)}_{m,n}=P^{(2)}_{m,n}/(2-\delta_{m,n}).$$
Fig. \[fig:2\](a) presents the calculated modified two-photon correlation probabilities (Eq. \[Eq:Mod\_Corr\_2\]) versus the phase $\phi$, for three different relative propagation lengths at which 2$\times$2 BSs are implemented \[see Fig. \[fig:1\](b) and (c)\]: $\zeta=1/4$ - a 50:50 BS with a relative phase of $\pi/2$, $\zeta=3/8$ - a $\cos^2\pi/8:\sin^2\pi/8$ ($\sim$85:15) BS with a relative phase of $\pi/2$, and $\zeta=1/2$ - a reflection about the center of the MMW (a ‘0:100 BS’). Note that all three cases are a part of the same series of transformations given by $\left(\mathbf{T}^{(1)}_{2,1}\right)^q$, where $\mathbf{T}^{(1)}_{2,1}$ is a 15:85 BS implemented for $\zeta=1/8$, and that for $q=8$ ($\zeta=1$), full imaging is obtained [@Heaton99; @Poem11]. The state $\psi_2^0$ is invariant only under reflection, and thus returns to its initial form only when full reflection occurs - once every four applications of $\mathbf{T}^{(1)}_{2,1}$ (e.g. at $\zeta$=1/2). Note that at the middle of this period (on the 50:50 BS at $\zeta$=1/4) this state transforms into two separated photons, exhibiting inverse HOM interference. In contrast, the state $\psi_2^{\pi}$ is left unchanged (up to a global phase) for each and every application of $\mathbf{T}^{(1)}_{2,1}$. This is because this state is invariant under *any* unitary two-way beam splitter with a relative phase of $\pm\pi/2$ [@Yurke86].
![(a) Two-photon correlations vs. the phase, $\phi$, calculated using Eq. \[Eq:Mod\_Corr\_2\] for relative waveguide lengths of 1/4 (left), 3/8 (center), and 1/2 (right), where the MMW functions as different types of 2$\times$2 BSs, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:1\](c). The correlation between ports m and n is marked by ‘m-n’. (b) Measured correlation functions. The symbols are the measured values and the lines are best fitted 2$\pi$ period sinusoidal functions. (c) Corresponding two-photon correlation maps extracted from the fitted curves for $\phi=0$ (top) and $\phi=\pi$ (bottom).[]{data-label="fig:2"}](results2){width="48.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:2\](b) shows the measured correlation functions, $g^{(2)}_{mn}$ (symbols), defined as the rate of coincidence events between output ports $m$ and $n$, normalized by the expected accidental coincidence rate, $r_a=r_mr_nw$, $r_m$ being the single-count rate in port $m$, and $w=7$ ns the coincidence measurement time window. The total integration time is 7 sec for each data point. The lines are the best fitted $2\pi$-period sinusoidal functions. The measured background after the MMW (right panel of Fig. \[fig:2\](b), empty circles) is $\sim$10 times larger than the expected accidental coincidence rate. By blocking either one of the input beams, we have verified that indeed $\sim$90% of this background is due to a small overlap between the collecting fiber and the neighboring output port. This is also confirmed by the increase of the background level when the beams are brought closer (see, e.g., Fig. \[fig:4\](b) below). The bare visibility of the oscillations measured for the 50:50 BS configuration (Fig. \[fig:2\](b), left panel) is 72$\pm$3%, violating the classical bound of 50% [@Afek10_2] by more than 7 standard deviations. This indicates that the light after the MMW is still entangled, even without background reduction. With the reduction of the measured background, the visibility reaches 83$\pm$3%.
Fig. \[fig:2\](c) presents ‘correlation maps’ for each of the relative lengths, showing the elements $g^{(2)}_{mn}$ for two initial phases, $\phi=0$ (top) and $\phi=\pi$ (bottom), as extracted from the fits to the measured data. For each phase, the expected periodicity with respect to the relative length of the MMW is clearly seen.
. The port configurations (‘m-n’) of all correlations described by a certain curve are listed next to it. (b) The measured correlations (symbols) and their sinusoidal fits (lines). (c) Correlation maps for $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pi$.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](results3){width="48.00000%"}
We proceed to examine 3$\times$3 BSs. The input and output ports used are as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:1\](d). Fig. \[fig:3\] shows the two possible cases. On the left we present the calculated (a) and measured (b) correlations of a 3$\times$3 equal BS ($\zeta=1/3$), while on the right the correlations for an unequal BS ($\zeta=5/12$) are presented. For the equal BS, the six possible two-port correlation measurements divide into three pairs, oscillating with a phase difference of $2\pi/3$ between them. Each pair contains an autocorrelation of one port and the cross correlation of the other two ports. There are six special phases where two such correlations pairs meet. For three of them there is an enhancement of one pair over the other two, while for the other three, one pair is completely suppressed. This is further visualized in Fig. \[fig:3\](c), where the correlation maps for $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pi$ are shown. In contrast to the equal 3$\times$3 BS, the phase dependencies of the correlations in the unequal 3$\times$3 BS show only two different phases of oscillation and only partial visibilities. However, the two cases can be related one to the other if one notes that the unequal BS is composed of an equal 2$\times$2 BS ($\zeta=1/4$) on the two outer ports, followed by an equal 3$\times$3 BS of $\zeta=1/6$, different from that of $\zeta=1/3$ only in the order of the relative phases [@Heaton99]. This is best seen in the correlation maps shown in Fig. \[fig:3\](c). For $\phi=0$, the cross-correlation between the two outer arms switch values with the corresponding auto-correlations, while for $\phi=\pi$ there is no difference between the two 3$\times$3 BSs, due to the invariance of $\psi_2^{\pi}$ on 2$\times$2 $\pi/2$ BSs.
To examine the effect of even more complex BSs on the states $\psi_2^{\phi}$, we performed measurements for equal 4$\times$4 and 5$\times$5 BSs. The input and output ports used are as illustrated in Figs. \[fig:1\](e) and (f), respectively. Fig. \[fig:4\](a) \[(b)\] presents the calculated \[measured\] phase dependence of these correlations, and Fig. \[fig:4\](c) shows the corresponding correlation maps for $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pi$.
 and (f), respectively. The output ports configurations (‘m-n’) of all correlations described by a certain curve are listed next to it. (b) Measured correlation functions. Full black symbols represent auto correlations, while gray-filled and empty symbols represent cross-correlations. The solid lines are sinusoidal fits. (c) Corresponding two-photon correlation maps for $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pi$.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](results4){width="48.00000%"}
In the case of the 4$\times$4 equal BS, all the auto correlations and the cross-correlations of symmetric ports oscillate together with a phase of 0, and all the cross-correlations of asymmetric ports oscillate together with a phase of $\pi$. The state created for $\phi=0$ therefore contains no asymmetric cross correlations, while that created for $\phi=\pi$ contains only asymmetric cross correlations. This is visualized in the correlation maps of Fig. \[fig:4\](c). For the equal 5$\times$5 BS, analogously to the equal 3$\times$3 BS, the 15 correlations group in 5 triplets that oscillate with phase differences of $2\pi/5$. Here too, some correlations can be either relatively enhanced or completely suppressed, as visualized in Fig. \[fig:4\](c).
In summary, we experimentally show, for the first time, that path-entangled quantum light can be coherently manipulated by multi-port BSs, naturally implemented by MMI in MMWs. The manipulation is shown to maintain the information on the relative phase between the two paths. This persists even for complex manipulations with a high number of output ports, allowing for the robust creation of a large space of two-photon multi-path states, controlled by the initial phase. MMI is thus shown to be a robust and simple approach for the implementation of various quantum optical circuites of high complexity. We thank Yaron Bromberg, Yoav Lahini, and Yonatan Israel for their help. The financial support of the Minerva Foundation, the European Research Council, and the Crown Photonics Center is gratefully acknowledged.
[22]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ** (), .
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Université Pierre et Marie Curie – CNRS, Laboratoire LIP6'
author:
- Fabien Viger
- Brice Augustin
- Xavier Cuvellier
- Clémence Magnien
- Matthieu Latapy
- Timur Friedman
- Renata Teixeira
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: |
Detection, Understanding, and Prevention\
of Traceroute Measurement Artifacts
---
traceroute ,network topology measurement ,measurement artifact ,load balancing
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Yue Guan, Jianfeng Hou[^1], Yingyuan Yang\
Center for Discrete Mathematics, Fuzhou University,\
Fujian, P. R. China, 350002
title: ' An improved bound on acyclic chromatic index of planar graphs [^2]'
---
**Abstract:** A proper edge coloring of a graph $G$ is called acyclic if there is no bichromatic cycle in $G$. The acyclic chromatic index of $G$, denoted by $\chi'_a(G)$, is the least number of colors $k$ such that $G$ has an acyclic edge $k$-coloring. Basavaraju et al. \[Acyclic edge-coloring of planar graphs, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 25 (2) (2011), 463–478\] showed that $\chi'_a(G)\le
\Delta(G)+12$ for planar graphs $G$ with maximum degree $\Delta(G)$. In this paper, the bound is improved to $\Delta(G)+10$.
**Keywords:** acyclic edge coloring, planar graph, critical graph
Introduction
============
In this paper, all considered graphs are finite, simple and undirected. We use $V(G)$, $E(G)$, $\delta(G)$ and $\Delta(G)$ (or $V, E, \delta$ and $\Delta$ for simple) to denote the vertex set, the edge set, the minimum degree and the maximum degree of a graph $G$, respectively. For a vertex $v\in V(G)$, let $N(v)$ denote the set of vertices adjacent to $v$ and $d(v)=|N(v)|$ denote the $degree$ of $v$. Let $N_k(v)=\{x\in N(v)|d(x)=k\}$ and $n_k(v)=|N_k(v)|$. A vertex of degree $k$ is called a [*$k$-vertex*]{}. We write a [*$k^+$-vertex*]{} for a vertex of degree at least $k$, and a [*$k^-$-vertex*]{} for that of degree at most $k$. The $girth$ of a graph $G$, denoted by $g(G)$, is the length of its shortest cycle.
As usual $[k]$ stands for the set $\{1,2,\ldots,k\}$.
A $proper$ $edge$ $k$-$coloring$ of a graph $G$ is a mapping $\phi$ from $E(G)$ to the color set $[k]$ such that no pair of adjacent edges are colored with the same color. A proper edge coloring of a graph $G$ is called [*acyclic*]{} if there is no bichromatic cycle in $G$. In other words, if the union of any two color classes induces a subgraph of $G$ which is a forest. The [*acyclic chromatic index*]{} of $G$, denoted by $\chi'_a(G)$, is the least number of colors $k$ such that $G$ has an acyclic edge $k$-coloring.
Acyclic edge coloring has been widely studied over the past twenty years. The first general linear upper bound on $\chi'_a(G)$ was found by Alon et al. [@Alon1991] who proved that $\chi'_a(G)\leq{64\Delta(G)}$. This bound was improved to $16\Delta(G)$ by Molloy and Reed [@molloy1998].
In 2001, Alon, Sudakov and Zaks [@Alon2001] stated the Acyclic Edge Coloring Conjecture, which says that $\chi'_a(G)\leq{\Delta(G)+2}$ for every graph $G$. Though the best known upper bound for general case is far from the conjecture $\Delta(G)+2$, the conjecture has been shown to be true for some special classes of graphs, including graphs with maximum degree at most three [@and2012], non regular graphs with maximum degree at most four [@basa2009], outerplanar graphs [@hou2009], graphs with large girth [@Alon2001], and so on.
Fiedorowicz et al. [@fie2008] gave an upper bound of $2\Delta(G)+29$ for planar graphs and of $\Delta(G)+6$ for triangle-free planar graphs. Independently, Hou et al. [@hou2008] proved that $\chi'_a(G)\leq
\max\{2\Delta(G)-2,\Delta(G)+22\}$ for planar graphs and $\chi'_a(G)\leq \Delta(G)+2$ for planar graphs with girth at least 5. Borowiecki and Fiedorowicz [@boro2009] showed that $\chi'_a(G)\leq
\Delta(G)+15$ for planar graphs without cycles of length $4$. Hou et al. [@hou2011] improved the bound to $\Delta(G)+4$. Recently, Borowiecki et al. [@basaSIAM] showed that $\chi_{a}'(G)\leq \Delta(G)+12$ for planar graphs. In this paper, the bound is improved to $\Delta(G)+10$ as follows.
\[main-result\] Let $G$ be a planar graph with maximum degree $\Delta(G)$. Then $\chi_{a}'(G)\leq \Delta(G)+10$.
In Section 2, we give a structural lemma of planar graphs using discharging method. In Section 3, we consider the properties of so-called acyclically edge critical graphs. In Section 4, we give the proof of Theorem \[main-result\].
A structural lemma
==================
In this section, we give a structural lemma of planar graphs using the well-know discharging method. This lemma plays an important role in the proof of Theorem \[main-result\].
\[unavoidable configurations\] Let $G$ be a connected planar graph. Then there exists a vertex $v$ with $k$ neighbors $v_1,v_{2},\cdots,v_{k}$ with $d(v_{1})\leq\cdots\leq
d(v_{k})$ such that at least one of the following is true:
$(\mathcal{A}_1)$ $k\leq 2$;
$(\mathcal{A}_2)$ $k=3$ with $d(v_{1})\leq 11$;
$(\mathcal{A}_3)$ $k=4$ with $d(v_{1})\leq 7$ and $d(v_{2})\leq 9$;
$(\mathcal{A}_4)$ $k=5$ with $d(v_{1})\leq 6, d(v_{2})\leq 7$ and $d(v_{3})\leq
8$.
By contradiction, let $G$ be a planar graph with a fixed embedding in the plane and suppose that $G$ is a counterexample to the lemma. Let $F(G)$ denote its face set. We may assume that $G$ is a 2-connected triangulation, for otherwise, we could add edges to $G$ obtaining a triangulation $G'$. If none of $(\mathcal{A}_1)$-$(\mathcal{A}_4)$ holds for $G$, then clearly none of $(\mathcal{A}_1)$-$(\mathcal{A}_4)$ holds for $G'$.
We associate a charge $\varphi(x)$ to each element $x\in V(G)\cup
F(G)$ by $\varphi(x)=2d(x)-6$ if $x\in V(G)$, and $\varphi(x)=d(x)-6$ if $x\in F(G)$. We shall transfer the charge of the vertices to the faces of $G$, in such a way that the total charge of vertices and faces remains constant. The discharging rules are defined as follows.
($R_{1}$) Every $6^+$-vertex $v$ of $G$ gives $\frac{\varphi(v)}{d(v)}$ to each incident face.
($R_{2}$) Let $v$ be a 4-vertex of $G$. If its neighbors are $8^{+}$-vertices, then $v$ gives $\frac{1}{2}$ to each incident face. Otherwise, $v$ is adjacent to at most one vertex whose degree is at most seven, say $v_1$. Then $v$ gives $\frac{4}{5}$ to each each incident face containing $vv_{1}$ and $\frac{1}{5}$ to each the other incident face.
($R_{3}$) Let $v$ be a 5-vertex with neighbors $v_{1}, v_{2},\cdots,
v_{5}$ such that $d(v_{1})\leq\cdots\leq d(v_{5})$.
($R_{3.1}$) If $d(v_{1})\geq 7$, then $v$ gives $\frac{4}{5}$ to each incident face.
($R_{3.2}$) If $d(v_{1})\leq 6$ and $d(v_{2})\geq8$, then $v$ gives $\frac{5}{4}$ to each incident face containing $vv_{1}$ and $\frac{1}{2}$ to each the other incident face.
($R_{3.3}$) If $d(v_{1})\leq 6$ and $d(v_{2})\leq7$, then $d(v_{3})\geq9$. When the edge $vv_{1}$ and $vv_{2}$ belonging to a same face $f$, then $v$ gives 1 to face $f$, $\frac{5}{6}$ to the face only containing $vv_{1}$ or $vv_{2}$, $\frac{2}{3}$ to each remaining incident face. Otherwise, $v$ gives $\frac{13}{15}$ to each face containing $vv_{1}$ or $vv_{2}$, $\frac{8}{15}$ to each the other incident face.
By Euler’s formula, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{type I}
\sum_{v\in V(G)} \varphi(v)+\sum_{f\in F(G)} \varphi(f)= \sum_{v\in
V(G)}(2d(v)-6)+\sum_{f\in F(G)}(d(f)-6)=-12.\end{aligned}$$
After doing all possible charge transfers once, let $\varphi'(x)$ be the resulting charge on each element $x\in V(G)\cup F(G)$. Then
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
\sum_{x\in V(G)\cup F(G)} \varphi'(x) = \sum_{x\in V(G)\cup F(G)} \varphi(x)=-12.\end{aligned}$$
Now we shall show $\varphi'(x)\geq 0$ for any $x\in
V(G)\cup F(G)$, a contradiction to (2).
Let $v$ be any vertex of $G$. Clearly, $\varphi'(v)=\varphi(v)=0$, if $d(v)=3$, and $\varphi'(v)=\varphi(v)-d(v)\times\frac{\varphi(v)}{d(v)}=0$, if $d(v)\geq6$ by $(R_1)$.
Suppose that $v$ is a 4-vertex. Then $\varphi(v)=2$. If the neighbors of $v$ are $8^{+}$-vertices, then $\varphi'(v)=\varphi(v)-4\times \frac{1}{2}=0$; otherwise, $\varphi'(v)=\varphi(v)-2\times \frac{4}{5}-2\times \frac{1}{5}=0$ by $(R_2)$.
Suppose that $v$ is a 5-vertex. Then $\varphi(v)=4$. If $d(v_{1})\geq7$, then $\varphi'(v)\geq\varphi(v)-5\times\frac{4}{5}=0$ by $(R_{3.1})$. If $d(v_{1})\leq 6$ and $d(v_{2})\geq 8$, then $\varphi'(v)\geq\varphi(v)-2\times\frac{5}{4}-3\times\frac{1}{2}=0$ by $(R_{3.2})$. Otherwise, $d(v_{1})\leq 6$, $d(v_{2})\leq7$ and $d(v_{3})\geq9$, since $G$ does not contain the configuration $(\mathcal{A}_4)$. In this case, if $vv_{1}$ and $vv_{2}$ are incident with a same face, then $\varphi'(v)\geq\varphi(v)-1-2\times\frac{5}{6}-2\times\frac{2}{3}=0$. Otherwise, $\varphi'(v)\geq\varphi(v)-4\times\frac{13}{15}-\frac{8}{15}=0$.
Let $f=[xyz]$ be any 3-face of $G$ with $d(x)\leq d(y)\leq d(z)$. Then $\varphi(f)=-3$. If $d(x)\geq6$, then $f$ gets at least 1 from each incident vertex, $\varphi'(f)\geq\varphi(f)+3\times1=0$. If $d(x)=6$, then $d(y)\ge 12$. This implies that $y$ (or $z$) gives at least $\frac 3 2$ to $f$ by $(R_1)$, so $\varphi'(f)\geq\varphi(f)+2\times\frac{3}{2}=0$.
Suppose that $d(x)=4$. Then $x$ gives at least $\frac 1 5$ to $f$. We consider the degree of $y$. If $d(y)\ge 10$, then $\varphi'(f)\geq \varphi(f)+\frac{1}{5}+2\times\frac{7}{5}=0$. If $8\le d(y)\le 9$, since $G$ does not contain the configuration $(\mathcal{A}_3)$, $v$ is not adjacent to a $7^-$-vertex. This implies $x$ gives $\frac 12$ to $f$ by $(R_2)$, so $\varphi'(f)\geq \varphi(f)+\frac{1}{2}+2\times\frac{5}{4}=0$. Otherwise, $d(y)\leq 7$ and $d(z)\geq 10$. The vertex $x$ gives $\frac 4 5$ to $f$ by $(R_2)$ and $z$ gives at least $\frac 7 5$ by $(R_1)$. Moreover, $y$ gives at least $\frac 54$ to $f$ by $(R_1), (R_2)$ and $(R_3)$. Thus $\varphi'(f)\geq\varphi(f)+2\times\frac{4}{5}+\frac{7}{5}=0$.
Suppose that $d(x)=5$. Then $x$ gives at least $\frac 12$ to $f$. If $d(y)\ge 8$, then $\varphi'(f)\geq\varphi(f)+\frac{1}{2}+2\times \frac{5}{4}=0$ by $(R_1)$. If $d(y)=7$, then $x$ gives $\frac {4}{5}$ to $f$ by $(R_3)$, so $\varphi'(f)\geq\varphi(f)+\frac{4}{5}+2\times \frac{8}{7}>0$. Otherwise, $d(y)=5$ or 6. Note that $x$ (or $y$) gives at least $\frac 5 6$ to $f$ by $(R_1)$ and $(R_3)$. We consider the degree of $z$.
[**Case 1.**]{} $d(y)\geq 9$
Then $\varphi'(f)\geq\varphi(f)+\frac{4}{3}+2\times\frac{5}{6}=0$.
[**Case 2.**]{} $d(y)=8$.
In this case, $x$ gives $\frac 54$ to $f$. Thus $\varphi'(f)\geq\varphi(f)+\frac{5}{6}+2\times\frac{5}{4}>0$.
[**Case 3.**]{} $d(y)\le 7$.
In this case, $x$ sends 1 to $f$ by $(R_{3.3})$, $x$ (or $y)$ sends at least $1$ to $f$ by $(R_1)$ and $(R_{3.3})$. Thus $\varphi'(f)\geq\varphi(f)+3\times 1=0$.
In any case, we have $\varphi'(x)\geq 0$ for any $x\in V(G)\cup
F(G)$, a contradiction to (2). This completes the proof of Lemma 2.1.
Properties of acyclically edge $k$-critical graphs
==================================================
Let $\phi: E(G)\longrightarrow[k]$ be an edge $k$-coloring of $G$. For a vertex $v\in V(G)$ and an edge $e=uv$, we say that the color $\phi(e)$ $appears$ on $v$. Let $C_{\phi}(v)=\{\phi(uv)|u\in N(v)\}$ and $F_{\phi}(uv)=\{\phi(vv')| v'\in N(v), v'\neq v\}$. Note that $F_{\phi}(uv)$ need not be the same as $F_{\phi}(vu)$.
Recall that a $multiset$ is a generalized set where a member can appear multiple times. If an element $x$ appears $t$ times in a multiset $\mathcal{S}$, then we say that the $multiplicity$ of $x$ in $\mathcal{S}$ is $t$. In notation $mult_{\mathcal{S}}(x)=t$. The cardinality of a finite multiset $\mathcal{S}$, denoted by $||\mathcal{S}||$, is defined as $\sum_{x\in
\mathcal{S}}mult_{\mathcal{S}}(x)$. Let $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ be two multisets. The $join$ of $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$, denoted as $\mathcal{S}_1\uplus \mathcal{S}_2$, is the multiset that have all the members of $\mathcal{S}_1$ as well as $\mathcal{S}_2$ such that for any $x\in \mathcal{S}_1\uplus
\mathcal{S}_2$, $mult_{\mathcal{S}_1\uplus
\mathcal{S}_2}(x)=mult_{\mathcal{S}_1}(x)+mult_{\mathcal{S}_2}(x)$.
Let $\alpha,\beta$ be two colors. An $(\alpha,\beta)$-$maximal$ $bichromatic$ $path$ with respect to $\phi$ is maximal path consisting of edges that are colored $\alpha$ and $\beta$ alternatingly. An $(\alpha,\beta,u,v)$-$critical$ $path$ is an $(\alpha,\beta)$-maximal bichromatic path which starts at the vertex $u$ with an edge colored $\alpha$ and ends at $v$ with an edge colored $\alpha$.
A graph $G$ is called an $acyclically$ $edge$ $k$-$critical$ $graph$ if $\chi'_a(G)>k$ and any proper subgraph of $G$ is acyclically edge $k$-colorable. Obviously, if $G$ is an acyclically edge $k$-critical graph with $k>\Delta(G)$, then $\Delta(G)\ge 3$. The following facts are obvious.
\[one-bichromatic-path\] Given a pair of color $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of a proper edge coloring $\phi$ of $G$, there is at most one $(\alpha,\beta)$-maximal bichromatic path containing a particular vertex $v$, with respect to $\phi$.
\[uv-edge-degree\] Let $G$ be an acyclically edge $k$-critical graph, and $uv$ be an edge of $G$. Then for any acyclically edge $k$-coloring $\phi$ of $G-uv$, if $C_{\phi}(u)\cap C_{\phi}(v)=\emptyset$, then $d(u)+d(v)\ge
k+2$. If $|C_{\phi}(u)\cap C_{\phi}(v)|=t$, say $\phi(uu_i)=\phi(vv_i)$ for $i=1,2,..,t$, then $\sum\limits_{i=1}^{t}d(v_i)+d(u)+d(v)\ge
k+t+2$ and $\sum\limits_{i=1}^{t}d(u_i)+d(u)+d(v)\ge k+t+2$.
In [@hou2011], Hou et al. considered the properties of acyclically edge $k$-critical graphs and got the following lemmas.
[@hou2011]\[2-connected\] Any acyclically edge $k$-critical graph is $2$-connected.
[@hou2011]\[lem3vertex\] Let $G$ be an acyclically edge $k$-critical graph with $k\ge
\Delta(G)+2$ and $v$ be a $3$-vertex of $G$. Then the neighbors of $v$ are $(k-\Delta(G)+2)^+$-vertices.
In this section, we give some properties of acyclically edge critical graphs, which will be used in the proof of Theorem \[main-result\].
\[neighbor of 2-vertex\] Let $v$ be a $2$-vertex of an acyclically edge $k$-critical graph $G$ with $k>\Delta(G)$. Then the neighbors of $v$ are $(k-\Delta(G)+3)^+$-vertices.
Suppose to the contrary that $v$ has a neighbor $u$ whose degree is at most $k-\Delta(G)+2$. Let $N(v)=\{u,w\}$ and $N(u)=\{v, u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_t\}$, where $t\le k-\Delta(G)+1$. Then the graph $G'=G-uv$ admits an acyclic edge $k$-coloring $\phi$ by the choice of $G$ with $\phi(uu_i)=i$ for $1\le i\le t$. Since $d(u)+d(v)\le \Delta(G)+2$, we have $\phi(wv)\in C_{\phi}(u)$ by Fact \[uv-edge-degree\], say $\phi(wv)=1$. Then for any $t+1\le i\le
k$, there is a $(1,i,u,v)$-critical path through $u_1$ and $w$ with respect to $\phi$, since otherwise we can color $uv$ with $i$ properly with avoiding bichromatic cycle, a contradiction to the choice of $G$. Thus $\Delta(G)\geq d(u_1)\ge k-t+1$. This implies that $t=k-\Delta(G)+1$ and $C_{\phi}(u_{1})=C_{\phi}(w)=\{1,k-\Delta(G)+2,\ldots,k\}$. Recolor $wv$ with 2, by the same argument, there is a $(2,i,u,v)$-critical path through $u_2$ and $w$ for any $t+1\le
i\le k$. Now exchange the colors on $uu_1$ and $uu_2$, and color $uv$ with $t+1$. The resulting coloring is an acyclic edge coloring of $G$ using $k$ colors by Fact \[one-bichromatic-path\], a contradiction.
\[number of 2-vertex\] Let $v$ be a $t$-vertex of an acyclically edge $k$-critical graph $G$ with $k>\Delta(G)$ and $t\ge k-\Delta(G)+2$. Then $n_2(v)\le t+\Delta(G)-k-2$.
If $n_2(v)=0$, we are done. Otherwise, $t\ge k-\Delta(G)+3$ by Lemma \[neighbor of 2-vertex\]. By contradiction, suppose that $v$ has neighbors $v_1,v_2,\cdots,v_t$ with $d(v_i)\ge 3$ for any $1\le i\le
m$, where $m\le k-\Delta(G)+1$, and $N(v_i)=\{v, u_i\}$ for any $m+1\le i\le t$. The graph $G'=G-vv_t$ admits an acyclic edge $k$-coloring $\phi$ by the choice of $G$ with $\phi(vv_i)=i$ for $1\le i\le t-1$. Since $d(v)+d(v_t)\le \Delta(G)+2$, $\phi(u_tv_t)\in \{1,2,\cdots,m\}$ by Fact \[uv-edge-degree\], say $\phi(u_tv_t)=1$. Then for any color $i$ with $t\le i\le k$, there is a $(1,i,v,v_t)$-critical path through $v_1$ and $u_t$. Note that for any $i$ with $m+1\le i\le t-1$, the color $i$ should appear on $u_t$, since otherwise, we can recolor $u_tv_t$ with $i$ and color $vv_t$ with a color appearing neither on $v$ nor on $v_i$. Thus $\{m+1,\cdots,k\}\subseteq
C_{\phi}(u_t)$. Then $\Delta(G)\geq d(u_{t})\geq k-m+1$. This implies that $m=k-\Delta(G)+1$ and $d(u_t)=\Delta(G)$. For any $1\le
i\le m$, and $t\le j\le k$, there is a $(i,j,v,v_t)$-critical path through $v_i$ and $u_t$ if we recolor $v_tv_t$ with $i$, since otherwise, we can recolor $u_tv_t$ with $i$ and color $vv_t$ with $j$.
[**Claim.**]{} For any $m+1\le i\le t-1$, there is a $(1,i,v,v_t)$-critical path through $v_1$ and $u_t$ with respect to $\phi$.
Otherwise, suppose that there exists a color $i_0$ with $m+1\le i_0\le
t-1$, such that there is not a $(1,i_0,v,v_t)$-critical path through $v_1$ and $u_t$. Color $vv_t$ with $i_0$, uncolor $vv_{i_0}$, the colors on the other edges unchange, we get an acyclic edge coloring $\varphi$ of $G-vv_{i_0}$. It follows from Fact \[uv-edge-degree\] that $\varphi(u_{i_0}v_{i_0})\in \{1,2,\cdots,m\}$. Coloring $vv_{i_{0}}$ with $t$ results in an acyclic edge coloring of $G$, a contradiction.
If we recolor $u_tv_t$ with 2, as in the proof above, there is a $(2,i,v,v_t)$-critical path through $v_2$ and $u_t$ for any $m+1\le i\le t-1$. Thus $d(v_i)=\Delta(G)$ and $F_{\phi}(vv_i)=\{m+1, \cdots,k\}$ for $i=1, 2$. We exchange the colors on $vv_1$ and $vv_2$, and color $vv_t$ with $t$. The resulting coloring is an acyclic edge coloring of $G$ by Fact \[one-bichromatic-path\], a contradiction.
\[uv-edge-colored\] Let $uv$ be an edge of an acyclically edge $k$-critical graph $G$ with $k>\Delta(G)$. If $d(u)+d(v)\leq k-\Delta(G)+4$, then for any acyclic edge $k$-coloring $\phi$ of $G-uv$, $|C_{\phi}(v)\cap
C_{\phi}(u)|\geq2$.
By contradiction, suppose that there exists an acyclic edge $k$-coloring $\phi$ of $G-uv$ such that $|C_{\phi}(v)\cap
C_{\phi}(u)|\leq 1$. It follows from Fact \[uv-edge-degree\] that $|C_{\phi}(v)\cap C_{\phi}(u)|=1$, say $\phi(uu_1)=\phi(vv_1)=1$. Let $T=[k]\setminus {C_{\phi}(v)\cup C_{\phi}(u)}$. Then $|T|=k-|C_{\phi}(v)\cup C_{\phi}(u)|\ge
k-(k-\Delta(G)+1)=\Delta(G)-1$. Moreover, for any color $i\in T$, there is a $(1,i,u,v)$-critical path through $u_1$ and $v_1$. This implies that $|T|=\Delta(G)-1$, $F_{\phi}(uu_1)=F_{\phi}(vv_1)=T$, and $d(u)+d(v)=k-\Delta(G)+4\ge 5$. We may assume that $d(u)\ge 3$. Let $u_2$ be another neighbor of $u$ different from $u_1$ and assume that $\phi(uu_2)=2$. Then $2\notin C_{\phi}(v)$. Recoloring $vv_1$ with 2 results in another acyclic edge $k$-coloring $\phi'$ of $G-uv$. Similarly, there is a $(2,i,u,v)$-critical path through $u_2$ and $v_1$ with respect to $\phi'$ for any $i\in T$. Thus $F_{\phi}(uu_2)=T$. Then we exchange the colors on $uu_1$ and $uu_2$, and color $uv$ with a color in $T$. By Fact \[one-bichromatic-path\], the resulting coloring is an acyclic edge coloring of $G$, a contradiction.
\[uv-edge-colored-2\] Let $v$ be $3^+$-vertex of an acyclically edge $k$-critical graph $G$ with neighbors $u, v_1,v_2,\cdots,v_t$, where $k>\Delta(G)$, and $\phi$ be an acyclic edge $k$-coloring of $G-uv$. If $d(u)+d(v)\leq k-\Delta(G)+4$ and $|C_{\phi}(v)\cap C_{\phi}(u)|=2$, then the multiset $\mathcal{S}=F_{\phi}(vv_1)\uplus
F_{\phi}(vv_2)\uplus \cdots F_{\phi}(vv_t)$ contains at least $d(u)$ colors from $C_{\phi}(u)\cup C_{\phi}(v)$.
Assume that $\phi(vv_i)=i$ for $i=1,2,\cdots,t$, $\{1,2\}\subseteq C_{\phi}(u)$. Let $T=[k]\setminus {C_{\phi}(v)\cup C_{\phi}(u)}$. Then $|T|=k-|C_{\phi}(v)\cup C_{\phi}(u)|\ge k-(k-\Delta(G))=\Delta(G)$, and for any color $i\in T$, there is either a $(1,i,u,v)$-critical path or a $(2,i,u,v)$-critical path. Note that for $i=1,2$, $F_{\phi}(vv_i)\cap \{3,\cdots,t\}\neq \emptyset,$ since otherwise, we can choose a color from $T\setminus F_{\phi}(vv_i)$ to recolor $vv_i$ and get a new acyclic edge coloring $\phi'$ of $G-uv$ with $|C_{\phi'}(v)\cap C_{\phi'}(u)|=1$ by Fact \[one-bichromatic-path\], a contradiction to Lemma \[uv-edge-colored\].
Now we show $\mathcal{S}$ contains at least $d(u)-2$ colors from $C_{\phi}(u)$, which implies that $\mathcal{S}$ contains at least $d(u)$ colors from $C_{\phi}(u)\cup C_{\phi}(v)$. Otherwise, let $\alpha,\beta$ be two colors in $C_{\phi}(u)$ but not contain in $\mathcal{S}$. Then recolor $vv_1$ with $\alpha$ and $vv_2$ with $\beta$. The resulting coloring is an acyclic edge coloring $\phi'$ of $G-uv$. Then for any color $i\in T$, there is either an $(\alpha,i,u,v)$-critical path through $v_1$, or an $(\beta,i,u,v)$-critical path through $v_2$ with respect to $\phi'$. Assume that $\phi(uu')=\alpha$ and $\phi(uu'')=\beta$. Since $|T|\ge \Delta(G)$, there exists a color $\gamma\in T\setminus
F_{\phi}(uu')$. Then $\gamma\in F_{\phi}(uu'')$ and there is a $(\beta,\gamma,u,v)$-critical path through $u''$ and $v_2$. Now we give an acyclic edge $k$-coloring $\varphi$ of $G$ by $\varphi(vv_1)=\beta$, $\varphi(vv_2)=\alpha$, $\varphi(uv)=\gamma$, and $\varphi(e)=\phi(e)$ for the other edges of $G$, a contradiction.
Proof of Theorem \[main-result\]
================================
By contradiction, let $G$ be a planar graph with a fixed embedding in the plane and suppose that $G$ is an acyclically edge $(\Delta(G)+10)$-critical graph, i.e., $G$ is the minimum counterexample to the theorem in terms of the number of edges. Then $G$ is 2-connected by Lemma \[2-connected\]. Let $v$ be a vertex of $G$. If $d(v)=2$, then the neighbors of $v$ are $13^+$-vertices by Lemma \[neighbor of 2-vertex\]. If $d(v)=3$, then the neighbors of $v$ are $12^+$-vertices by Lemma \[lem3vertex\]. If $d(v)\ge 12$, then $n_2(v)\le d(v)-12$ by Lemma \[number of 2-vertex\].
Now we show that $G$ contains the configuration $(\mathcal{A}_3)$ or $(\mathcal{A}_4)$. Let $H$ be the graph obtained by deleting all 2-vertices from $G$. Then for any vertex $v\in V(H)$, either $d_H(v)=d_G(v)\ge
3$, or $d_H(v)\ge 12$ by Lemma \[number of 2-vertex\]. It follows from Lemma \[unavoidable configurations\] that there exists a $5^-$-vertex $v$ in $H$ such that $v$ belongs to one of the configurations $(\mathcal{A}_2), (\mathcal{A}_3), (\mathcal{A}_4)$. This implies that $d_{G}(v)=d_{H}(v)$ and $v$ belongs to one of the configurations $(\mathcal{A}_2), (\mathcal{A}_3), (\mathcal{A}_4)$ in $G$ by Lemma \[number of 2-vertex\]. However, if $d(v)=3$, then the neighbors of $v$ are $12^+$-vertices by Lemma \[lem3vertex\]. Thus $G$ contain the configuration $(\mathcal{A}_3)$ or $(\mathcal{A}_4)$.
Suppose that $v$ has neighbors $v_1,v_2,\cdots,v_t$, where $t=3,4$, with $d(v_1)\le d(v_2)\le \cdots \leq d(v_t)$, $v_1$ has neighbors $v, w_1,w_2,\cdots,w_s$, and let $k=\Delta(G)+10$ for simplicity. Then the graph $G'=G-vv_{1}$ admits an acyclic edge $k$-coloring $\phi$ by the choice of $G$ with $\phi(v_1w_i)=i$ for $1\le i\le s$. Since $d(v)+d(v_1)\le 11$, $|C_{\phi}(v)\cap C_{\phi}(v_1)|\geq2$ by Lemma \[uv-edge-colored\]. Let $T=[k]\setminus (C_{\phi}(v)\cup
C_{\phi}(v_1))$ and $\mathcal{S}=F_{\phi}(vv_2)\uplus \cdots
\uplus F_{\phi}(vv_t)$. Then Now we derive an acyclic edge $k$-coloring of $G$ from $\phi$, a contradiction.
**Case 1.** $d(v)=4$ with $d(v_{1})\leq 7$ and $d(v_{2})\leq 9$.
Note that $|T|=k-(s+1)\ge \Delta(G)+3$ and $||\mathcal{S}||\le 2(\Delta(G)-1)+8= 2\Delta(G)+6$. We consider the number of colors in $C_{\phi}(v)\cap C_{\phi}( v_{1})$.
[**Subcase 1.1.** ]{} $|C_{\phi}(v)\cap C_{\phi}( v_{1})|=2.$
Suppose that $\phi(vx_i)=\phi(v_{1}w_{i})=i$ for $i=1,2$, where $i\in \{v_2,v_3,v_4\}$. Then for any color $s+2\le i\le
k$, there is either a $(1,i,v,v_1)$-critical path through $x_1$ and $w_1$, or a $(2,i,v,v_1)$-critical path through $x_2$ and $w_2$ with respect to $\phi$. Since $\mathcal{S}$ contains at least $d(v_1)$ colors from $C_{\phi}(v)\cup C_{\phi}(v_1)$ by Lemma \[uv-edge-colored-2\], there exists a color $\alpha\in T$ such that $mult_{\mathcal{S}}(\alpha)=1$, say $\alpha\notin F_{\phi}(vv_{2})$. Recoloring $vv_{2}$ with $\alpha$ results in an acyclic edge coloring $\phi'$ of $G-vv_{1}$ with $|C_{\phi'}(v)\cap
C_{\phi'}(v_1)|=1$, a contradiction to Lemma \[uv-edge-colored\].
[**Subcase 1.2**]{} $|C_{\phi}(v)\cap C_{\phi}(v_{1})|=3.$
In this case, $|T|= k-s\ge \Delta(G)+4$. This implies that there exists a color $\alpha\in T$ such that $mult_{\mathcal{S}}(\alpha)=1$, say $\alpha\notin F_{\phi}(vv_2)$. Recoloring $vv_2$ with $\alpha$ results in an acyclic edge coloring $\phi'$ of $G-vv_{1}$ with $|C_{\phi'}(v)\cap C_{\phi'}(v_1)|=2$, and the argument in Subcase 1.1 works.
[**Case 2**]{} $d(v)=5,$ with $d(v_{1})\leq6, d(v_{2})\leq7$ and $d(v_{3})\leq8$.
Note that $|T|=k-(s+2)= \Delta(G)+8-s$ and $||\mathcal{S}||\le 2(\Delta(G)-1)+6+7= 2\Delta(G)+11$. We consider the number of colors in $C_{\phi}(v)\cap C_{\phi}( v_{1})$.
[**Subcase 2.1**]{} $|C_{\phi}(v)\cap C_{\phi}(v_{1})|=2.$
Suppose that $\phi(vx_i)=\phi(v_{1}w_{i})=i$ for $i=1,2$, where $i\in \{v_2,v_3,v_4\}$. Then for any color $s+2\le i\le
k$, there is either a $(1,i,v,v_1)$-critical path through $x_1$ and $w_1$, or a $(2,i,v,v_1)$-critical path through $x_2$ and $w_2$ with respect to $\phi$. Since $\mathcal{S}$ contains at least $s+1$ colors from $C_{\phi}(v)\cup C_{\phi}(v_1)$ by Lemma \[uv-edge-colored-2\], there exists a color $\alpha\in T$, such that $mult_{\mathcal{S}}(\alpha)=1$, say $\alpha\notin F_{\phi}(vv')$. Recoloring $vv'$ with $\alpha$ results in an acyclic edge coloring $\phi'$ of $G-vv_{1}$ with $|C_{\phi'}(v)\cap C_{\phi'}(v_1)|=1$, a contradiction to Lemma \[uv-edge-colored\].
[**Subcase 2.2**]{} $|C_{\phi}(v)\cap C_{\phi}(v_{1})|=3.$
Suppose that $N(v)=\{v_1,x_1,\cdots,x_4\}$, $\phi(vx_i)=\phi(v_{1}w_{i})=i$ for $i=1,2,3$ and $\phi(vx_4)=s+1$. Then for any color $i\in T$, there is either a $(1,i,v,v_1)$-critical path through $x_1$, or a $(2,i,v,v_1)$-critical path through $x_2$, or a $(3,i,v,v_1)$-critical path through $x_3$. Let $\mathcal{S'}=F_{\phi}(vx_{1})\uplus F_{\phi}(vx_{2})\uplus
F_{\phi}(vx_{3}) $. Note that $|T|=k-(s+1)=\Delta(G)+9-s\geq
\Delta(G)+4 $, $||\mathcal{S'}||\le 2(\Delta(G)-1)+7=2\Delta(G)+5$. There exists a color $\alpha\in T$, such that $mult_{\mathcal{S'}}(\alpha)=1$, say $\alpha\in F_{\phi}(vx_{1})$. Recoloring $vx_{2}$ with $\alpha$ results in a proper edge coloring $\phi'$ of $G-vv_{1}$ with $|C_{\phi'}(v)\cap C_{\phi'}(v_1)|=2$. If there is no bichromatic cycle with respect to $\phi'$, we are done. Otherwise, there is a $(s+1,\alpha,v,x_{2})$-critical path through $x_{4}$ with respect to $\phi'$. Let $\phi''(vx_3)=\alpha$, $\phi''(e)=\phi(e)$ for the other edges $e\in G-vv_1$. Then $\phi''$ is an acyclic edge coloring of $G-vv_1$ with $|C_{\phi''}(v)\cap C_{\phi''}(v_1)|=2$ by Fact \[one-bichromatic-path\] and the argument in Subcase 2.1 works.
[**Subcase 2.3**]{} $|C_{\phi}(v)\cap C_{\phi}(v_{1})|=4$.
Suppose that $\phi(vv_i)=i-1$ for $2\le i\le 5$. Recolor $vv_2$ with a color from $T\setminus F_{\phi}(vv_2)$ and get an proper edge coloring $\phi'$ of $G-vv_1$. If $\phi'$ does not contain bichromatic cycle, then $\phi'$ is acyclic with $|C_{\phi'}(v)\cap
C_{\phi'}(v_{1})|=3$, and the argument in Subcase 2.2 works. Otherwise, $F_{\phi}(vv_2)\cap\{2,3,4\}\neq \emptyset$. Similarly, for $i=3,4,5$, $F_{\phi}(vv_i)\cap\{1,2,3,4\}\neq \emptyset$. Thus $\mathcal{S}$ contains at least four colors from $\{1,2,3,4\}$. Since $|T|=k-s\ge \Delta(G)+5$ and $||\mathcal{S}||\le 2\Delta(G)+11$, there exists a color $\alpha\in T$, such that $mult_{\mathcal{S}}(\alpha)=1$, say $\alpha\notin F_{\phi}(vv_1)$. Recoloring $vv_1$ with $\alpha$ results in an acyclic edge coloring $\phi''$ of $G-vv_{1}$ with $|C_{\phi''}(v)\cap C_{\phi''}(v_1)|=3$, the argument in Subcase 2.2 works.
In any case, we can get an acyclic edge coloring of $G$ with $\Delta(G)+10$ colors, a contradiction.
Determining the acyclic chromatic index of a graph is a hard problem both from theoretical and algorithmic points of view. Even for complete graphs, the acyclic chromatic index is still not determined exactly.
Determine the acyclic chromatic index of planar graphs.
[99]{} , A parallel algorithmic version of the Local Lemma, Random Structures Algorithms 2 (1991) 367–378. N. Alon, B. Sudakov and A. Zaks, Acyclic edge colorings of graphs, J. Graph Theory 37 (2001) 157–167.
N. Alon, A. Zaks, Algorithmic aspects of acyclic edge colorings, Algorithmica 32 (2002) 611–614.
L.D. Andersen,E. Máčajová, J. Mazák, Optimal acyclic edge-coloring of cubic graphs, J. Graph Theory DOI 10.1002/jgt.20650.
M. Basavaraju, L.S. Chandran, N. Cohen, F. Havet and T. Müller, Acyclic edge-coloring of planar graphs, SIAM J. Discrete Math 25 (2) (2011) 463–478. M. Basavaraju, L.S. Chandran, Acyclic edge coloring of graphs with maximum degree 4, J. Graph Theory 61 (3) (2009) 192–209. M. Basavaraju, L.S. Chandran, Acyclic edge coloring of subcubic graphs, Discrete Mathematics 308 (2008) 6650–6653.
M. Borowiecki, A. Fiedorowicz, Acyclic edge colouring of planar graphs without short cycles, Discrete Mathematics 310 (2010) 1445–1455.
A. Fiedorowicz, M. Ha[ł]{}uszczak, N. Narayanan, About acyclic edge colourings of planar graphs, Information Processing Letters 108 (2008) 412–417.
J. Hou, N. Roussel, J. Wu, Acyclic chromatic index of planar graphs with triangles, Information Processing Letters, 111 (2011) 836–840.
J. Hou, J. Wu, G. Liu and B. Liu, Acyclic edge chromatic number of outerplanar graphs, J. Graph Theory, 64 (2010) 22–36. J. Hou, J. Wu, G. Liu and B. Liu, Acyclic edge colorings of planar graphs and seriell-parallel graphs, Sciences in China A 52 (2009) 605–616.
, Further Algorithmic Aspects of the Local Lemma, Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1998) 524–529.
[^1]: The corresponding author: [email protected]
[^2]: This work is supported by research grants NSFC (11001055) and NSFFP (2010J05004, 2011J06001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We comment on asymptotically AdS “large-$\sigma$” initial data, studied in Phys. Rev. **D87**, 123006 (2013), that are immune to turbulent instability.'
author:
- Maciej Maliborski
- Andrzej Rostworowski
title: 'A comment on “Boson stars in AdS”'
---
In a recent paper [@bll2] Buchel, Liebling and Lehner (BLL) showed that boson stars in AdS${}_{3+1}$ are non-linearly stable. This is important result that, together with [@mr], substantiates the claims of [@dhms] that there exists a class of stable, asymptotically AdS solutions of Einstein equations. As a by product, in sec. 4 of their paper, BLL also study Einstein-AdS – massless scalar field system investigated in [@br]. In particular, they show that the family of initial data $$\label{ID}
\Phi(0,x)=0, \qquad \Pi(0,x) = \frac {2 \ep} {\pi}\,\exp \left( -
\frac{4 \tan^2 x}{\pi^2 \sigma^2} \right)$$ used in [@br] to conjecture the turbulent instability of AdS is in fact immune to this instability for the values of $\sigma \sim
0.5$. Then, they extrapolate this result to $\sigma \gtrsim 0.5$ and speculate that the fact that *“the large-$\sigma$ initial data is immune to the weakly turbulent instability is consistent with the argument that widely distributed mass energy prevents the coherent amplification typical of the instability”*. While we confirm their numerical result, we disagree with its interpretation. We think that the correct explanation of the observed immunity against instability comes from the fact that in $3+1$ dimensions, the initial data (\[ID\]) with $\sigma\approx 1$ and small $\ep$ belong to the stability island of the time-periodic solution bifurcating from the fundamental mode of the massless scalar field propagating on a fixed AdS background [@mr]. We support our claim with the following observations:
1. It turns out that BLL’s extrapolation to $\mbox{$\sigma \gtrsim 0.5$}$ is unjustified, namely for still larger values of $\mbox{$\sigma \gtrsim 8$}$ the turbulent cascade is restored as depicted in Fig. \[fig1\] (analogous to Fig. 2 of [@br]).
2. We have not found such immunity to instability for the initial data (\[ID\]) in higher spatial dimensions ($d>3$). Of course, we can not exclude that one can fine tune $\sigma$ to achieve that but that does not seem to be as straightforward as in $3+1$. It is consistent with the fact that the radius of convergence of perturbative series [@mr] decreases as we go to higher dimensions and/or mode numbers. Thus, we expect the stability islands of higher modes (in dimension and/or wave number) to shrink.
3. If we Fourier transform $\hat \Pi(\omega,0) = \int \Pi(t,0)
e^{-i \omega t}\,dt$ we find that for the values of parameters in (\[ID\]) corresponding to the stability window, $\Pi(\omega,0)$ is peaked around $\omega=3$, corresponding to the frequency of a time periodic solution bifurcating from the fundamental mode. For example for $(\sigma,\, \ep)=(1/2, \, 2)$ we get a dominant peak in the spectrum at $\omega \approx 3.15$.
![The rescaled value of $\Pi^2(t,0)$ for solutions with initial data for three moderately small amplitudes and $\sigma=8$. For clarity of the plot only the upper envelopes of rapid oscillations are depicted. After making between about a ninety (for $\ep=\sqrt{2}/32$) and four hundred (for $\ep=\sqrt{2}/64$) reflections, the solutions finally collapse.[]{data-label="fig1"}](comment_bll_fig1.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
The results of [@br; @bll2; @dhms; @mr] suggest that while AdS solution itself is unstable against black hole formation, putting some fine-tuned small ripples on AdS in the form of time-periodic solutions or boson stars prevents the instability. Thus the dynamics of asymptotically AdS spacetimes turns out to be much more complicated that could have been expected, and probably for still some time the combined numerical/symbolic approach will be the basic tool for studying this problem.
*Acknowledgments:* We are indebted to Alex Buchel, Steven L. Liebling, Luis Lehner and Piotr Bizoń for discussion.
[10]{}
A. Buchel, S.L. Liebling and L. Lehner, Phys. Rev. **D87**, 123006 (2013), arXiv:1304.4166
M. Maliborski and A. Rostworowski, arXiv:1303.3186
O.J.C. Dias, G.T. Horowitz, D. Marolf and J.E. Santos, Class. Quant. Grav. **29**, 235019 (2012), arXiv:1208.5772
P. Bizoń and A. Rostworowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 031102 (2011), arXiv:1104.3702
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**BLUESHIFTED GALAXIES IN THE VIRGO CLUSTER**]{}\
I. D. Karachentsev and O. G. Nasonova (Kashibadze)
[*We examine a sample of 65 galaxies in the Virgo cluster with negative radial velocities relative to the Local Group. Some features of this sample are pointed out. All of these objects are positioned compactly within a virial zone of radius 6$^{\circ}$ in the cluster, but their centroid is displaced relative to the dynamic center of the cluster, M87, by 1$^{\circ}\hspace{-0.4em}.\,$1 to the northwest. The dwarf galaxies in this sample are clumped on a scale of $\sim$10’ (50 kpc). The observed asymmetry in the distribution of the blueshifted galaxies may be caused by infall of a group of galaxies around M86 onto the main body of the cluster. We offer another attempt to explain this phenomenon, assuming a mutual tangential velocity of $\sim$300 km s$^{-1}$ between the Local Group and the Virgo cluster owing to their being repelled from the local cosmological void.*]{}
[**Keywords**]{}: galaxies: blueshifted: Virgo
Introduction
============
Of the approximately one million galaxies with measured radial velocities, about a hundred of them have negative radial velocities relative to the center of the Local Group. If we exclude the 31 galaxies which form part of the Local Group (LG), the rest are distributed over the sky in an extremely nonuniform fashion: two dwarf spheroidal galaxies (KK77 and IKN) with velocities of –96 and –1 ($\pm60)$ km s$^{-1}$, respectively, are satellites of the neighboring M81 spiral, while the remaining 65 galaxies are concentrated in the central region of the nearest cluster in Virgo around the giant elliptical galaxy Virgo A = NGC4486. It is possible that several other blueshifted galaxies exist in the group nearest us around the giant galaxies Maffei 1, Maffei 2, and IC342, but it is very difficult to measure radial velocities in this region of the sky because of the strong ($\sim5^m - 6^m)$ absorption and emission by hydrogen in the Galaxy. It is evident that the observed distribution over the sky of galaxies with negative radial velocities reflects both the depth and the proximity to us of neighboring potential wells; that is, it contains important information on the local segment of the evolving large-scale structure.
List of blueshifted galaxies in Virgo
=====================================
According to the Virgo Cluster Catalog \[1\] the population of the cluster numbers more than 2000 members, most of which are dwarf irregular (dIr), elliptical (dE), and spheroidal (dSph) systems. Their overall number has increased with time as a result of different surveys of galaxy redshifts in the northern sky, as well as because of special programs aimed at studying the kinematics of the Virgo cluster \[2–9\]. As Binggeli et al. \[7\], as well as others, have shown the Virgo cluster consists of several subclusters which differ in their average velocities, dispersions in their velocities, and dominant types in their populations; this suggests that the dynamic relaxation of the cluster is incomplete. The bulk of the population of Virgo is concentrated around the brightest galaxy NGC4486 (M87). The X-ray intensity peak of the hot intergalactic gas in Virgo also lies in M 87, which suggests that this radio galaxy is the dynamic center of the cluster. According to Binggeli et al. \[7\], the average heliocentric velocity of the main Virgo cluster is +1050 $\pm$ 35 km s$^{-1}$ with a standard deviation of $\sigma = 650$ km s$^{-1}$. Here the average and standard deviation depend significantly on the choice of boundaries for the cluster and the morphological type of the galaxies.
{width="80.00000%"}
At the time \[7\] was published, the total number of galaxies with negative radial velocities relative to the centroid of the Local Group ($V_{LG} < 0)$ was 42. For some of the galaxies (VCC584, VCC1035) the negative velocities have not been confirmed by subsequent, more accurate measurements. A great advance in the study of the kinematics was provided by a “blind” survey of the cluster in the HI line at the Arecibo radio telescope \[10–12\], as well as by the appearance of new radial velocity data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey SDSS \[13\]. Here it should be noted that the SDSS survey yielded improved values for the radial velocities of the members of Virgo, but it also produced a number of false “galaxies” with velocities $V_h\simeq 0$. Fig. 1 shows the distribution of the radial velocities of $\sim$800 galaxies in the central region of Virgo. A sharp peak can be seen near $V_h\simeq 0$ owing mainly to binary stars which are, nevertheless, listed in the HyperLeda data base as galaxies. It is evident that more than one hundred of these observations can significantly distort the statistics of blueshifted galaxies in Virgo.
Table 1. List of Virgo cluster galaxies with negative radial velocities.
------------- ------------------------- -------- ------- ---------- ------ -------- --------------------
Designation RA (J2000.0) Dec $V_h$ $\pm$ $V_{LG}$ Type $B_T$ Notes
[(1)]{} (2) (4) (5) (6) (7)
[(1)]{} (2) (4) (5) (6) (7)
IC3036 12 12 15.08 +12 29 17.7 $-$2 38 $-$126 Sm 14.66
IC3044 12 12 48.49 +13 58 34.6 $-$182 4 $-$298 SBc 14.23
VCC087 12 13 41.27 +15 27 13.0 $-$159 2 $-$267 Sm 15.20
NGC4192 12 13 48.29 +14 54 01.6 $-$135 7 $-$246 Sb 10.85
NGC4212 12 15 39.38 +13 54 05.7 $-$84 4 $-$199 Sc 11.78
VCC181 12 16 14.63 +13 35 11.6 $-$150 32 $-$267 Im 17.42
VCC200 12 16 33.71 +13 01 53.1 22 24 $-$98 E 14.80
A224385 12 16 49.76 +13 30 14.4 $-$87 4 $-$204 BCD 18.42
IC3094 12 16 56.03 +13 37 31.6 $-$159 6 $-$275 Sab 14.43
VCC237 12 17 29.40 +14 53 10.0 $-$323 5 $-$423 Sdm 16.79
IC3105 12 17 33.72 +12 23 17.6 $-$162 3 $-$284 Sm 14.75
VCC322 12 19 05.05 +13 58 52.1 $-$209 10 $-$323 IAB 15.36 Foreground?
VCC334 12 19 14.27 +13 52 56.1 $-$236 4 $-$350 BCD 16.14
VCC501 12 21 47.99 +12 49 36.1 $-$105 33 $-$224 E 17.29 Noisy SDSS Sp
IC3224 12 22 36.12 +12 09 27.0 10 5 $-$100 BCD 16.6
VCC628 12 23 15.47 +07 41 22.2 $-$398 10 $-$540 Ir 18.43
VCC636 12 23 21.23 +15 52 06.2 $-$9 28 $-$113 S0 16.48
IC3258 12 23 44.45 +12 28 39.4 $-$473 6 $-$593 IB 13.66 Merger?
IC3303 12 25 15.20 +12 42 52.3 $-$309 25 $-$427 E 14.75
VCC788 12 25 16.82 +11 36 19.5 121 29 $-$3 E 16.79
VCC802 12 25 29.06 +13 29 53.6 $-$204 3 $-$318 Ir 17.61
IC3311 12 25 33.06 +12 15 37.8 $-$166 10 $-$287 Scd 14.70
VCC810 12 25 33.56 +13 13 38.1 $-$354 30 $-$470 E 16.63 Noisy SDSS Sp
VCC815 12 25 37.20 +13 08 37.7 $-$750 27 $-$866 E 16.33
VCC846 12 25 50.56 +13 11 51.8 $-$729 30 $-$845 E 16.20
NGC4396 12 25 58.94 +15 40 16.6 $-$112 5 $-$215 Scd 13.09
VCC877 12 26 09.56 +13 40 23.3 $-$99 56 $-$212 E 17.68
NGC4406 12 26 11.69 +12 56 46.0 $-$258 23 $-$374 E 9.83
VCC892 12 26 20.04 +12 30 36.6 $-$666 68 $-$784 E: 18.45
NGC4413 12 26 32.21 +12 36 38.6 103 5 $-$16 Sab 12.87
VCC928 12 26 39.80 +12 30 48.2 $-$276 23 $-$395 E 16.23
IC3355 12 26 51.29 +13 10 27.8 $-$10 6 $-$126 IB 15.41 Foreground?
VCC953 12 26 54.74 +13 33 58.3 $-$450 30 $-$563 E 15.91
NGC4419 12 26 56.44 +15 02 50.9 $-$277 8 $-$383 SBa 11.99
VCC997 12 27 22.18 +12 04 07.5 $-$240 118 $-$360 E 18.25 Noisy SDSS Sp
KDG132 12 27 31.64 +09 36 08.6 32 33 $-$100: Ir 16.43 SDSS Sp for a knot
NGC4438 12 27 45.58 +13 00 31.8 73 8 $-$43 Sa 10.93
SDSS 12 28 25.86 +11 14 25.1 124 50 $-$0 E 18.25
VCC1129 12 28 44.98 +12 48 35.7 12 138 $-$105 E 17.75
VCC1163 12 29 06.43 +14 00 18.5 $-$453 26 $-$564 E 16.56
VCC1175 12 29 18.20 +10 08 09.2 11 3 $-$118 BCD 15.37
VCC1198 12 29 32.06 +13 30 37.8 $-$357 37 $-$470 E 17.82
IC3416 12 29 34.98 +10 47 35.8 $-$72 41 $-$198 Ir 15.04
VCC1239 12 29 51.18 +13 52 04.6 $-$561 28 $-$672 E 15.68
VCC1264 12 30 10.91 +12 11 44.1 $-$420 59 $-$539 E 16.90
IC3435 12 30 39.85 +15 07 47.3 $-$45 22 $-$150 S0 15.53
VCC1314 12 30 49.03 +13 13 26.1 77 40 $-$37 E 17.34
IC3445 12 31 19.42 +12 44 16.9 $-$354 23 $-$470 E 16.49
IC3471 12 32 22.85 +16 01 08.3 $-$135 2 $-$235 Sdm 15.47
IC3476 12 32 41.82 +14 03 04.0 $-$170 7 $-$280 Sdm 13.36
IC3492 12 33 19.80 +12 51 12.8 $-$489 25 $-$604 E 14.73
IC3548 12 35 56.62 +10 56 10.9 86 28 $-$37 E 16.08
VCC1682 12 36 36.72 +14 13 32.8 41 36 $-$66 E 17.86
NGC4569 12 36 49.86 +13 09 48.1 $-$233 4 $-$345 Sa 10.11
UGC7795 12 37 45.34 +07 06 14.0 62 3 $-$78 Ir 14.72 Foreground?
VCC1750 12 38 15.54 +06 59 39.1 $-$117 10 $-$258 BCD 16.76
VCC1761 12 38 27.74 +14 04 38.2 $-$162 27 $-$269 E 16.95
KDG172 12 39 13.86 +15 37 49.4 57 10 $-$42 Ir 17.61
VCC1812 12 39 55.55 +11 51 28.5 $-$234 41 $-$351 E 17.31
VCC1860 12 40 57.29 +15 16 31.1 $-$24 40 $-$124 E 18.12 Noisy SDSS Sp
IC3658 12 41 20.65 +14 42 02.4 34 20 $-$69 E 14.94
UGC7857 12 41 54.24 +13 46 22.8 101 31 $-$7 E 14.72
VCC1909 12 42 07.45 +11 49 42.0 101 38 $-$16 E 16.16
IC0810 12 42 09.11 +12 35 48.8 $-$75 23 $-$188 S0 14.25
VCC2028 12 45 37.48 +13 19 42.8 56 28 $-$52 E 16.72
------------- ------------------------- -------- ------- ---------- ------ -------- --------------------
We have made a detailed analysis of the available observational data and, by excluding the “star spam”, compiled a list of 65 galaxies in Virgo with $V_{LG} < 0$. These are listed in Table 1. The columns of the table list the following data on the galaxies: (1) galaxy number in standard catalogs, (2) equatorial coordinates at the epoch J2000.0, (3) average heliocentric radial velocity and the error in it, (4) radial velocity relative to the centroid of the Local Group with the apex parameters from \[14\] used in the NED, (5) morphological type, (6) B-band apparent total magnitude, and (7) brief comments. Of the 65 galaxies in this list, the radial velocities of 27 have been determined with high accuracy using the HI line.
{width="80.00000%"}
{width="80.00000%"}
The distribution of the blueshifted galaxies with respect to their radial velocities $V_{LG}$ and apparent magnitudes $m_B$ is shown in Fig. 2. The galaxies of early types (E, S0, dE, dSph) are indicated by red circles, and those with a young population (S, dIr, BCD) are indicated by blue ones. For a distance to the Virgo cluster of 17.0 Mpc \[15\] and an absolute magnitude for the dwarf galaxies fainter than –16.5$^m$, their relative number in the sample is 80%. Of the 13 galaxies with normal and high luminosities, only one, NGC4406, is elliptical.
Fig. 3 shows the distribution of the galaxies with negative velocities over the sky in equatorial coordinates. The virial region of the cluster, with a radius of $\Theta_{VIR} = 6^{\circ}\hspace{-0.4em}.\,0$, is indicated by a large circle. The galaxies of earlier and later types are indicated in the same way as in the previous figure. The position of the galaxy M87 as the physical center of the cluster is indicated by a cross. The inclined straight line corresponds to the supergalactic equator. The thick central zone, itself, is shown enlarged in the right hand frame of the figure.
Some features of the distribution of blueshifted galaxies
=========================================================
The distribution over the sky of the 65 galaxies with negative radial velocities is characterized by several features that may be important for understanding the kinematics and evolution of the cluster.
(a) The blueshifted galaxies are distributed over the sky much more compactly than the rest of the population of Virgo. All the galaxies with $V_{LG} < 0$ lie, without exception, inside the virial radius $\Theta_{VIR}=6^{\circ}\hspace{-0.4em}.\,0$ of the cluster.
(b) The centroid of the present sample does not coincide with the dynamic center of Virgo (M87), and is shifted significantly to the NW by $1^{\circ}\hspace{-0.4em}.\,10\pm 0^{\circ}\hspace{-0.4em}.\,35$.
(c) The galaxies of early and late types have significantly different positions relative to the center of the cluster: E and SO galaxies lie predominantly to the east, while objects with a young population (dIr, BCD, S) lie mainly to the west and south.
(d) The dwarf galaxies with $V_{LG} < 0$ manifest a small scale clumping effect. Thus, the galaxies VCC181, AGC224385, and IC3094 form a triplet in projected onto the sky, while VCC322 and VCC334 form a pair with a small difference in radial velocities. Other examples of multiple systems are VCC810/815/846, VCC892/928, and UGC7795/VCC1750. The characteristic scale of the clumping for these objects is $\sim10$’ or 50 kpc, while the median difference in their velocities is about 70 km s$^{-1}$. These groups contain galaxies with young, as well as old, populations. If it is real, the dynamic isolation of these pairs and triplets within the cluster is highly unexpected.
Discussion
==========
Binggeli et al. \[7\] and Jerjen et al. \[16\] proposed an explanation for the observed shift of the centroid of the galaxies with negative velocities relative to the dynamic center of Virgo in terms of a separate grouping of galaxies associated with the giant elliptical galaxy NGC4406 (M86). In the sky this galaxy lies near the centroid of the blueshifted galaies (see the right hand frame of Fig. 3), and its radial velocity, $-$374 km s$^{-1}$, is close to the average velocity of our sample of galaxies (see Fig. 2). According to these authors, M86, together with the cloud of satellites surrounding it, is incident onto (merging with) the center of Virgo (M87) from the further edge of the cluster at a relative velocity of $\sim 1400$ km s$^{-1}$, which is a bit more than twice the mean square virial velocity of the members of Virgo. Moving at this velocity, M86 and its companions will intersect the virial radius of the cluster (1.8 Mpc) after 1.3 billion years and will continue moving towards our Galaxy.
The distances to M86 and six other galaxies with negative radial velocities, VCC200, VCC810, VCC815, VCC846, VCC928, and NGC4419 have been measured \[15–17\] from the surface brightness fluctuations (SBF). The distance of M86, itself, 17.5$\pm$0.4 Mpc, and the average distance of the other six galaxies, 17.3$\pm$1.1 Mpc are the same, to within the limits of error, as the average for the cluster as a whole (17.0 Mpc).
The hypothesis according to which the grouping of galaxies around M86 is incident on the main body of the cluster centered at M87 seems quite plausible, as it is consistent with the general paradigm of cluster formation through the merger of small clumps (groups). However, the reason for the observed spatial segregation in terms of morphological types among the galaxies of Virgo with negative radial velocities is still unclear. The scenario in which the cloud around M86 transits through the virial zone of Virgo does not provide an explanation for the observed bunching of dwarf galaxies in the cloud of M86 on a scale of $\sim$50 kpc, since low mass multiple systems of this sort could easily be destroyed by tidal forces in the central zone of the cluster. Numerical simulation of the passage of an association of dwarf groups through the central region of the Virgo cluster might help resolve this puzzle.
In addition to the above features, there is yet another distinct tendency that can be seen in the subsystem of blueshifted galaxies in Virgo. If we restrict the sample to ever more negative values of $V_{LG}$, then the position in the sky of the centroid of the remaining galaxies shifts systematically to the NW, while the spread in the positions of the galaxies relative to the sliding centroid becomes smaller. The upper frame of Fig. 4 illustrates the drift in the sky of the centroid of the galaxies, which range in terms of $V_{LG}$ from zero to the maximum negative value (–866 km s$^{-1}$). The positions of the sliding centroid are indicated by dots which are joined by straight lines. The numbers next to them correspond to the number of galaxies in the averages and the numbers in parentheses, to the average radial velocities obtained by averaging the radial velocities of the 15, 20, 25, ..., 65 members of the sample. The lower frame of Fig. 4 shows the analogous drift of the centroid, but with the reverse ordering, from –866 km s$^{-1}$ to zero. The behavior of the sliding centroid in the plots of Fig. 4 is obviously difficult to match with a simple picture where all the blueshifted galaxies form a group around NGC4406 which is incident, as a whole, on the Virgo cluster with its center alongside NGC4486.
{height="80.00000%"} {height="80.00000%"}
Another argument can be advanced for explaining the observed features of the galaxies in Virgo with $V_{LG} < 0$. Let the kinematics of the cluster correspond to strictly radial motion in a spherically symmetric cluster with no significant substructures. Evidently, the galaxies with the highest peculiar velocities, both toward and away from the observer, will be concentrated within the narrowest zone of the cluster near its physical center. In this picture, the extreme negative velocities in Virgo should be expected right around M87, where the velocities of the galaxies are directed almost strictly along the line of sight. But this would be true only if the centroid of the Local Group does not have a tangential velocity relative to the Virgo cluster. If the centers of the Local Group and Virgo move at a mutually tangential velocity $V_{tang}$, then for two galaxies located at the edges of the virial diameter of Virgo along the direction of the vector $V_{tang}$, the projection of this component would lead to a difference of $\Delta V = 2\times\sin\Theta_{VIR}\times V_{tang}$ in the radial velocities. This in turn, would produce a visible shift of the centroid of the galaxies selected for their negative velocities.
In a study of the local peculiar velocity field of galaxies with measured distances, Tully et al. \[18\] have determined three main components of the velocity of the Local Group, which together yield its observed motion relative to the cosmic microwave background at a velocity of 630$\pm$20 km s$^{-1}$. One component corresponds to infall of the Local Group on Virgo at a velocity of 185$\pm$20 km s$^{-1}$, the second, to recession from the Local Void at a velocity of 259$\pm$25 km s$^{-1}$, and the third, at 455$\pm$15 km s$^{-1}$ is oriented toward the massive Great Attractor (GA) in the HydraCentaurus constellations. These three components are roughly mutually perpendicular. Since the center of the Virgo cluster lies almost on the equator of the Local Supercluster, and the Local Void lies near the supergalactic pole, with $V_{tang}$ = 259 km s$^{-1}$ and $\theta_{VIR} = 6^{\circ}$ we can expect a gradient of the local velocity $\Delta V\simeq 54$ km s$^{-1}$ oriented in Fig. 2 at a right angle rightward of the equator of the local supercluster. Since the angular size of the infall zone around Virgo is $\Theta_0= 23^{\circ}$ \[19\], the drop in the radial velocities within it cannot exceed $\Delta V\simeq -183$ km s$^{-1}$. The magnitude of the shift in the centroid of the galaxies with $V_{LG} < 0$ induced by this effect depends on the structural and kinematic features of Virgo. Dividing the sample of 65 galaxies with $V_{LG} < 0$ into two halves by a line on the sky parallel to the supergalactic equator, we obtain an average difference of the radial velocities between the right and left halves of $-68\pm51$ km s$^{-1}$. When the sample is split into two by a line perpendicular to the line joining the galaxies M86 and M87, this difference increases to $-139\pm49$ km s$^{-1}$. Thus, we have rough agreement between the expected and observed effect of a tangential velocity in terms of both direction and magnitude. Including the other component of the LG velocity, directed toward the Great Attractor, can improve this agreement once we note that the Virgo cluster (closer to the GA) should be incident on the GA at a higher velocity than the Local Group. This mutual motion produces an additional component of the tangential velocity of the LG relative to Virgo, directed toward the opposite side from the GA (i.e., to the NNW in Fig. 2). Of course, the roles of the various components of the mutual motion of the LG and Virgo require more detailed study.
Conclusions
===========
Research on the distribution of the members of the Virgo cluster with extremely high peculiar velocities directed toward or away from us is an important, but still little used tool for understanding the structure and kinematics of this closest cluster. In principle, for choosing between a picture of the merger of individual groups of galaxies with the main body of the cluster or an effect involving mutually tangential motion of the Local Group and Virgo, one could also draw on galaxies with high positive velocities ($\sim2000-2500$ km s$^{-1}$). However, the distant background of Virgo includes many galaxies with such velocities, so it would be difficult to interpret the observational data.
It should be emphasized that the faintest galaxies in our sample have absolute magnitudes MB brighter than $-12.5^m$. We might expect that the cluster contains a still larger number of faint galaxies, including some with negative radial velocities. An increase in their statistics is extremely desirable for more detailed analysis of the kinematics of Virgo.
It is also important to note the need to measure the individual distances for objects with $V_{LG} < 0$ in Virgo. Here the most promising method for estimating the distances continues to be the use of surface brightness fluctuations (SBF) of dE and dSph galaxies. The Tully-Fisher method which is applied to dIr and BCD galaxies does not, unfortunately, provide the accuracy needed to distinguish objects at the front and back edges of the cluster. For them, the only bulk method is to determine the distances from the luminosity of the tip of the red giant branch with the aid of the HST and other orbital telescopes.
There is some interest in searching for ultracompact dwarf galaxies with negative radial velocities in Virgo. Judging from the scenarios discussed in the literature \[20, 21\], dwarf galaxies of this type are formed as a result of their spending a long time in the densest virial zone of a cluster. Thus, observation of even one ultracompact dwarf with $V_{LG} < 0$ would counter the idea that a loose cloud of galaxies surrounding M86 is incident on (merging with) the main body of the cluster.
Further observational effort must obviously be supplemented by numerical simulations of the kinematics of those members of Virgo with extremely high peculiar velocities.
This work was supported by grants RFBR 07–02–00005 and RFBR-DFG 06–02–04017.
REFERENCES {#references .unnumbered}
==========
1\. B. Binggeli, A. Sandage, and G. A. Tammann, [*Astron. J.*]{} [**90**]{}, 1681 (1985) (VCC).
2\. I. D. Karachentsev and V. E. Karachentseva, [*Letters to Astron. Zh.*]{} [**8**]{}, 198 (1982).
3\. G. D. Bothun and J. R. Mould, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**324**]{}, 123 (1988).
4\. G. L. Hoffman, J. Glosson, G. Helou, E. E. Salpeter, and A. Sandage, [*Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.*]{} [**63**]{}, 247 (1987).
5\. G. L. Hoffman, H. L. Williams, E. E. Salpeter, A. Sandage, and B. Binggeli, [*Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.*]{} [**71**]{}, 701 (1989).
6\. M. J. Drinkwater, M. J. Currie, C. K. Young, et al., [*Mon. Notic. Roy. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**279**]{}, 595 (1996).
7\. B. Binggeli, C. Popescu, and G. A. Tammann, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**98**]{}, 275 (1993).
8\. G. Gavazzi, C. Bonfanti, P. Pedotti, et al., [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} [**146**]{}, 259 (2000).
9\. J. M. Solanes, T. Sanchis, E. Salvador-Sole, R. Giovanelli, and M. P. Haynes, [*Astron. J.*]{} [**124**]{}, 2440 (2002).
10\. R. Giovanelli, M. P. Haynes, B. R. Kent, et al., [*Astron. J.*]{} [**133**]{}, 2569 (2007).
11\. S. di Serego Alighieri, G. Gavazzi, C. Giovanardi, et al., [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} [**474**]{}, 851 (2007).
12\. G. Gavazzi, R. Giovanelli, M. P. Haynes, et al., [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} [**482**]{}, 43 (2008).
13\. K. N. Abazajian, J. K. Adelman-McCarthy, M. A. Agueros, et al., [*Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.*]{} [**182**]{}, 543 (2009).
14\. I. D. Karachentsev and D. I. Makarov, [*Astron. J.*]{} [**111**]{}, 794 (1996).
15\. J. L. Tonry, A. Dressler, J. P. Blakeslee, et al., [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**546**]{}, 681 (2001).
16\. H. Jerjen, B. Binggeli, and F. D. Barazza, [*Astron. J.*]{} [**127**]{}, 771 (2004).
17\. S. Mei, J. P. Blakesley, P. Cote, et al., [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**655**]{}, 144 (2007).
18\. R. B. Tully, E. J. Shaya, I. D. Karachentsev, et al., [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**676**]{}, 184 (2008).
19\. I. D. Karachentsev and O. G. Nasonova (Kashibadze), [*Mon. Notic. Roy. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**405**]{}, 1075 (2010).
20\. E. A. Evstigneeva, M. D. Gregg, M. J. Drinkwater, and M. Hilker, [*Astron. J.*]{} [**133**]{}, 1722 (2007).
21\. E. A. Evstigneeva, M. J. Drinkwater, C. Y. Peng, et al., [*Astron. J.*]{} [**136**]{}, 461 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Approaches to self-adaptive software systems use models at runtime to leverage benefits of model-driven engineering (MDE) for providing views on running systems and for engineering feedback loops. Most of these approaches focus on causally connecting runtime models and running systems, and just apply typical MDE techniques, like model transformation, or well-known techniques, like event-condition-action rules, from other fields than MDE to realize a feedback loop. However, elaborating requirements for feedback loop activities for the specific case of runtime models is rather neglected.
Therefore, we investigate requirements for *Adaptation Models* that specify the analysis, decision-making, and planning of adaptation as part of a feedback loop. In particular, we consider requirements for a modeling language of adaptation models and for a framework as the execution environment of adaptation models. Moreover, we discuss patterns for using adaptation models within the feedback loop regarding the structuring of loop activities and the implications on the requirements for adaptation models. Finally, we assess two existing approaches to adaptation models concerning their fitness for the requirements discussed in this paper.
author:
- Thomas Vogel
- Holger Giese
title: Requirements and Assessment of Languages and Frameworks for Adaptation Models
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Self-adaptation capabilities are often required for modern software systems to dynamically change the configuration in response to changing environments or goals [@SEfSAS-ROADMAP-2009]. *[email protected]* are a promising approach for self-adaptive software systems since models may provide appropriate abstractions of a running system and its environment, and benefits of model-driven engineering (MDE) are leveraged to the runtime phases of software systems [@MC.2009.326].
Most [email protected] efforts to self-adaptive software systems focus on causally connecting models to running systems and just apply typical or well-known techniques from MDE or other fields on top of these models. These techniques are used for engineering a feedback loop that controls self-adaptation by means of *monitoring* and *analyzing* the running system and its environment, and the *planning* and *execution* of changes to the running system [@KephartChess2003].
For example, the causal connection has been a topic for discussions at the last two workshops on [email protected] [@MRT10-Summary; @MRT09report], or the work of [@MRT10-Song] particularly addresses the causal connection and it just applies MDE techniques, like model transformation, on top to show their technical feasibility. We proposed an approach to use incremental model synchronization techniques to maintain multiple, causally connected runtime models at different abstraction levels, and thereby, we support the monitoring and the execution of adaptations [@VG10; @VogelNHGB10].
While causal connections provide basic support for monitoring and for executing changes, they do not cover the analysis and planning steps of a feedback loop, which decide *if* and *how* the system should be adapted. For these steps, techniques originating from other fields than MDE are used. Most approaches, like [@1537890; @georgas-computer09], employ rule-based mechanisms in some form of event-condition-action rules that exactly specify when and how adaptation should be performed, and thus, the designated target configuration is predefined. In contrast, search-based techniques just prescribe goals that the system should achieve. Triggered by conditions or events and guided by utility functions they try to find the best or at least a suitable target configuration fulfilling these goals (cf. [@1128711; @RamirezMRT2009]).
All these approaches focus on applying such decision-making techniques for the analysis and planning steps, but they do not systematically investigate the requirements for such techniques in conjunction with [email protected]. Eliciting these requirements might help in engineering new or tailored decision-making techniques for the special case of [email protected] approaches to self-adaptive systems. Therefore, we elaborate requirements for such techniques by taking an MDE perspective. The techniques should be specified by models, which we named *Adaptation Models* in an attempt to categorize runtime models [@VogelSG11]. However, the categorization does not cover any requirements for runtime models.
In this paper, which is a revision of [@VG11], we discuss requirements for adaptation models, in particular requirements for languages to create such models and for frameworks that employ and execute such models within a feedback loop. By language we mean a broad view on metamodels, constraints, and model operations, which are all used to create and apply adaptation models. Moreover, we discuss patterns for using adaptation models within the feedback loop. The patterns and the requirements for adaptation models influence each other, which impacts the design of the feedback loop by providing alternatives for structuring loop activities. Finally, we assess two existing approaches to adaptation models concerning their fitness for the language and framework requirements.
The paper is structured as follows. Section \[sec:related-work\] reviews related work, and Section \[sec:adaptation-models\] sketches the role of adaptation models in self-adaptive systems. Section \[sec:requirements\] discusses the requirements for adaptation models, while Section \[sec:patterns\] presents different patterns of employing such models within a feedback loop. Section \[sec:assessment\] discusses the assessment of existing approaches to adaptation models with respect to the requirements. The last section concludes the paper and outlines future work.
Related Work {#sec:related-work}
============
As already mentioned, most [email protected] approaches to self-adaptive software systems focus on applying techniques for decision-making and do not systematically elaborate on the related requirements [@1537890; @1691383; @1128711; @georgas-computer09; @RamirezMRT2009]. A few approaches merely consider the requirement of performance and efficiency for their adaptation mechanisms to evaluate the applicability at runtime [@1128711; @RamirezMRT2009]. Likewise, in [@MusicD11] several decision-making mechanisms are discussed in the context of ubiquitous computing applications by means of performance and scalability regarding the size of the managed system and its configuration space. In general, rule-based mechanisms are considered as efficient since they exactly prescribe the whole adaptation, while for search-based approaches performance is critical and often improved by applying heuristics or by reducing the configuration space.
This is also recognized by [@1691383] that attests efficiency and support for early validation as benefits for rule-based approaches. However, they suffer from scalability issues regarding the management and validation of large sets of rules. In contrast, search-based approaches may cope with these scalability issues, but they are not as efficient as rule-based approaches and they provide less support for validation. As a consequence, a combination of rule-based and search-based techniques is proposed in [@1691383] to balance their benefits and drawbacks.
To sum up, if requirements or characteristics of decision-making techniques are discussed, these discussions are limited to performance, scalability, and support for validation, and they are not done systematically. One exception is the work of Cheng [@OwenCheng2008] who discusses requirements for a self-adaptation language that is focused on specifying typical system administration tasks. However, the requirements do not generally consider self-adaptive software systems and they do not address specifics of models at runtime. Nevertheless, some of the requirements that are discussed in this paper are derived from this work.
Adaptation Models {#sec:adaptation-models}
=================
![Feedback Loop and Runtime Models (cf. [@VogelSG11])[]{data-label="fig:Loop"}](figures/Loop.pdf){width=".8\columnwidth"}
Before discussing requirements for adaptation models, we sketch the role of these models based on a conceptual view on a feedback loop as depicted in Figure \[fig:Loop\]. The steps of monitoring and analyzing the system and its environment, and the planning and execution of changes are derived from autonomic computing [@KephartChess2003], while we discussed the different models and their usage in a feedback loop in [@VogelSG11]. *Reflection Models* describe the running system and its environment, and they are causally connected to the system. According to observations of the system and environment, the monitor updates the reflection models. Reasoning on these models is done by the analyze step to decide whether the system fulfills its goals or not, and thus, whether adaptation is required or not. The reasoning is specified by *Evaluation Models*, which can be constraints that are checked on reflection models. If adaptation is required, the planning step devises a plan defining how the system should be adapted, which is guided by *Change Models* to explore the system’s variability or configuration space. Deciding on the designated target configuration is guided by evaluation models to analyze different adaptation options, and the selected option is applied on reflection models. Finally, the execute step performs and effects the adaptations on the running system.
By *Adaptation Models* we generally consider evaluation and change models regardless of the concrete rule-based or search-based techniques that are employed for the analysis and planning steps, and thus, for the decision-making. This view on adaptation models is similar to [@1537890], which just presents one adaptation model for the specific approach but no general discussion of such models.
Requirements for Adaptation Models {#sec:requirements}
==================================
In this section, we describe requirements for adaptation models to be used in self-adaptive systems to analyze and decide on adaptation needs, and to plan and decide on how to adapt the running system. We assume that the self-adaptive system employs models at runtime, which influence the requirements. At first, we discuss requirements for a modeling language used to create adaptation models. Then, we elaborate the requirements for a framework as the execution environment for adaptation models. Being in the early requirements phase, we take a broad MDE view on the notion of language as combinations of metamodels, constraints, and model operations, which are all used to create and apply models.
Likewise to the common understanding that requirements for real-world applications cannot be completely and definitely specified at the beginning of a software project, we think that the same is true for the requirements discussed here. It is likely that some of these requirements may change, become irrelevant, or new ones emerge when engineering concrete adaptation models for a specific self-adaptive system and domain. Thus, we do not claim that the requirements are complete and finalized with respect to their enumeration and definitions.
Language Requirements for Adaptation Models {#sec:requirements:language}
-------------------------------------------
Language requirements (LR) for adaptation models can be divided into functional and non-functional ones. Functional requirements target the concepts that are either part of adaptation models or that are referenced by adaptation models. These concepts are needed for the analysis, decision-making, and planning. Thus, functional requirements determine the expressiveness of the language. In contrast, non-functional language requirements determine the quality of adaptation models. At first functional, then non-functional requirements are discussed.
**Functional Language Requirements**
[ \[LR:Goals\] [**LR-**]{}]{} Enabling a self-adaptive system to continuously provide the functionality to users or other systems, adaptation models have to know about the current goals of the system. These goals as a functional specification define *what* the system should do, and this information needs to be available in an operationalized form to relate it with the actual behavior of the running system. This is the foundation for adapting the functional behavior of the system.
[ \[LR:Quality\] [**LR-**]{}]{} While considers *what* the system should do, quality dimensions address *how* the system should provide the functionality in terms of quality of service (QoS). To support QoS-aware adaptations, qualities, like performance or security, must be characterized by adaptation models (cf. [@OwenCheng2008]).
[ \[LR:Preferences\] [**LR-**]{}]{} Since multiple quality dimensions () may be relevant for the managed system, preferences across the dimensions must be expressed to trade-off and balance competing qualities (cf. [@OwenCheng2008]). Likewise, preferences for goals () are necessary if several valid behavioral alternatives are feasible and not distinguished by the quality dimensions.
Thus, the language for adaptation models must incorporate the concepts of goals (), qualities (), and preferences () in an operationalized form, such that they can be referenced or described and automatically processed by adaptation models. Goals, qualities, and preferences serve as references for the running system as they state what the system should do and how it should be.
[ \[LR:ReflectionModels\] [**LR-**]{}]{} Adaptation models must reference and access reflection models to obtain information about the current situation of the running system and environment for analysis and to change the reflection models to effect adaptations. Thus, a language for adaptation models must be based on the languages of reflection models.
[ \[LR:Events\] [**LR-**]{}]{} Adaptation models should reference information from events emitted by the monitor step when updating the reflection models due to runtime phenomena of the system. Besides serving as a trigger for starting the decision-making process, events support locating the phenomena in the reflection models (). Thus, evaluating the system and its environment () may start right from the point in the reflection models where the phenomena have occurred.
[ \[LR:EvalConditions\] [**LR-**]{}]{} A language for adaptation models must support the specification of conditions to evaluate the running system and its environment (cf. [@OwenCheng2008]). These conditions relate the goals (), qualities (), and preferences () to the actual running system represented by reflection models (). Therefore, conditions may refer to events notifying about runtime phenomena () as a starting point for evaluation, and they should be able to capture complex structural patterns for evaluating architectural properties.
[ \[LR:EvalResults\] [**LR-**]{}]{} Adaptation models must capture the results of computing the evaluation conditions () because these results identify and decide on adaptation needs especially when the conditions are not met by the system. Adaptation models may annotate and reference the evaluation results in reflection models () to locate adaptation needs in the running system.
[ \[LR:AdaptOptions\] [**LR-**]{}]{} Adaptation models must capture the variability of the system to know the options for adaptation related to reflection models (). These options define the configuration space for the system.
[ \[LR:AdaptConditions\] [**LR-**]{}]{} Adaptation models must consider adaptation conditions since not all adaptation options () are feasible in every situation. Thus, conditions should constrain all adaptation options to applicable ones for certain situations (cf. [@OwenCheng2008]). To characterize a situation for an adaptation option, conditions should refer to reflection models (), events (), evaluation results (), or other adaptation options. Likewise to such pre-conditions for adaptation options, post-conditions and invariants should be considered.
[ \[LR:AdaptCostsBenefits\] [**LR-**]{}]{} Adaptation models should characterize costs and benefits of adaptation options () as a basis to select among several possible options in certain situation (cf. [@OwenCheng2008]). Costs should indicate that adaptations are not for free, and benefits should describe the expected effects of adaptation options on the goals () and qualities () of the system. By relating costs and benefits to the preferences of the system (), suitable adaptation options should be selected and applied on the reflection models.
[ \[LR:History\] [**LR-**]{}]{} Adaptation models should capture a history of decisions, like evaluation results () or applied adaptation options (), to enable learning mechanisms for improving future decisions.
**Non-functional Language Requirements**
[ \[LR:ModularityAbstractions\] [**LR-**]{}]{} An adaptation model should be a composition of sub-models rather than a monolithic model to cover all concepts for decision-making. E.g., evaluation conditions () and adaptation options () need to be part of the same sub-model, and even different adaptation options can be specified in different sub-models. Thus, the language should support modular adaptation models. Moreover, the language should enable the modeling at different abstraction levels for two reasons. First, the level depends on the abstraction levels of the employed reflection models (), and second, lower level adaptation model concepts should be encapsulated and lifted to appropriate higher levels. E.g., several simple adaptation options () should be composable to complex adaptation options. Language support for modularity and different abstractions promote scalability of adaptation models.
[ \[LR:SideEffects\] [**LR-**]{}]{} The language should clearly distinguish between concepts that cause side effects on the running system and those that do not. E.g., computing an evaluation condition () should not affect the running system, while applying an adaptation option () finally should. Making the concepts causing side effects explicit is relevant for consistency issues ().
[ \[LR:Parameters\] [**LR-**]{}]{} The language should provide constructs to parameterize adaptation models. Parameters can be used to adjust adaptation models at runtime, like changing the preferences () according to varying user needs.
[ \[LR:Formality\] [**LR-**]{}]{} The language should have a degree of formality that enables on-line and off-line validation or verification of adaptation models, e.g., to detect conflicts or thrashing effects in the adaptation mechanisms.
[ \[LR:Reusability\] [**LR-**]{}]{} The core concepts of the language for adaptation models should be independent of the languages used for reflection models in an approach. This leverages the reusability of the language for adaptation models.
[ \[LR:EaseOfUse\] [**LR-**]{}]{} The design of the language should consider its ease of use because adaptation models are created by software engineers. This influences, among others, the modeling paradigm, the notation, and the tool support. Preferably the language should be based on a declarative modeling paradigm, which is often more convenient and less error-prone than an imperative one. Likewise, appropriate notations and tools are required to support an engineer in creating, validating, or verifying adaptation models.
Framework Requirements for Adaptation Models {#sec:requirements:framework}
--------------------------------------------
In the following, we describe framework requirements (FR) for adaptation models. By framework we consider the execution environment of adaptation models, which determines how adaptation models are employed and executed in the feedback loop. Thus, only requirements specific for such a framework are discussed. Typical non-functional requirements for software systems, like reliability or security, are also relevant for adaptation mechanisms, but they are left here.
[ \[FR:Consistency\] [**FR-**]{}]{} The execution of adaptation models should preserve the consistency of reflection models and of the running system. E.g., when adapting a causally connected reflection model, the corresponding set of model changes should be performed atomically and correctly. Thus, the framework should evaluate the invariants, pre- and post-conditions () for adaptation options () at the model level, before adaptations are executed to the running system.
[ \[FR:Incrementality\] [**FR-**]{}]{} The framework should leverage incremental techniques to apply or execute adaptation models to promote efficiency. E.g., events () or evaluation results () annotated to reflection models should be used to directly locate starting points for evaluation or adaptation planning, respectively. Or, adaptation options () should be incrementally applied on original reflection models rather than on copies. Incrementality could avoid costly operations, like copying or searching potentially large models.
[ \[FR:Reversibility\] [**FR-**]{}]{} Supporting incremental operations on models (), the framework should provide the ability to incrementally reverse performed operations. E.g., the configuration space has to be explored for adaptation planning by creating a path of adaptation options () applied on reflection models. Finding a suitable path might require to turn around and to try alternative directions without completely rejecting the whole path. Thus, *do* and *undo* of operations leverages, among others, incremental planning of adaptation.
[ \[FR:Priorities\] [**FR-**]{}]{} The framework should utilize priorities to organize modular adaptation models () to efficiently and easily identify first entry points for executing or applying adaptation models. E.g., priorities can be assigned to different evaluation conditions () based on their criticality, and the framework should check the conditions in decreasing order of their criticality.
[ \[FR:TimeScales\] [**FR-**]{}]{} The framework should simultaneously support different time scales of analysis and adaptation planning. For example, in known and mission-critical situations quick and precisely specified reactions might be necessary (cf. rule-based techniques), while in other situations comprehensive and sophisticated reasoning and planning are feasible (cf. search-based techniques).
[ \[FR:Flexibility\] [**FR-**]{}]{} The framework should be flexible by allowing adaptation models to be added, removed, and modified at runtime. This supports including learning effects, and it considers the fact that all conceivable adaptation scenarios cannot be anticipated at development-time. Moreover, it is a prerequisite of adaptive or hierarchical control using multiple feedback loops (cf. [@KephartChess2003; @VogelSG11]).
Feedback Loop Patterns for Adaptation Models {#sec:patterns}
============================================
In the following, we discuss feedback loop patterns for adaptation models and how the functional language requirements (cf. Section \[sec:requirements:language\]) map to these patterns while considering the framework requirements (cf. Section \[sec:requirements:framework\]). The non-functional language requirements are not further addressed here because they are primarily relevant for designing a language for adaptation models and not for actually applying such models. The patterns differ in the coupling of the analysis and planning steps of a feedback loop, which influences the requirements for adaptation models. Moreover, the adaptation model requirements likely impact the patterns and designs of the loop. Thus, this section provides a preliminary basis for investigating dependencies between requirements and loop patterns.
Analysis and Planning – Decoupled {#sec:patterns:decoupled}
---------------------------------
The first pattern of a feedback loop depicted in Figure \[fig:LoopReq\] decouples the analysis and planning steps as originally proposed (cf. Section \[sec:adaptation-models\]). The figure highlights functional language requirements (LR) at points where the concepts of the corresponding requirements are relevant. This does not mean that adaptation models must cover all these points, but they must know about the concepts.
![Coupled Analysis and Planning[]{data-label="fig:LoopReq2"}](figures/LoopReq.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
![Coupled Analysis and Planning[]{data-label="fig:LoopReq2"}](figures/LoopReq2.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
In response to events notifying about changes in the running system or environment, the monitor updates the reflection models and annotates the events () to these models. The analyze step uses these events to locate the changes in the reflection models and to start reasoning at these locations. Reasoning is specified by *evaluation models* defining evaluation conditions () that relate the goals (), qualities (), and preferences () to the characteristics of the running system. These characteristics are obtained by accessing reflection models (). Analysis is performed by evaluating the conditions and probably enhanced by consulting past analyses (). This produces analysis results () that are annotated to the reflection models to indicate adaptation needs. The planning step uses these results () attached to reflection models () to devise a plan for adaptation. Planning is based on *change models* specifying adaptation options () and their conditions (), costs, and benefits (). This information and probably plans devised in the past () are used to find suitable adaptation options to create potential target configurations by applying these options on reflection models. These reflection models that prescribe alternative target configurations are analyzed with the help of evaluation models to select the best configuration among them. In contrast to the analyze step that uses evaluation models to reason about the current configuration (descriptive reflection models), the planning step uses them to analyze potential target configurations (prescriptive reflection models). Finally, the execute step enacts the selected adaptation options () to the running system.
This pattern is similar to the generic idea of search-based approaches since planning is done by exploring adaptation options (,\[LR:AdaptConditions\],\[LR:AdaptCostsBenefits\]) that are evaluated (,\[LR:EvalResults\],\[LR:History\]) for their fitness for the preferenced system goals (LR-\[LR:Goals\],\[LR:Quality\],\[LR:Preferences\]) based on the current situation of the system and environment (). Explicitly covering all language requirements for adaptation models, this pattern rather targets comprehensive and sophisticated analysis and planning steps working at longer time scales (), while efficiency concerns could be tackled by incrementality.
This pattern leverages incrementality () since the coordination between different steps of the loop is based on events, analysis results, and applied adaptation options, which directly point to location in reflection models for starting analysis, planning, or executing changes. Moreover, analysis and planning steps may incrementally interleave. Based on first analysis results that are produced by evaluation conditions with highest priorities (), a planning process might start before the whole system and environment have been completely analyzed. However, incrementality requires the reversibility of performed operations () to ensure consistency of reflection models (), e.g., when alternative adaptation options are tested on-line on reflection models and finally discarded.
Analysis and Planning – Coupled {#sec:patterns:coupled}
-------------------------------
In contrast to decoupling the analyze and planning steps, they can be closely integrated into one step, which is sketched in Figure \[fig:LoopReq2\]. Based on events (), the integrated analyze/plan step computes evaluation conditions () that are directly mapped to adaptation options (). If a condition is met, the corresponding adaptation options are applied on the reflection models and finally executed to the running system. Access to reflection models () is realized by the analyze/plan step as a link between adaptation and reflection models.
In Figure \[fig:LoopReq2\], the language requirements written in brackets are not explicitly covered by adaptation models because this pattern precisely specifies the adaptation by directly relating evaluation conditions to the application of adaptation options. This relation implicitly covers some of the requirements listed in brackets. E.g., it is assumed that the applied adaptation options effect the system in a way that fulfills the desired goals, qualities, and preferences (LR-\[LR:Goals\],\[LR:Quality\],\[LR:Preferences\]).
Considering the events and the mapping of evaluation conditions to options, this pattern is similar to rule-based approaches using event-conditions-action rules. Covering the whole decision-making process and integrating analysis and planning into one step, adaptation models as depicted in Figure \[fig:LoopReq2\] cannot be clearly differentiated into evaluation and change models.
Thus, this pattern targets adaptation mechanisms requiring quick reactions to runtime phenomena by enabling adaptation at rather short time scales (). Moreover, efficiency is improved by incrementality () and priorities (). The steps may incrementally coordinate each other through locating events and applied adaptation options in reflection models for analysis/planning and executing changes to the system. Priorities may be used to order evaluation conditions for quickly identifying critical situations that need urgent reactions, while conditions for non-critical situations can be evaluated without strict time constraints.
The consistency requirement () is not explicitly covered because it is assumed that the mapping of conditions to adaptation options preserves consistency by design of such rule-based mechanisms. Since these mechanisms strictly prescribe the adaptation, there need not to be any options left that have to be decided at runtime. This reduces the need for reversible operations ().
Discussion
----------
Regarding the two different feedback loop patterns and their effects on adaptation models, we can make two observations. First, it might be necessary to combine both patterns in a self-adaptive system if simultaneous support for different time scales () is required or if a specific self-adaptive system requires both flavors of rule-based and search-based decision-making mechanisms. Second, we think that these two patterns span a range of several other patterns. By explicitly covering more and more language requirements, the adaptation models get more elaborate, and we may move stepwise from the coupled pattern (cf. Section \[sec:patterns:coupled\]) toward the decoupled one (cf. Section \[sec:patterns:decoupled\]). Which pattern and adaptation models suit best depends on the concrete self-adaptive system, especially on the system’s domain requirements. Finally, the requirement of flexibility () has not been discussed for the two patterns. However, it is relevant for both of them since it is usually not possible to anticipate all adaptation scenarios at development-time, which requires adjusting adaptation models at runtime.
Assessment of Approaches to Adaptation Models {#sec:assessment}
=============================================
In this section, we assess two approaches to adaptation models, namely *Stitch* [@OwenCheng2008] and *Story Diagrams* [@GHS09], concerning their support for the requirements presented in this paper. After sketching both approaches, the assessment is discussed.
Stitch is a self-adaptation language developed in the context of *Rainbow* [@OwenCheng2008], which is a framework for self-adaptive systems based on architecture description language (ADL) techniques, in particular the *Acme* ADL. The focus of Stitch is to capture routine system administration tasks as explicit adaptation strategies consisting of condition-action pairs. The conditions expressed in a first-order predicate logic are evaluated on an ADL-based reflection model (cf. Section \[sec:adaptation-models\]) describing the running system. If a condition is met indicating a need for adaptation, the actions associated with this condition are analyzed based on utility preferences and the most promising action is directly executed to the system.
Story Diagrams [@GHS09], originally introduced in [@Fischer+1998], are a general purpose graph transformation approach. They extend activity diagrams from the *Unified Modeling Language* (UML) by specifying each activity using a graph transformation rule, called *Story Pattern*. Thus, a Story Diagram defines the control flow between multiple Story Patterns. Story Diagrams and Patterns are specified on one or more user-defined metamodels and they work on corresponding instances of these metamodels. In the context of adaptation, they work on reflection models (cf. Section \[sec:adaptation-models\]). A Story Pattern specifies a pattern that has to be matched in the reflection model. If a match has been found, the side effects of the rule – if any are specified – are executed by changing the model. Moreover, patterns can be extended with constraints specified in the *Object Constraint Language* (OCL) to allow more sophisticated conditions. Following MDE principles, Story Diagrams leverage the usage of MDE techniques, like OCL. Moreover, Story Diagrams themselves conform to a metamodel, which enables an interpreter to directly execute them and which in the end supports higher order transformations.
Assessment of Stitch and Story Diagrams
---------------------------------------
Having outlined both approaches to adaptation models, we analyze them with respect to their support for the requirements discussed in Section \[sec:requirements\]. Table \[table:requirements-stitch-SD\] lists all requirements and shows the degree of support by both approaches. It has to be noted that both languages make use of other languages, primarily languages for reflection models, to specify an adaptation. E.g., an adaptation model may specify a condition, like *component.rt$>$MAX\_RT*, to identify whether the response time of a running component exceeds a threshold. While the response times are provided by reflection models (*component.rt* is part of the reflection model language), the adaptation model just defines the threshold and references the reflection model. Thus, Stitch and Story Diagram models are not self-contained.
Concerning functional language requirements, Stitch focuses on QoS-aware adaptation and thus, it provides full support for quality dimensions () and preferences across these dimensions (). Functional goals () are not considered. Story Diagrams may provide full support for goals, qualities, and preferences (LR-\[LR:Goals\],\[LR:Quality\],\[LR:Preferences\]) as they work on reflection models and use OCL, which is similar to Stitch. To cover goals, Story Diagrams may even use an explicit goal model describing the designated functionality in addition to reflection models.
Access to reflection models () is supported by both languages though Stitch strategies just have read access for analysis, but they do not perform changes on the model before executing them to the system. This might be helpful for model-based planning or testing of adaptation and thus, Stitch provides medium support. Story Diagrams and especially Story Patterns explicitly read and write (change) reflection models, such that we attest them full support here.
While Stitch uses events () only as triggers for the adaptation process to compute all evaluation conditions, the Story Diagram interpreter uses as well the information contained in change events to locate points in reflection models where evaluation conditions as Story Patterns should be checked. Thus, event information is used to filter the conditions irrelevant for these locations, which improves efficiency. This motivates the medium resp. full support for events.
Evaluation conditions () and adaptation conditions () are supported by both approaches based on the integration of some form of first-order predicate logic (*Acme* predicates in case of Stitch, and OCL for Story Diagrams). However, Story Patterns provide additional means to specify structural conditions by means of patterns containing structured model elements to be checked.
Stitch does not explicitly capture evaluation results () as they are used in a transient way to select adaptation strategies. In contrast, Story Diagrams may provide full support by employing Story Patterns just for analysis purposes. Thus, the pattern to be matched specifies the evaluation condition and the corresponding side effects compute results that are annotated to the reflection models.
Both approaches provide full support for adaptation options () and adaptation costs and benefits (). Likewise to Stitch that uses multiple strategies and that defines cost-benefit attributes of each adaptation step, multiple Story Diagrams or multiple Story Patterns enriched with such attributes are feasible for specifying and selecting appropriate adaptations to be performed.
Finally, since Stitch does not clearly separate the analysis and planning steps, it just maintains a history () for the applied adaptation strategies, but not for the analysis results as they are not explicitly captured. In contrast to this medium support, Story Diagrams or Patterns explicitly addressing evaluation results as well as the applied adaptation options may keep a history of both.
Concerning non-functional language requirements, Stitch partially supports modularity, abstractions, and scalability () by the strategy, tactic, and concepts. Operators are system-level commands that are bundled in tactics to describe an adaptation step, and a strategy orchestrates multiple of these steps. Thus, Stitch is limited to these three levels of abstraction. In contrast, besides Story Diagrams and Story Patterns already provide an initial abstraction, Story Diagrams can be nested in other Story Diagrams without any restrictions.
Stitch does not distinguish between concepts causing side effects or not () as the strategies are considered as inherently causing effects on the running system. In contrast, Story Patterns can be statically analyzed whether they potentially cause side effects as well as they can be annotated to make it explicit.
Parameters () are supported by both. While Stitch seems to be restricted on parameters of basic data types, Story Diagrams and Patterns may have arbitrary parameters including references to objects of user-defined classes.
While the Stitch language is not based on a formal foundation (), Story Patterns built upon the graph transformation theory. This enables support for formal validation and verification, which is, however, impeded if OCL is used.
Regarding reusability () both languages, Stitch and Story Diagrams, are similar as they are independent of the languages used for the reflection models. However, the concrete adaptation models created with Stitch or Story Diagrams use and reference concepts of the reflection model languages. Thus, the concrete adaptation models are coupled to the types of reflection models.
Stitch is basically an imperative scripting language and its tool support requires improvement [@OwenCheng2008]. For Story Diagrams and Patterns, the declarative notion of graph transformations and graphical editors assist an engineer in modeling and validating adaptation models. Therefore, checks for syntactical well-formedness, an interpreter, and a visual debugger are provided. This causes the different ratings of both approaches concerning the ease of use requirement ().
Finally, the support for the framework requirements is discussed. Since Stitch’s adaptation strategies that have been selected to tackle the current adaptation need are directly executed to the running system, only limited support for consistency () is provided. Consistency is only addressed by observing intermediate effects of the executed adaptation on the running system but not beforehand at the model level. The other framework requirements are not covered by Stitch.
Since Story Diagrams completely work on reflection models, consistency can be continuously checked at the model level. Incrementality () is supported for single Story Patterns, and reversibility () for typical model changes by tracking primitive operations performed on the model. Both requirements are hard to satisfy if OCL is used. Incremental evaluation of OCL statements is often not possible and for the case of side effects the inverse statements might not be detectable. Prioritizing () Story Diagrams and Patterns to be executed is supported, and it is required for different time scales (). E.g., a Story Pattern defining the whole adaptation for urgent situations must have a higher priority to be executed than other Patterns that jointly define a sophisticated adaptation by separating analysis and planning steps. Since Story Diagrams and Patterns are interpreted at runtime, they can replaced or modified on-line, e.g., by higher order transformations. This satisfies the flexibility requirement ().
Discussion of the Assessment
----------------------------
The conducted assessment of Stitch and Story Diagrams concerning the requirements presented in this paper is constrained by two aspects. First, the analysis of Stitch is solely based on literature [@OwenCheng2008]. Second, the analysis of Story Diagrams for their fitness to specify adaptation models is based on our experience with Story Diagrams and thus, it has been done from a conceptual point of view.
The fact that Stitch does not support several requirements does not reveal design flaws, but it is rather motivated by the specific setting. On the one hand and as argued in [@OwenCheng2008], Stitch focuses on system administration tasks that could be tackled well by rule-based approaches and it limits runtime computing utilities to select one among multiple applicable adaptation . Thus, Stitch does not aim to support search-based mechanisms. On the other hand, Stitch is not based on MDE principles and it does not take into account specifics of [email protected]. However, using an ADL model at runtime, Stitch is still related to the research field for which the requirements are relevant.
Concerning the different feedback loop patterns discussed in Section \[sec:patterns\], Stitch targets the pattern that couples the analysis and planning steps, which is similar to rule-based approaches. However, since Stitch supports utility-based analysis and selection of competing adaptation strategies (rules), it shares characteristics with the decoupled pattern. This motivates the need for explicitly capturing, e.g., qualities and preferences (LR-\[LR:Quality\],\[LR:Preferences\]), which need not to be the case for pure rule-based approaches that do not allow competing or even conflicting rules.
Finally, Story Diagrams seem to be a promising language for adaptation models because they follow MDE principles, they are directly interpretable and flexible, and they seamlessly integrate with any user-defined metamodel for reflection models. However, Story Diagrams are a general-purpose language and not specifically tailored for adaptation models. This might be a drawback, but we think that concepts specific for adaptation models (like goals ()) can be covered by a different language (like for goal models), which can be integrated with Story Diagrams. Which of the different feedback loop patterns (cf. Section \[sec:patterns\]) can be covered by Story Diagrams requires further investigations or even experiences from employing Story Diagrams in a concrete self-adaptive system.
Conclusion and Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
==========================
In this paper, we have elaborated the requirements for adaptation models that specify the decision-making process in self-adaptive software systems using [email protected]. In particular, requirements for a modeling language incorporating metamodels, constraints, and model operations for creating and applying adaptation models have been discussed, as well as requirements for a framework that executes adaptation models. Moreover, we discussed patterns of a self-adaptive system’s feedback loop with respect to the requirements for adaptation models. Additionally, we have assessed two existing languages and frameworks, namely Stitch and Story Diagrams, concerning their fitness for the requirements.
As future work, we want to elaborate the conducted assessment to confirm evidence for the relevance and completeness of the requirements. Moreover, we plan to use Story Diagrams for specifying adaptation models in our approach [@VG10; @VogelNHGB10] to close the feedback loop. Additionally, this can be seen as an evaluation of the promising results that Story Diagrams achieved in the assessment.
[10]{} \[1\][`#1`]{}
Bencomo, N., Blair, G., Fleurey, F., Jeanneret, C.: [Summary of the 5th International Workshop on [email protected]]{}. In: Dingel, J., Solberg, A. (eds.) MODELS 2010 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 6627, pp. 204–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Bencomo, N., Blair, G., France, R., Mu[ñ]{}oz, F., Jeanneret, C.: [4th International Workshop on [email protected]]{}. In: Ghosh, S. (ed.) MODELS 2009 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 6002, pp. 119–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Blair, G., Bencomo, N., France, R.B.: [[email protected]]{}. Computer 42(10), 22–27 (2009)
Cheng, B.H.C., de Lemos, R., Giese, H., Inverardi, P., Magee, J., Andersson, J., Becker, B., Bencomo, N., Brun, Y., Cukic, B., Di Marzo Serugendo, G., Dustdar, S., Finkelstein, A., Gacek, C., Geihs, K., Grassi, V., Karsai, G., Kienle, H.M., Kramer, J., Litoiu, M., Malek, S., Mirandola, R., Müller, H.A., Park, S., Shaw, M., Tichy, M., Tivoli, M., Weyns, D., Whittle, J.: [Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems: A Research Roadmap]{}. In: Cheng, B.H.C., de Lemos, R., Giese, H., Inverardi, P., Magee, J. (eds.) Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems. LNCS, vol. 5525, pp. 1–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Cheng, S.W.: [Rainbow: Cost-Effective Software Architecture-Based Self-Adaptation]{}. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA (2008)
Fischer, T., Niere, J., Torunski, L., Zündorf, A.: [Story Diagrams: A New Graph Rewrite Language Based on the Unified Modeling Language and Java]{}. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) TAGT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1764, pp. 296–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Fleurey, F., Dehlen, V., Bencomo, N., Morin, B., Jézéquel, J.-M.: [Modeling and Validating Dynamic Adaptation]{}. In: Chaudron, M.R.V. (ed.) MODELS 2008 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 5421, pp. 97–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Fleurey, F., Solberg, A.: [A Domain Specific Modeling Language Supporting Specification, Simulation and Execution of Dynamic Adaptive Systems]{}. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 606–621. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Floch, J., Hallsteinsen, S., Stav, E., Eliassen, F., Lund, K., Gjorven, E.: [Using Architecture Models for Runtime Adaptability]{}. Software 23(2), 62–70 (2006)
Georgas, J.C., Hoek, A., Taylor, R.N.: [Using Architectural Models to Manage and Visualize Runtime Adaptation]{}. Computer 42(10), 52–60 (2009)
Giese, H., Hildebrandt, S., Seibel, A.: [Improved Flexibility and Scalability by Interpreting Story Diagrams]{}. In: GT-VMT 2009. vol. 18. ECEASST (2009)
Kephart, J.O., Chess, D.: [The Vision of Autonomic Computing]{}. Computer 36(1), 41–50 (2003)
Ramirez, A.J., Cheng, B.H.: [Evolving Models at Run Time to Address Functional and Non-Functional Adaptation Requirements]{}. In: [email protected] 2009. CEUR-WS.org, vol. 509, pp. 31–40 (2009)
Rouvoy, R.: [Requirements of mechanisms and planning algorithms for self-adaptation]{}. Deliverable D1.1 of MUSIC (EU-FP6 project) (2007)
Song, H., Huang, G., Chauvel, F., Sun, Y.: [Applying MDE Tools at Runtime: Experiments upon Runtime Models]{}. In: [email protected] 2010. CEUR-WS.org, vol. 641, pp. 25–36 (2010)
Vogel, T., Giese, H.: [Adaptation and Abstract Runtime Models]{}. In: SEAMS 2010. pp. 39–48. ACM (2010)
Vogel, T., Giese, H.: [Language and Framework Requirements for Adaptation Models]{}. In: [email protected] 2011. CEUR-WS.org, vol. 794, pp. 1–12 (2011)
Vogel, T., Neumann, S., Hildebrandt, S., Giese, H., Becker, B.: [Incremental Model Synchronization for Efficient Run-Time Monitoring]{}. In: Ghosh, S. (ed.) MODELS 2009 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 6002, pp. 124–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Vogel, T., Seibel, A., Giese, H.: [The Role of Models and Megamodels at Runtime]{}. In: Dingel, J., Solberg, A. (eds.) MODELS 2010 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 6627, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We construct an integer polynomial whose coefficients enumerate the Kauffman states of the two-bridge knot with Conway’s notation $ \mathcal{C}(n,r) $.
[Keywords:]{} generating polynomial, shadow diagram, Kauffman state.
author:
- |
Franck Ramaharo\
Département de Mathématiques et Informatique\
Université d’Antananarivo\
101 Antananarivo, Madagascar\
<[email protected]>\
date: '\'
title: '**A generating polynomial for the two-bridge knot with Conway’s notation $ \mathcal{C}(n,r) $**'
---
Introduction
============
A *state* of a knot shadow diagram is a choice of splitting its crossings [@Kauffman1 Section 1]. There are two ways of splitting a crossing: $$(\mathsf{A})\ \protect\includegraphics[angle=90,origin=c,width=0.06\linewidth,valign=c]{crossing}\Longrightarrow\protect\includegraphics[angle=90,origin=c,width=0.06\linewidth,valign=c]{A_split},
\qquad(\mathsf{B})\
\protect\includegraphics[width=0.06\linewidth,valign=c]{crossing}\Longrightarrow\protect\includegraphics[width=0.06\linewidth,valign=c]{A_split}.$$ By *state of a crossing* we understand either of the split of type $ (\mathsf{A}) $ or $ (\mathsf{B}) $. An example for the *figure-eight knot* is shown in .
![The states of a crossing.[]{data-label="Fig:figure8"}](states_A_B){width=".31\linewidth"}
Let $ K $ be a knot diagram. If $ m $ denotes the initial number of crossings, then the final states form a collection of $ 2^m $ diagrams of nonintersecting curves. We can enumerate those states with respect to the number of their components – called *circles* – by introducing the sum $$\label{Eq:gp}
K(x):= \sum_{S}^{}x^{|S|},$$ where $ S $ browses the collection of states, and $ |S| $ gives the number of circles in $ S $. Here, $ K(x) $ is an integer polynomial which we referred to as generating polynomial [@Ramaharo1; @Ramaharo2] (in fact, it is a simplified formulation of what Kauffman calls “state polynomial” [@Kauffman1 Section 1–2] or “bracket polynomial” [@Kauffman2]). For instance, if $ K $ is the figure-eight knot diagram, then we have $ K(x)=5x+8x^2+3x^3 $ (the states are illustrated in ).
\
In this note, we establish the generating polynomial for the *two-bridge knot* with Conway’s notation $ \mathcal{C}(n,r) $ [@Lafferty; @Overduin]. We refer to the associated knot diagram as $ B_{n,r} $, where $ n $ and $ r $ denote the number of half-twists. For example, the figure-eight knot has Conway’s notation $ \mathcal{C}(2,2) $. Owing to the property of the shadow diagram which we draw on the sphere [@Denton], we can continuously deform the diagram $ B_{n,r} $ into $ B_{r,n} $ without altering the crossings configuration. We let $ B_{n,r} \rightleftharpoons B_{r,n} $ express such transformation (see ). Besides, we let $ B_{n,0} $ and $ B_{n,\infty} $ denote the diagrams in and , respectively. Here, “$ 0 $” and “$ \infty $” are symbolic notations – borrowed from tangle theory [@Kauffman1 p. 88] – that express the absence of half-twists. If $ r=\infty $ and $ n\geq 1 $, then $ B_{n,\infty} $ represents the diagram of a $(2,n) $-torus knot ($ \rightleftharpoons B_{n-1,1} $). Correspondingly, we let $ B_{0,r} $ and $ B_{\infty,r} $ denote the diagrams pictured in and , respectively.
\
\
Generating polynomial
=====================
Let $ K $, $ K' $ and $ \bigcirc $ be knot diagrams, where $ \bigcirc $ is the trivial knot, and let $ \# $ and $ \sqcup $ denote the connected sum and the disjoint union, respectively. The generating polynomial defined in verifies the following basic properties:
(i) $ \bigcirc(x)=x $\[it:p1\];
(ii) $ \big(K\sqcup K'\big)(x) = K(x)K'(x) $\[it:p2\];
(iii) $ \big(K\# K'\big)(x) = \dfrac{1}{x}K(x)K'(x) $\[it:p3\].
Furthermore, if $ K\rightleftharpoons K' $, then $ K(x)=K'(x) $ [@Ramaharo1].
\[Lem:gpft\] The generating polynomial for the knots $ B_{n,0} $ and $ B_{n,\infty} $ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:b0n}
B_{n,0}(x)=x(x+1)^n\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{Eq:binftyn}
B_{n,\infty}(x)=(x+1)^{n} + x^2 -1.$$
The key ingredient for establishing and consists of the states of specific crossings which produce the recurrences $$B_{n,0}(x)=\left(\bigcirc\sqcup B_{n-1,0}\right)(x)+B_{n-1,0}(x)$$ and $$B_{n,\infty}(x)=B_{n-1,0}(x)+B_{n-1,\infty}(x),$$ respectively, with initial values $ B_{0,0}(x)=x $ and $ B_{0,\infty}(x)=x^2 $ [@Ramaharo1]. Note that the lemma still holds if we replace index $ n $ by $ r $.
\[Lem:closedform\] The generating polynomial for the two-bridge knot $ B_{n,r} $ is given by the recurrence $$B_{n,r}(x)=B_{n-1,r}(x)+(x+1)^{n-1}B_{\infty,r}(x),$$ and has the following closed form: $$\label{Eq:closedform}
B_{n,r}(x)= \left(\dfrac{(x+1)^r+x^2-1}{x}\right)(x+1)^n+\left(x^2-1\right)\left(\dfrac{(x+1)^r-1}{x}\right).$$
![The splits at a crossing allow us to capture $ B_{n-1,r} $, $ B_{n-1,0} $ and $ B_{\infty,r} $.[]{data-label="Fig:recBnr"}](state_of_Bnr){width=".95\linewidth"}
By we have $$\begin{aligned}
B_{n,r}(x)&=B_{n-1,r}(x)+\big(B_{n-1,0}\#B_{\infty,r}\big)(x)\\
&=B_{n-1,r}(x)+(x+1)^{n-1}B_{\infty,r}(x),\end{aligned}$$ where the last relation follows from property . Solving the recurrence for $ n $ yields $$B_{n,r}(x)=B_{0,r}(x)+B_{\infty,r}(x)\left(\dfrac{(x+1)^n-1}{x}\right).$$ We conclude by the closed forms in .
We can write $$\label{Eq:bn0alpha}
B_{n,0}(x)=x^2\upalpha_n(x)+x$$ and $$\label{Eq:bninftyalpha}
B_{n,\infty}(x)=x\upalpha_n(x)+x^2,$$ where $ \upalpha_n(x):=\dfrac{(x+1)^n-1}{x} $, so that identity becomes $$\label{Eq:Bnrx2x}
B_{n,r}(x)=\left(x^2\upalpha_n(x) + x\right)+\left(x^2\upalpha_r(x)+x\upalpha_n(x)\upalpha_r(x)\right).$$
Since the coefficients of $ \upalpha_n(x) $ are all nonnegative, it is clear, by , that the polynomial $ x^2\upalpha_n(x) $ counts the states of $ B_{n,0} $ that have at least $ 2 $ circles. This is illustrated in . Likewise, we have an interpretation of in . In and \[Fig:partition\], the dashed diagrams represent all possible disjoint union of $ \ell-1 $ circles ($ \ell=n $ or $ r $, depending on the context), counted by $ \upalpha_\ell(x) $ and eventually empty.
Therefore, for $ n,r\notin \left\{0,\infty\right\} $, identity means that we can classify the states into $ 4 $ subset as shown in . In these illustrations, there are $ 2^n-1 $ and $ 2^r-1 $ states of and kind, respectively, and $ \binom{n}{1}\times\binom{r}{1} +1$ one-component states of and kind. The remaining states are of kind, bringing the total number of states to $ 2^{n+r} $.
Particular values
=================
Let $\sum_{k\geq 0} b{(n,r;k)}x^k:=B_{n,r}(x)$, or $ b(n,r;k):=\left[x^k\right] B_{n,r}(x) $. Then $$b(n,r;k)=\binom{n+r}{k+1}+\binom{n}{k-1}+\binom{r}{k-1}-\binom{n}{k+1}-\binom{r}{k+1}-\delta_{1,k},$$ where $ \delta_{1,k} $ is the Kronecker symbol. By , we recognize $ b(n,r;k) $ as the cardinal of the set $ \{|S|=k: S\textit{ is a state of }B_{n,r}\} $, i.e., the number of states having $ k $ circles. In this section, the coefficients $ b(n,r;k) $ are tabulated for some values of $ n $, $ r $ and $ k $. We give as well the corresponding A-numbers in the *On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences* [@Sloane].
- $ b(n,0;k)=\left[x^k\right] x(x+1)^n $, essentially giving entries in Pascal’s triangle [[](http://oeis.org/A007318)]{} (see ).
$\begin{array}{c|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
n\ \backslash\ k &0 &1 &2 &3 &4 &5 &6 &7 &8\\
\midrule
0 & 0 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
2 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 1\\
3 & 0 & 1 & 3 & 3 & 1\\
4 & 0 & 1 & 4 & 6 & 4 & 1\\
5 & 0 & 1 & 5 & 10 & 10 & 5 & 1\\
6 & 0 & 1 & 6 & 15 & 20 & 15 & 6 & 1\\
7 & 0 & 1 & 7 & 21 & 35 & 35 & 21 & 7 & 1
\end{array}$
- $ b(n,1;k)=\left[x^k\right]\left((x+1)^{n+1}+x^2-1\right) $, generating a subtriangle in [[](http://oeis.org/A300453)]{} (see ).
$\begin{array}{c|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
n\ \backslash\ k &0 &1 &2 &3 &4 &5 &6 &7 &8\\
\midrule
0 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 2 & 2\\
2 & 0 & 3 & 4 & 1\\
3 & 0 & 4 & 7 & 4 & 1\\
4 & 0 & 5 & 11 & 10 & 5 & 1\\
5 & 0 & 6 & 16 & 20 & 15 & 6 & 1\\
6 & 0 & 7 & 22 & 35 & 35 & 21 & 7 & 1\\
7 & 0 & 8 & 29 & 56 & 70 & 56 & 28 & 8 & 1\\
\end{array}$
- $ b(n,2;k)=\left[x^k\right]\left((2x+2)(x+1)^{n}+\left(x^2-1\right)(x+2)\right) $, giving triangle in [[](http://oeis.org/A300454)]{} (see ).
$\begin{array}{c|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
n\ \backslash\ k &0 &1 &2 &3 &4 &5 &6 &7 &8\\
\midrule
0 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 3 & 4 & 1\\
2 & 0 & 5 & 8 & 3\\
3 & 0 & 7 & 14 & 9 & 2\\
4 & 0 & 9 & 22 & 21 & 10 & 2\\
5 & 0 & 11 & 32 & 41 & 30 & 12 & 2\\
6 & 0 & 13 & 44 & 71 & 70 & 42 & 14 & 2\\
7 & 0 & 15 & 58 & 113 & 140 & 112 & 56 & 16 & 2
\end{array}$
- $ b(n,n;k)=\left[x^k\right] \left(\dfrac{(x + 1)^{2n} + \big(x^2 - 1\big)\big(2(x + 1)^n - 1)\big)}{x}\right)$, giving triangle in [[](http://oeis.org/A321127)]{} (see ).
$\begin{array}{c|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
n\ \backslash\ k &0 &1 &2 &3 &4 &5 &6 &7 &8 &9 &10 &11 &12 &13\\
\midrule
0 & 0 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 2 & 2\\
2 & 0 & 5 & 8 & 3\\
3 & 0 & 10 & 24 & 21 & 8 & 1\\
4 & 0 & 17 & 56 & 80 & 64 & 30 & 8 & 1\\
5 & 0 & 26 & 110 & 220 & 270 & 220 & 122 & 45 & 10 & 1\\
6 & 0 & 37 & 192 & 495 & 820 & 952 & 804 & 497 & 220 & 66 & 12 & 1\\
7 & 0 & 50 & 308 & 973 & 2030 & 3059 & 3472 & 3017 & 2004 & 1001 & 364 & 91 & 14 & 1
\end{array}$
- $ b(n,r;1) = nr + 1 $, giving [[](http://oeis.org/A077028)]{}, and displayed as square array in .
$\begin{array}{c|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
n\ \backslash\ r &0 &1 &2 &3 &4 &5 &6 &7\\
\midrule
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
1 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8\\
2 & 1 & 3 & 5 & 7 & 9 & 11 & 13 & 15\\
3 & 1 & 4 & 7 & 10 & 13 & 16 & 19 & 22\\
4 & 1 & 5 & 9 & 13 & 17 & 21 & 25 & 29\\
5 & 1 & 6 & 11 & 16 & 21 & 26 & 31 & 36\\
6 & 1 & 7 & 13 & 19 & 25 & 31 & 37 & 43\\
7 & 1 & 8 & 15 & 22 & 29 & 36 & 43 & 50
\end{array}$
In Kauffman’s language, $ b(n,r;1) $ is, for a fixed choice of star region, the number of ways of placing *state markers* at the crossings of the diagram $ B_{n,r} $, i.e., of the forms $$\protect\includegraphics[width=0.06\linewidth,valign=c]{markersA1},\quad
\protect\includegraphics[angle=90,origin=c,width=0.06\linewidth,valign=c]{markersA1},\quad
\protect\includegraphics[angle=180,origin=c,width=0.06\linewidth,valign=c]{markersA1},\quad
\protect\includegraphics[angle=270,origin=c,width=0.06\linewidth,valign=c]{markersA1},$$ so that the resulting states are “Jordan trails” [@Kauffman1 Section 1–2]. Note that a state marker is interpreted as an instruction to split a crossing as shown below: $$\protect\includegraphics[width=0.06\linewidth,valign=c]{markersA1}\Longrightarrow\protect\includegraphics[width=0.06\linewidth,valign=c]{markersA2}\qquad\mbox{ and }\qquad\protect\includegraphics[angle=90,origin=c,width=0.06\linewidth,valign=c]{markersA1}\Longrightarrow\protect\includegraphics[angle=90,origin=c,width=0.06\linewidth,valign=c]{markersA2}.$$ The process is illustrated in for the figure-eight knot.
![Illustration of $ b(2,2;1) $: mark two adjacent regions by stars (), then assign a state marker at each crossing so that no region of $B_{2,2}$ contains more than one state marker, and regions with stars do not have any.[]{data-label="Fig:statemarkers"}](state_markers){width=".7\linewidth"}
- $ b(n,r;2) = n\left(\binom{r}{2}+1\right)+r\left(\binom{n}{2}+1\right) $, giving square array in [[](http://oeis.org/A300401)]{} (see ).
$\begin{array}{c|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
n\ \backslash\ r &0 &1 &2 &3 &4 &5 &6 &7\\
\midrule
0 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7\\
1 & 1 & 2 & 4 & 7 & 11 & 16 & 22 & 29\\
2 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 14 & 22 & 32 & 44 & 58\\
3 & 3 & 7 & 14 & 24 & 37 & 53 & 72 & 94\\
4 & 4 & 11 & 22 & 37 & 56 & 79 & 106 & 137\\
5 & 5 & 16 & 32 & 53 & 79 & 110 & 146 & 187\\
6 & 6 & 22 & 44 & 72 & 106 & 146 & 192 & 244\\
7 & 7 & 29 & 58 & 94 & 137 & 187 & 244 & 308\\
\end{array}$
We paid a special attention to the case $ k=2 $ because, surprisingly, columns $\big(b(n,1;2)\big)_n$ and $\big(b(n,2;2)\big)_n$ match sequences [[](http://oeis.org/A000124)]{} and [[](http://oeis.org/A014206)]{}, respectively [@Ramaharo1]. The former gives the maximal number of regions into which the plane is divided by $ n $ lines, and the latter the maximal number of regions into which the plane is divided by $ (n+1) $ circles.
- $ b\big(n,r;d(n,r)\big)=\textit{leading coefficient of }B_{n,r}(x)$, giving square array in [[](http://oeis.org/A321125)]{} (see ). Here, $ d(n,r)=\max(n+1,r+1,n+r-1) $ denotes the degree of $ B_{n,r}(x) $, and gives entries in [[](http://oeis.org/A321126)]{}. We have giving the numbers $ d(n,r) $ for $ 0\leq n\leq 7 $ and $ 0\leq r\leq 7 $.
$\begin{array}{c|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
n\ \backslash\ r &0 &1 &2 &3 &4 &5 &6 &7\\
\midrule
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
2 & 1 & 1 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1\\
3 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
4 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
5 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
6 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
7 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1
\end{array}$
$\begin{array}{c|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
n\ \backslash\ r &0 &1 &2 &3 &4 &5 &6 &7\\
\midrule
0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8\\
1 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8\\
2 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8\\
3 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9\\
4 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10\\
5 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11\\
6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 & 12\\
7 & 8 & 8 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 & 12 & 13\\
\end{array}$
We have the following properties:
- $ d(n,r)=d(r,n)$;
- if $ r=0 $, then $ d(n,r)=n+1 $;
- if $ r=\infty $, then sequence $ \big(d(n,r)\big)_n$ begins: $ 2,2,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,\ldots $ ([[](http://oeis.org/A233583)]{} with offset 1).
Diagramatically, we give the corresponding illustration for some values of $ n $ and $ r $ in .
Correspondingly, we have
- $ b\big(n,r;d(n,r)\big)=b\big(r,n;d(r,n)\big)$;
- if $ r=0 $, then $ b\big(n,r;d(n,r)\big)=1 $;
- if $ r=\infty $, then sequence $ \Big(b\big(n,r;d(n,r)\big)\Big)_n$ begins: $ 1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,\ldots $ ([[](http://oeis.org/A294619)]{} with initial term equals to $ 0 $).
Remarquable values in correspond to knots $ B_{1,1} $ (“Hopf link”, see ), $ B_{2,2} $ (figure-eight knot, see , \[Fig:figure8states\]) and $ B_{n,2} $ (“twist knot” [@Ramaharo1]) for $ n\geq 3 $. The latter case can be observed from identity for which the leading coefficient is larger than $ 1 $ when $ n+1=n+r-1 $ is satisfied. Also, considere the identity below: $$B_{n,2}(x) = B_{n,0}(x) + B_{n,\infty}(x) + B_{n,\infty}(x) + \big(\bigcirc\sqcup B_{n,\infty}\big)(x).$$ We notice that the leading coefficient is deduced from the contribution of the summands $ B_{n,0}(x) $ and $ \big(\bigcirc\sqcup B_{n,\infty}\big)(x) $ [@Ramaharo1].
![The states of the knot $ B_{1,1} $: $ d(1,1)=2 $ and $ b\big(1,1,d(1,1)\big)=2 $.[]{data-label="Fig:hopfstates"}](hopf_states){width=".5\linewidth"}
[99]{}
Daniel Denton and Peter Doyle, Shadow movies not arising from knots, arXiv preprint, 2011, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3545>.
Louis H. Kauffman, [*Formal Knot Theory*]{}, Princeton University Press, 1983.
Louis H. Kauffman, State models and the Jones polynomial, [*Topology*]{} [**26**]{} (1987), 95–107.
Kelsey Lafferty, The three-variable bracket polynomial for reduced, alternating links, [*Rose-Hulman Undergraduate Mathematics Journal*]{} **14** (2013), 98–113.
Matthew Overduin, The three-variable bracket polynomial for two-bridge knots, California State University REU, 2013, <https://www.math.csusb.edu/reu/OverduinPaper.pdf>.
Franck Ramaharo, Enumerating the states of the twist knot, arXiv preprint, 2017, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06543>.
Franck Ramaharo, Statistics on some classes of knot shadows, arXiv preprint, 2018, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07701>.
Neil J. A. Sloane, [*The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences*]{}, published electronically at <http://oeis.org>, accessed 2019.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 [*Mathematics Subject Classification*]{}: 05A10; 57M25.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Concerned with sequences [[](http://oeis.org/A000124)]{}, [[](http://oeis.org/A007318)]{}, [[](http://oeis.org/A014206)]{}, [[](http://oeis.org/A077028)]{}, [[](http://oeis.org/A233583)]{}, [[](http://oeis.org/A294619)]{},\
[[](http://oeis.org/A300401)]{}, [[](http://oeis.org/A300453)]{}, [[](http://oeis.org/A300454)]{}, [[](http://oeis.org/A321125)]{}, [[](http://oeis.org/A321126)]{} and [[](http://oeis.org/A321127)]{}.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'George Georgiou$^a$,'
- Dimitrios Zoakos$^b$
title: 'Entanglement Entropy of the ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM spin chain'
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
One of the most intriguing features of a quantum system is that of entanglement. When a physical system is in an entangled state local measurements at one point may instantaneously affect the result of local measurements at distant points. A universal measure of entanglement is the Entanglement Entropy (EE). It can be defined for any quantum field theory or many-body system and unlike correlation functions is a non-local quantity. Suppose we are given a quantum system, e.g. a quantum field theory in $d+1$ dimensions. Furthermore, suppose that we split the system in two parts, $D$ and its complementary $D^C$. Assuming that the full Hilbert space of the theory $H$ can be written as the direct product of the Hilbert spaces of the parts $D$ and $D^C$, namely $H=H_D \otimes H_{D^C}$, one can define the reduced density matrix (RDM) of region $D$ in the following way $$\label{RDMgen}
\rho_D \, = \, Tr_{D^C} \rho \, ,
\quad \rm{where} \quad
\rho = |\psi\rangle \langle\psi| \, ,$$ if the system is in a pure quantum state $|\psi\rangle$. Then the EE is defined as the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix, which as can be seen from is obtained when we trace out the degrees of freedom of the complementary region $D^C$ $$\label{EEgen}
S_{EE}(D) \, = \, - \, {\text{Tr}\big[\rho_D \, \log{\rho_{D}}\big]} \, .$$ Physically, the EE indicates to what extend the two subsystems, $D$ and $D^C$, are correlated. Equivalently, one can also interpret the EE as the entropy measured by an observer sitting in the region $D$ who has no access to information about the subsystem $D^C$.
Furthermore, since the EE is defined as the von Neumann entropy one should expect that it is, somehow, related to the degrees of freedom of the system under consideration. This expectation is fully realised in the context of two dimensional conformal field theories ($2d$ CFTs) where the universal piece of the EE is proportional to the central charge [@Holzhey:1994we; @Calabrese:2004eu]. Indeed, for a one-dimensional system with periodic boundary conditions at the critical point, the EE for an interval of length $l$ is given by $$\label{Cal-Car}
S_{EE}(l) \, = \, \frac{c}{3} \, \log{\left(\frac{L}{\pi a} \, \sin{\frac{\pi l }{L}}\right)}
\quad \text{with} \quad
S_{EE}(l) \, \approx \, \frac{c}{3} \, \log{\frac{l}{a}}
\quad \rm{for} \quad
L\rightarrow \infty$$ where $c$ is the central charge of the corresponding CFT, $a$ is a UV cut–off and $L$ is the length of the whole system. Based on the holographic proposal of Ryu & Takayanagi (RT) [@Ryu:2006bv; @Ryu:2006ef] for the EE of a higher dimensional quantum field theory, it seems that the proportionality between the EE and the central charge of a CFT in four dimensions also holds. The holographic proposal for calculating the EE has been proved for spherical entangling regions [@Casini:2011kv] and there are supporting arguments based on the notion of generalised entropy [@Lewkowycz:2013nqa].
As opposed to the thermal entropy, the EE is non-vanishing at zero temperature. Therefore, we can employ it to probe the quantum properties of the ground state for a given quantum system. Additionally it can be used as an order parameter for the study of quantum phase transitions at zero temperature [@Klebanov:2007ws; @Georgiou:2015pia].
The vast majority of the results obtained so far in the literature have been devoted to the entanglement properties of the vacuum state. Comparatively, very little is known about the behaviour of the EE when the system under consideration is in an excited state (see for example [@Alba:2009th])[^1]. The aim of this work is to contribute towards this direction. In particular, we will focus our attention at one of the mostly studied conformal field theories, namely the maximally supersymmetric field theory in four dimensions c. It is well-known that the operators of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM can be mapped to states of an integrable spin-chain, while the dilatation operator can be mapped to a long-range spin-chain Hamiltonian whose eigenvalues give the spectrum of the dilatation operator [@Beisert:2010jr]. Furthermore, through the AdS/CFT correspondence [@Maldacena:1997re] (for a set of pedagogical introductions see [@Ramallo:2013bua; @Edelstein:2009iv]) the gauge theory operators are dual to certain string states propagating on the $AdS_5 \times S^5$ background with the energies of the string states being equal to the dimension of the dual field theory operator.
We should mention that the Entanglement Entropy that we are about to calculate is not directly related to the EE of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM as a field theory. Such entropy measures the entanglement of a 3-dimensional subregion of the manifold on which the theory is defined to the rest of the space. What we will calculate is the EE of a portion of the ${\cal N}=4$ SYM spin chain, when the chain is in an excited state of either one of the closed rank one subsectors of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM or in the full $PSU(2,2|4)$ algebra of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM, in the case of the BMN limit. The important point is that, through the AdS/CFT correspondence, the EE of the spin chain should be somehow related to the EE of the corresponding string state, that is to the EE of an excited state of the $1+1-$dimensional supersymmetric non-linear $\sigma-$ model which describes the propagation of the corresponding string in the AdS background. As it is extremely complicated to calculate this quantity directly from the $\sigma-$ model considered as a field theory, our intension is to see if one can extract some information from the corresponding spin chain picture where the calculation is considerably easier[^2].
The plan of the paper is as follows: In Section \[EE-2magnons\] we will analytically calculate the EE of excited states with two magnons in all closed rank one subsectors of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM, namely $SU(2)$, $SU(1|1)$ and $SL(2)$. Our calculation will be performed using the formalism of Coordinate Bethe Ansatz (CBA) and will be leading in the coupling expansion (our states will be the eigenstates of the one-loop dilatation operators) but exact in the length of the spin chain and of the part of it we cut, namely $D$.
In Section \[EE-BMN\] we will calculate the EE of the superconformal primary operator with two excitations in the BMN limit. We will derive an analytic expression for the EE of which is exact in the coupling $\lambda'=\frac{g_{YM}^2N}{J^2}=\frac{\lambda}{J^2}$. This will allows us to analyse the effect of long-range interactions of the spin chain on the EE. In particular, we will see that the EE of a part of the spin chain is a monotonically increasing function of the coupling which saturates to a constant value as $\lambda' \rightarrow \infty$ when keeping the length of the chain we cut fixed. This results to a violation of a certain bound for the EE that is present at weak coupling. Thus, one of our main conclusions is that, as it is physically anticipated, the entanglement between parts of the chain becomes stronger as one increases the coupling $\lambda'$, at least for the superconformal primary operator with two excitations.
In Section \[ABA-gen\] we will employ integrability and more precisely the powerful formalism of the Algebraic Bethe Ansatz (ABA) in order to calculate numerically the EE of excited states with up to seven magnons in the $SU(2)$, $SU(1|1)$ and $SL(2)$ subsectors. Finally, in Section \[Conclusions\] we will present our conclusions along with directions for future research.
Entanglement entropy of two magnons in the three rank one closed subsectors of the ${\cal N}=4$ spin chain {#EE-2magnons}
==========================================================================================================
As discussed in the introduction, it is of the outmost importance to calculate the EE for the excited states of any physical system. This task is extremely difficult but it could provide highly non-trivial information about the physical system under consideration. For example, the EE can be viewed as the order parameter characterising the phase transitions which the system might undergo, (see e.g. [@Georgiou:2015pia]).
In this section, and having the AdS/CFT correspondence in mind, we will focus on the case of two magnons propagating in the ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM spin chain. In particular we will consider operators in each of the three rank one closed subsectors of ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM, namely $SU(2)$, $SU(1|1)$ and $SL(2)$. We will derive analytic expressions for any two magnon state in all the aforementioned sectors by employing the CBA.
As is well known, the problem of finding the eigenvalues and the eigenvectors of the dilatation operator of ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM can be solved by mapping this operator to the Hamiltonian of a certain integrable long-range spin chain. Then one can apply the method of Perturbative Asymptotic Bethe Ansatz (see [@Staudacher:2004tk] for details about this method) to solve for the eigenstates and the eigenvalues. If one is restricted to the one loop case, then the powerful technique of the ABA can be employed. It is this method that we will use in the following to obtain the EE for spin chains with different lengths and up to seven magnons.
Entanglement Entropy of the vacuum
----------------------------------
We will take the operator corresponding to the vacuum state to be $$\label{vac}
{\cal O}_{vac} \, \sim \, {\text{Tr}\big[Z^L\big]} \, .$$ This is a BPS operator whose engineering dimension is $L$. This dimension is not altered by quantum corrections. The corresponding spin chain state is given by $$\label{vac1}
|\downarrow\rangle_{vac} \, = \, \, \prod_{i = 1}^L \, \otimes \, |\downarrow\rangle_{i} \, .$$ When the system is in the ground state the EE of any part of the spin chain $D$ is zero, i.e. $S_{EE}(D)=0$, since can be written as a direct product of states at each site.
Entanglement Entropy of a state with one magnon
-----------------------------------------------
It is straightforward to consider the case where the wavefunction of the system is that of a giant magnon with momentum $p$. Although this is not a legitimate state since the cyclicity of the trace will necessarily set $p=0$, one can consider this state as a building block of states with more than one excitations. In a spin chain language the eigenstate of a giant magnon is given by $$\label{magnon}
|\psi\rangle_{magnon} \, \sim \, \sum_{l=0}^L e^{i p l} \, |\uparrow_{l}\rangle
\quad {\rm where} \quad
|\uparrow_{l}\rangle \, = \,
\prod_{i = 1}^{l-1} \, \otimes \,
|\downarrow\rangle_{i} \, \otimes \,
|\uparrow_{l}\rangle\otimes \,\prod_{i = l+1}^{L} \, \otimes \, |\downarrow\rangle_{i} \, .$$ One can then use to calculate the entanglement of a part of the chain with length $N$ to the rest of the spin chain. It is straightforward to show that the corresponding EE reads [@Molter:2014hna] $$\label{magnonEE}
S_{EE}^{1m}(N) \, = \,
\log{\frac{L}{L \, - \, N}} \, - \, \frac{N}{L} \, \log{\frac{N}{L \, - \, N}} \, .$$ Notice that this expression is independent of the momentum $p$ with which the giant magnon propagates. In what follows we will see that the EE of any eigenstate of the one-loop Hamiltonian in the $SU(2)$, $SU(1|1)$ and $SL(2)$ sectors with $M$ magnons, will have as an upper bound the single magnon entropy of multiplied by the number of magnons $M$ $$\label{upperbound}
S_{EE}^{Mm}(N) \, \leq \, M \, S_{EE}^{1m}(N) \, .$$
Entanglement Entropy of a state with two magnons
------------------------------------------------
After this warm up we will now turn to the case of two magnons propagating in the $SU(2)$, $SU(1|1)$ and $SL(2)$ spin chains. The first step is to write the expression for the wavefunction in the CBA. This reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wave}
&& |\psi\rangle \, = \, \sum_{1 \leq x_1<x_2 \leq L} \, \psi(x_1, x_2) \, |x_1,x_2\rangle
\quad {\rm with}
\nonumber \\[4pt]
&& \psi(x_1, x_2) \, = \, e^{i(p_1 x_1 \, + \, p_2 x_2)} \, + \,
S(p_2, p_1) \, e^{i(p_2 x_1 \, + \, p_1 x_2)} \, . \end{aligned}$$ In $L$ denotes the length of the spin chain, $x_1$ and $x_2$ the positions where the two magnons are sitting and $p_1$ and $p_2 \, = \, - \, p_1\, = \, - \, p$ are their momenta. Finally, $S(p_2, p_1)$ denotes the two-body scattering matrix in the sector under consideration. We will substitute its specific value only at the end of the calculation and this will allow us to treat all three sectors simultaneously.
The next step consists in splitting the spin chain in two parts, one from site number 1 to site number $N$ which we will call part $D$ and one from site number $N+1$ to site number $L$ which we will call the complementary part of $D$, namely $D^C$. Then one should take the trace of the complete density matrix $\rho=|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ with respect to the degrees of freedom of the complementary part $D^C$ to obtain the reduced density matrix (RDM) corresponding to the part $D$, that is $$\label{red-DM-def}
\rho_D \, = \, Tr_{{\small D^C}} \, \rho \, .$$ In order to perform the tracing one has to distinguish three cases.
No magnons in the part $D$ of the spin chain {#no-magnons-in-the-part-d-of-the-spin-chain .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------
This configuration gives the following contribution to the reduced density matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{red-DMi}
&& \rho_D^{(i)} \, = \, \sum_{N < x_1<x_2 \leq L} \langle x_1,x_2|\psi \rangle \,
\langle \psi |x_1,x_2 \rangle \, = \,
|\downarrow\rangle_{D\,\,\,D} \langle \downarrow| \,\,\,\,\,\, f_p(L,N)
\quad {\rm with}
\nonumber \\ [3pt]
&& f_p(L,N) \, = \, \sum_{N < x_1<x_2 \leq L} \, \psi(x_1, x_2) \, \psi^*(x_1, x_2)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $|\downarrow\rangle_{D} $ is the vacuum for the region $D$ $$|\downarrow\rangle_{D} \, = \, \prod_{i = 1}^N \, \otimes \, |\downarrow\rangle_{i} \, .$$
Both magnons in the part $D$ of the spin chain {#both-magnons-in-the-part-d-of-the-spin-chain .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------
The corresponding contribution to the RDM reads $$\label{red-DMii}
\rho_D^{(ii)} \, = \, |\psi_D\rangle \langle \psi_D |
\qquad \rm{where} \qquad
|\psi_D\rangle \, = \, \sum_{1 \leq x_1<x_2 \leq N} \psi(x_1, x_2) \, |x_1,x_2\rangle \, .$$
One magnon in the part $D$ and one in the complementary $D^C$ of the spin chain {#one-magnon-in-the-part-d-and-one-in-the-complementary-dc-of-the-spin-chain .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case we have for the contribution to the RDM $$\begin{aligned}
\label{red-DMiii}
&& \rho_D^{(iii)} \, = \, \sum_{1 \leq x_1\leq N} \,\,\, \sum_{1 \leq x'_1\leq N}
|x_1 \rangle \langle x'_1|\,\,\,\, g_p(x_1,x'_1)
\quad {\rm with}
\nonumber \\ [3pt]
&& g_p(x_1,x'_1) \, = \, \sum_{N < x_2 \leq L} \, \psi(x_1, x_2) \, \psi^*(x'_1, x_2)\, .\end{aligned}$$ Combining , & we finally get for the RDM $$\label{red-DM}
\rho_D\, = \, \kappa \, \Bigg[|\psi_D\rangle \langle \psi_D | \, + \,
\sum_{1 \leq x_1\leq N}\,\,\,
\sum_{1 \leq x'_1\leq N}
|x_1 \rangle \langle x'_1|\,\,\,\,
g_p(x_1,x'_1) \, + \,
|\downarrow\rangle_{D\,\,\,D} \langle \downarrow|\,\,\,\, f_p\Bigg] \, ,$$ and normalising the trace of the RDM to one we have for the constant $\kappa$ $$\label{NORM}
Tr_D\rho_D=1
\quad \Rightarrow \quad
\kappa^{-1} \, = \, \langle\psi|\psi\rangle \, = \, \sum_{1 \leq x_1<x_2 \leq L}
\psi(x_1, x_2) \, \psi^*(x_1, x_2) \, .$$ It is now straightforward to write down the $\eta$-th power of the RDM $$\begin{aligned}
\label{red-DM-n}
&& \rho_D^{\eta} \, = \, \kappa^{\eta} \, \Bigg[ |\psi_D\rangle \langle \psi_D | \langle \psi_D|\psi_D \rangle^{\eta-1} \, + \,
|\downarrow\rangle_{D\,\,\,D} \langle \downarrow| \,\, f_p^{\eta} \, +
\nonumber \\ [3pt]
&& \sum_{y_1,y_2,\cdots,y_{\eta-1}\in D} |x_1 \rangle \langle x'_1|\,\,\,\, g_p(x_1,y_1)g_p(y_1,y_2)...
g_p(y_{\eta-1},x'_1) \Bigg] \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and the only non-trivial part is in the second line of . This can be evaluated by noticing that the structure $\Delta(x_1,y_1) \, = \, A_1 \, e^{i p(x_1-y_1)}\, + \, B_1^*e^{-i p(x_1+y_1)}\, + \, c.c.$, which is the structure of $g_p(x_1,y_1)$, maps to a similar expression with the same spacetime structure but with different coefficients $A_1$ and $B^*_1$ under the following map $$R(x_1,x'_1) \, = \, \Delta(x_1,y_1) \star \Delta(y_1,x'_1) \, = \,
\sum_{y_1\in D^C} \, \Delta(x_1,y_1) \, \Delta(y_1,x'_1) \, .$$ Since this is the operation needed to calculate the multiple sum we obtain $$\label{sum}
\sum_{y_1, \ldots y_{\eta-1}\in D} |x_1 \rangle \langle x'_1|\,g_p(x_1,y_1) \ldots
g_p(y_{\eta-1},x'_1)=A_{\eta} e^{i p(x_1-x'_1)}+B_{\eta}^*e^{-i p(x_1+x'_1)}+c.c. \, ,$$ where the coefficients $A_{\eta}$ and $B^*_{\eta}$ are given by $$\label{matrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
A_{\eta} \\
B^*_{\eta}
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha & \beta \\
\beta^* &\alpha^*
\end{pmatrix}^{\eta-1}
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
A \\
B^*
\end{pmatrix}.$$ The entries of the matrices are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ab}
A\, = \, L \, - \, N \qquad \& \qquad B \, = \, S(p_2,p_1) \, S^*_1 \, ,
\nonumber \\[4pt]
\alpha \, = \, A \, N \, + \, B \, \hat{S}_1^* \qquad \& \qquad \beta \, = \, A \, \hat{S}_1\, + \, B N \, ,
\\[4pt]
S_1=\sum_{x \in D^C } e^{i(p_2-p_1)x} \qquad \& \qquad \hat{S}_1=\sum_{x \in D } e^{i(p_2-p_1)x} \, .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ One can now diagonalise the $2 \times 2$ matrix to obtain an analytic expression for the coefficients $A_{\eta}$ and $B^*_{\eta}$. Plugging this solution in the expression for the Renyi Entropy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Renyi-2mag}
&&S^{(\eta)}_R \, = \, \frac{1}{1\, - \, \eta} \, \log{Tr_{D} \, \rho_D^{\eta}} \qquad {\rm with}
\nonumber \\[3pt]
&&Tr_{D} \rho_D^{\eta} \, = \, \kappa^{\eta} \,
\Bigg[ \langle \psi_D|\psi_D \rangle^{\eta} \, + \, \left(A_{\eta} \, + \, A^*_{\eta} \right) N \, + \,
B_{\eta} \, \hat{S}_1^* \, + \, B^*_{\eta} \, \hat{S}_1 \, + \, f_p^{\eta} \, \Bigg] \, .\end{aligned}$$ and taking the limit $\eta \rightarrow 1$ we find for the EE of the two magnon excited state that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EE-2mag}
S_{EE} & = & \lim_{\eta \rightarrow 1} S_R^{(\eta)}
\\ [3pt]
&=&-\kappa \, \Bigg[ f_p \, \log{f_p} \, + \, \langle \psi_D|\psi_D \rangle \, \log{\langle \psi_D|\psi_D \rangle} \, + \,
\left(\sum_{i=1}^{2} G_i \, \log{\lambda_i} \, + \, c.c.\right) \Bigg] \, + \, \log{\kappa} \, ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux-func}
& G_1 \, = \, \frac{- \, \beta^*}{2 \, \sqrt{\Delta}} \, \left(A \, - \, U_{12} \, B^*\right)
\left(U_{11} \, N \, + \, \hat{S}_1\right)
\quad \& \quad
U_{11} \, = \, \frac{i \, Im \, \alpha \, - \, \sqrt{\Delta}}{\beta^*}
\nonumber \\[4pt]
& G_2 \, = \, \frac{\beta^*}{2 \sqrt{\Delta}} \, \left(A\, - \, U_{11} \, B^*\right)
\left(U_{12} \, N \, + \, \hat{S}_1\right)
\quad \& \quad
U_{12} \, = \, \frac{i \, Im \, \alpha \, + \, \sqrt{\Delta}}{\beta^*}
\\[4pt]
& \lambda_1 \, = \, Re \, \alpha \, - \, \sqrt{\Delta} \, , \quad
\lambda_2=Re\alpha+\sqrt{\Delta}
\quad {\rm with} \quad
\Delta \, = \, -(Im \, \alpha)^2 \, + \, |\beta|^2 \, .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We should mention that $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are the two eigenvalues of the $2 \times 2$ matrix appearing in while $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are given in . A few important comments are in order. Firstly, the expression gives the EE for all three closed rank one subsectors. The difference between the three sectors enters through the different values of the scattering matrices and the corresponding quantisation of the momenta. Namely, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& S_{SU(2)}(p_1,p_2) \, = \, \frac{\cot{\frac{p_1}{2}} \, - \, \cot{\frac{p_2}{2}}\, + \, 2 i}
{\cot{\frac{p_1}{2}}\, - \, \cot{\frac{p_2}{2}}\, - \,2 i} \
\quad \Rightarrow \quad
p_1 \, = \, - \, p_2 \, = \, \frac{2 \pi n}{L-1}
\nonumber \\[4pt]
& S_{SU(1|1)}(p_1,p_2) \, = \, - \, 1
\quad \Rightarrow \quad
p_1 \, = \, - \, p_2 \, = \, \frac{\left(2 n \, + \, 1 \right) \, \pi}{L}
\\[4pt]
& S_{SL(2)}(p_1,p_2) \, = \, \frac{\cot{\frac{p_1}{2}} \, - \, \cot{\frac{p_2}{2}}\, - \, 2 i}
{\cot{\frac{p_1}{2}}\, - \, \cot{\frac{p_2}{2}}\, + \,2 i} \
\quad \Rightarrow \quad
p_1 \, = \, - \, p_2 \, = \, \frac{2 \pi n}{L+1} \, .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Notice also that the sums over $x_1$ and $x_2$ appearing in all expressions above (see equation , for instance) should be replaced by $\sum_{x_1\leq x_2}$ when considering the $SL(2)$ sector since in this case both derivatives may sit at the same $Z$ field. Contrary to the common trend in the literature we define $L$ in the $SL(2)$ sector as the sum of the background fields plus the number of magnons. Secondly, we should stress that equation gives the leading contribution to the EE in the coupling expansion. As is well known, the ${\cal N}=4$ SYM dilatation operator and as a result its eigenvalues receive corrections order by order in perturbation theory. These corrections will also affect the value of the EE. Our calculation, in this section, gives the leading term in the weak coupling expansion of the EE. However, it is exact as a function of the spin chain length.
![In this figure we present the EE for an excited state with two magnons in the $SU(2)$ sector. On the left part of the figure it is the plot of the EE as a function of the position that we split the spin chain in two parts, $D$ and its complement $D^C$. In order to simplify notation and to be able to compare spin chains with different number of sites we normalize the horizontal axis and plot with respect to the ratio of the splitting point divided by the length of the spin chain. In all the subsequent plots of the EE the horizontal axis will be in units of this “normalized splitting" ($N/L$). The black curve is twice the EE of a single magnon while the magenta dots represent the actual computation of the EE, using , when the scattering of the two magnons is taken into account. On the right part of the figure, in order to illustrate the saturation points, we present the normalized EE (i.e. dividing by twice the EE of a single magnon). The calculations are for mode number $n=1$ & the length of the spin chain is set to $L=100$.[]{data-label="fig:1.1"}](CBA_EE_SU2_2m.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the EE for an excited state with two magnons in the $SU(2)$ sector. On the left part of the figure it is the plot of the EE as a function of the position that we split the spin chain in two parts, $D$ and its complement $D^C$. In order to simplify notation and to be able to compare spin chains with different number of sites we normalize the horizontal axis and plot with respect to the ratio of the splitting point divided by the length of the spin chain. In all the subsequent plots of the EE the horizontal axis will be in units of this “normalized splitting" ($N/L$). The black curve is twice the EE of a single magnon while the magenta dots represent the actual computation of the EE, using , when the scattering of the two magnons is taken into account. On the right part of the figure, in order to illustrate the saturation points, we present the normalized EE (i.e. dividing by twice the EE of a single magnon). The calculations are for mode number $n=1$ & the length of the spin chain is set to $L=100$.[]{data-label="fig:1.1"}](CBA_NormEE_SU2_2m.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
Given the general expressions for the Renyi Entropy and the EE , we are now in position to plot the EE as a function of the size of the part of the spin chain we cut. In figure \[fig:1.1\] we present the EE for an excited state with two magnons in the $SU(2)$ sector. The quantum number specifying the momenta of the magnons is set to $n=1$. On the left part of the figure one can see the plot of the EE as a function of the position that we split the spin chain in two parts, $D$ and its complement $D^C$. In the same plot we have also drawn twice the EE of a single magnon, which is the upper bound for the EE of any state involving two magnons. One can see that the bound is almost saturated at two symmetric points, one on the left and one on the right of the middle of the chain (see also the right part of Figure \[fig:3.1\])[^3]. To illustrate this point we present the normalised EE, that is the ratio of over twice the EE of the single magnon, on the right part of the figure \[fig:1.1\].
![In this figure we present the difference between the EE of two magnons and twice the EE of one magnon when we change/increase the mode number (from mode number one to four), in the $SU(2)$ sector.[]{data-label="fig:1.2"}](EEdif_SU2_2m_n1.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the difference between the EE of two magnons and twice the EE of one magnon when we change/increase the mode number (from mode number one to four), in the $SU(2)$ sector.[]{data-label="fig:1.2"}](EEdif_SU2_2m_n2.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the difference between the EE of two magnons and twice the EE of one magnon when we change/increase the mode number (from mode number one to four), in the $SU(2)$ sector.[]{data-label="fig:1.2"}](EEdif_SU2_2m_n3.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the difference between the EE of two magnons and twice the EE of one magnon when we change/increase the mode number (from mode number one to four), in the $SU(2)$ sector.[]{data-label="fig:1.2"}](EEdif_SU2_2m_n4.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
In figure \[fig:1.2\] we present the dependence of the difference between the aforementioned bound and the EE of two magnon excited state on the mode number $n$, which characterises the excited state. Generically, as one moves towards the centre of the chain the difference oscillates with an amplitude that decreases. Furthermore, as one increases the mode number from one to four the bound is almost saturated for specific values of the length of the domain $D$ for which the EE is calculated. If we exclude the trivial cases where $D$ is either the empty set or when $D$ is the whole chain the number of points that the bound is almost saturated is $2n$ (see also the end of the next paragraph), which is twice the excitation number. We should note that part of the results of the current section have some overlap with the analysis in [@Molter:2014hna].
![In this figure we present the EE for an excited state with two magnons in the $SU(1|1)$ sector. On the upper left part of the figure it is the plot of the EE as a function of the “normalised splitting" ($N/L$) and on the upper right part the difference between the EE of two magnons and twice the EE of the single magnon again as a function of the “normalised splitting", when the mode number is $n=1$. In the lower two plots of the figure we present the results for mode number $n=2$, to illustrate the increase of the number of the explicit saturation points when the mode number increases. The black curve is twice the EE of a single magnon while the magenta dots represent the computation of the EE using . The length of the spin chain is set to $L=90$.[]{data-label="fig:1.3"}](CBA_EE_SU11_2m_n1.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the EE for an excited state with two magnons in the $SU(1|1)$ sector. On the upper left part of the figure it is the plot of the EE as a function of the “normalised splitting" ($N/L$) and on the upper right part the difference between the EE of two magnons and twice the EE of the single magnon again as a function of the “normalised splitting", when the mode number is $n=1$. In the lower two plots of the figure we present the results for mode number $n=2$, to illustrate the increase of the number of the explicit saturation points when the mode number increases. The black curve is twice the EE of a single magnon while the magenta dots represent the computation of the EE using . The length of the spin chain is set to $L=90$.[]{data-label="fig:1.3"}](EEdif_SU11_2m_n1.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the EE for an excited state with two magnons in the $SU(1|1)$ sector. On the upper left part of the figure it is the plot of the EE as a function of the “normalised splitting" ($N/L$) and on the upper right part the difference between the EE of two magnons and twice the EE of the single magnon again as a function of the “normalised splitting", when the mode number is $n=1$. In the lower two plots of the figure we present the results for mode number $n=2$, to illustrate the increase of the number of the explicit saturation points when the mode number increases. The black curve is twice the EE of a single magnon while the magenta dots represent the computation of the EE using . The length of the spin chain is set to $L=90$.[]{data-label="fig:1.3"}](CBA_EE_SU11_2m_n2.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the EE for an excited state with two magnons in the $SU(1|1)$ sector. On the upper left part of the figure it is the plot of the EE as a function of the “normalised splitting" ($N/L$) and on the upper right part the difference between the EE of two magnons and twice the EE of the single magnon again as a function of the “normalised splitting", when the mode number is $n=1$. In the lower two plots of the figure we present the results for mode number $n=2$, to illustrate the increase of the number of the explicit saturation points when the mode number increases. The black curve is twice the EE of a single magnon while the magenta dots represent the computation of the EE using . The length of the spin chain is set to $L=90$.[]{data-label="fig:1.3"}](EEdif_SU11_2m_n2.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
Looking at the expression of the EE bound (see multiplied by two) it is clear that if there points where this bound is explicitly saturated, then the analytic expression of the EE at those points should be independent of the value of the momentum of the excitation. To detect those points, one should go to where all the ingredients are defined and look for a systematic way to eliminate the presence of the momentum. Setting $S_1$ and $\hat{S}_1$ to zero satisfies the above requirement and furthermore eliminates the presence of the momentum in the expression of $f_p$ and $\psi_D$. In that way the EE at those points, which simultaneously set to zero $S_1$ and $\hat{S}_1$, explicitly saturate the bound . Combining the expressions for $S_1$ and $\hat{S}_1$ together with the value of the momentum for each one of the three sectors, it is easy to conclude that the bound is explicitly saturated only in the $SU(1|1)$ sector and in the following points $$\label{saturation-points}
\frac{N}{L} \, = \, \frac{\kappa}{2 n +1} \quad {\rm with} \quad
n \ge 0 \quad \& \quad 0 \le \kappa \le 2n+1.$$ To illustrate the above claim we have plotted in figure \[fig:1.3\] the EE in the $SU(1|1)$ sector for two different quantum numbers, namely $n=1$ and $n=2$, in a spin chain with 90 sites. According to we expect to have four and six saturation points, located at the positions $(0,1/3,2/3,1)$ and $(0,1/5,2/5, 3/5,4/5, 1)$ respectively, and this is exactly what we observe in figure \[fig:1.3\]. In the other two sectors the quantities $S_1$ and $\hat{S}_1$ can never be simultaneously zero and for that reason the entropy comes very close to the bound but without saturating it. In cases with more than two magnons the existence of saturation points seems difficult to occur, since more than two constraints have to be satisfied simultaneously, but needs to be checked with an explicit calculation.
A final comment concerns the expected fact that the plots for the EE are symmetric with respect to the centre of the spin chain. This is a consequence of the well-known fact that the EE’s of $D$ and of its complementary $D^C$ are equal $S_{EE}(D)=S_{EE}(D^C)$, when the state which describes the system as a whole $D \cup D^C$ is a pure state.
The aim of the next section will be to analyse the effect of interactions to the EE. To this end we will focus on the BMN limit of $AdS_5 \times S^5$ and find the exact, in the coupling, expression for the EE.
All-loop Entanglement and Renyi Entropies of the superconformal primary operator with two excitations in the BMN limit {#EE-BMN}
======================================================================================================================
One of the most interesting limits of the AdS/CFT correspondence is the so-called BMN limit [@Berenstein:2002jq]. The reason is that in this limit, known as the Penrose or pp-wave limit on the gravity side, the Green-Schwarz superstring action for type IIB strings becomes quadratic in the light-cone variables and as a result one can solve for the superstring spectrum exactly. This result provides an all-orders prediction for the anomalous dimensions of certain operators with large R-charge [@Beisert:2005tm] which are dual to the string states propagating in the pp-wave background. Subsequently, one can study the dynamics of the theory by employing string field theory to construct the three-string vertex (see [@Lee:2004cq; @Dobashi:2004nm; @Chu:2002pd] and references therein) and compare the so-obtained string amplitudes to the corresponding three-point correlators [@Georgiou:2003aa; @Georgiou:2004ty; @Georgiou:2009tp][^4].
The superconformal primary operator with two impurities in the BMN limit {#BMN}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we will briefly review the construction of the superconformal primary state involving two excitations (impurities) on both the string and gauge theory side. The full supermultiplet based on this primary state was constructed in [@Beisert:2002tn] at leading order in the coupling expansion. In what follows, we will closely follow [@Georgiou:2008vk; @Georgiou:2009tp]. The main idea is to use the action of the superalgebra on the states of the theory in order to resolve the operator mixing appearing in the wavefunction of the primary operator. More precisely, consider the non-BPS highest weight state (HWS) with two impurities which we will denote by ${\cal O}_n$. By definition this state should be annihilated by the sixteen superconformal generators preserved by the pp-wave background. Schematically one has $$\label{si}
[S,{\cal O}_n(x=0)]=0~~~~~\mbox{and}~~~~~ [Q,{\cal O}_n(x=0)]\not=0~.$$ The action of the remaining sixteen supersymmetry generators, collectively denoted here by $Q$, on the HWS generates the whole supermultiplet with two impurities. Equation should be implemented order by order in perturbation theory since the superconformal charges receive quantum corrections [@Georgiou:2008vk; @Georgiou:2009tp]. However in the pp-wave limit the 32 supercharges can be straightforwardly constructed order by order in the string coupling. What is important for us is that their leading in $g_s$ expressions are known to all-orders in the effective Yang-Mills coupling $\lambda'=\frac{g_{YM}^2 N}{J^2}$. Here $g_{YM}^2 N$ is the ’t Hooft coupling while $J$ is the large R-charge of the operator which correspond to the angular momentum of the point-like string orbiting around one of the equators of the five-sphere $S^5$ of the parent $AdS_5 \times S^5$ background. Demanding that the full set of the 16 superconformal charges annihilates the HWS one can determine the form of the latter to all orders in $\lambda'$. The details of this construction can be found in [@Georgiou:2008vk]. The result for the two-impurity HWS reads $$\label{shws}
|n\rangle = \frac{1}{4(1+U_n^2)}
\Bigg[
{a^\dagger}_n^{i'}
{a^\dagger}_n^{i'}
\,+\,
{a^\dagger}_{-n}^{i'}
{a^\dagger}_{-n}^{i'}
+ 2 U_n b_{-n}^\dagger\, \Pi\; b_n^\dagger
- U_n^2 \left(
{a^\dagger}_n^{i}
{a^\dagger}_n^{i}
\,+\,
{a^\dagger}_{-n}^{i}
{a^\dagger}_{-n}^{i}
\right)\Bigg]
|\alpha\rangle \, .$$ In ${a^\dagger}_{\pm n}^{i'}$, $ b_{\pm n}^\dagger$ and ${a^\dagger}_{\pm n}^{i}$ denote the creation operators for the four scalar, eight fermionic and four vector excitations while $ |\alpha\rangle$ denotes the string vacuum of fixed light-cone momentum $p^+$. Furthermore, $n$ is the mode number characterising the excited state while the function $U_n$ is given by $$U_n \equiv \frac{1-\rho_{n}}{1+\rho_{n}}
\quad {\rm with} \quad
\rho_{n} \, = \, \frac{\omega_n \, - \, n}{\mu \, \alpha}
\quad \& \quad
\omega_{n} \, = \, \sqrt{n^2 \, + \, \left(\mu \, \alpha' \, p^+\right)^2} \, ,
\label{cppm}$$ where $p^+$ is the light cone momentum of the state and $\mu$ is the parameter setting the scale of the curvature of the PP-wave background (as usual, $\alpha \equiv \alpha' p^+$ and $\lambda'=1/(\mu \alpha)^2$). Finally, $\Pi$ is the appropriate $16\times 16$ block of the matrix $\Pi=\prod_{i'=1}^4\Gamma^{i'}$. The index $i'$ takes values in the flavour $SO(4) \subset SO(6)$ and the $\Gamma$ indicate the $SO(1,9)$ gamma matrices.
One important comment is in order. Notice that the HWS string state, as well as the corresponding field theory operator ${\cal O}_n$, exhibits the important feature of mixing between different kinds of excitations, namely bosonic and fermionic states (operators) mix among each other as long as the mixing states have the same quantum numbers.
Needless to say that this construction can be generalised to HWS with more than two impurities.
Exact in $\lambda'$ Entanglement Entropy {#exact-BMN}
----------------------------------------
Our aim in this section is to derive, based on , an analytic expression for the EE of the two impurity primary operator which is exact in the BMN coupling $\lambda'$. This expression will be an interpolating function from the weak coupling regime $\lambda'\rightarrow 0$ to the strong coupling regime $\lambda'\rightarrow\infty$. We should stress that our result is exact in the strict BMN limit and generically will receive $1/J$ corrections. It would be interesting to calculate these corrections by going to the near-BMN limit.
The first step towards this end is to rewrite as an operator of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM. An important observation is that due to mixing of different kinds of impurities this operator can not be restricted in one of the closed subsectors of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM but “lives” in the full $PSU(2,2|4)$ superalgebra. The field theory operator which is dual to the string state can be written as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{primary}
(1+U_n^2){(\mathcal{O}_{st})}^J_n
& =
\sqrt{\frac{N_0^{-J-2}}{J+3}} \, \sum_{i=1}^2 \sum_{p=0}^J \, \cos{\frac{\pi n(2p+3)}{J+3}} \,
{\text{Tr}\big[Z_i \, Z^p \, \bar{Z}_i \, Z^{J-p}\big]}
\nonumber \\
& -
2\, \sqrt{\frac{N_0^{-J-2}}{J+3}} \cos{ \frac{\pi n}{J+3}} \, {\text{Tr}\big[\bar{Z} \, Z^{J+1}\big]}
\\[4pt]
\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad& +
\frac{U_n}{2} \, \sqrt{\frac{N_0^{-J-1}}{J+1}} \, \sum_{p=0}^{J-1} \sin{\frac{\pi n(2p+2)}{J+1}} \,
{\text{Tr}\big[\psi^{1 \alpha} \,Z^p \, \psi^2_{\alpha} \, Z^{J-p-1}\big]}
\nonumber \\[4pt]
& -
\frac{U_n}{2} \, \sqrt{\frac{N_0^{-J-1}}{J+1}} \, \sum_{p=0}^{J-1} \sin{\frac{\pi n(2p+2)}{J+1}} \,
{\text{Tr}\big[\bar\psi_{3 \dot\alpha} \, Z^p \, \bar\psi_4^{\dot\alpha} \, Z^{J-p-1}\big]}
\nonumber \\[4pt]
& \,-\,
\frac{U_n^2}{4} \, \sqrt{\frac{N_0^{-J}}{J-1}} \sum_{p=0}^{J-2} \cos{\frac{\pi n(2p+1)}{J-1}} \,
{\text{Tr}\big[D_{\mu}Z \, Z^p \, D^{\mu} \, Z \, Z^{J-p-2}\big]} \, .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In $\psi^A$ (with $A=1,2,3,4$) denote the four fermions of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM while $\alpha=1,2$ and $\dot \alpha=1,2$ are spinor indices over which we sum. Furthermore, $N_0=\frac{N}{8 \pi^2}$ where $N$ is the number of colours. We should mention that in order to translate the string state to the field theory operator we have used the prescription of [@Georgiou:2008vk]. Namely, we have used the following dictionary $$\label{eq:a1}
\frac{1}{4}\left[ {a^\dagger}_n^{i'} \, {a^\dagger}_n^{i'} \,+\,
{a^\dagger}_{-n}^{i'} \, {a^\dagger}_{-n}^{i'} \right]| \, \alpha\rangle
\,\leftrightarrow\,
\mathcal{O}^{(0) J}_n \, ,$$ where $\mathcal{O}^{(0) J}_n$ is the sum of the first two terms on the r.h.s. of . The string state on the l.h.s. of is normalised to one and the same is true for the tree-level 2-point function of the corresponding gauge theory operator. In a similar fashion the term with the fermionic oscillators in corresponds to a field theory operator with four fermions $$\label{eq:a2}
\frac{1}{2} \left[ {b^\dagger}_{-n} \, \Pi \,{b^\dagger}_n \right]| \, \alpha\rangle
\,\leftrightarrow\,
\mathcal{O}^{(1) J}_n \, ,$$ where $\mathcal{O}^{(1) J}_n$ is the sum of the third and fourth terms on the r.h.s. of multiplied by $U_n$. Finally, for the term involving the vector impurities we have $$\label{eq:a3}
\frac{1}{4}\left[ {a^\dagger}_n^{i} \, {a^\dagger}_n^{i} \,+\,
{a^\dagger}_{-n}^{i} \, {a^\dagger}_{-n}^{i} \right]| \, \alpha\rangle
\,\leftrightarrow\,
\mathcal{O}^{(2) J}_n \, ,$$ where $ \mathcal{O}^{(2) J}_n $ is the last term on the r.h.s. of multiplied by $U_n^2$. As in the purely scalar operator, and are derived so that both the string state and the gauge theory operator are normalised to one. Since the two-point functions of operators involving fermions or/and vector impurities have non-trivial space-time structure we have used the prescription of [@Georgiou:2004ty; @Georgiou:2003kt]. Once is given an operator it is possible to define the barred one, which is the conjugate of the initial operator followed by an inversion. It is then this operator which is used in the calculation of the two-point function. This prescription is motivated by the radial quantisation in two-dimensional CFT’s and results to two-point functions which can be easily normalised to one.
One can now use the following relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ident}
&& \sum_{p=0}^J\cos{\frac{\pi n(2p+3)}{J+3}} \,
{\text{Tr}\big[X \, Z^p \, Y \, Z^{J-p}\big]} \, \approx \, \frac{1}{2 \, J} \times
\\ [4pt]
&& \sum_{1 \leq x_1<x_2 \leq J}
\left(e^{i (p_1 x_2 \, + \, p_2 x_1)} \, + \, e^{i (p_1 x_1 \, + p_2 x_2)}\right) \,
{\text{Tr}\big[Z^{x_1-1} \, X \, Z^{x_2-x_1-1} \, Y \, Z^{J-x_2}\big]} \, ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ as well as the analogous equation for the fermionic term to rewrite as a spin chain wavefunction. To achieve this one should take into account the fact that $p_1=p=-p_2=2 \pi n/J<<1$ and as a result to leading order in the large $J$ expansion $e^{\pm i p} \approx 1$ and $\cos\big({ \pi n/(J+3)}\big)\approx 1$. Furthermore, we will make use of the following correspondence between the Yang-Mills and spin chain excitations [@Georgiou:2012zj] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{corresp}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_0}} \, Z_{YM} \leftrightarrow Z_{sp}
\qquad
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \,N_0}} \, \psi^A_{YM} \leftrightarrow \psi^A_{sp}
\qquad
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \, N_0}} \, \left(D_{\mu}Z\right)_{YM} \leftrightarrow \left(D_{\mu}Z\right)_{sp} \, .\end{aligned}$$ In conclusion the wavefunction of the non-BPS primary operator with two excitations can be written in the spin chain language as (we suppress the index “sp” since from now on we will be using only the spin chain wavefunctions) follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{spinstate}
|\psi\rangle & =&
\frac{\mathcal N}{2 J}\, \Bigg[ \sum_{i=1}^2 \sum_{x_1<x_2}
\left(e^{i p_1 x_2+i p_2 x_1}+ e^{i p_1 x_1+i p_2 x_2}\right)
|(Z_i)_{x_1}({\bar Z}_i)_{x_2}\rangle \, - \,
4\sum_{x}|{\bar Z}_{x}\rangle
\\ [4pt]
&-& i \, U_n \sum_{x_1<x_2}\left(e^{i p_1 x_2+i p_2 x_1}- e^{i p_1 x_1+i p_2 x_2}\right)
\left(|(\psi^{1\alpha})_{x_1}(\psi^{2}_{\alpha})_{x_2}\rangle -
|({\bar \psi}_{3 \dot \alpha})_{x_1}({\bar \psi}_{4}^{\dot \alpha})_{x_2}\rangle \right)
\nonumber \\[4pt]&-& \frac{U_n^2}{2} \sum_{x_1<x_2}
\left(e^{i p_1 x_2+i p_2 x_1}+ e^{i p_1 x_1+i p_2 x_2}\right)
|(D_{\mu}Z)_{x_1}(D^{\mu}Z)_{x_2}\rangle \Bigg] \, .
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ A couple of important comments are in order. As is stressed in [@Beisert:2005tm] the ${\cal N}=4$ SYM spin chain is dynamic in the sense that the length of the chain in not fixed since different impurities have different scaling dimensions. Indeed as can be seen from the number of $Z$ fields is not the same in all terms. We should mention that each of the kets written in describe two excitations in the appropriate number of $Z$ fields dictated by . The dynamic nature of the spin chain may result to a situation where both vector impurities lie in the domain $D$ but the scalar impurities lie on in $D$ and one in its complementary. This can happen when both excitations are close to the boundary of $D$. In what follows we will ignore such circumstances since their contribution will be $1/J$ suppressed in the BMN limit. As second related comment concerns the exact form of . As is well-known the exact expression for the eigenstate of the dilatation operator will have non-asymptotic terms where the two impurities will be close to each other. As it happens with the two-point functions one can show that these terms give a contribution which is also $1/J$ suppressed with respect to the contributions coming from the asymptotic terms and as such can be ignored in the strict BMN limit where $J\rightarrow \infty$. Finally, let us notice that the state may, in principle, be taken from considering the scattering of two scalar impurities with a double copy of the $SU(2|2)$ scattering matrix of [@Beisert:2005tm].
We are now in position to write down the RDM originating from the wavefunction above. As usual we will be cutting the spin chain into two parts. One part is from site 1 to site $N$, which is the domain $D$ of which the EE we intend to calculate, while the remaining part is the complementary $D^C$ whose degrees of freedom we have to trace out in order to obtain the RDM. Furthermore, as in the case of two magnons at weak coupling (see section \[EE-2magnons\]) by $|\psi_D\rangle$ we denote the wavefunction of the part $D$ when both magnons sit in the region $D$, while by $|\psi_D^C\rangle$ we denote the wavefunction of the complementary region $D^C$ when both magnons sit in the region $D^c$. After these explanations the RDM can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{red-DM-exact}
\rho_D & =& \kappa \, \Bigg[|\psi_D\rangle \langle \psi_D | \, + \,
|\downarrow\rangle_{D\,\,\,D} \langle \downarrow|\,\,\,\, f_p \,
+ 4^2 \left(\sum_{x} |(\bar Z)_{x} \rangle \langle (\bar Z)_{x}| \, + \,
|\downarrow\rangle_{D\,\,\,D} \langle \downarrow| (J-N) \right)
\nonumber \\ [5pt]
&+& \sum_{x_1 < x'_1}\,
\Bigg(
\sum_{i=1}^{2} |(Z_i)_{x_1} \rangle \langle (Z_i)_{x'_1}|\,\,\,\, g_p^{(1)}(x_1,x'_1) +
|(\psi^{1\alpha})_{x_1} \rangle \langle (\psi^{1\alpha})_{x'_1}|\,\,\,\,
g_p^{(2)}(x_1,x'_1)
\nonumber \\ [5pt]
&+&
|(\psi_{3\dot \alpha})_{x_1} \rangle \langle (\psi_{3\dot \alpha})_{x'_1}|\,\,\,\,
g_p^{(2)}(x_1,x'_1) +|(D_{\mu}Z)_{x_1}\rangle \langle D_{\mu}Z)_{x'_1}|\,g_p^{(3)}(x_1,x'_1)
\Bigg) \Bigg] \, , \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& g_p^{(1)} \, = \, g_p^{SU(2)}
\quad {\rm with} \quad
S_{SU(2)}(p_2,p_1) \, = \, 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\[4pt]
& g_p^{(2)}=U_n^2 g_p^{SU(1|1)}
\quad {\rm with} \quad
S_{SU(1|1)}(p_2,p_1) \, = \, -\, 1 \, ,
\\[4pt]
& g_p^{(3)}=\frac{U_n^4}{4}g_p^{SU(2)}
\quad {\rm with} \quad
S_{SL(2)}(p_2,p_1) \, = \, 1 \, ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ that is $g_p^{(1)}$ is the same function appearing in the weak coupling calculation of section \[EE-2magnons\] but with the scattering matrix set to one and so on. We should mention that the fact that the scattering matrices should be set to $\pm 1$ is in accordance with the standard lore that in the BMN limit the impurities do not scatter at all since they are most of the time very far from each other.
It is now straightforward to write down the n-th power of the RDM $$\begin{aligned}
\label{red-DM-nexact}
\rho_D^{\eta} & = \, \kappa^{\eta} \,
\Bigg[ |\psi_D\rangle \langle \psi_D | \langle \psi_D|\psi_D \rangle^{\eta-1} \, + \,
|\downarrow\rangle_{D\,\,\,D} \langle \downarrow| \,\, f_p^{\eta}
\nonumber \\[4pt]
&+ \,
4^{2\eta} \left(N^{\eta-1}\sum_{x}|(\bar Z)_{x}\rangle \langle (\bar Z)_{x}| \, + \,
\left(J \, - \, N\right)^{\eta} \, |\downarrow\rangle_{D\,\,\,D} \langle \downarrow| \right)
\\[4pt]
&+ \, \sum_{x_1 < x'_1}\,
\Bigg(\sum_{i=1}^{2}
|(Z_i)_{x_1} \rangle \langle (Z_i)_{x'_1}|\,\,
\sum_{y_1,...,y_{\eta-1}\in D}g_p^{(1)}(x_1,y_1)g_p^{(1)}(y_1,y_2)...g_p^{(1)}(y_{\eta-1},x'_1)
\nonumber \\[4pt]
&+ \, |(\psi^{1\alpha})_{x_1} \rangle \langle (\psi^{1\alpha})_{x'_1}|\,\,\,\,
\sum_{y_1,...,y_{\eta-1}\in D}g_p^{(2)}(x_1,y_1)g_p^{(2)}(y_1,y_2)...
g_p^{(2)}(y_{\eta-1},x'_1)
\nonumber \\[4pt]
&+ \, |(\psi_{3\dot \alpha})_{x_1} \rangle \langle (\psi_{3\dot \alpha})_{x'_1}|\,\,\,\,
\sum_{y_1,...,y_{\eta-1}\in D}g_p^{(2)}(x_1,y_1)g_p^{(2)}(y_1,y_2)...
g_p^{(2)}(y_{\eta-1},x'_1)
\nonumber \\[4pt]
&+ \, |(D_{\mu}Z)_{x_1}\rangle \langle D_{\mu}Z)_{x'_1}|\,
\sum_{y_1,...,y_{\eta-1}\in D}g_p^{(3)}(x_1,y_1)g_p^{(3)}(y_1,y_2)...
g_p^{(3)}(y_{\eta-1},x'_1) \Bigg) \Bigg] \, .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ A couple of comments are in order. The first term in the first line of originates from the partition where both magnons are in the region $D$, while the second term from the partition where both magnons are in the complementary region $D^C$. Furthermore, the second line of comes from part of the wavefunction which has a single impurity $\bar Z$. Finally, the rest of the expression originates from the partition where one of the magnons is in the region $D$ and one in the complementary $D^C$.
The next step is to find the exact in $\lambda'$ Renyi Entropy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Renyi-2mag-exact}
S^{(\eta)}_R &= & \frac{1}{1\, - \, \eta} \, \log{Tr_{D} \, \rho_D^{\eta}} \qquad {\rm with}
\\[4pt]
Tr_{D} \rho_D^{\eta} \, &=& \, \kappa^{\eta} \,
\Bigg[ \langle \psi_D|\psi_D \rangle^{\eta} + f_p^{\eta} +
\left(2^{\eta} +\left(U_n^{4}\right)^{\eta}\right) \,
\left[\left(A^{(1)} + A^{(1)*} \right) N + B^{(1)} \, \hat{S}_1^*+ B^{(1)*} \hat{S}_1 \right]
\nonumber \\ [4pt]
&+&\left(4U_n^2\right)^{\eta} \,
\left[\left(A^{(2)} + A^{(2)*} \right) N + B^{(2)} \hat{S}_1^* + B^{(2)*} \hat{S}_1\right] +
4^{2\eta}\left( N^{\eta} + \left(J - N \right)^{\eta} \right) \Bigg] \, ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where all quantities are defined in section \[EE-2magnons\]. We should only add that $A^{(1)}=A^{SU(2)}$ and $B^{(1)}=B^{SU(2)}$ are the $SU(2)$ weak coupling expressions for $A$ and $B$ defined in section \[EE-2magnons\] but with $SU(2)$ scattering matrix set to one, i.e. $S_{SU(2)}(p_2,p_1)=1$. Similarly, $A^{(2)}=A^{SU(1|1)}$ and $B^{(2)}=B^{SU(1|1)}$ are the $SU(1|1)$ weak coupling expressions for $A$ and $B$ defined in section \[EE-2magnons\] but with $SU(1|1)$ scattering matrix set to minus one, i.e. $S_{SU(1|1)}(p_2,p_1)=-1$. Before we continue with the $\eta \rightarrow 1$ limit and the calculation of the EE, we would like to comment on the coefficients of the different contributions in (namely scalar, fermion and vector) and their $\eta$ dependence.
The second line of gives the last term in . The third line of gives the part of the third term in which is proportional to $2^{\eta}$. This happens since $i=1,2$ so we have to raise two to the $\eta$-th power, i.e $2^{\eta}$. The fourth and fifth lines of give the penultimate term in . Since $\alpha=1,2$ and ${\dot \alpha}=1,2$ we have to multiply $U_n$ by four and then raise to the $\eta$-th power, i.e $\left(4\times U_n^2\right)^{\eta}$. In the same fashion, since $\mu=1,2,3,4$, the ultimate term in has to be multiplied by four and then raised to the $\eta$-th power, i.e. $\left(4\times \frac{U_n^4}{4} \right)^{\eta}$ to give the part of the third term of that is proportional to $U_n^{4\eta}$.
Taking the limit $\eta \rightarrow 1$ we find for the EE of the two magnon excited state $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EE-2mag-exact}
S_{EE} &= \,
- \, \kappa \, \Bigg[ 16 \Big[N \log{(16 N)} \, + \, \left(J-N\right) \, \log{\big( 16\left(J-N\right)\big)}\Big] \,+ \,
f_p \, \log{f_p}
\nonumber \\
&+ \,
\langle \psi_D|\psi_D \rangle \, \log{\langle \psi_D|\psi_D \rangle} \, + \, \Bigg(
4 U_n^2 \sum_{i=1}^{2} G_i^{(2)} \, \log{(4 \, U_n^2 \, \lambda_i^{(2)})}
\\[4pt]
&+ \,
2 \sum_{i=1}^{2} G_i^{(1)} \, \log{(2 \, \lambda_i^{(1)})} \, + \,
U_n^4 \sum_{i=1}^{2} G_i^{(1)} \, \log{(U_n^4 \, \lambda_i^{(1)})} \, + \, c.c. \Bigg) \Bigg] \, + \, \log{\kappa} \, ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where in full analogy with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux-func-exact}
&& G_1^{(i)} \, = \, \frac{- \, \beta^{(i)*}}{2 \, \sqrt{\Delta^{(i)}}} \, \left(A^{(i)} \, - \, U_{12}^{(i)} \, B^{(i)*}\right)
\left(U_{11} ^{(i)}\, N \, + \, \hat{S}_1\right)
\,\, \& \quad
U_{11}^{(i)} \, = \, \frac{i \, Im \, \alpha^{(i)} \, - \, \sqrt{\Delta^{(i)}}}{\beta^{(i)*}}
\nonumber \\ [4pt]
&& G_2^{(i)} \, = \, \frac{\beta^{(i)*}}{2 \sqrt{\Delta^{(i)}}} \, \left(A^{(i)}\, - \, U_{11}^{(i)} \, B^{(i)*}\right)
\left(U_{12}^{(i)} \, N \, + \, \hat{S}_1\right)
\,\, \& \quad
U_{12}^{(i)} \, = \, \frac{i \, Im \, \alpha^{(i)} \, + \, \sqrt{\Delta^{(i)}}}{\beta^{(i)*}}
\\[4pt]
&& \lambda_1^{(i)} \, = \, Re \, \alpha^{(i)} \, - \, \sqrt{\Delta^{(i)}} \, , \quad
\lambda_2^{(i)}=Re\alpha^{(i)}+\sqrt{\Delta^{(i)}}
\quad {\rm with} \quad
\Delta^{(i)} \, = \, -(Im \, \alpha^{(i)})^2 \, + \, |\beta^{(i)}|^2 \, .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The upper index $i=1$ denotes that the quantities that carry it are defined in the $SU(2)$ sector with the scattering matrix set to one. Similarly, when the upper index $i$ is set to two, $i=2$, denotes quantities as defined in the $SU(1|1)$ sector with the scattering matrix set to minus one. Finally, the expressions for the inner products in & are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inner-prod}
&& \langle \psi|\psi \rangle \, = \, 2 \langle \psi|\psi \rangle^{SU(2)} \, + \, 16 J \, + \,
4 U_n^2 \langle \psi|\psi \rangle^{SU(1|1)} \, + \, U_n^4\langle \psi|\psi \rangle^{SU(2)}
\nonumber \\ [7pt]
&& \langle \psi_D|\psi_D \rangle \, = \, 2 \langle \psi_D|\psi_D \rangle^{SU(2)} \, + \,
4 U_n^2 \langle \psi_D|\psi_D \rangle^{SU(1|1)} \, + \, U_n^4 \langle \psi_D|\psi_D \rangle^{SU(2)}
\\ [7pt]
&& f_p \, = \, 2 \langle \psi_{D^C}|\psi_{D^C} \rangle^{SU(2)} \, + \,
4 U_n^2 \langle \psi_{D^C}|\psi_{D^C} \rangle^{SU(1|1)} \, + \, U_n^4 \langle \psi_{D^C}|\psi_{D^C} \rangle^{SU(2)} \, ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle \psi|\psi \rangle^{SU(2)}$ and $\langle \psi|\psi \rangle^{SU(1|1)}$ denote the inner product for the eigenstate of the one-loop dilatation operator in the $SU(2)$ and $SU(1|1)$ sectors, respectively. These are defined in section \[EE-2magnons\].
![In this figure we present the EE for an excited state with two magnons in the BMN limit. The mode number of the state is taken to be $n=1$. On the left part of the figure it is the plot of the EE as a function of the normalised splitting of the spin chain, for different values of $\lambda'$. The correspondence between colour and $\lambda'$ is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0.1$, Yellow $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=1$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=5$. On the right part of the figure we present the EE flow from the IR (lower values of $\lambda'$) to the UV (higher values of $\lambda'$) as we change the splitting point of the spin chain. In order to compare the different curves we have normalised each one by dividing with the EE for $\lambda'\rightarrow \infty$. In this way all the curves approximate to one. The correspondence between colours and normalised splitting (e.g. $N/L$) of the spin chain is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $0.5$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $0.1$, Yellow $\Rightarrow$ $0.01$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $0.001$.[]{data-label="fig:2.1"}](EE_BMN.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the EE for an excited state with two magnons in the BMN limit. The mode number of the state is taken to be $n=1$. On the left part of the figure it is the plot of the EE as a function of the normalised splitting of the spin chain, for different values of $\lambda'$. The correspondence between colour and $\lambda'$ is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0.1$, Yellow $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=1$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=5$. On the right part of the figure we present the EE flow from the IR (lower values of $\lambda'$) to the UV (higher values of $\lambda'$) as we change the splitting point of the spin chain. In order to compare the different curves we have normalised each one by dividing with the EE for $\lambda'\rightarrow \infty$. In this way all the curves approximate to one. The correspondence between colours and normalised splitting (e.g. $N/L$) of the spin chain is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $0.5$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $0.1$, Yellow $\Rightarrow$ $0.01$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $0.001$.[]{data-label="fig:2.1"}](EEUVIRflow_BMN.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
Now having at hand the analytic expressions for both the Renyi entropy and the EE , we will probe the parametric space and extract interesting qualitative behaviours. As can be seen from both & both quantities depend on the position we split the spin chain in two parts ($D$ and its complement $D^C$), the coupling constant $\lambda'$ and the mode number $n$ characterising the excited state[^5]. In figure \[fig:2.1\] we present the EE for an excited state with $n=1$ in the BMN limit. On the left part of the figure it is the plot of the EE as a function of the normalised splitting of the spin chain, for different values of $\lambda'$. As can be seen from the plot (the correspondence colour/$\lambda'$ is explained in the caption of the figure) the EE increases as we increase the value of the coupling. To fully realise/visualise this EE flow from the UV to IR, on the right part of figure \[fig:2.1\] we present the EE as a function of the coupling $\lambda'$, for different values of the splitting point of the spin chain. In order to compare the different curves in a unified manner we have normalised each one by dividing with the EE for $\lambda'\rightarrow \infty$, i.e. $$\label{normal-def}
{\rm Normalised} \, S_{EE}(N,\lambda',n) \, = \, \frac{S_{EE}(N,\lambda',n)}{S_{EE}(N,\infty,n)} \,.$$ Since the EE is related to the central charge of the underlying CFT, this monotonically decreasing behaviour of the EE along the RG flow from $\lambda'\rightarrow\infty$ to $\lambda'\rightarrow 0$ could be related to the existence of a $c$-theorem [@Myers:2010xs; @Myers:2010tj], which connects through an RG flow a fixed point in the UV with another fixed point in the IR.
![In this figure we present the difference between the EE in the BMN limit and twice the EE of the single magnon , when we increase the mode number (from mode number one to two), for different values of $\lambda'$. For the left plot the correspondence colour/$\lambda'$ is Red $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0.1$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0.5$, while for the right plot is Red $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0.01$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0.05$.[]{data-label="fig:2.2"}](EEdif_BMN_n1.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the difference between the EE in the BMN limit and twice the EE of the single magnon , when we increase the mode number (from mode number one to two), for different values of $\lambda'$. For the left plot the correspondence colour/$\lambda'$ is Red $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0.1$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0.5$, while for the right plot is Red $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0.01$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $\lambda'=0.05$.[]{data-label="fig:2.2"}](EEdif_BMN_n2.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
As we pointed out in and verified with the calculations of the EE for the three different rank one sectors in section \[EE-2magnons\], the EE of a single magnon multiplied by the number of impurities (two in our case) appears to be an upper bound for the EE. As can be seen from the two plots of figure \[fig:2.2\] this bound is violated as soon as we move away from the $\lambda'\rightarrow 0$ limit. In order to underline the violation of this bound for finite $\lambda'$ in figure \[fig:2.2\] we plot the the difference between the EE in the BMN limit and twice the EE of the single magnon, when we increase the mode number (from mode number one/left to two/right), for different values of $\lambda'$. As can be seen from the plots, when the coupling increases it is possible to find pieces of the spin chain with EE that violate the bound and as we increase the value of $\lambda'$ more and more pieces acquire EE that violate the bound. Gradually all the pieces of the spin chain will violate the bound and the bigger is the mode number the faster (i.e. with lower value of $\lambda'$) this violation will be implemented. The smaller the part of the chain we cut the more we have to increase the value of $\lambda'$ to violate the bound. In order to decide if it exists a $\lambda'_{crit}$, after which the bound is violated no matter how small is the length of the chain, we need to consider $1/J$ corrections to the EE in .
![In this figure we present the Renyi entropy in the BMN limit (of different orders) as a function of the normalised splitting, for two values of $\lambda'$, $\lambda'=0$ and $\lambda'=5$. The correspondence between color and Renyi order is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=1$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=2$, Blue $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=5$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=10$. The Black curve corresponds to twice the EE of the single magnon. The calculations are for mode number $n=1$.[]{data-label="fig:2.3"}](RE_BMN_lprime0.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the Renyi entropy in the BMN limit (of different orders) as a function of the normalised splitting, for two values of $\lambda'$, $\lambda'=0$ and $\lambda'=5$. The correspondence between color and Renyi order is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=1$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=2$, Blue $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=5$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=10$. The Black curve corresponds to twice the EE of the single magnon. The calculations are for mode number $n=1$.[]{data-label="fig:2.3"}](RE_BMN_lprime5.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
We close this section with a couple of plots for the Renyi entropy and its dependence on the order $\eta$, $\lambda'$ and the normalised splitting $N/L$. In figure \[fig:2.3\] we present the Renyi entropy (of different orders) as a function of the normalised splitting, for two values of $\lambda'$, $\lambda'=0$ and $\lambda'=5$. From these two plots it is clear that for finite $\lambda'$ the bound is violated for any value of the order parameter $\eta$. Furthermore for two order parameters $\eta_1$ & $\eta_2$ with $\eta_1<\eta_2$ the two Renyi entropies $S_R^{(\eta_1)}$ & $S_R^{(\eta_2)}$ obey the inequality $S_R^{(\eta_1)}>S_R^{(\eta_2)}$, making $S_R^{(2)}$ a useful lower bound on $S_R^{(1)}$. This is a known feature of the Renyi entropy from field theory considerations of its functional dependence on the order parameter, (see e.g. [@Beck]).
![In this figure we present the Renyi entropy flow (of different orders) from the IR (lower values of $\lambda'$) to the UV (higher values of $\lambda'$), as we change the normalised splitting (left plot $\Rightarrow$ $N/L=0.5$ & right plot $\Rightarrow$ $N/L=0.2$). As in figure \[fig:2.1\], we have normalized each of the curves by dividing with the Renyi entropy for $\lambda'\rightarrow \infty$. The correspondence between color and Renyi order is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=1$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=2$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=10$.[]{data-label="fig:2.4"}](NormRE_BMN_Lover2.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the Renyi entropy flow (of different orders) from the IR (lower values of $\lambda'$) to the UV (higher values of $\lambda'$), as we change the normalised splitting (left plot $\Rightarrow$ $N/L=0.5$ & right plot $\Rightarrow$ $N/L=0.2$). As in figure \[fig:2.1\], we have normalized each of the curves by dividing with the Renyi entropy for $\lambda'\rightarrow \infty$. The correspondence between color and Renyi order is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=1$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=2$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $\eta=10$.[]{data-label="fig:2.4"}](NormRE_BMN_Lover15.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
In figure \[fig:2.4\] we highlight the flow of the Renyi entropy from the UV to IR (besides that of the EE that we already saw in figure \[fig:2.1\]). In this figure we present the normalised Renyi entropy (see for the definition of this normalisation) flow (of different orders) from the IR (lower values of $\lambda'$) to the UV (higher values of $\lambda'$), as we change the normalised splitting. From these plots it is clear that increasing the order (or decreasing the length of the spin chain we cut) decreases the difference between the IR and the UV values of the Renyi entropy.
Entanglement Entropy from the Algebraic Bethe Ansatz {#ABA-gen}
====================================================
In this section we concentrate on the case where there is an arbitrary number of excitations (magnons) propagating in the spin chain. In such a case the method used in the previous section for the case of two magnons becomes cumbersome because of the large number of excitations. However, it is the formalism of ABA that comes to rescue in this occasion. Following the same reasoning as before, we split the spin chain of length $L$ in two pieces. The first piece which we call $D$ contains the sites from $1$ to $N$, while its complementary $D^C$ contains the sites from $N+1$ to $L$. In the ABA language the wavefunction $|\psi\rangle$ describing the excited state is characterised by a set of $M$ numbers $\{u_i\},\,\, i=1,2,...,M$. The $u_i$’s are called the rapidities of the $M$ magnons and for an on-shell state they should satisfy the Bethe equations of the corresponding sector. Thus (see [@Faddeev:1996iy; @Escobedo:2010xs] for all the details about the formalism of the ABA), $$\label{wave-ABA}
|\psi\rangle \, = \, |\{u_i\}\rangle \, = \, \sum_{a \bigcup \bar{a} \, =
\, \{u_i\}} H(a, \bar{a})\, |a_l\rangle \otimes |\bar{a}_r\rangle \, ,$$ where the sum is over all the possible partitions of the $M$ magnons into two sets. If for example we have two magnons, as in the cases of the CBA we worked so far, the possible partitions are $\left( \{\},\{u_1,u_2\} \right) , \left( \{u_1\},\{u_2\} \right), \left( \{u_2\},\{u_1\} \right)$ & $\left( \{u_1,u_2\}, \{\} \right)$. The set of magnons with rapidities $a_l$ are sitting in the left part of the spin chain, that is in region $D$, while the set of magnons with rapidities $a_r$ are sitting in the complementary region of the chain, that is $D^C$. The function $H(a, \bar{a})$ describes the weight of each partition, it is different in each rank one subsector of the ${\cal N}=4$ SYM and its form is given by (for the various functions appearing in see also Appendix \[app:ABA\]) $$\label{Hdef1}
H(a,\bar{a}) \, = \, f^{a \bar{a}} \, d_r^a \, a_l^{\bar{a}}\, .$$
Starting from it is now straightforward to evaluate the RDM $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RDM-ABA}
\rho_D \, &=& \, \kappa \, \sum_{\bar{c}_r} \,
\sum_{\scriptsize \begin{array}{c} a_l\cup \bar{a}_r \\ b_l\cup \bar{b}_r \end{array}} \,
H(a_l, \bar{a}_r) \, H^*(b_l, \bar{b}_r) \,
\langle \bar{c}_r| \bar{a}_r\rangle \otimes |a_l \rangle
\langle b_l | \otimes \langle \bar{b}_r |\bar{c}_r \rangle
\nonumber \\
&=& \kappa \, \sum_{m=0}^M \, \sum_{a_l^m \, , \, b^m_l} f^{(m)}_{a^m_l b^m_l} \,\,
|a^m_l \rangle \langle b^m_l | \, , \end{aligned}$$ where we have defined the following quantity $$f^{(m)}_{a^m_l b^m_l} \, \equiv \, H(a^{(m)}_l, \bar{a}^{(M-m)}_r) \, H^*(b^{(m)}_l, \bar{b}^{(M-m)}_r) \, \,
\langle \bar{b}^{(M-m)}_r | \bar{a}^{(M-m)}_r \rangle.$$ In $\bar{c}_r$ denotes a complete basis of states of the complementary part of the spin chain $D^C$. In order to get the last expression for the RDM we have used the completeness relation for the basis $\bar{c}_r$ $$\sum_{\bar{c}_r} \, \, |\bar{c}_r \rangle\langle \bar{c}_r| \, = \, I_r\, .$$ Here we should stress that because the scalar product of two states involving different numbers of magnons is zero the RDM can be written as a sum of terms each of which has a definite number of excitations $m$ in the region $D$. Subsequently, for each of these terms one has to sum over all possible partitions of the full set of rapidities into two sets, one having $m$ excitations and its complementary having $M-m$ excitations. Notice that the scalar products appearing in the second line of are generic off-sell products, since none of the sets of rapidities $\bar{a}_r$ nor $\bar{b}_r$ satisfy the Bethe equations for the complementary region of the spin chain. This scalar product is given in terms of the recursion relation in equation . The normalisation constant $\kappa$ is obtained by demanding the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{normal-ABA}
&&Tr_D\rho_D \, = \, 1 \qquad \Rightarrow \qquad
\kappa^{-1} \, = \, \langle\psi|\psi\rangle \, = \, \sum_{m=0}^M \, \sum_{a_l^m}F^{(m)}_{a^{m}_l a^{m}_l} \, ,
\nonumber\\
&&\text{with} \quad F^{(m)}_{a^{m}_l b^{m}_l} \, = \, f^{(m)}_{a^{m}_l c^{m}_l} \, g^{(m)}_{c^{m}_l b^{m}_l}
\qquad {\rm and} \qquad
g^{(m)}_{c^{m}_l b^{m}_l} \, = \, \langle c^{(m)}_l| b^{(m)}_l\rangle \, . \end{aligned}$$ A final comment concerns the dimensionality of the matrices $F^{(m)}$, $f^{(m)}$ and $g^{(m)}$. The dimensionality of each of these square matrices depend on the number $m$ of magnons sitting in the region $D$ and is given by $$d(m) \, \equiv \, \frac{M!}{m!(M-m)!} \, .$$ As we will see in a while it is the matrices $F^{(m)}$ which one has to diagonalise in order to calculate the EE. As a result the numerical complexity of the calculation grows not with the number of the sites of the region $D$ of which the EE we are after, but like $2^M$, that is with the number of magnons running in the spin chain. This advantage is related to the fact that we have employed the powerful technique of the ABA and not that of the CBA.
We are now in position to evaluate the $\eta$-th power of the RDM and take its trace to obtain the Renyi Entropy of the region $D$ as follows $$\rho^{\eta}_D \, = \, \kappa^{\eta} \, \sum_{m=0}^M \left[\rho^{(m)}_D \right]^n
\quad {\rm with} \quad
\left[\rho^{(m)}_D\right]^{\eta} \, = \, \sum_{a^{m}_l, b^{m}_l,c^{m}_l } |a^{(m)}_l \rangle \langle b^{(m)}_l |
\left[F^{(m)}_{a^{m}_l c^{m}_l}\right]^{\eta-1}f^{(m)}_{c^{m}_l b^{m}_l} \Rightarrow
\nonumber$$ $$\label{rton-ABA}
Tr_D \left[\rho_D\right]^{\eta} \, = \, \kappa^{\eta} \, \sum_{m=0}^M \sum_{a^m_l} \,
\left[ F^{(m)}_{a^m_l a^m_l} \right]^{\eta} \, .$$ Thus we see that in order to evaluate the Renyi entropy we need to diagonalise the matrices $\kappa \, F^{(m)}$ and sum their eigenvalues after they are raised to the $\eta^{th}$ power. By taking the $\eta \rightarrow 1$ limit of the Renyi entropy it is straightforward to show that the EE is given by $$\label{EE-ABA}
S_{EE} \, =
\, - \, \sum_{m=0}^M \, Tr\Big[\kappa \, F^{(m)} \, \log{(\kappa \, F^{(m)})}\Big] \, .$$ Thus, as mentioned above, it is enough to diagonalise each of the matrices $\kappa F^{(m)}$. If we denote the eigenvalues of each of these matrices by $\lambda^{(m)}_i$ with $i=1,2,\ldots,d(m)$ then the EE of the part $D$ of the spin chain can be finally written as[^6] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EE-ABA-fin}
S_{EE} \, = \, - \, \sum_{m=0}^M \, \sum_{i=1}^{d(m)} \, \lambda^{(m)}_i \, \log{\lambda^{(m)}_i} \, . \end{aligned}$$
In the final expression , the EE of each one of the three rank one sectors of ${\cal N} =4$ SYM is a function of the length of the spin chain, the position we split it in two parts ($D$ and its complement $D^C$) and the number of excitations (magnons). In figures \[fig:3.1\] & \[fig:3.2\] we focus on the $SU(2)$ sector of the theory.[^7] On the left part of figure \[fig:3.1\] we plot the EE of a spin chain with 14 sites as a function of the position of the splitting point. We plot the EE for different number of magnons, from two to seven. At this point we should point out that there is a perfect match of the EE for the two magnons, between the CBA and the ABA calculations (for all the three rank-one subsectors). That is a non-trivial consistency check for the calculations that we present.
The Bethe roots we use in the calculation of the EE are coming after solving the Bethe equation, with the recursive method of [@Bargheer:2008kj], and distribute themselves along two disjoint cuts on the complex plane[^8]. As can be seen from this plot the EE increases as we increase the number of the magnons, but the qualitative behaviour remains the same. It increases as the splitting point approaches the middle of the chain and it is symmetric under the change $N$ (splitting point) $\rightarrow$ $L-N$.
Our initial motivation in employing the very efficient ABA formulation was reaching the thermodynamic limit, by increasing both the number of magnons and the length of the spin chain. However, this is a very complicated numerical task. As we mentioned before, the calculation of the EE for $M$ magnons in a spin chain boils down to diagonalising matrices with dimension $d(m)$. This means that either a very powerful machine is needed or the problem needs to be formulated in a different basis when the number of magnons increases.
![In this figure we present the EE of an excited state in the $SU(2)$ sector. On the left part of the figure it is the plot of the EE as a function of the normalised splitting of the spin chain. On the right part of the figure it is the plot of the normalised EE (i.e. the EE for $M$ magnons divided by $M$ times the EE of one magnon) again as a function of the normalised splitting. The different colours for the bullets in both plots correspond to different number of magnons present in the spin chain. The correspondence between colour and number of magnons is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ 2 magnons, Green $\Rightarrow$ 3 magnons, Blue $\Rightarrow$ 4 magnons, Black $\Rightarrow$ 5 magnons, Cyan $\Rightarrow$ 6 magnons & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ 7 magnons.[]{data-label="fig:3.1"}](EE_SU2_Mmag.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the EE of an excited state in the $SU(2)$ sector. On the left part of the figure it is the plot of the EE as a function of the normalised splitting of the spin chain. On the right part of the figure it is the plot of the normalised EE (i.e. the EE for $M$ magnons divided by $M$ times the EE of one magnon) again as a function of the normalised splitting. The different colours for the bullets in both plots correspond to different number of magnons present in the spin chain. The correspondence between colour and number of magnons is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ 2 magnons, Green $\Rightarrow$ 3 magnons, Blue $\Rightarrow$ 4 magnons, Black $\Rightarrow$ 5 magnons, Cyan $\Rightarrow$ 6 magnons & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ 7 magnons.[]{data-label="fig:3.1"}](NormEE_SU2_Mmag.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
On the right panel of figure \[fig:3.1\] we plot the normalised EE (i.e. the EE for $M$ magnons divided by $M$ times the EE of one magnon) again as a function of the position of the splitting point. We plot the EE for different number of magnons and the behaviour is different to the one we noticed before. Now increasing the number of magnons decreases the normalised EE. Notice also in the same plot, that the EE for two magnons almost saturates the bound not in the middle of the spin chain but at the splitting points 5/14 and 9/14. The maximum of the curve of the normalised EE is not in the middle also for the three magnons, but eventually as we increase their number this maximum moves to the centre.
![In this figure we present the normalised EE for different number of magnons when the length of the spin chain changes from $L=12$ to $L=20$. The correspondence between colour and length of the spin chain is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $L=12$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $L=14$, Blue $\Rightarrow$ $L=16$, Black $\Rightarrow$ $L=18$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $L=20$.[]{data-label="fig:3.2"}](NormEE_SU2_2m.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the normalised EE for different number of magnons when the length of the spin chain changes from $L=12$ to $L=20$. The correspondence between colour and length of the spin chain is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $L=12$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $L=14$, Blue $\Rightarrow$ $L=16$, Black $\Rightarrow$ $L=18$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $L=20$.[]{data-label="fig:3.2"}](NormEE_SU2_3m.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the normalised EE for different number of magnons when the length of the spin chain changes from $L=12$ to $L=20$. The correspondence between colour and length of the spin chain is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $L=12$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $L=14$, Blue $\Rightarrow$ $L=16$, Black $\Rightarrow$ $L=18$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $L=20$.[]{data-label="fig:3.2"}](NormEE_SU2_4m.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the normalised EE for different number of magnons when the length of the spin chain changes from $L=12$ to $L=20$. The correspondence between colour and length of the spin chain is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $L=12$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $L=14$, Blue $\Rightarrow$ $L=16$, Black $\Rightarrow$ $L=18$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $L=20$.[]{data-label="fig:3.2"}](NormEE_SU2_5m.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the normalised EE for different number of magnons when the length of the spin chain changes from $L=12$ to $L=20$. The correspondence between colour and length of the spin chain is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $L=12$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $L=14$, Blue $\Rightarrow$ $L=16$, Black $\Rightarrow$ $L=18$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $L=20$.[]{data-label="fig:3.2"}](NormEE_SU2_6m.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we present the normalised EE for different number of magnons when the length of the spin chain changes from $L=12$ to $L=20$. The correspondence between colour and length of the spin chain is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ $L=12$, Green $\Rightarrow$ $L=14$, Blue $\Rightarrow$ $L=16$, Black $\Rightarrow$ $L=18$ & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ $L=20$.[]{data-label="fig:3.2"}](NormEE_SU2_7m.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
Until now we kept constant the length of the spin chain, modifying the number of the magnons. In figure \[fig:3.2\] we change this perspective, keeping constant the number of the magnons while changing the length of the spin chain. As can be seen from all the plots of figure \[fig:3.2\], where we present the normalised EE (this is the only quantity that make sense to compare) for different number of magnons (from two to seven) when the length of the spin chain changes, we observe the following pattern. When the number of the magnons is small (from two to four) the curve almost does not change as we change the length of the spin chain. Increasing the number of the magnons, we notice two effects depending on the length of the part of the spin chain we cut: When the length of the cut piece is small the EE increases when we increase the length of the spin chain, while the opposite happens for the EE when the cut piece is close to the half of the spin chain.
In figures \[fig:3.3\] and \[fig:3.4\] we complete the computation of the EE for the three rank one sectors of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM by repeating the calculation for the $SL(2)$ and the $SU(1|1)$ sectors, respectively. In order to numerically perform these computations we use the same MATHEMATICA code as for the $SU(2)$ sector only changing accordingly the definitions for the functions $f$, $g$, $a$ & $d$, as they appear in equations & , as well as the corresponding scattering matrices for the calculation of the Bethe roots.
![In this figure we repeat the calculations that we presented in figure \[fig:3.1\], but for an excited state in the $SL(2)$ sector. The Bethe roots are sitting in two cuts on the real axis. The correspondence between colour and number of magnons is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ 2 magnons, Green $\Rightarrow$ 3 magnons, Blue $\Rightarrow$ 4 magnons, Black $\Rightarrow$ 5 magnons, Cyan $\Rightarrow$ 6 magnons & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ 7 magnons.[]{data-label="fig:3.3"}](EE_SL2_Mmag.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we repeat the calculations that we presented in figure \[fig:3.1\], but for an excited state in the $SL(2)$ sector. The Bethe roots are sitting in two cuts on the real axis. The correspondence between colour and number of magnons is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ 2 magnons, Green $\Rightarrow$ 3 magnons, Blue $\Rightarrow$ 4 magnons, Black $\Rightarrow$ 5 magnons, Cyan $\Rightarrow$ 6 magnons & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ 7 magnons.[]{data-label="fig:3.3"}](NormEE_SL2_Mmag.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
The results for the EE of the $SL(2)$ sector are similar to the ones of the $SU(2)$ sector. We should mention that we have chosen the excited states for which the Bethe roots are sitting in two symmetric cuts on the real axis.[^9] In the plots of the normalised EE there are though some differences. Notice that the EE for two magnons almost saturates the bound in the middle of the spin chain and not in some other points as in the $SU(2)$ case. Also the maximum of the curve of the normalised EE is in the middle of the spin chain until we have five magnons, but as we increase their number this maximum is not in the middle any more. This is the inverse picture with respect to the observations of the $SU(2)$ sector, for the normalised EE.
![In this figure we repeat the calculations that we presented in figure \[fig:3.1\], but for an excited state in the $SU(1|1)$ sector. The correspondence between colour and number of magnons is the following: Green $\Rightarrow$ 3 magnons, Blue $\Rightarrow$ 4 magnons, Black $\Rightarrow$ 5 magnons, Cyan $\Rightarrow$ 6 magnons & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ 7 magnons.[]{data-label="fig:3.4"}](EE_SU11_Mmag.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![In this figure we repeat the calculations that we presented in figure \[fig:3.1\], but for an excited state in the $SU(1|1)$ sector. The correspondence between colour and number of magnons is the following: Green $\Rightarrow$ 3 magnons, Blue $\Rightarrow$ 4 magnons, Black $\Rightarrow$ 5 magnons, Cyan $\Rightarrow$ 6 magnons & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ 7 magnons.[]{data-label="fig:3.4"}](NormEE_SU11_Mmag.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
The EE of the of the $SU(1|1)$ sector has some differences with respect to the other two, namely of the $SU(2)$ & $SL(2)$. This is reflected in the right plot of figure \[fig:3.4\], where for more than three magnons (the case with two magnons and its particularity has been analysed explicitly at the end of section \[EE-2magnons\]) the pattern we observe is different from the other two sectors. Here the maximum of the normalised EE is when we cut the shortest possible piece of the spin chain, while the minimum is always when we cut the spin chain in the middle. In agreement with the observation in the other two sectors, increasing the number of magnons decreases the normalised EE.
Closing this section we should mention that the two features that remain universal, that is independent of the particular excited state we consider, are the following:
- The fact that the EE per magnon decreases as we increase the number of the magnons[^10].
- For the bosonic subsectors $SU(2)$ & $SL(2)$ the behaviour of the EE presented in figures \[fig:3.1\], \[fig:3.2\] and \[fig:3.3\] is universal, as long as one remains within the broad class of two cut solutions. These solutions are of special interest for the thermodynamic limit and the AdS/CFT correspondence.
Conclusions and future directions {#Conclusions}
=================================
The aim of this paper was to exploit integrability in order to shed some light to the behaviour of the Entanglement and Renyi Entropies of the ${\cal N}=4$ SYM spin chain. Generically, the Entanglement and Renyi Entropies depend on the lengths of the spin chain and of the domain of it that we cut, as well as on the details of the excited state whose entropy we are after. These details are the number of propagating magnons, their rapidities and the particular sector on which we focus. Furthermore, since the dilatation operator of ${\cal N}=4$ receives quantum corrections its eigenstates and the associated with them Entanglement and Renyi Entropies will depend on the ’t Hooft coupling $\lambda$. Our goal was to address these questions about how the EE depends on the aforementioned parameters.
After providing the reader with the results for the EE of the vacuum and the single magnon state we analytically calculated the EE of excited states with two magnons in all closed rank one subsectors of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM, namely $SU(2)$, $SU(1|1)$ and $SL(2)$. Our calculation was performed using the formalism of the Coordinate Bethe Ansatz and was leading in the coupling expansion (our states were eigenstates of the one-loop dilatation operators) but exact in the length of the spin chain and of the part of it we cut.
In Section \[EE-BMN\] we calculated the EE of the superconformal primary operator with two excitations in the BMN limit. We derived an analytic expression for the EE which is exact in the coupling $\lambda'=\frac{g_{YM}^2N}{J^2}=\frac{\lambda}{J^2}$ and interpolates between the weak $\lambda'=0$ and strong coupling regimes $\lambda'\rightarrow \infty$. This allowed us to analyse the effect of long-range interactions of the spin chain on the EE. We have found that the EE of a part of the spin chain is a monotonically increasing function of the coupling which saturates to a constant value as $\lambda' \rightarrow \infty$ when we keep the length of the chain we cut fixed. This results to a violation of a certain bound for the EE that is present at weak coupling. Thus, one of our main conclusions is that, as it is physically anticipated, the entanglement between parts of the chain becomes stronger as one increases the coupling $\lambda'$, at least for the superconformal primary operator with two excitations.
In Section \[ABA-gen\] we employed integrability, and more precisely the powerful formalism of the Algebraic Bethe Ansatz in order to calculate numerically the EE of excited states with up to seven magnons in the $SU(2)$, $SU(1|1)$ and $SL(2)$ subsectors. In the $SU(2)$ and $SL(2)$ subsectors we have focused on excited state corresponding to 2-cut solutions of the Bethe equations. Although the absolute value of the EE increases with the number of magnons, its normalised value, that is the EE for an $M$ magnon excited state divided by $M$ times the EE of one magnon, decreases with the the number of magnons. Some differences in the behaviour of the EE as a function of the magnon number for the two bosonic sectors are scrutinised in Section \[ABA-gen\]. The different statistics of the excited states in the $SU(1|1)$ sector lead to a different qualitative behaviour of the normalised EE. This is the only sector that the normalised EE explicitly saturates the bound for the case of two magnons.
A number of very interesting questions remain to be answered. First of all from the perspective of the AdS/CFT correspondence it is important if the calculation of Section \[ABA-gen\] for the $SU(2)$ and $SL(2)$ sectors could be performed for a larger number of magnons in longer spin chains. This would allow one to approach the thermodynamic limit in which case the spin chain states will be dual to certain semi-classical string solutions. However, it seems that for this to be achieved a reformulation of the problem will be needed. In particular one should need to obtain expressions for the product of two off-shell states in the thermodynamic limit. One can then address the question of what is the precise relation between the entropy calculated from the spin chain approach and the one which one may calculate from the dual solutions of the non-linear $\sigma$–model [^11]. The same question can be asked about the exact in $\lambda'$ EE which we have calculated in Section \[EE-BMN\]. Furthermore, it would be interesting to generalise the calculation of Section \[EE-BMN\] to the case of superconformal primary operators with more than two excitations. Another direction would be to calculate the $\frac{1}{J}$ corrections to the BMN EE by considering the near BMN limit.
One could also employ the Perturbative Bethe Ansatz technique to calculate the $g_{YM}^2 N$ corrections to the EE, as an order by order expansion in perturbation theory. One should of course interpret the fact that eigenstates of the dilatation operators (and as a consequence the corresponding EE) will be scheme-dependent. Notice that such a complication is absent both in the BMN limit considered in Section \[EE-BMN\] and in the leading in $g_{YM}^2 N$ calculations of Section \[ABA-gen\].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
GG would like to thank K. Sfetsos for enlightening discussions. DZ acknowledges financial support from the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya.
Algebraic Bethe Ansatz: Essential formulas {#app:ABA}
==========================================
In this appendix we collect all the essential mathematical formulas needed for the construction of the ABA, following the references [@Escobedo:2010xs; @Caetano:2011eb; @Escobedo:2012ama]. We introduce the following functions that determine the rank one subsector of the ${\cal N}=4$ SYM we are working.
$SU(2)$ sector {#su2-sector .unnumbered}
--------------
The expressions for the basic building blocks are $$\label{SU2def}
f(u) \equiv 1 \, + \, \frac{i}{u} \, , \quad
g(u) \equiv \frac{i}{u} \, , \quad
h(u) \equiv \frac{f(u)}{g(u)} = \frac{u+i}{i} \, , \quad
t(u) \equiv \frac{g(u)^2}{f(u)} = \frac{-1}{u(u+i)} \, ,$$ $$a(u) \, \equiv \, \left(u \, + \, \frac{i}{2}\right)^L \, , \quad
d(u) \, \equiv \, \left(u \, - \, \frac{i}{2}\right)^L,$$ while the $SU(2)$ Bethe equations that determine the set of rapidities, are $$1 \, \equiv \, \left(\frac{u_j \, + \, i/2}{u_j \, - \, i/2}\right)^L \prod_{k\neq j}^M \frac{u_j \, - \, u_k\, - \, i}{u_j\, - \, u_k\, +\, i} \,.$$
$SL(2)$ sector {#sl2-sector .unnumbered}
--------------
The expressions for the basic building blocks are $$\label{SL2def}
f(u) \, = \, 1 \, + \, \frac{i}{u} \, , \quad
g(u) \, = \, \frac{i}{u} \, , \quad
a(u) \, = \, \left(u \, - \, \frac{i}{2}\right)^L \, , \quad
d(u) \, = \, \left(u \, + \, \frac{i}{2}\right)^L,$$ while the $SL(2)$ Bethe equations are $$1 \, \equiv \, \left(\frac{u_j \, + \, i/2}{u_j \, - \, i/2}\right)^L \prod_{k\neq j}^M \frac{u_j \, - \, u_k\, + \, i}{u_j\, - \, u_k\, -\, i} \,.$$
$SU(1|1)$ sector {#su11-sector .unnumbered}
----------------
The expressions for the basic building blocks are $$\label{SU11def}
f(u) \, = \, \frac{i}{u} \, , \quad
g(u) \, = \, \frac{i}{u} \, , \quad
a(u) \, = \, \left(u \, + \, \frac{i}{2}\right)^L \, , \quad
d(u) \, = \, \left(u \, - \, \frac{i}{2}\right)^L,$$ while the $SU(1|1)$ Bethe equations are $$1 \, \equiv \, \left(\frac{u_j \, + \, i/2}{u_j \, - \, i/2}\right)^L \, .$$ In order to simplify the expressions we introduce the following shorthand notation $$\label{notation}
F^a \, \equiv \, \prod_{u_j \in \, a} F(u_j) \, ,\qquad
F^{a\bar a} \, \equiv \!\!\!
\prod_{\scriptsize \begin{array}{c} {u_i} \in a \\ v_j \in \bar a \end{array}} \!\!\!F(u_i-v_j)\, ,\qquad
F_<^{aa} \, \equiv \!\!\!
\prod_{\scriptsize \begin{array}{c} {u_i, u_j} \in a \\ i<j \end{array}} \!\!\!F(u_i-u_j) \, .$$ Now we can write the expression for the function $H(a,\bar{a})$, that weights the different partitions of the spin chain, according to the algebraic normalizations of [@Escobedo:2010xs] $$\label{Hdef}
H(a,\bar{a}) \, = \, f^{a \bar{a}} \, d_r^a \, a_l^{\bar{a}}\, ,$$ where $a_{l}$ and $d_r$ are defined as in equations , & , but using instead of $L$ the lengths for the left and the right subchain respectively.
Scalar Product {#scalar-product .unnumbered}
--------------
In order to compute the RDM we need to evaluate the scalar product between two Bethe wavefunctions for arbitrary $\{u\}$ and $\{v\}$. A recursion relation for such an expression is computed analytically in references [@Escobedo:2010xs] and [@Caetano:2011eb]. Here, for completeness, we present the outcome of that computation.
Consider two Bethe states, which are parametrized by $u_i$ and $v_i$, with $i=1,\dots,N$. The scalar product $S_N (\{v\},\{u\}) \equiv \< \{v^*\} | \{u\} \>$ is given by the following recursion relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rec_relation}
&&S_N \left(\{v_1,\dots,v_N\},\{u_1,\dots,u_N\}\right) = \sum_{n} b_n \, S_{N-1}
\left(\{v_1, \dots, \hat v_n,\dots,v_N\},\{\hat u_1,u_2, \dots,u_N\}\right)
\nonumber \\[2pt]
&&\qquad \qquad - \sum_ {n<m} c_{n,m} \, S_{N-1}
\left(\{ u_1,v_1,\dots \hat v_{n}, \dots , \hat v_{m},\dots v_N \}, \{\hat u_1,u_2, \dots,u_N\}\right) \, , \end{aligned}$$ where a Bethe root with a hat means that it is omitted. The definitions for $b_n$ and $c_{n,m}$ are the following $$b_n \, = \, g(u_1-v_n) a(v_n) d(u_1) \prod_{j\neq n}^N \, f(u_1-v_j) \, f(v_j-v_n) \, + \, \left(u_1 \leftrightarrow v_n\right) \, ,$$ $$c_{n,m} \, = \, {g(u_1-v_{n}) \, g(u_1-v_{m}) \, a(v_{m}) \, d(v_{n})} \, {f(v_{n}-v_{m})}
\prod_{j\neq n,m}^N f(v_{n} - v_j) \, f(v_j - v_{m}) \, + \, \left(n \leftrightarrow m\right).$$ Using and substituting the corresponding expressions for the functions $f(u),g(u),a(u)$ and $d(u)$ (from either , or ), it is possible to calculate the scalar product for any of the rank one subsectrors.
Bethe Roots {#app:BR}
===========
In section \[ABA-gen\] we calculate the EE of excited states that belong either on the $SU(2)$ or on the $SL(2)$ or on the $SU(1|1)$ sector. In this appendix we list the Bethe roots of these excited states and in the $SU(2)$ case we also plot them, since they distribute themselves along two disjoint cuts on the complex plane.
We start from the Bethe roots of the excited states of figures \[fig:3.1\] and \[fig:3.2\]. In those figures we are considering spin chains with 12, 14, 16, 18 & 20 sites with a number of magnons ranging from $2$ to $7$. The Bethe roots for these magnons are the following\
\
[: [**L=12**]{}\
2 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.703, 1.703}`,\
3 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-0.478 + 0.500 I, -0.478 - 0.500 I, 1.418}`\
4 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.296 + 0.564 I, -1.296 - 0.564 I, 1.296 - 0.564 I, 1.296 + 0.564 I}`\
5 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.11 + 0.537 I, -1.11 - 0.537 I, 0.979 - I, 1.009, 0.979 + I}`\
6 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-0.676 + I, -0.676, -0.676 - I, 0.676 - I, 0.676, 0.676 + I}` ]{}\
\
[: [**L=14**]{}\
2 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.029, 2.029}`,\
3 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-0.713 + 0.501 I, -0.713 - 0.501 I, 1.754}`\
4 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.644 + 0.601 I, -1.644 - 0.601 I, 1.644 - 0.601 I, 1.644 + 0.601 I}`\
5 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.47 + 0.574 I, -1.47 - 0.574 I, 1.428, 1.37 - 1.043 I, 1.37 + 1.043 I}`\
6 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.16 + 1.01 I, -1.2, -1.16 - 1.01 I, 1.16 - 1.01 I, 1.2, 1.16 + 1.01 I}`\
7 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-0.898 + 0.994 I, -0.898 - 0.994 I, 0.686 + 1.499 I, 0.686 - 1.499 I, `\
` 0.665 - 0.5 I, 0.665 + 0.5 I, -0.907}` ]{}\
\
[: [**L=16**]{}\
2 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.352, 2.352}`,\
3 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-0.922 + 0.502 I, -0.922 - 0.502 I, 2.083}`\
4 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.981 + 0.639 I, -1.981 - 0.639 I, 1.981 - 0.639 I, 1.981 + 0.639 I}`\
5 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.815 + 0.612 I, -1.815 - 0.612 I, 1.721 - 1.1 I, 1.804, 1.721 + 1.1 I}`\
6 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.54 + 1.06 I, -1.6, -1.54 - 1.06 I, 1.54 - 1.06 I, 1.6, 1.54 + 1.06 I}`\
7 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.351 + 1.023 I, -1.396, -1.351 - 1.023 I, 1.230 - 1.464 I, `\
` 1.262 - 0.502 I, 1.262 + 0.502 I, 1.23 + 1.464 I}` ]{}\
\
[: [**L=18**]{}\
2 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.675, 2.675}`,\
3 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.117 + 0.505 I, -1.117 - 0.505 I, 2.408}`\
4 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.312 + 0.675 I, -2.312 - 0.675 I, 2.312 - 0.675 I, 2.312 + 0.675 I}`\
5 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.15 + 0.65 I, -2.15 - 0.65 I, 2.063 - 1.156 I, 2.159, 2.063 + 1.156 I}`\
6 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.89 + 1.1 I, -1.98, -1.89 - 1.1 I, 1.89 - 1.1 I, 1.98, 1.89 + 1.1 I}`\
7 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {1.614 - 1.503 I, 1.702 - 0.511 I, 1.702 + 0.511 I, 1.614 + 1.503 I, `\
` -1.719 + 1.074 I, -1.790, -1.719 - 1.074 I}` ]{}\
\
[: [**L=20**]{}\
2 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.996, 2.996}`,\
3 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.302 + 0.51 I, -1.302 - 0.51 I, 2.732}`\
4 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.64 + 0.71 I, -2.64 - 0.71 I, 2.64 - 0.71 I, 2.64 + 0.71 I}`\
5 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.48 + 0.685 I, -2.48 - 0.685 I, 2.397 - 1.214 I, 2.5, 2.397 + 1.214 I}`\
6 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.23 + 1.17 I, -2.3, -2.23 - 1.17 I, 2.23 - 1.17 I, 2.3, 2.23 + 1.17 I}`\
7 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {1.965 - 1.567 I, 2.090 - 0.525 I, 2.090 + 0.525 I, 1.965 + 1.567 I, `\
` -2.066 + 1.131 I, -2.153, -2.066 - 1.131 I}` ]{}\
\
We only plot the Bethe roots that correspond to a spin chain with 14 sites, since all the other plots are similar.
![The correspondence between colour and number of magnons is the following: Red $\Rightarrow$ 2 magnons, Green $\Rightarrow$ 3 magnons, Blue $\Rightarrow$ 4 magnons, Black $\Rightarrow$ 5 magnons, Cyan $\Rightarrow$ 6 magnons & Magenta $\Rightarrow$ 7 magnons.[]{data-label="fig:app.1"}](BetheRootsSU2L14.pdf "fig:"){width="11cm"}\
The Bethe roots that correspond to the excited states of the figures \[fig:3.3\] ($SL(2)$ sector) and \[fig:3.4\] ($SU(1|1)$ sector), for a spin chain with with $14$ sites, are the following\
\
[\
2 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.352, 2.352}`,\
3 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.889, -3.069, 2.521}`\
4 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.024, -3.268, 3.268, 2.024}`\
5 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.166, -3.472, 3.946, 2.652, 1.726}`\
6 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-1.845, 1.845, -2.822, -4.17, 4.17, 2.822}`\
7 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {4.831, 1.619, 2.415, 3.437, -1.97, -2.998, -4.398}`\
]{}\
and\
\
[\
3 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {0.399, 0.627, 1.038}`\
4 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {0, 0.114, 0.241, 0.399, 0.627}`\
5 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-2.166, -3.472, 3.946, 2.652, 1.726}`\
6 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-0.175, -0.056, 0.056, 0.175, 0.314, 0.5}`\
7 m $\Rightarrow$ ` {-0.399, -0.241, -0.114, 0, 0.114, 0.241, 0.399}`\
]{}\
[99]{}
C. Holzhey, F. Larsen and F. Wilczek, “Geometric and renormalized entropy in conformal field theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**424**]{}, 443 (1994) \[hep-th/9403108\]. P. Calabrese and J. L. Cardy, “Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory,” J. Stat. Mech. [**0406**]{}, P06002 (2004) \[hep-th/0405152\]. S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 181602 (2006) \[hep-th/0603001\]. S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy,” JHEP [**0608**]{}, 045 (2006) \[hep-th/0605073\]. H. Casini, M. Huerta and R. C. Myers, “Towards a derivation of holographic entanglement entropy,” JHEP [**1105**]{}, 036 (2011) \[arXiv:1102.0440 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena, “Generalized gravitational entropy,” JHEP [**1308**]{}, 090 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.4926 \[hep-th\]\]. I. R. Klebanov, D. Kutasov and A. Murugan, “Entanglement as a probe of confinement,” Nucl. Phys. B [**796**]{}, 274 (2008) \[arXiv:0709.2140 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Georgiou and D. Zoakos, “Entanglement entropy of the Klebanov-Strassler model with dynamical flavors,” JHEP [**1507**]{}, 003 (2015) \[arXiv:1505.01453 \[hep-th\]\].
V. Alba, M. Fagotti and P. Calabrese, “Entanglement entropy of excited states,” J. Stat. Mech. [**0910**]{}, P10020 (2009) \[arXiv:0909.1999 \[cond-mat.stat-mech\]\]. J. I. Latorre and A. Riera, “A short review on entanglement in quantum spin systems,” J. Phys. A [**42**]{}, 504002 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.1499 \[cond-mat.stat-mech\]\]. N. Beisert [*et al.*]{}, “Review of AdS/CFT Integrability: An Overview,” Lett. Math. Phys. [**99**]{}, 3 (2012) \[arXiv:1012.3982 \[hep-th\]\]. J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**38**]{}, 1113 (1999) \[Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 231 (1998)\] \[hep-th/9711200\]. A. V. Ramallo, “Introduction to the AdS/CFT correspondence,” Springer Proc. Phys. [**161**]{}, 411 (2015) \[arXiv:1310.4319 \[hep-th\]\]. J. D. Edelstein, J. P. Shock and D. Zoakos, “The AdS/CFT Correspondence and Non-perturbative QCD,” AIP Conf. Proc. [**1116**]{}, 265 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.2534 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Staudacher, “The Factorized S-matrix of CFT/AdS,” JHEP [**0505**]{}, 054 (2005) \[hep-th/0412188\].
J. Mölter, T. Barthel, U. Schollwöck and V. Alba, “Bound states and entanglement in the excited states of quantum spin chains,” J. Stat. Mech. [**1410**]{}, no. 10, P10029 (2014) \[arXiv:1407.0066 \[cond-mat.str-el\]\]. D. E. Berenstein, J. M. Maldacena and H. S. Nastase, “Strings in flat space and pp waves from N=4 superYang-Mills,” JHEP [**0204**]{}, 013 (2002) \[hep-th/0202021\]. N. Beisert, “The $SU(2|2)$ dynamic S-matrix,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**12**]{}, 948 (2008) \[hep-th/0511082\]. S. Lee and R. Russo, “Holographic cubic vertex in the pp-wave,” Nucl. Phys. B [**705**]{}, 296 (2005) \[hep-th/0409261\]. S. Dobashi and T. Yoneya, “Resolving the holography in the plane-wave limit of AdS/CFT correspondence,” Nucl. Phys. B [**711**]{}, 3 (2005) \[hep-th/0406225\]. C. S. Chu, V. V. Khoze and G. Travaglini, “Three point functions in N=4 Yang-Mills theory and pp waves,” JHEP [**0206**]{}, 011 (2002) \[hep-th/0206005\].
G. Georgiou and V. V. Khoze, “BMN operators with three scalar impurites and the vertex correlator duality in pp wave,” JHEP [**0304**]{}, 015 (2003) \[hep-th/0302064\]. G. Georgiou, V. L. Gili and R. Russo, “Operator mixing and three-point functions in N=4 SYM,” JHEP [**0910**]{}, 009 (2009) \[arXiv:0907.1567 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Georgiou and G. Travaglini, “Fermion BMN operators, the dilatation operator of N=4 SYM, and pp wave string interactions,” JHEP [**0404**]{}, 001 (2004) \[hep-th/0403188\]. M. S. Costa, R. Monteiro, J. E. Santos and D. Zoakos, “On three-point correlation functions in the gauge/gravity duality,” JHEP [**1011**]{}, 141 (2010) \[arXiv:1008.1070 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Georgiou, “Two and three-point correlators of operators dual to folded string solutions at strong coupling,” JHEP [**1102**]{}, 046 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.5181 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Georgiou, “SL(2) sector: weak/strong coupling agreement of three-point correlators,” JHEP [**1109**]{}, 132 (2011) \[arXiv:1107.1850 \[hep-th\]\].
N. Beisert, “BMN operators and superconformal symmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B [**659**]{}, 79 (2003) \[hep-th/0211032\].
G. Georgiou, V. L. Gili and R. Russo, “Operator Mixing and the AdS/CFT correspondence,” JHEP [**0901**]{}, 082 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.0499 \[hep-th\]\].
G. Georgiou, V. V. Khoze and G. Travaglini, “New tests of the pp wave correspondence,” JHEP [**0310**]{}, 049 (2003) \[hep-th/0306234\]. G. Georgiou, V. Gili, A. Grossardt and J. Plefka, “Three-point functions in planar N=4 super Yang-Mills Theory for scalar operators up to length five at the one-loop order,” JHEP [**1204**]{}, 038 (2012) \[arXiv:1201.0992 \[hep-th\]\]. R. C. Myers and A. Sinha, “Seeing a c-theorem with holography,” Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 046006 (2010) \[arXiv:1006.1263 \[hep-th\]\]. R. C. Myers and A. Sinha, “Holographic c-theorems in arbitrary dimensions,” JHEP [**1101**]{}, 125 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.5819 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Beck and F. Schlögl, “Thermodynamics of chaotic systems”, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993).
L. D. Faddeev, “How algebraic Bethe ansatz works for integrable model,” hep-th/9605187. J. Escobedo, N. Gromov, A. Sever and P. Vieira, “Tailoring Three-Point Functions and Integrability,” JHEP [**1109**]{}, 028 (2011) \[arXiv:1012.2475 \[hep-th\]\].
T. Bargheer, N. Beisert and N. Gromov, “Quantum Stability for the Heisenberg Ferromagnet,” New J. Phys. [**10**]{}, 103023 (2008) \[arXiv:0804.0324 \[hep-th\]\].
J. Escobedo, “Integrability in AdS/CFT: Exact Results for Correlation Functions,” Ph.D thesis H. Casini and M. Huerta, “Entanglement entropy in free quantum field theory,” J. Phys. A [**42**]{}, 504007 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.2562 \[hep-th\]\].
J. Caetano and J. Escobedo, “On four-point functions and integrability in N=4 SYM: from weak to strong coupling,” JHEP [**1109**]{}, 080 (2011) \[arXiv:1107.5580 \[hep-th\]\].
[^1]: For a review summarising the progress on the calculation of EE in quantum spin systems see [@Latorre:2009zz].
[^2]: To our knowledge no precise relation between the EE, as calculated from the $\sigma-$ model and from the corresponding spin chain, can be found in the literature.
[^3]: This is not the case for the $SL(2)$ subsector where the bound (for $n=1$) is almost saturated when we cut the spin chain in two equal parts, see figure \[fig:3.3\].
[^4]: For weak/strong coupling comparisons of three-point correlators see also [@Costa:2010rz; @Georgiou:2010an; @Georgiou:2011qk].
[^5]: Renyi entropy depends also on the order $\eta$.
[^6]: To be precise we should notice the following: the upper limit in the second summation in is strictly speaking $\min\{M, N \}$ and not $M$. Similarly, the lower limit is $\max\{0, M-(L-N)\}$. The reason is that if $N$ is less than $M$ then in the calculation of the EE contribute only a portion of the possible partitions of the Bethe roots and not the whole.
[^7]: The rapidities of the excited states, for which we calculate the EE, are listed in Appendix \[app:BR\].
[^8]: The MATHEMATICA code to explicitly produce those solutions can be found in Appendix E1 of [@Escobedo:2012ama].
[^9]: The rapidities of the excited states, are listed in Appendix \[app:BR\].
[^10]: Notice that for every value of the normalised splitting $N/L$ the behaviour of the normalised entropy and the EE per magnon is the same.
[^11]: One comment is in order. Notice that while in our calculations the EE is always finite (even at the BMN limit where $J\rightarrow\infty$) while in all the field theory calculations that appear in the literature (see e.g. [@Casini:2009sr]) for free field theories the EE is divergent when the cut-off $a$ is sent to zero.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Missing values widely exist in many real-world datasets, which hinders the performing of advanced data analytics. Properly filling these missing values is crucial but challenging, especially when the missing rate is high. Many approaches have been proposed for missing value imputation (MVI), but they are mostly heuristics-based, lacking a principled foundation and do not perform satisfactorily in practice. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic framework based on deep generative models for MVI. Under this framework, imputing the missing entries amounts to seeking a fixed-point solution between two conditional distributions defined on the missing entries and latent variables respectively. These distributions are parameterized by deep neural networks (DNNs) which possess high approximation power and can capture the nonlinear relationships between missing entries and the observed values. The learning of weight parameters of DNNs is performed by maximizing an approximation of the log-likelihood of observed values. We conducted extensive evaluation on 13 datasets and compared with 11 baselines methods, where our methods largely outperforms the baselines.'
author:
- |
Hongbao Zhang, Pengtao Xie, Eric Xing\
Petuum, Inc
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Missing Value Imputation Based on Deep Generative Models
---
Introduction
============
In real world datasets, missing values are pervasive, caused by incomplete measurement, data corruption, privacy concerns, and so on. For example, consider lab test values in a clinical setting: it is typical that at a certain time point only a small subset of laboratory tests are examined, leaving the values of most tests missed. Such missingness incurs substantial difficulty for analyzing data and distilling insights therefrom.
To address this issue, it is important to perform missing value imputation (MVI): guessing the missing entries based on the observed ones. By filling the missing entries correctly, one can obtain a complete picture of the data which facilitates the extraction of more informed patterns. In addition, since most machine learning (ML) models require the inputs to be fixed-length feature vectors, MVI makes incomplete data ML-ready. In general, MVI is a challenging task, especially when the the missing rate is high. This is due to the following reasons. First, the relationship between observed values and missing values, which is the foundation of designing MVI methods, is unknown in most cases. Previous methods [@DBLP:journals/corr/GondaraW17; @Tran2017MissingMI] make simplistic assumptions such as the relationship is linear, which may not hold in practice. Second, the pattern of missingness is typically irregular: different data instances have different number of missing entries and the positions of these entries are different as well. Such irregularity hinders the design of MVI models. For example, suppose one wants to build a predictive model that maps the observed entries to missing entries. Mathematically, the inputs and outputs of such a model is difficult to be formulated since the missing entries of different examples have different positions.
A variety of methods have been proposed for MVI. While showing promising results, they have certain drawbacks. Several approaches [@DBLP:journals/corr/GondaraW17; @Tran2017MissingMI] use autoencoders for MVI. While empirically effective, they are heuristics-based and lack a principled foundation. Specifically, it is unclear what mathematical objective is defined w.r.t the missing values. Some methods perform MVI based on matrix completion [@cai2010singular; @mazumder2010spectral; @keshavan2010matrix], by assuming the underlying complete data matrix is low-rank. Such an assumption essentially posits that the relationship between observed entries and missing entries is linear. Hence these methods are unable to explore the nonlinear relationship, which are more common in practice. In many methods such as mean imputation, the missing entries are imputed at a population-level: for each feature, the same value (e.g., mean of all observed values of this feature) is used to impute all missing instances of this feature across different data examples. This is problematic since two examples that may be completely different are given the same value.
In this paper, we aim at developing an MVI method that addresses the limitations of existing approaches. First, we formulate MVI as estimating the conditional distribution $p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})$ of missing entries ${\mathcal}{Y}$ based on the observed values ${\mathcal}{X}$, and show that this distribution can be inferred by solving a fixed-point problem (FPP). Such a formulation enables our method to perform example-level imputation where the missing values of a data example is imputed based on the observed values of this example. This FPP involves two conditional distributions bridged by a latent variable. To capture the nonlinear relationship between ${\mathcal}{Y}$ and ${\mathcal}{X}$, we parameterized the two conditional distributions using deep neural networks (DNNs). DNNs are nonlinear functions that possess great approximation power. Hence our method can well capture the nonlinear relationship between observed and missing values. The design of these two distributions enables our method to adapt to any irregularity of positions and numbers of the missing values. The weight parameters of DNNs are estimated by maximizing the approximated log-likelihood of all observed data, via an expectation maximization (EM) algorithm. In the E step, MVI is performed by fixing the model parameters. In the M step, model parameters are updated based on the imputed missing values. Compared with previous approaches, our method possesses the following merits: (1) a well-grounded theoretical foundation; (2) ability of capturing nonlinear relationship between missing and observed values; (3) ability of performing instance-level imputation. We demonstrate the empirical effectiveness of our method on 13 datasets by comparing with 11 baselines.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce related works. Section 3 and 4 present the methods and experimental results. Section 5 concludes the paper.
Related Work
============
Dempster et al [@dempster1977maximum] propose an EM algorithm for maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data. Our method differs from this work in two-fold. First, we estimate the conditional distribution $p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})$ by solving a fixed-point problem. Second, the imputation models of our methods are parameterized by deep neural networks. Several works [@cai2010singular; @mazumder2010spectral; @keshavan2010matrix] have studied missing value imputation from a matrix completion perspective, either via nuclear norm regularization [@cai2010singular; @mazumder2010spectral] or matrix factorization [@keshavan2010matrix]. Buuren and Groothuis-Oudshoorn [@buuren2010mice] propose to iteratively impute the values of each feature through regression on the values of remaining features. All these methods are inherently linear, which may not be sufficient to capture the nonlinear patterns between the observed and missing values. And these methods need to perform singular value decomposition in each iteration, which is computationally heavy. Deep learning models have been explored for MVI. Gondara and Wang [@DBLP:journals/corr/GondaraW17] propose a multiple imputation model based on overcomplete deep denoising autoencoders [@vincent2008extracting]. Tran el al. [@Tran2017MissingMI] propose a cascaded residual autoencoder (CRA) to impute missing modalities. By stacking residual autoencoders, CRA grows iteratively to model the residual between the current prediction and original data. While showing empirical effectiveness, these methods lack a theoretical foundation. Stekhoven and B[ü]{}hlmann [@stekhoven2011missforest] develop a nonparametric method to cope with the imputation of different types of variables simultaneously. Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) [@buuren2010mice] generates imputations based on a set of imputation models, one for each variable with missing values. Similarly, these methods are heuristics-based. A theoretical understanding is missing.
Method {#sec:method}
======
In this section, we study how to perform missing value imputation based on deep generative models. Overall there are three types of missing mechanism: (1) missing completely at random (MCAR), where the propensity for a data item to be missing is completely random; (2) missing at random (MAR), where the propensity for a data item to be missing is not related to the missing data, but it is related to some of the observed data; (3) missing not at random (MNAR), where the data items are missing due to certain underlying mechanisms. In this work, we mainly focus on MNAR.
We assume there are $K$ features at the population level. For each individual data example $n$, it has $O^{(n)}$ ($0\le O^{(n)} \leq K$) observed features ${\mathcal}{X}^{(n)}=\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{O^{(n)}}$ and the rest $K-O^{(n)}$ features ${\mathcal}{Y}^{(n)}=\{y_i\}_{i=1}^{K-O^{(n)}}$ are missing. For different data examples, the missing features are different. We formulate the missing value imputation problem in a probabilistic framework: (1) treat observed and missing features as random variables; (2) given the observed features ${\mathcal}{X}^{(n)}$, infer the conditional distribution of the missing ones $p({\mathcal}{Y}^{(n)}|{\mathcal}{X}^{(n)})$. We introduce a latent variable ${\mathbf}{z}^{(n)}\in \mathbb{R}^{J}$ to learn the latent representation of this data example and assume ${\mathcal}{X}^{(n)}$ and ${\mathcal}{Y}^{(n)}$ are conditionally independent given ${\mathbf}{z}^{(n)}$: $$p({\mathcal}{X}^{(n)},{\mathcal}{Y}^{(n)}|{\mathbf}{z}_n)=p({\mathcal}{X}^{(n)}|{\mathbf}{z}_n)p({\mathcal}{Y}^{(n)}|{\mathbf}{z}_n).$$
In the sequel, we drop $n$ from the notations for simplicity. Based on ${\mathbf}{z}$, the conditional distribution $p({\mathcal}{Y}^{(n)}|{\mathcal}{X}^{(n)})$ can be calculated in the following way: $$\centering
\label{eq:y_x}
\begin{array}{l}
p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})
=\int_{{\mathbf}{z}}p({\mathcal}{Y},{\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X})
=\int_{{\mathbf}{z}}\frac{p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathcal}{Y},{\mathbf}{z})}{p({\mathcal}{X})}
=\int_{{\mathbf}{z}}\frac{p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathbf}{z})p({\mathbf}{z})}{p({\mathcal}{X})}
=\int_{{\mathbf}{z}}\frac{p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathbf}{z})p({\mathcal}{X}|{\mathbf}{z})p({\mathbf}{z})}{p({\mathcal}{X})}
=\int_{{\mathbf}{z}}\frac{p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathbf}{z})p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathbf}{z})}{p({\mathcal}{X})}\\
=\int_{{\mathbf}{z}}p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathbf}{z})p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X})
=\mathbb{E}_{p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X})}[p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathbf}{z})]
\approx p({\mathcal}{Y}|\mathbb{E}[{\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X}])
\end{array}$$ where the last step is first-order Taylor approximation of $\mathbb{E}_{p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X})}[p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathbf}{z})]$. An intuitive interpretation of this equation is that: given the observed features, we first infer the latent representation ${\mathbb}{E}[{\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X}]$, then generate the missing features by inferring $p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X}])$. To calculate ${\mathbb}{E}[{\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X}]$, we need to infer $p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X})$, which can be done in the following way: $$\label{eq:z_x}
\begin{array}{l}
p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X})
=\int_{{\mathcal}{Y}}p({\mathbf}{z},{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})
=\int_{{\mathcal}{Y}}\frac{p({\mathbf}{z},{\mathcal}{Y},{\mathcal}{X})}{p({\mathcal}{X})}
=\int_{{\mathcal}{Y}}\frac{p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},{\mathcal}{Y})p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathcal}{Y})}{p({\mathcal}{X})}
=\int_{{\mathcal}{Y}}p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},{\mathcal}{Y})p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})\\
=\mathbb{E}_{p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})}[p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},{\mathcal}{Y})]
\approx p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},\mathbb{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])]\\
\end{array}$$ Similarly, the last step is obtained using first order Taylor approximation. As can be seen from Eq.(\[eq:y\_x\]) and Eq.(\[eq:z\_x\]), $p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})$ and $p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X})$ can be estimated using fixed-point iteration method which iteratively performs the following two steps until convergence: (1) given $p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})$, substitute it into $p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},\mathbb{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])]$ as an approximation of $p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X})$; (2) given $p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})$, substitute it into $p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},\mathbb{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])]$ as an approximation of $p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X})$. Figure \[fig:ae\_inference\] illustrates this process. We initialize the missing values $\mathbb{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}]$ with $y_0$, concatenate it with the observed values $x$, and feed the concatenation to $p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},\mathbb{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])$, which is called an encoder. Then we calculate ${\mathbb}{E}[{\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},\mathbb{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}]]$ and feed it to $p({\mathcal}{Y}|\mathbb{E}[{\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X}])$, which is called a decoder to get a refined estimation of the missing entries. This two steps iterates until convergence.
Next, we discuss how to parameterize $p({\mathcal}{Y}|\mathbb{E}[{\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X}])$ and $p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},\mathbb{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])]$. Similar to variational autoencoder [@kingma2013auto], we use deep neural networks to perform such parameterization. To parameterize $p({\mathcal}{Y}|\mathbb{E}[{\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X}])$, we first generate two $K$ dimensional vectors using deep networks (represented by $f(\cdot)$ and $g(\cdot)$): ${\boldsymbol}\mu=f(\mathbb{E}[{\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X}])$ and ${\boldsymbol}\sigma=g(\mathbb{E}[{\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X}])$. Then for each missing feature $y\in{\mathcal}{Y}$, let $i\in\{1,\cdots,K\}$ denote its index. If $y$ is a continuous variable, the distribution defined on $y$ is a univariate Gaussian ${\mathcal}{N}(y|\mu_i, \sigma_i)$ where $\mu_i$ and $\sigma_i$ are the $i$-th dimension of ${\boldsymbol}\mu$ and ${\boldsymbol}\sigma$. If $y$ is a binary variable, then the distribution is a Bernoulli distribution where $p(y=1)=1/(1+\exp(-\mu_i))$. Similarly, we use deep networks (represented by $h(\cdot)$ and $l(\cdot)$) to parameterize $p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},\mathbb{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])$ as a multivariate Gaussian distribution ${\mathcal}{N}({\mathbf}{z}|h({\mathcal}{X}\oplus \mathbb{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}]), l({\mathcal}{X}\oplus \mathbb{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}]))$ and ${\mathcal}{X}\oplus \mathbb{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}]$ denotes the concatenation of the observed features ${\mathcal}{X}$ and imputed features $\mathbb{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}]$ (in the order of their indexes).
![An iterative process of imputing missing values. []{data-label="fig:ae_inference"}](figs/ae_crop){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Next, we discuss how to learn the parameters of the deep networks. First, we show that the log-likelihood of the observed values can be approximated by a function of $p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})$, $p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])$, $p({\mathcal}{X}|{\mathbf}{z})$, and $p({\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}]|{\mathbf}{z})$, where $p({\mathcal}{X}|{\mathbf}{z})$ and $p({\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}]|{\mathbf}{z})$ are parameterized by the same neural networks $f(\cdot)$ and $g(\cdot)$ defined before. $$\label{eq:vi_x_y}
\begin{array}{l}
\log p({\mathcal}{X})\\
= {\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})}[\log p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathcal}{Y})]
-{\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})}[\log p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})]\\
\approx \log p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])
-{\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})}[\log p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})]\\
={\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])}[\log p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}],{\mathbf}{z})]-{\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])}[\log p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])]
-{\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})}[\log p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})]\\
={\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])}[\log p({\mathcal}{X}|{\mathbf}{z})]+{\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])}[\log p({\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}]|{\mathbf}{z})]+{\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])}[\log p({\mathbf}{z})]\\
\;\;\;-{\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])}[\log p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}])]
-{\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})}[\log p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})]
\end{array}$$ We then perform parameter learning by maximizing the approximation of $\log p({\mathcal}{X})$ using an expectation maximization (EM) algorithm, which iteratively performs the following two steps until convergence. First, in the E(expectation) step, we fix the weight parameters of neural networks and infer $p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})$. This is basically the missing value imputation task, which can be accomplished by executing the fixed-point iteration method between Eq.(\[eq:y\_x\]) and Eq.(\[eq:z\_x\]). The (fixed) weight parameters of neural networks are needed to calculate these two equations. In the (M)aximization step, we fix $p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})$ (and therefore ${\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}]$), and estimate the model parameters. The estimation can be conducted using the stochastic gradient variational Bayes algorithm [@kingma2013auto].
$$\begin{array}{l}
p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}],{\mathbf}{z}) \\
= p({\mathcal}{X}|{\mathbf}{z}) p({\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}]|{\mathbf}{z}) p({\mathbf}{z})
\end{array}$$
According to the same fact used in Eq.(\[eq:vi\_x\_y\]), we have $$\label{eq:vi_x_y}
\begin{array}{l}
\log p({\mathcal}{X}^{(n)},{\mathcal}{Y}^{(n)}, {\mathbf}{z}^{(n)})= {\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathcal}{Y}^{(n)}|{\mathcal}{X}^{(n)})}[\log p({\mathcal}{X}^{(n)},{\mathcal}{Y}^{(n)},{\mathbf}{z}^{(n)})]\\
-{\mathbb}{E}_{p({\mathcal}{Y}^{(n)}|{\mathcal}{X}^{(n)})}[\log p({\mathcal}{Y}^{(n)}|{\mathcal}{X}^{(n)})]\\
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\log p(x)\\
\geq {\mathbb}{E}_{q(y)}[\log p(x,y)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(y)}[\log q(y)]\\
\geq {\mathbb}{E}_{q(y)}[{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log p(x,y,z)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log q(z)]]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(y)}[\log q(y)]\\
\end{array}$$
we maximize this lower bound by alternating among $q(y)$, $q(z)$ and model parameters of these distributions denoted by $\Theta$.
#### Solve $q(y)$
The maximum of ${\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log p(x,y,z)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log q(z)]$ is $\log p(x,y)$. The optimal solution of $q(y)$ is $p(y|x)$, which can be calculated as $$\begin{array}{l}
p(y|x)\\
=\int_{z}p(y,z|x)\\
=\int_{z}\frac{p(x,y,z)}{p(x)}\\
=\int_{z}\frac{p(x,y|z)p(z)}{p(x)}\\
=\int_{z}\frac{p(y|z)p(x|z)p(z)}{p(x)}\\
=\int_{z}\frac{p(y|z)p(x,z)}{p(x)}\\
=\int_{z}p(y|z)p(z|x)\\
=\mathbb{E}_{p(z|x)}[p(y|z)]\\
\approx p(y|\mathbb{E}[z|x])
\end{array}$$
#### Solve $q(z)$
Maximize $$\begin{array}{l}
{\mathbb}{E}_{p(y|x)}[{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log p(x,y,z)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log q(z)]] \\
\approx {\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log p(x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x],z)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log q(z)]
\end{array}$$ The optimal solution is $p(z|x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x])$
$$\begin{array}{l}
{\mathbb}{E}_{p(y|x)}[{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log p(x,y,z)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log q(z)]]-{\mathbb}{E}_{p(y|x)}[\log p(y|x)]\\
\end{array}$$
Fix $p(y|x)$, the lower bound becomes $$\begin{array}{l}
{\mathbb}{E}_{p(y|x)}[{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log p(x,y,z)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log q(z)]]+\text{const}\\
\approx {\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log p(x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x],z)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log q(z)]+\text{const}
\end{array}$$
choose $q(z)$ to be $p(z|x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x])$, $$\begin{array}{l}
{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log p(x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x],z)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log q(z)]\\
={\mathbb}{E}_{p(z|x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x])}[\log p(x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x],z)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{p(z|x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x])}[\log p(z|x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x])]
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
p(x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x],z)\\
=p(x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x]|z)p(z)\\
=p(x|z)p({\mathbb}{E}[y|x]|z)p(z)\\
\end{array}$$
$p(z)$ Gaussian; $p(x|z)$ neural network; $p({\mathbb}{E}[y|x]|z)$ neural network.
========
$$\begin{array}{l}
{\mathbb}{E}_{q(y)}[\log p(x,y)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(y)}[\log q(y)]\\
={\mathbb}{E}_{p(y|x)}[\log p(x,y)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{p(y|x)}[\log p(y|x)]\\
\end{array}$$
Fix $p(y|x)$, the expectation can be approximated by $$\begin{array}{l}
{\mathbb}{E}_{q(y)}[\log p(x,y)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(y)}[\log q(y)]\\
={\mathbb}{E}_{p(y|x)}[\log p(x,y)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{p(y|x)}[\log p(y|x)]\\
\propto {\mathbb}{E}_{p(y|x)}[\log p(x,y)]\\
\approx \log p(x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x])\\
\geq {\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log p(x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x],z)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q(z)}[\log q(z)]\\
={\mathbb}{E}_{p(z|x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x])}[\log p(x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x],z)]-{\mathbb}{E}_{p(z|x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x])}[\log p(z|x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x])]\\
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
p(x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x],z)\\
=p(x,{\mathbb}{E}[y|x]|z)p(z)\\
=p(x|z)p({\mathbb}{E}[y|x]|z)p(z)\\
\end{array}$$
$p(z)$ Gaussian; $p(x|z)$ neural network; $p({\mathbb}{E}[y|x]|z)$ neural network.
We formulate the missing data imputation problem as a generation problem. Given a data example, we use $x$ to denote the observed data and $y$ to denote the missing data. The goal is to infer the missing data $y$ given the observed data $x$. Specifically, we model the following distribution: $p(y|x)$. We first develop a general framework to characterize this distribution. Later, we will instantiate it to specific generative models including variational autoencoder and generative adversarial network.
To model this distribution, we introduce an auxiliary random variable $z$. Using basic principles in probablity, we show that p(y|x) is equivalent to $\mathbb{E}_{p(z|x)}[p(y|z)]$, which involve two new distributions $p(z|x)$ and $p(y|z)$. It can be shown that this distribution can be approximated using $p(y|\mathbb{E}[z|x])$. To compute this quantity, we need to infer the distribution $p(z|x)$. It can be shown that this distribution equals to $\mathbb{E}_{p(y|x)}[p(z|x,y)]$, which can be approximated using $p(z|x,\mathbb{E}[y|x]))$. To compute this distribution, we need to compute $\mathbb{E}[y|x]$. To compute this expectation, we need the distribution $p(y|x)$, which can be estimated using Eq.(\[\]). To this end, this problem becomes an iterative inference problem. Starting from some initial guess of $p(z|x)$, we first obtain an approximated estimation of $p(y|x)$. Then we plug $p(y|x)$ into Eq.(\[\]) to get an approximated estimation of $p(z|x)$. Then this refined $p(z|x)$ is plugged back to Eq.(\[\]) to refine the estimation of $p(y|x)$. These two steps iterate until convergence.
$$\begin{array}{l}
p(z|x)\\
=\int_{y}p(z,y|x)\\
=\int_{y}\frac{p(z,y,x)}{p(x)}\\
=\int_{y}\frac{p(z|x,y)p(x,y)}{p(x)}\\
=\int_{y}p(z|x,y)p(y|x)\\
=\mathbb{E}_{p(y|x)}[p(z|x,y)]\\
\approx p(z|x,\mathbb{E}[y|x])]\\
\end{array}$$
We use deep neural networks to parameterize $p(y|\mathbb{E}[z|x])$. Let $p(y|\mathbb{E}[z|x])=\mathcal{N}(y|g(\mathbb{E}[z|x]), \textrm{text}(h(\mathbb{E}[z|x])))$, where $g(\mathbb{E}[z|x])$ is a deep neural network which takes the vector $\mathbb{E}[z|x]$ as input and produces a $k$-dimensional vector. $h(\mathbb{E}[z|x])$ is another neural network that takes $\mathbb{E}[z|x]$ as input and output a $k$-dimensional vector. $\mathcal{N}(y|g(\mathbb{E}[z|x]), \textrm{diag}(h(\mathbb{E}[z|x])))$ is a multivariate Gaussian distribution where the mean vector is $g(\mathbb{E}[z|x])$ and the covariance matrix is $\textrm{diag}(h(\mathbb{E}[z|x]))$. Then $\mathbb{E}[p(y|\mathbb{E}[z|x])]=g(\mathbb{E}[z|x])$. Similarly, the distribution $p(z|x,\mathbb{E}[y|x])]$ can be approximated with deep neural networks. Let $p(z|x,\mathbb{E}[y|x])]=\mathcal{N}(y|f([x,\mathbb{E}[y|x]]), \textrm{text}(e([x,\mathbb{E}[y|x]])))$, where $f(\cdot)$ and $e(\cdot)$ are neural networks. $[x,\mathbb{E}[y|x]]$ denotes the concatenation of $x$ and $\mathbb{E}[y|x]$. $\mathbb{E}[z|x]$ can be approximated with $f([x,\mathbb{E}[y|x]]$.
#### Convergence Analysis
$$\begin{array}{l}
\log p({\mathcal}{X})\\
\geq {\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[\log p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathcal}{Y})]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[\log q({\mathcal}{Y})]\\
\geq {\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathbf}{z})}[\log p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathcal}{Y},{\mathbf}{z})]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathbf}{z})}[\log q({\mathbf}{z})]]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[\log q({\mathcal}{Y})]\\
\end{array}$$
We optimize this lower bound by alternating among $q({\mathcal}{Y})$, $q({\mathbf}{z})$, and distributions’ parameters denoted by $\Theta$. Fixing $q({\mathcal}{Y})$, and $\Theta$, the subproblem defined on $q({\mathbf}{z})$ is ${\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathbf}{z})}[\log p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathcal}{Y},{\mathbf}{z})]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathbf}{z})}[\log q({\mathbf}{z})]]$, which can be approximated by ${\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathbf}{z})}[\log p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[{\mathcal}{Y}],{\mathbf}{z})]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathbf}{z})}[\log q({\mathbf}{z})]$ and the optimal solution is $$q^*({\mathbf}{z})=p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X}, {\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[{\mathcal}{Y}])$$ Fixing $q({\mathbf}{z})$ to its optimal solution, we have ${\mathbb}{E}_{q^*({\mathbf}{z})}[\log p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[{\mathcal}{Y}],{\mathbf}{z})]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q^*({\mathbf}{z})}[\log q^*({\mathbf}{z})]=\log p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[{\mathcal}{Y}])$. With $\Theta$ fixed, the lower bound becomes $$\begin{array}{l}
{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[\log p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[{\mathcal}{Y}])]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[\log q({\mathcal}{Y})] \\
\approx {\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[\log p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathcal}{Y})]]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[\log q({\mathcal}{Y})] \\
= {\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[\log p({\mathcal}{X},{\mathcal}{Y})]-{\mathbb}{E}_{q({\mathcal}{Y})}[\log q({\mathcal}{Y})]
\end{array}$$ The optimal solution of $q({\mathcal}{Y})$ is $$q^*({\mathcal}{Y})=p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}).$$ which can be approximated by $p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathbb}{E}[{\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X}])$. Plugging $q^*({\mathcal}{Y})$ into Eq.(\[\]), we get $$q^*({\mathbf}{z})=p({\mathbf}{z}|{\mathcal}{X}, {\mathbb}{E}[{\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X}]).$$ which is exactly Eq.(\[\]). This proves that Algorithm \[\] is maximizing a lower bound of the observed data using coordinate ascent, whose convergence can be guaranteed.
Experiment
==========
We evaluated our method on various publicly available datasets, with various percentages of missing values and compared with 11 baseline methods both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Datasets
--------
We use 13 datasets from the UCI repository: 10 for classification tasks and 3 for regression tasks. Table \[tab:data-dscription\] shows the statistics of these datasets. The numbers of data examples vary from about 100 to over 3000 while the numbers of features vary from 4 to 60. These features are of various types, including ordinal, categorical, and continuous. Min-max normalization was used for feature normalization.
Most of the original datasets have no missing entries. We simulated the missingness by using Algorithm \[alg:miss-strategy\] to generate two types of missing data: missing not at random with uniform missingness (mnar-uniform) and missing not at random with random missingness (mnar-random). In uniform setting, data records are cropped entirely, i.e. all features are not presenting in missing records. In random setting, data records only miss part of their features. In reality, it won’t make much sense to predict a record if there is no available information of it. As a result, most of our work focus on mnar-random case, where we own partial knowledge of the missing records. Fixing $t$ will produce consistent missing rates for different datasets. All the missing entries are filled in by the mean of remained training data on a feature basis, except in last experiment where we investigated the influence of various initialization methods. This means the cropped entries will not be accessed during the whole training and inference process, so the models will not know the ground truth. The final evaluation metric that we use is the sum of root mean squared error given in following form $\text{RMSE}_{\text{Sum}}(p, t) = \sum_{j=1}^{m} \sqrt[]{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(p_{ij} - t_{ij})^2 }{n} }$ where suppose p is the imputation result and t is true data matrix, with n sample rows and m feature columns, we compute the root mean squared errors feature-wise and then sum them up.
Set target missing percentage $T$ and also state the missing strategy (random or uniform missing). Suppose number of data sample is $N$, randomly generate vector $v$ with size $N$. Randomly choose two attributes $a_1, a_2$ in the dataset $t = T$ Set sample attributes to missing where $v < t$ and ($a_1 < \text{mean}(a_1)$ or $a_2 < \text{mean}(a_2)$) Randomly set attributes to missing where $v < t$ and ($a_1 < \text{mean}(a_1)$ or $a_2 < \text{mean}(a_2)$) Calculate the missing percentage $p$ and adjust $t$ if $p \neq T$, otherwise quit the loop
Experimental Settings
---------------------
We used the Adam [@DBLP:journals/corr/KingmaB14] optimizer in our experiment. The learning rate was set to 1e-3 and the batch size was set to 50 for all datasets. The dimension of the hidden variable ${\mathbf}{z}$ was set to 100. We parameterized with feedforward networks having two hidden layers where the number of units is 128 and 64 respectively. For, the networks have two hidden layers as well, with 64 and 128 units respectively. The activation function was set to tanh. In the stochastic gradient variational Bayes algorWe sample from $\mathcal{N}(0, 0.01)$ Gaussian distribution in sample layer. The variance of the Gaussian distribution has an impact on the performance. From the experiment finding it appears that usually the higher the variance the worse performance the model will achieve. We have two extra hyperparameters which are the number of inference operation and number of training step before we perform inference update on training data. They are important for the model performance. Too much inference in early training stage will not help the imputation as the model parameters are still not well updated. In most of our experiments the inference time is set to 2 and the training interval is set to 5. And we run 100 epoch to convergence.
We compared with the following 11 baselines: Mean/Median imputation, Zero imputation, SoftImpute [@mazumder2010spectral], MICE [@buuren2010mice], MissForest [@stekhoven2011missforest], KNN [@altman1992introduction], PCA, AE [@rumelhart1985learning], DAE [@DBLP:journals/corr/GondaraW17], and RAE [@Tran2017MissingMI]. For Mean/Median imputation, the missing entries are filled by the feature-wise mean/median value computed from observed data, and Zero imputation fills missing entries by zero. SoftImpute uses iterative soft-thresholded singular value decomposition to impute the missing value. MICE iteratively imputes each feature by regression on the rest features. MissForest is a non-parametric approach that directly predicts missing values by training a random forest model on observed data. KNN approximates the missing value in each data sample by the corresponding value of the closest data example. PCA fits on the incomplete data with some initialization on the missing entries and estimates them with calculated principal components. AE, DAE, and RAE work mostly in the same manner. They all have an encoder to map the input to some encoded feature and use a decoder to map the feature to some output. For AE the input and output are the same. For DAE the input is the incomplete data with added noise on observed entries and the output is the original incomplete data. For RAE the input is the same as DAE one but the output is the residual between the corrupted and original incomplete data. All three models share the same model structure as our method uses. Encoded dimension can be tuned to achieve better solution for each model. On each dataset, each model is run multiple times to get multiple imputation result for analysis so we take advantage of Multiple Imputation (MI) [@schafer1999multiple].
Besides these deep models, we also compare our method with MICE, MissForest, KNN, PCA and SoftImpute. For these methods we use existing packages to record the final performance. The error analysis uses $ \text{RMSE}_{\text{Sum}} $ as evaluation metric performed on scaled data in order to remove influence from diverse ranges of features.
Experiment Results
------------------
Table \[tab:rnd-50\] shows the imputation performance on datasets with a 50% missing rate. Our method outperforms all the baselines on 11 out of 13 datasets by reducing error up to \~7%. This shows the generative model with EM algorithm can lead the generated missing value closer to the ground truth, i.e. $\hat{p}({\mathcal}{Y} \mid {\mathcal}{X})$ closer to true $p({\mathcal}{Y} \mid {\mathcal}{X})$, in various situations. The Mean/Median/Zero imputation only use fixed numbers to replace the missing values which cannot fully represent the intrinsic correlation among features and only serve as a general and blur estimation, although mean and median remain strong competitors in our compared baselines, which is due to the reason that when the data is not skewed, i.e. there doesn’t exist much outliers in the dataset, the mean/median can represent the most common information of the data. MICE, KNN and SoftImpute are inherently linear and cannot capture nonlinear feature patterns so they perform poorer than our method. Among MICE, MissForest, KNN, PCA and SoftImpute, MissForest takes longer time to train and estimate the missing value since it requires quite amount of trees to make decision on complicated dataset. MissForest and KNN can easily overfit on training data. And since they are based on heuristic rules, they don’t capture inter-correlation among features and perform poorer than our method. Such similar performance is also shown in our qualitative analysis, which will be discussed later.
Table \[tab:rnd-vary\] shows the imputation performance on datasets with various missing rates, 25% and 75% in our setting to represent low and high missing situation. When the rate is low, our method outperforms baselines on 8/13 datasets while most of the methods tend to achieve comparable results. It is intuitive as when the missing rate is small, the observed data can provide enough information to infer the missing entries using different models. When the rate is super high, it is hard for models to learn inter-correlation among features. In such situation the imputation raises a higher demand on model to capture those relations. The performance is more diverged compared to previous results while our method still outperforms other baseline methods on over a half cases. In reality, when the dataset is largely missing, it is not wise to directly impute the missing data. It is better to use techniques such as heuristics or correlation analysis to remove unnecessary features in order to reduce the missing rate and then perform the missing imputation task. And although not a main point of study, we still report the performance on a setting of 50% uniformly missing data, as show in table \[tab:uniform-50\], in which our method still achieves better results on most datasets. All above results demonstrate the power of our model to learn data pattern and generate more real data for missing values.
The main goal of imputing missing value is to generate real-like data to help with analysis of the dataset, for example, train a machine learning model to classify an unseen data point. Apparently in general, with more information in data, the classification will be more accurate. So besides the analysis of how close the imputed data is to the true data, we also care about how meaningful the imputed data is to the analytics, i.e. how much intrinsic correlation among features we catch in the imputed data. We fit multi-layer perceptron (MLP) model for all datasets and change the loss between cross entropy loss and squared error loss based on the task. For the classification task we use cross entropy loss and report test accuracy and for the regression task we use squared error loss and report final root mean squared error (RMSE) as evaluation metric.
[r]{}[0.4]{}
Table \[tab:quality-perform\] shows the results performance of classification/regression tasks on datasets with 50% missing rate using mnar-random missing generation strategy. The Mean remains a strong competitor besides RAE model. The result, in a qualitative way, demonstrates that our method better captures the intrinsic data pattern on a wide variation of datasets. And the imputed data possess higher quality in different data analysis tasks.
Lastly we investigate the model performance given different initialization. We compare using mean/zero/median and random value to initialize the dataset. The random value is generated with a $\mathcal{N}(0, 1)$ Gaussian distribution. The result is shown in table \[tab:init\]. We see initializing with mean value yields the best performance on most datasets. This makes sense as we iteratively use imputed data to train the model and update the missing entries with trained weights, it is better to start from a good indicator. A deviated starting point will make the initial learning of our method hard to capture real correlation among features and thus make the entire process not able to achieve best imputation result.
Conclusions and Future Works
============================
In this paper, we study the imputation of missing values. We formulate this problem as a generative process: give the observed values ${\mathcal}{X}$, generate the missing ones ${\mathcal}{Y}$, by estimating a conditional distribution $p({\mathcal}{Y}|{\mathcal}{X})$. We show that this distribution can be estimated by solving a fixed-point problem defined on two conditional distributions that are parameterized by deep neural networks. In experiments on 10 datasets, our method outperforms 11 baseline methods.
For future works, we will extend our method to missing value imputation in time-series data. The general probabilistic framework developed in Section \[sec:method\] can be largely re-used. The two conditional distributions need to be redesigned to accommodate the time-series structure. Possible candidates are the variational recurrent network [@chung2015recurrent].
Another direction to explore is task-aware missing value imputation. Instead of performing the MVI and the target task sequentially: first filling the missing data, then feed the imputed data to the downstream task, we can perform them jointly to better explore the synergistic relationship between them. On one hand, more accurate imputation of missing values prepares better inputs for the target task, which boosts the task’ performance. On the other hand, during training, the performance of the target task provides guidance to MVI such that the imputed values are more suitable for this task.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
title: '**The Nature of Radio Emission from Distant Galaxies**'
---
i\
[$\backslash$]{} ß[[$^{s}$]{}]{}
i[[$i$]{} ]{}
[*Dissertation Summary*]{}
E. A. Richards, Department of Physics & Astronomy\
Arizona State University, Box 871504\
Tempe, AZ 85287-1504; eric.richardsasu.edu\
Thesis Work Conducted at: National Radio Astronomy Observatory & University of Virginia
Ph. D. thesis directed by K. I. Kellermann; degree awarded August 1999
In this thesis I present the observational results of a multi-wavelength campaign aimed at investigating the nature of radio emission from distant galaxies, and in particular to understand their implication for star-formation at early epochs. The radio observations were centered on the Hubble Deep Field (HDF; Williams, R. 1996, AJ, 112, 1335) and conducted at 8.5 GHz and 1.4 GHz using the Very Larg Array (VLA) and the Multi-Element Microwave Linked Interferometer (MERLIN). These observations represent the most sensitive radio survey thus far, achieving rms flux densities of 1.6 $\mu$Jy (8.5 GHz) and 4 $\mu$Jy (1.4 GHz) respectively, at resolutions from 02 to 6(Richards, E. A. et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1039; Richards, E. A. 1999, ApJ, in press; Muxlow, T. W. 1999 in preparation). The results of the radio study and optical identifications of the 72 radio sources detected in a complete sample ($S_{1.4} \geq$ 40 $\mu$Jy) located within the HDF and its flanking fields show that:
- The 1.4 GHz direct source count remains steep to 40 $\mu$Jy with a differential slope of 2.4. Fluctuation analysis suggests continuity in the count to $\sim$1 $\mu$Jy, implying a surface density of discrete radio sources of 60 arcmin$^{-2}$. There is evidence for field to field count variations and spatial clustering within the 40VLA field of view.
- The mean spectral index of the 8.5 GHz selected sample is $\overline{\alpha } _{8.5}$ = 0.35 , in good agreement with previous studies (Fomalont, E. B. et al. 1991, AJ, 102, 1258; Windhorst, R. A. et al. 1993, ApJ, 405, 498). Only 20% of the 8.5 GHz selected sample can be attributed directly to AGN activity and we place an upper limit of 15% on the fraction of inverted sources selected at 8.5 GHz. Several of the radio sources are identified with star-forming galaxies and their flat spectrum radio emission ( $0 < \alpha < 0.5$; $S_{\nu } \propto
\nu ^{- \alpha}$) may be associated with an enhanced fraction of Bremsstrahlung radiation. The 1.4 GHz selected sample has a mean spectral index of $\overline{\alpha } _{8.5}$ = 0.85 , somewhat higher than that of shallower samples.
- Based on 151 sources in the complete VLA 1.4 GHz sample, the average angular size is observed to decrease as a function of flux density. At $S_{1.4}$ = 370 $\mu$Jy, $\theta _{med}$ = 2.6 $\pm$ 0.4, and at $S_1.4$ = 100 $\mu$Jy , $\theta _{med}$ = 1.6$\pm$ 0.3. This is in good agreement with the complimentary MERLIN observations (Muxlow, T. W. et al. 1999, in preparation) of 91 of the above VLA sources. For those MERLIN sources with $S_{1.4} >$ 90 $\mu$Jy the mean is 1.7$\pm$0.3 and for those sources with $S_{1.4} <$ 90 $\mu$Jy, the mean was determined to be 1.2$\pm$0.1.
- Eighty percent (64) of the 79 radio sources in the HDF region were identified in the HST I-band (F814W) and deep ground-based images (Barger, A. J. et al. 1999, AJ, 117, 102) to $I_{AB}$ = 25, with a median of $I_{AB}$ = 22.1. From the 72 radio sources contained within the HST frames for which morphological classification was possible, 80$\pm$10% are associated with disk galaxies (spirals, irregulars, peculiars, mergers), with a lesser fraction (20$\pm$10%) identified with bright ellipticals.
- Twenty percent of microjansky radio sources cannot be identified to $I_{AB}$ = 25 in the HST frames and to a similar depth in ground-based images. Three sources remain unidentified in the HDF to $I_{AB}$ = 28.5.
Based on radio spectral index, radio morphology, and galaxy type of the optical identification, we classified the origin of the radio emission for individual detections (Richards, E. A. et al. 1998). For 60% of the identifications with $I_{AB} <$ 25, the radio emission was characterized as principally star-forming. Twenty percent were classified as AGN, and the remaining sources were ambiguous. Thus the bulk of the microjansky radio population is associated with star-forming galaxies in the redshift range 0.2 $< z <$ 1.3 (Barger, A. J., Cowie, L. L & Richards, E. A. 1999, AJ, submitted).
The nature of the optically faint ($I_{AB} >25$) radio sources remains unclear. Three of these source contained in the HDF are likely associated with independently detected millimeter sources at 0.85 mm and 1.3 mm (Richards, E. A. 1999, ApJL, 513, 9; Hughes, D. L. et al. 1998, Nature, 394, 241; Downes, D. et al. 1999, A& A, 347, 809), suggesting interpretation as high redshift dust enshrouded starbursts. Based on the far-infrared to radio flux density relationship observed in local starburst galaxies (e.g., Condon et al. 1991, ApJ, 378, 65), these galaxies are likely at 1 $z$ 3 and have far-infrared luminosities of 10$^{12-13}$(Barger, A. J. Cowie, L. L. & Richards, E. A. 1999, AJ, submitted). However, one radio source (VLA J123646+621226, detected independently at 8.5 GHz and 1.4 GHz) contained in the Thompson/NICMOS deep field was detected neither in the mm nor in NICMOS J/H to 29th magnitude (Thompson, R. I. et al. 1999, AJ, 117, 17).
From the HDF radio survey and another with similar radio sensitivity in Selected Area 13 (Windhorst et al. 1995; Richards et al. 1999), I have isolated a sample of 32 optically faint and/or very red ($I-K \geq$ 4-6) objects, comprising 20% of the microjansky counts to $S \simeq$ 10 $\mu$Jy with a surface density of $\sim$0.2 arcmin$^{-2}$. These sources constitute a new class of radio objects which are likely a heterogeneous mixture of 1) dust-enshrouded starburst galaxies at 1 $z$ 3 , 2) dust reddened AGN at moderate redshift (1$z$ 2; Dunlop et al.,1996, Nature, 381, 581), and extreme redshift ($z >$6) nascent AGN embedded within proto-ellipticals in the process of initial collapse (Richards, E. A. et al. 1999, ApJL, in press).
Figure 2 shows a radio image for a proposed confusion limited deep survey with the VLA in its most extended A configuration (rms noise $\sim$ 0.12 $\mu$Jy with 2resolution) with a detection limit of about 1$\mu$Jy. At these flux levels the radio sky may become increasingly dominated by the optically ’invisible’ population. Future radio surveys with increased resolution and sensitivity, together with complimentary sub-mm imaging made possible by planned facilities such as the Expanded VLA, the Square Kilometer Array, and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array will be necessary to characterize this new radio population and further discern its nature.
[**Figure 1:**]{} Montage of radio/HST flanking field overlays. Contours are 1.4 GHz fluxes drawn at 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 $\sigma$ ($\sigma$ = 4 $\mu$Jy). Greyscale is log stretch of HST I-band image 5on a side. [**VLA J123725+621128:**]{} One of only two classical radio sources found in our HDF radio survey. This wide-angle tail galaxy is identified with a $K = 20.3$ elliptical. [**VLA J123634+621212:**]{} $I_{AB}$ = 21.1 disk galaxy is at $z = 0.45$ with a steep radio spectral index ($\alpha$ = 0.7). HST image shows evidence of a double nucleus and a dust lane coincident with the radio source. 70% of radio selected field galaxies fit into this starburst category. [**VLA J123634+621240:**]{} A dramatic $z = 1.3$ starburst, with 3 $\times$ the luminosity of Arp 220. The peculiar optical ID has $I_{AB}$ = 23.5. [**VLA J123642+621331:**]{} An unidentified source with $I >$ 25, subsequently identified with an H = 22 galaxy and with a $z = 4.42$ (Waddington, I. et al. 1999, ApJL, submitted). Some 20% of the $\mu$Jy radio sources remain optically unidentified.
[**Figure 2:**]{} Shown is a simulation of a confusion limited HDF sized region at 1.4 GHz as seen by the proposed Expanded VLA. The true field of view is 200$\times$ larger, with a total of 40,000 detections above 0.8 $\mu$Jy (100$\times$ deeper than the current VLA/HDF survey). Such observations could detect the Milky Way at $z = 1$ and Arp 220 up to $z = 10$ free from dust obscuration.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
My sis – thanks for always encouraging me to do well and pep talks.
My bro randy – thanks for the help observing. It was fun.
NRAO - for providing me with the tools and support to do this research.
Bob O. – for not calling the cops during my North Carolina hurricane search and rescue adventure. Also for the Kitt Peak observing trip and making me \$ 2 richer!
Tom Muxlow – for honing my skills as a radio astronomer and being a great host at Jodrell (even if I had to live in a flooded apartment). Also letting me swipe some of his impressive figures for this thesis.
Anita Richards – thanks for taking care of me and making even Macellsfield an interesting place. The Dog was fun.
Rogier Windhorst – for putting me up during the summer of 1996 in the Tempe roach motel. Tempe. And also for being a great collaborator. Can’t wait to use those Fiesta Bowl tickets next year.
Bruce Partridge – for being a great teacher at and beyond Haverford and first introducing me to the art of radio astronomy. I look forward to many years of future collaboration.
Ed Fomalont – for showing me the tricks of the trade. Also for being patient with my antics.
Ken Kellermann – for being the bestest thesis advisor a student could ask for. I learned a lot more than astronomy from you.
Amy Barger and Len Cowie – for providing optical and near infrared photometry. Also for starting what has already proved to be an extremely fruitful collaboration.
Rowan-Robinson – for making research entertaining.
Jody, Jason, Curt, and all my friends back home – thanks for the good times and providing much needed diversions.
Susan – I have never seen a woman ride a horse bare-back until I met you. The summer of 1998 was one of the best of my life, take care.
Mom and Dad — thanks for giving me the heart and the means to pursue my career.
Mike P. – thanks for being a patient roomate. And for providing countless evenings of grad student angst venting.
Steve Balbus – for having faith in me – it meant so much.
The General Lee (a.k.a., the red Porsche) – I have never had one car get me in so much trouble - from speeding tickets to claims of racism. It was worth it! I hope your new owner takes better care of you than I.
Ronak – thanks for putting me up at your place, providing rides, and being a friend. You the man, nak!
Siegel – how could I have made it without another Southern boy around with reasonable politics. Sorry about the Braves.
Chris – all I can say is Tennessee rocks. Thanks for hosting all the football and grad parties up at Alden house.
Ray – Thanks for just being a great class mate the first two years of school, it was definitely a dual effort – I still can’t believe we both passed the qualifier. Also for reminding me that I wasnt the grad student of southern descent.
Majewski – for providing sage advice at critical times.
Tolbert – for introducing me to the mysteries of Campari.
Hibbard – for helping me jump off my bike. Also the good career advice was key. I wont forget you when I become famous.
Jennifer – for adding flavor to the department. Good to know that the South is still alive and well in the Forestry building.
Franz – Hang in there bud. It’s almost Miller time. See you in Hawaii on Y2K.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'During the epoch of large galaxy formation, thermal instability leads to the formation of a population of cool fragments which are embedded within a background of tenuous hot gas. The hot gas attains a quasi-hydrostatic equilibrium. Although the cool clouds are pressure confined by the hot gas, they fall into the galactic potential, and their motion is subject to drag from the hot gas. The release of gravitational energy due to the infall of the cool clouds is first converted into their kinetic energy, and is subsequently dissipated as heat. The cool clouds therefore represent a potentially significant energy source for the background hot gas, depending upon the ratio of thermal energy deposited within the clouds versus the hot gas. In this paper, we show that most of dissipated energy is deposited in the tenuous hot halo gas, providing a source of internal energy to replenish losses in the hot gas through bremsstrahlung emission and conduction into the cool clouds. The heating from the motion of the cool clouds allows the multi-phase structure of the interstellar medium to be maintained.'
author:
- 'Stephen D. Murray'
- 'Douglas N. C. Lin'
title: 'Energy Dissipation in Multi-Phase Infalling Clouds in Galaxy Halos'
---
Introduction
============
The stellar velocity dispersion in the halos of galaxies similar to the Milky Way exceeds 100 km s$^{-1}$. The gravitational potential that binds the stars to their host galaxies is dominated by collisionless dark matter. According to the widely adopted cold dark matter (CDM) scenario, these normal galaxies are formed through the mergers of much smaller entities, dwarf galaxies. After violent relaxation, the dark matter is well mixed in phase space and attains an extended 3-D spatial distribution. In spiral galaxies, the formation and concentration of stars in extended, flattened, rotating disks requires the detachment of ordinary matter from the dark-matter halos of the original host dwarf galaxies. The dominance of the dark-matter halo to the galactic potential at large radii, and the separation of the ordinary matter imply that, during the epoch of galactic buildup, the ordinary matter was primarily in the form of gas which dissipated a substantial fraction of its initial potential energy.
In a previous paper (Lin & Murray 2000), we considered the dynamical evolution of infalling gas in the halos of normal galaxies. We showed that for typical values ($\sim 10^6$ K) of the virial temperature, the cooling timescale increases with temperature, and the protogalactic clouds (hereafter PGC’s) are thermally unstable (Field 1965). Thermal instability leads to the rapid growth of perturbations and fragmentation of a PGC (Murray & Lin 1990). The result is that a two-phase medium develops during the initial cooling of the PGC, in which a population of warm fragmentary clouds (WFC’s) are confined by the pressure of hot, residual halo gas (RHG) (Burkert & Lin 2001). The RHG is cooled by radiative emission and conductive transport into the WFC’s (which are efficient radiators). In our earlier work, we assumed that the RHG is heated primarily by the release of the gravitational energy as the WFC’s into the central region of the halo potential, due both to their collective gravity as well as that of the dark matter. The WFC’s are unable to cool below 10$^4$ K until their density reaches a sufficiently high value that the WFC’s become self-shielded from external photo-dissociating UV radiation (Couchman & Rees 1986; Haiman, Rees, & Loeb 1997; Dong, Lin, & Murray 2003).
In the above picture, the evolution of the WFC’s is similar to that of Lyman-$\alpha$ clouds and high velocity clouds (HVC’s). Both of those systems have been proposed as representatives of late-time accretion of material in an ongoing process of galaxy buildup by mergers [@MI94b; @Blitzetal99; @Manning99]. Because they evolve at an earlier time and closer to the centers of the parent galaxies, however, the WFC’s would evolve in an environment of higher pressures and UV fluxes, compared to either Lyman-$\alpha$ clouds or HVC’s. Their environment may, instead, more closely resemble that of cooling flows (e.g. Sarazin 1986; Loewenstein & Mathews 1987; Sarazin & White 1987, 1988), and many of our results may have relevance to those systems. Additionally, the Ly-$\alpha$ clouds have been proposed as being contained within dark matter “minihaloes,” (e.g. Rees 1986; Ikeuchi 1986; Mo, Miralda-Escude, & Rees 1993) whereas the WFC’s are either pressure confined, or at most weakly self-gravitating
In this paper, we verify our basic conjecture that most of the gravitational energy released by the infalling WFC’s is dissipated within the RHG. That process is crucial to the assumption that the RHG is in quasi-thermal equilibrium. Without this heating source, the background gas would gradually be depleted due to loss of thermal energy and precipitation into WFC’s. A reduction in the pressure of the background gas would also enable the WFC’s to expand and eventually eliminate the multi-phase structure of the gas. In order to simulate this process in detailed, we adopt a 2-D numerical hydrodynamic scheme with a multi-phase medium.
The motion of clouds relative to, and their interaction with an external medium has been studied by numerous authors. [@MI94a] examined ram-pressure stripping due to the supersonic motion of gas past clouds confined within minihalos, a very different situation from that described above for the evolution of the WFC’s. Tenorio-Tagle et al. (1986, 1987) examined the interactions of clouds hitting relatively high density galactic disks at high speeds. Again, that is a very different situation from the evolution of the WFC’s, which move slowly through a low density medium with a smooth density distribution. [@MWBL93] examined the loss of gas from a cloud due to the growth of Kelvin-Helmholtz instability for transsonic motions. As with the above studies, however, the energy transfer between the cloud and the background gas was not examined.
We proceed by briefly describing our method and the model parameters in §2. In §3, we analyze the results of our computations. Finally we discuss the implication of these results in §4.
Numerical Method and Model Parameters
=====================================
Equation of Motion
------------------
Following its collapse into the potential of the galactic dark matter halo, the RHG is shock-heated to the virial temperature of the potential, and rapidly attains a quasi hydrostatic equilibrium. For computational simplicity, we adopt a Cartesian coordinate system in which the galactic potential $g$ is imposed in the $y$ direction. For a spherically symmetric potential, $y$ corresponds to the radial direction. The equation of motion of the RHG becomes $${d V_{h x} \over d x} = - {1 \over \rho_h} {d P_t \over d x}$$ $${d V_{h y} \over d y} = - {1 \over \rho_h} {d P_t \over d y} -g$$ where $\rho_h$, $P_h$, $V_{h, x}$, and $V_{h,y}$ are respectively the density, pressure, two-velocity components of the RHG, $P_t = P_h +
P_w$ is the total pressure, $\rho_w$, $P_w$, $V_{w, x}$, and $V_{w,y}$ are respectively the density, pressure and two velocity components of WFC’s. The equation of motion for the WFC’s is similar, $${d V_{w x} \over d x} = - {1 \over \rho_w} {d P_t \over d x}$$ $${d V_{w y} \over d y} = - {1 \over \rho_w} {d P_t \over d y} -g+F_D,$$ where $F_D$ is a drag force term, which is a function of the speed and geometry of the WFC’s, and of their density contrast with the RHG.
Parameters for the Residual Halo Gas
------------------------------------
We consider four models. The parameters are listed in Table \[tab:models\], which lists, for each model, value of $g$, the polytropic index for the cloud, $\gamma_w$, the density contrast between the cloud and the background, $D_\rho$, and the initial downward speed of the cloud, normalized to the sound speed of the background. In all cases, the RHG is initialized with the same temperature throughout, but thereafter evolves with a polytropic equation of state, in which $P_h = K_h \rho_h ^{\gamma_h}$ where $K_h$ is the adiabatic constant, and the polytropic index $\gamma_h=5/3$ for each model. We also assume that the RHG is initially in hydrostatic equilibrium, such that $$\rho_h=\rho_0{\rm e}^{{g\over{C_h^2}}\left(y-y_0\right)},
\label{eq:den}$$ where $\rho_0$ is the density at a reference height $y_0$, and $C_h$ is the isothermal sound speed of the RHG. Because the RHG initially has the same temperature throughout, the magnitude of $K_h$ is a function of $y$, such that $$K_h = C_h^2 \rho(y)^{1-\gamma_h}.$$ The density scale height of the RHG is $$r_h = { C_h^2 \over g}.$$
In all models the velocities are normalized to $C_h=1$. The initial location of the WFC’s is set to be at $x_0=y_0=0$. The value of $g$ is uniform throughout the grid, justified by the fact that the computational domain represents a small fraction of a galaxy. For Models 1-3, we set $g=0.1$, so that $r_h = 10$, while in Model 4, $g=0.05$, giving $r_h = 20$. We set $\rho_0=1$. In these units, Equation (\[eq:den\]) reduces to $$\rho_h = {\rm e}^{-g\left(y - y_0\right)}.$$ The computational domain extends from -0.75 to 0.75 in $x$, and from -15 to 1 in $y$. At the base of the computational domain, $\rho_h
/\rho_0 \sim 4.5$ for Models 1-3, and 2.1 for Model 4.
Parameters for the Warm Fragmentary Clouds
------------------------------------------
The density ratio at the launch point, $D_{\rho}\equiv \rho_w/\rho_h =10^{2}$ in Models 1-3, while $D_\rho = 25 $ in Model 4. The magnitude of $D_\rho$ would be constant throughout the simulation time if 1) the WFC’s retain their integrity, 2) $\gamma_h = \gamma_w$, and 3) there is no shock dissipation to modify $K_h$ and $K_w$. In general, however, $D_\rho$ is a function of $y$, depending on the equation of state for both the WFC’s and RHG.
The value $D_{\rho}=100$ is selected to represent ionized clouds at temperatures of 10$^4$ K in a Milky Way-sized galaxy, for which the RHG is heated to the virial temperature of $\approx$10$^6$ K. The smaller value of $D_{\rho}$ for Model 4 would be appropriate for either cooler backgrounds or warmer clouds.
The physical dimensions of the WFC’s are set by dynamical and thermal processes [@LM00]. Clouds below a minimum radius, $S_{min}$, are re-heated by conduction from the RHG. The maximum radius, $S_{max}$, is set by the point at which the clouds become self-gravitating. Such clouds have negative specific heats, and so are unstable to external heating. The lower limit upon the cloud size translates to [@LM00] $$S_{min,s}=1.6{\ T}^{3/2}_6{\ D}_{100}^{-1}{\ n}_{10}^{-1}
{\ }\Lambda_{25}^{-1}{\ \rm pc},$$ in the limit of saturated conduction, where $T_6$ in the temperature of the RHG in units of 10$^6$ K, $D_{100}$ is the density contrast between the cloud and RHG in units of 100, n$_{10}$ is number density of the cloud in units of 10 cm$^{-3}$, and $\Lambda_{25}$ is the cooling efficiency in units of 10$^{-25}$ ergs cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$, characteristic of low metallicity gas near 10$^4$ K [@DM72]. In the limit of unsaturated conduction, $$S_{min,u}=4{\rm T}^{7/4}_6{ \rm n}_{10}^{-1}
{\ }\Lambda_{25}^{-1/2}{\ \rm pc}.$$ The maximum cloud size is set by the Bonner-Ebert criterion for self-gravity to become important, $$S_{max}=350{\ T}_4\left({{nT}\over{10^5}}\right)^{-1/2}{\ \rm pc},$$ where $T_4$ is the temperature of the WFC’s in units of 10$^4$ K, and $nT$ is the pressure of the clouds (assumed to be in pressure equilibrium with the RHG).
In the two-phase model discussed by [@LM00], the WFC’s are heated by UV emission from massive stars, in a self-regulated star formation process. For the parameters given above, the total column densities of the clouds range from $5\times10^{19}$ to $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$.
In Models 1-2 and 4, we adopt a polytropic equation of state for the WFC’s with a power index $\gamma_w = \gamma_h$. In Model 3 we attempt to maintain $\gamma_w\approx1$ throughout the evolution. This is done by allowing the cloud to cool, but turning cooling off below a set minimum temperature, which we select as $10^4$ K. The high cooling efficiency in this temperature regime ensures that the cloud temperature cannot significantly exceed the cutoff temperature. Cooling is not allowed to proceed in the background gas.
Because we are using a single-fluid code (see below), zones where cloud and background gas mix are a concern. In order to prevent significant cooling of the background gas, cooling is turned off whenever the background gas exceeds a volume fraction of 0.5, as measured by the relative amounts of the two tracers initially placed within the cloud and background. Cooling is also not allowed whenever the temperature of a cell exceeds 0.2 times the initial temperature of the background gas.
The models with polytropic equations of state permit the use of dimensionless numbers, as used here, to scale the results to a wide range of systems. The presence of cooling in Model 3, however, introduces some dimensions into the problem. In that model, we take $T_h=10^6$ K, and $T_w=10^4$ K, appropriate, as discussed above, for an L$_\ast$ galaxy. The corresponding sound speeds are $C_h=130$ km s$^{-1}$, and $C_w=13$ km s$^{-1}$ (assuming ionized gas). The initial density of the cloud, $n_w=6$ cm$^{-3}$. A length dimension is not explicitly imposed upon the problem, because the heating and cooling are strictly local processes. Typical values can, however, be computed. For an isothermal potential, $g=V_c^2/R$, where $V_c$ is the circular speed and $R$ is the galactocentric radius. Taking $V_c=220$ km s$^{-1}$, the physical scale height of the gas $$R_h={{C_h^2}\over g}={130\over220}R=350~R_{kpc}{\ \rm pc},$$ where $R_{kpc}$ is the galactocentric radius in kpc. In code units, $R_h=10$ (see previous section), and so one unit of distance in the code corresponds to $l_{unit}=35$ $R_{kpc}$ pc in physical units. The cloud radius is initially set to be 0.2 in code units, or 7 $R_{kpc}$ pc in physical dimensions. The unit of time for Model 3 is given by the ratio $l_{unit}/C_h=0.26~R_{kpc}$ Myr.
In Models 1, 3, and 4, we assume that the WFC is initially at rest. The evolution of the WFC’s is, however, dynamic, with clouds continually colliding and merging, being disrupted by dynamical instabilities, being reheated by conduction from the RHG, cooling to form stars, and condensing out of the RHG. When the clouds form from the RHG, they would be expected to have typical speeds up to the sound speed of the RHG. In Model 2, therefore, we take the WFC to be initially falling in the $-y$ direction, at a velocity equal to $C_h$.
Due to their negative buoyancy, the WFC’s fall through the RHG in all models. If the background RHG is not perturbed, it induces a drag force $F_D$ on WFC’s. For WFC’s with sizes $S$ which are larger than the mean free path of particles in the RHG, $$F_D = {1\over2}C_D \pi S^2 \rho_h V_w ^2,$$ where $C_D$ is the drag coefficient, and $S$ is the cloud radius (Batchelor 2000). In flows with high Reynolds number, the turbulent wake behind the body provides an effective momentum transfer mechanism, dominating $C_D$. For example, the experimentally measured $C_D$ for a hard sphere in a nearly inviscid fluid is 0.165 (Whipple 1972). For compressible gas clouds, $C_D$ is probably closer to unity.
When $F_D\approx g$, the WFC’s attain a terminal speed $$V_t \approx \left( {8 D_{\rho} {S g} \over 3 C_D } \right)^{1/2}.
\label{eq:vterm}$$ At the launch point, the size of the WFC is set to be $S (y_0) = 0.2$ in models 1-3. If $C_D =1$ and the WFC preserves its integrity, $V_t =
2.3$, which would exceed sound speed of the RHG. Once the Mach number of the WFC exceeds unity, however, shock dissipation would greatly increase the drag relative to the above estimate. Prior to the WFC achieving $V\approx1$, however, Rayleigh Taylor instability causes it to break up into smaller pieces. For smaller fragments, the value of $V_t$ is reduced, as seen in Equation (\[eq:vterm\]). Due to shock dissipation, the sound speed in the RHG is also slightly larger than that in Equation (\[eq:vterm\]). Both of the above factors may prevent the falling WFC’s from attaining $V_t>C_h$. Because the WFC’s are pressure confined, however, their internal sound speed $C_w = D_\rho ^{-1/2} C_h =0.1 \ll V_t$, and so internal shock dissipation is likely to occur within the WFC’s. In order to examine the role of the relative magnitudes of the speeds, we choose, in model 4, $S (y_0) =0.1$, $g=0.05$, and $D_\rho (y_0) = 25$ such that $V_t < C_h$ throughout the computational domain. Shock dissipation does not occur in the RHG, but it is present interior to the WFC.
In Model 3, we assume the same initial condition as model 1, but adopt an effectively isothermal equation of state for the WFC’s by allowing the gas to cool to 10$^4$ K. The resulting energy drainage would lead to a greater dissipation rate within the WFC’s but it should not significantly modify the energy deposition rate into the RHG.
Numerical Method
----------------
The models discussed below are calculated using Cosmos, a multi-dimensional, chemo-radiation-hydrodynamics code developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Anninos, Fragile & Murray 2003). For the current models, radiative emission is not included. In order to maximize the resolution, the models are run in two dimensions. Because Cosmos runs on a Cartesian grid, this means that the clouds simulated are actually slices through infinite cylinders, rather than spheres. This limitation should not, however, significantly alter our conclusions, and allows us to run the simulations at significantly higher resolution than would be possible in three dimensions. The resolutions of the models are 300x3200 zones. The clouds are therefore resolved by 80 zones across their diameters. This is somewhat poorer than the resolution found necessary by Klein, McKee, & Colella (1994) for their study of shock-cloud interactions. Because the clouds in our models are not subject to extreme shocks, however, lower resolutions should be adequate, and reductions in resolution by a factor of two have not been found to have any affect upon our results.
Because we are concerned with energy transfer and dissipation, the form of the artificial viscosity used in the models might be expected to play a significant role. In order to examine that possibility, we have computed versions of Model 1 using both scalar and tensor forms of the artificial viscosity, with the coefficient varied by a factor of two, and both with and without linear artificial viscosity. The energy changes in the cloud and background were found to differ among the models by no more than 10%. We therefore conclude that the form of the artificial viscosity does not dominate our results. The lack of sensitivity is most likely to to the absence of strong shocks in the models.
The models are run with reflecting boundary conditions on all sides. This choice of boundaries serves to isolate the system, eliminating potential ambiguities in the interpretation of the energies of the two components.
Results of the Numerical Simulations
====================================
Model 1: Transsonic sedimentation of adiabatic clouds
-----------------------------------------------------
In Model 1, we adopt a polytropic equation of state for both the cloud and background. For the values of $D_\rho$, $S$, and $g$ of the model, $V_t \sim C_h$ during the descent.
In Figure \[fig:mod1rho\], we show the evolution of the density of Model 1. The model is shown from time 0 to 16, at intervals of 2 (the horizontal sound crossing time in the RHG $\Delta x/C_h=1.5$). The WFC rapidly accelerates to a speed $\vert V_y\vert \approx C_h$, at which point the increasing drag causes it to achieve a terminal speed. The deceleration of the cloud as it approaches terminal speed leads to the growth of Rayleigh-Taylor instability, causing rapid breakup of the cloud. For an incompressible fluid, the Rayleigh-Taylor instability grows, in the linear regime, as ${\rm e}^{\omega t}$, where $$\omega^2={{2\pi g}\over \lambda}\left({{\rho_h-\rho_l}
\over{\rho_h+\rho_l}}\right),
\label{eq:rt}$$ $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the perturbation, and the subscripts $h$ and $l$ refer, respectively, to the heavy and light fluids (Chandrasekhar 1961, p. 428). For subsonic flows, the growth rate is similar for compressible fluids. Perturbations with the shortest wavelengths grow most rapidly, but saturate quickly when their amplitudes $A\approx\lambda$. As a result, wavelengths $\lambda\sim S$ lead most strongly to cloud breakup. For such perturbations, the above relation gives $\omega\approx17$, in fair agreement with the rate of breakup observed in the cloud, though the latter is complicated by the additional growth of Kelvin-Helmholtz instability due to the flow of gas around the cloud (cf. Murray et al. 1993).
Figure \[fig:mod1en\] shows the energy evolution of Model 1. Shown are the evolution of the total (internal, kinetic, and gravitational), the kinetic plus internal, kinetic, and internal energies. Values for the background gas are given by the solid curves, while those for the cloud are indicated by the dashed curves. The energies are in code units, and are plotted as changes relative to their initial values. The energies of the cloud and background are calculated as sums across the entire computational grid, with the contribution from each zone weighted by the fractional amount of the appropriate tracer present in each zone. This should minimize any confusion due to mixing of the cloud and background gas. The high order of the advection scheme also minimizes numerical diffusion (Anninos, Fragile, & Murray 2003).
As can be seen in Figure \[fig:mod1en\], the total energy of the cloud decreases as it falls in the gravitational potential. The increase in $E_{Tot}$ at late times is due to the upward motion of cloud material entrained within the vortices that form behind the cloud. The kinetic energy of the cloud increases until it reaches a terminal infall speed at $t\approx10$, According to Equation (\[eq:vterm\]), the terminal speed of infalling clouds is an increasing function of their size. As a cloud breaks up into many smaller pieces, its kinetic energy decreases along with $V_t$. The internal energy of the cloud does not change significantly during its descent and breakup. The distance travelled before breakup is $\sim 30
S(y_0)$. The effective cross section of the cloud is $\sim 2 S(y_0)$, implying that the mass of the RHG that is encountered by the falling cloud is smaller than, but comparable to the mass of the cloud (Murray et al. 1993). During break up, the terminal velocity of the fragments $V_t\propto S^{1/2}$, in accordance with Equation (\[eq:vterm\]). The fragments therefore trail behind the remaining clouds.
The kinetic, and especially the internal energy of the background gas are substantially increased by the end of the simulation. In this model, therefore, the majority of the energy released by the infall of the cloud is deposited into the internal energy of the background gas, primarily by the action of weak shock waves generated by the motion of the infalling cloud. This result supports the assumption of [@LM00] that the rate of energy deposition throughout the galaxy is directly proportional to the total infall rate of WFC’s throughout the system.
Model 2: Supersonic impact of WFC’s
-----------------------------------
In Model 1, the WFC attains a terminal speed which is a significant fraction of both $C_h$, and the value of $V_t$ predicted from Equation \[eq:vterm\]. It might also be expected that WFC’s which condense from the RHG would have initial speeds comparable to the sound speed of the RHG. In order to examine the possible effects of nonzero initial speeds upon the evolution, we consider in Model 2 an initial condition in which the WFC is already falling at the sound speed at the start of the numerical calculation.
The density of Model 2 is shown in Figure \[fig:mod2rho\]. Due to the more rapid motion of the cloud, as compared to that of Model 1, the simulation is only carried out to $t=12$. The initial motion of the cloud can be seen to drive a weak shock ahead of it. Behind the shock, the leading edge of the cloud continues to move downwards at almost $C_h$, slowing down gradually until the very end of the simulation, when it rapidly decelerates as it breaks up, due to the combined action of Rayleigh-Taylor and Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities. These results suggest that the infalling WFC’s quickly settle to $V_t$ irrespective of the initial conditions, as we have assumed previously (Lin & Murray 2000). The breakup of the cloud proceeds at nearly the same vertical height as in Model 1. The similarity arises because the models have the same gravitational accelerations and density contrast. Prior to breakup, the downward motion of the cloud is more rapid than the value of $V_t$ found for Model 1. The differences are due to the modification in the drag caused by the leading shock in Model 2.
The energy evolution is shown in Figure \[fig:mod2en\]. The initial kinetic energy of the cloud, $E_{K,0}=6.3$, is almost entirely dissipated by $t=10$. Over the same time interval, the cloud is also able to penetrate to a greater depth than the cloud in Model 1, increasing the release of gravitational energy relative to that model. Together, these effects lead to a gain of internal energy for the background gas by a approximately a factor of two larger than seen in Model 1.
However, the depth at which the cloud breaks up is similar in the two models. As in Model 1, the break up occurs when the cloud encounters a column of RHG that is comparable in mass to that of the cloud. Thereafter, the fragments’ rate of sedimentation is significantly reduced in accordance with Equation (\[eq:vterm\]). The asymptotic rate of RHG’s internal energy increase in Model 2 is comparable to that in Model 1.
Model 3: Efficient energy loss within the cool clouds
-----------------------------------------------------
In Model 3, we approximate an isothermal equation of state for the cloud, as described above, in order to represent the limit in which cooling is highly efficient. The evolution of the density is shown in Figure \[fig:mod3rho\], while the energies are shown in Figure \[fig:mod3en\]. The isothermal behavior of the cloud leads to nonconservation of the total energy of the cloud plus background, and so we do not plot that here, focusing instead upon the kinetic and internal energies.
As expected, cooling within mixed cells does lead to some cooling of the background gas, as well as some overcooling within the cloud, both of which can be seen in Figure \[fig:mod3en\]. The lack of heating within the cloud leads to additional compression relative to the previous models, reducing its breakup. Overall, however, the transfer of kinetic energy of the cloud to the internal energy of the background gas is very similar to the adiabatic models described above, indicating that efficient cooling within the clouds does not have a strong effect upon the energy deposition rate.
Fragmentation of the cloud also occurs in Model 3. The efficient cooling enhances the density contrast between the cloud and the RHG, such that the cloud retains smaller volume and cross section. Consequently, the cloud encounters a smaller gas mass along the path of its descent, and fragmentation occurs at a greater depth. On small wavelengths, the infalling cloud appears to be better preserved than in the previous models. But on the scale of the cloud size, the cloud again fragments after encountering a column similar to its own mass, as above.
Model 4: Subsonic Sedimentation of WFC’s
----------------------------------------
For Model 4, $D_\rho=25$, and $g=0.05$, such that $V_t$ is predicted by Equation \[eq:vterm\] to be subsonic. The evolution of the density of Model 4 is shown in Figure \[fig:mod4rho\]. The cloud rapidly reaches a terminal speed, $V_t\approx0.3$, smaller than predicted if $C_D=1$. As in Model 1, however, expansion of the cloud enhances the drag coefficient to $C_D>1$. The cloud therefore never achieves the terminal speed predicted for a hard sphere, even in the absence of strong supersonic dissipation. From Equation \[eq:rt\], $\omega\approx6$, and the cloud breaks up even more rapidly than the more dense clouds considered in Models 1-3, due to its reduced density contrast relative to those models.
The downward displacement of the cloud in Model 4 is reduced by a factor of a few relative to that of Model 1. As a result, the gravitational energy released by the settling of the cloud, and dissipated into the background gas, is reduced by an order of magnitude relative to Model 1, as can be seen in Figure \[fig:mod4en\].
In the absence of trans/supersonic motion of the cloud through the background, shock dissipation cannot be a strong mechanism for the dissipation of energy due to motion of the cloud. The primary mechanism involves the wake of the cloud. In the simulations, the vortical motions behind the cloud dissipate energy on small scales, due to artificial and numerical viscosity. In three dimensions, the high Reynolds numbers would lead to the formation of turbulent wakes, which would lead to the dissipation of energy by viscous stress on sufficiently small length scales, leading to the same outcome as observed in Model 4. The observed outcome of the energy deposition is not, therefore, sensitive to the exact physical process responsible for it.
Summary and Discussion
======================
In this paper, we examine the interactions of a two-phase medium in a passive gravitational potential. This situation represents the physical environment that occurs naturally in the context of galaxy formation, cooling flows, and during the transition of gas clouds from quasi-hydrostatic contraction to dynamical collapse. It is a natural consequence of thermal instability, which generally leads to the emergence of a population of relatively cool, dense clouds (warm, fragmentary clouds, or WFC’s) that are pressure confined by an ambient hot, tenuous gas (residual hot gas, or RHG). In such a state, the hot gas establishes a quasistatic equilibrium with the background gravitational potential, and the cold clouds settle into it under the action of their negative buoyancy. In the present investigation, we neglect the self-gravity of the gas, and consider the potential to be due to a time-invariant background distribution of dark matter or stars.
Through a series of numerical simulations, we demonstrate the following evolutionary outcomes.
1\) During their descent, the WFC’s break up on the same timescale as is required for them to attain a terminal speed.
2\) Most of the energy released from the sedimentation of the WFC’s into the background gravitational potential is deposited into the RHG.
These results provide justifications for the assumptions we made in our earlier model for the evolution of multi-phase medium during the epoch of galaxy formation (Lin & Murray 2000). They also resolve an outstanding conceptual issue with regard to the energy source needed for the persistence of the multi-phase medium. In particular, the RHG can achieve a thermal equilibrium, in which its heat loss via bremsstrahlung emission and conduction into the WFC’s is balanced by the release of energy from the infalling WFC’s. This equilibrium allows a multi-phase structure to be maintained in the system.
The equilibrium is very dynamic. The WFC’s are continually formed by thermal instability within the hot gas. As they move within the hot gas, they break up, and are eventually re-heated by conduction from the hot gas. They may also cool and form stars, if local sources of UV radiation are lost. Additionally, the fragmentation of the WFC’s increases their surface area to volume ratio. This reduces their timescale for collisions and mergers, leading to the formation of larger WFC’s. A natural extension of the present investigation, therefore, is to consider the collisional equilibrium for a population of WFC’s. We shall investigate this in future work.
This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48. This work is partially supported by NASA through an astrophysical theory grant NAG5-12151.
Anninos, P., Fragile, P. C. & Murray, S. D. 2003, , 147, 177
Batchelor, G. K. 2000, An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 331
Blitz, L., Spergel, D. N., Teuben, P. J., Hartmann, D., & Burton, W. B. 1999, , 514, 818
Burkert, A., & Lin, D. N. C. 2000, , 537, 270
Chandrasekhar, S. 1961, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability, (New York: Dover)
Couchman, H. M. P., & Rees, M. J. 1986, MNRAS, 221, 53
Dalgarno, A., & McCray, R. A. 1972, , 10, 375
Dong, S., Lin, D. N. C., & Murray, S. D. 2003, , 596, 930
Field, G. B. 1965, , 142, 531
Haiman, Z., Rees, M. J., & Loeb, A. 1997, , 476, 458
Ikeuchi, S. 1986, , 118, 509
Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., & Colella, P. 1994, , 420, 213
Lin, D. N. C., & Murray, S. D. 2000, , 540, 170
Loewenstein, M. & Mathews, W. G. 1987, , 319, 614
Manning, C. V. 1999, , 518, 226
Mo, H. J., Miralda-Escude, J., & Rees, M. J. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 75
Murakami, I. & Ikeuchi, S. 1994, , 420, 68
Murakami, I. & Ikeuchi, S. 1994, , 421, L79
Murray, S. D., & Lin, D. N. C. 1990, 363, 50
Murray, S. D., White, S. D. M., Blondin, J. M., & Lin, D. N. C. 1993, , 407, 588
Rees, M. J. 1986, MNRAS, 218, 25P
Sarazin, C. L. 1986, RvMP, 58, 1
Sarazin, C. L. & White, R. E. 1987, , 320, 32
Sarazin, C. L. & White, R. E. 1988, , 331, 102
Tenorio-Tagle, G., Bodenheimer, P., Rozyczka, M., & Franco, J. 1986, A&A, 170, 107
Tenorio-Tagle, G., Bodenheimer, P., Rozyczka, M., & Franco, J. 1987, A&A, 179, 219
Whipple, F. L. 1972, in From Plasma to Planet, ed. A. Elvius, (London: Wiley)
[crrrc]{} 1 & 0.10 & $5\over3$ & 100 & [-]{}0\
2 & 0.10 & $5\over3$ & 100 & -1\
3 & 0.10 & 1 & 100 & [-]{}0\
4 & 0.05 & $5\over3$ & 25 & [-]{}0\
![Density evolution of Model 1. The model is shown from t = 0 to 16, in intervals of 2, where the horizontal sound crossing time is 1.5.[]{data-label="fig:mod1rho"}](figure1.ps){width="6.0in"}
![Energy evolution of Model 1. Shown are the time evolution of the (a) total, (b) kinetic plus internal, (c) internal, and (d) kinetic energies. Data for the background gas are shown as the solid curves, while that for the dense cloud are shown as dashed curves.[]{data-label="fig:mod1en"}](figure2.ps){width="6.0in"}
![Density evolution of Model 2, displayed as in Figure \[fig:mod1rho\]. Due to the rapid motion of the cloud, the simulation is only carried out to $t=12$.[]{data-label="fig:mod2rho"}](figure3.ps){width="6.0in"}
![Energy evolution of Model 2, displayed as in Figure \[fig:mod1en\].[]{data-label="fig:mod2en"}](figure4.ps){width="6.0in"}
![Density evolution of Model 3, displayed as in Figure \[fig:mod1rho\].[]{data-label="fig:mod3rho"}](figure5.ps){width="6.0in"}
![Energy evolution of Model 3, displayed as in Figure \[fig:mod1en\].[]{data-label="fig:mod3en"}](figure6.ps){width="6.0in"}
![Density evolution of Model 4, displayed as in Figure \[fig:mod1rho\].[]{data-label="fig:mod4rho"}](figure7.ps){width="6.0in"}
![Energy evolution of Model 4, displayed as in Figure \[fig:mod1en\].[]{data-label="fig:mod4en"}](figure8.ps){width="6.0in"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The highly conductive layered metallic oxide [PdCoO$_2$]{} is a near-perfect analogue to an alkali metal in two dimensions. It is distinguished from other two-dimensional electron systems where the Fermi surface does not reach the Brillouin zone boundary by a high planar electron density exceeding $10^{15}$cm$^{-2}$. The simple single-band quasi-2D electronic structure results in strongly anisotropic transport properties and limits the effectiveness of electron-phonon scattering. Measurements on single crystals in the temperature range from 10-300K show that the thermal conductivity is much more weakly anisotropic than the electrical resistivity, as a result of significant phonon heat transport. The in-plane thermoelectric power is linear in temperature at 300K and displays a purity-dependent peak around 50K. Given the extreme simplicity of the band-structure, it is possible to identify this peak with phonon drag driven by normal electron-phonon scattering processes.'
author:
- Ramzy Daou
- Raymond Frésard
- Sylvie Hébert
- Antoine Maignan
title: 'Large anisotropic thermal conductivity of intrinsically two-dimensional metallic oxide [PdCoO$_2$]{}'
---
Artificially created two dimensional electron systems are an ideal testing ground to investigate electronic transport and correlations. The discovery of exotic physical phenomena in the two dimensional electron gas, such as protected edge states and fractionalized quasiparticles in the quantum Hall effects [@Klitzing1980; @Tsui1982], motivated the development of ever-cleaner heterostructures. More recently, the discovery of layered, van-der-Waals bonded materials that naturally exhibit two-dimensional electron transport, such as graphene and the dichalcogenides (e.g. [MoS$_2$]{}, [WSe$_2$]{}), has led to the observation of relativistic fermions [@Novoselov2005] and topologically protected surface states [@Roushan2009]. These systems have in common a low electron density, usually around $10^{12}$cm$^{-2}$, and many of the exotic phenomena arise from dominance of the Coulomb interaction over the kinetic energy. As the electronic density is increased towards the metallic state and screening becomes more effective, the kinetic energy becomes more important. However, two-dimensional materials in the limit of high electronic density ($\sim10^{15}$cm$^{-2}$, corresponding to one carrier per atomic site) also manifest unusual ground states, as can be seen in the unconventionally superconducting layered materials [Sr$_2$RuO$_4$]{} [@Maeno1994] or the high-$T_c$ cuprates [@Bednorz1986].
So far missing from the inventory of two-dimensional metals has been the canonical equivalent of the alkali metals: a clean material with a dense electron fluid giving rise to a single cylindrical Fermi contour that avoids the Brillouin zone boundary. Such a material would be topologically suited to fundamental studies of properties that depend strongly on electron-phonon scattering processes, particularly electrical and thermal transport, without the added complication of interband or umklapp scattering.
The delafossite oxide [PdCoO$_2$]{} is the closest known realisation of this archetype. It is remarkable for its extremely low in-plane resistivity and highly anisotropic character; it is a better conductor than pure palladium metal at room temperature, but only for the in-plane directions [@Takatsu2007]. It consists of layers of triangularly-coordinated Pd atoms separated by layers of edge-sharing CoO$_6$ octahedra, identical to those that produce strongly correlated behavior in [Na$_x$CoO$_2$]{} [@Wang2003] and related misfit cobalt oxides [@Limelette2006]. Here, however, the cobalt ions are all in the low spin $3+$ configuration and these layers are effectively inert [@Noh2009].
The Fermi surface measured by quantum oscillations consists of a single warped hexagonal cylinder that never approaches the Brillouin zone boundary and contains precisely one electron per Pd [@Hicks2012], equivalent to a planar carrier density of $1.4\times10^{15}$cm$^{-2}$. A striking consequence of this simple Fermi surface contour is that electron-phonon umklapp scattering is activated, producing an exponential temperature dependence of the resistivity $\rho \sim e^{-T_U/T}$ [@Hicks2012] with $T_U=160$K to at least 30K. This behavior has only previously been seen in alkali metals [@Bass1990], but in potassium, for example, $T_U$ is only 29K, confining the unusual temperature dependence to $T<4$K. Umklapp processes are the principal way in which resistance to electronic transport is generated at high temperature in clean materials. In their absence phonon drag, whereby the momentum supplied by the external field (electrical or thermal) is conserved by the electron-phonon system, becomes particularly visible in thermal transport.
In this Letter, we present measurements of the thermal conductivity and thermoelectric power of the model 2D metallic material [PdCoO$_2$]{} in the temperature range 10-300K. We find that the thermal conductivity is strong for a metallic system, reaching values of up to 30 at low temperature. The thermoelectric power shows a strongly purity-dependent phonon drag peak at low temperature, which allows us to identify the dominant electron-phonon scattering mechanism.
Single crystals of [PdCoO$_2$]{} were grown by the metathetical reaction as described in Ref. . Platelets of typical dimension $0.5 \times 0.5 \times 0.04$mm$^3$ were obtained. Three $ab$-plane samples were cut from platelets into rectangular bars of approximate dimensions $0.5 \times 0.2 \times 0.04$mm. Electrical contacts were made by bonding [$25\,\mu\textnormal{m}$]{} gold wires to the samples using Dupont 6838 silver epoxy cured at 180$^\circ$C for 5min. Sample dimensions were measured after contacts were applied in a scanning electron microscope. The largest uncertainty arises from the width of the voltage wire contacts, typically 0.05mm.
![(color online) Anisotropic transport in [PdCoO$_2$]{}. The blue solid line shows the electrical anisotropy $\rho_c/\rho_{ab}$ (left scale). The black point and dashed black line are the data from Ref. scaled by 0.65. The temperature dependence is similar from 60-300K but below this temperature the anisotropy does not increase as much as previously reported. The solid red line shows the thermal anisotropy $\kappa^{tot}_{ab}/\kappa^{tot}_{c}$ (right scale). This is much lower than the electrical anisotropy, as a result of isotropic thermal transport by phonons. The inset shows the contact configuration for sample 1.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps)
Thermal conductivity and thermopower were measured simultaneously in a custom-built sample holder installed in a PPMS cryostat using a steady-state technique including a calibrated heatpipe to account for thermal losses (principally to radiation) at high temperatures by measuring the input power to the sample [@Allen1994]. This loss was negligible below 150K. Additional calculated radiation losses were less than 10% of the measured power at 300K. The temperature difference across the samples was measured using chromel/phosphor-bronze thermocouples made from [$25\,\mu\textnormal{m}$]{} wire directly attached to the samples with Dupont 6838 silver epoxy. The thermoelectric voltage was measured using the phosphor-bronze reference wires, which give an extremely low background contribution ($<$[$0.05\,\mu\textnormal{V K}^{-1}$]{} for $T<80$K, as measured against a superconducting reference sample). This value has not been subtracted from the data. Electrical resistivity was measured [*in situ*]{} by DC current reversal with a typical sensing current of 1mA switching at 5Hz.
In order to be sensitive to the strongly anisotropic transport properties of [PdCoO$_2$]{}, contacts (both electrical and thermal) were made on both ab-surfaces of sample 1 without any overspill of silver epoxy along the exposed ac-surfaces. Current or heat was injected and extracted on either the upper or lower surface and the voltage or temperature differences were always measured on the upper surface (Fig.\[fig1\] inset). A standard four contacts were made on samples 2 and 3.
A finite element model of sample 1 was used to model anisotropic current flow in the two current injection configurations. In this way the effects of finite contact size and precise placement are taken into account. The measured values are generally a non-linear function of the conductivity anisotropy, as shown by Montgomery [@Montgomery1971]. Resistivity measurements provide the ideal test of this arrangement as the anisotropy of the resistivity of [PdCoO$_2$]{} has already been studied as a function of temperature.
The resistivity anisotropy so extracted is $\rho_c/\rho_{ab} = 280$ at room temperature, rising to 450 at low temperature (Fig. \[fig1\]). This compares to reported anisotropy values of 400 at room temperature rising to over 1000 at low temperature [@Hicks2012]. The high temperature discrepancy can most likely be ascribed to large absolute uncertainty in $c$-axis resistivity measurements arising from unfavorable geometric factors. At low temperatures $\rho_{ab}$ may depend more strongly on sample quality than $\rho_c$, so this difference is also reasonable. The residual in-plane resistivity $\rho_{ab,0}$ extracted from the measurements here is [$0.022(3)\,\mu\Omega\,\textnormal{cm}$]{} compared to [$0.009\,\mu\Omega\,\textnormal{cm}$]{} as reported in Ref. , while at 300K $\rho_{ab}={\ensuremath{3.1\,\mu\Omega\,\textnormal{cm}}}$, compared to [$2.6\,\mu\Omega\,\textnormal{cm}$]{}. The temperature dependences of $\rho_{ab}$ and $\rho_c$ are compatible with previous measurements that could be fitted with Einstein contributions to the electron-phonon scattering [@Takatsu2007].
In the case of thermal conductivity measurements, data for the two Montgomery-like configurations are taken consecutively with the resistivity measurements without changing contacts. The directly measured thermal conductances (before the finite element model is employed to extract the thermal conductivity tensor) are very similar in the range 100-300K, with only a small systematic difference of between 2-3.5% (Fig. \[fig2\](a) inset). This difference is close to the resolution of the thermal transport measurement and this results in a reasonably large uncertainty in $\kappa^{tot}_{c}$. The multiple peaks and upturn at high temperature are therefore probably artifacts. The measured excess becomes more pronounced at low temperature, reaching a maximum of around 60%. Due to the strong non-linearity of the Montgomery configuration, this corresponds to a thermal conductivity anisotropy, $\kappa^{tot}_{ab}/\kappa^{tot}_{c} \approx 3-5$, which rises to 30 at low temperature. The anisotropy is shown in Fig. \[fig1\] and the thermal conductivities in Fig. \[fig2\].
![(color online) Anisotropic thermal conductivity of [PdCoO$_2$]{}. *a)* in-plane thermal conductivity of three samples. The inset shows the raw data from the two contact configurations of sample 1. *b)* out-of-plane thermal conductivity for sample 1 as extracted from the finite element model. The typical uncertainty is indicated by error bars at three points. The dashed black line is the fit to Eq. \[eqn:callaway\]. $\kappa^{el}_{c}$ (as estimated from the Wiedemann-Franz law) never exceeds [$6\,\textnormal{W K}^{-1}\textnormal{m}^{-1}$]{}. *c)* Normalized Lorenz ratio for in-plane transport. The red solid circles are the Lorenz ratio using the raw in-plane data, which is expected to reach unity at high and low temperatures. Subtracting the phonon contribution to the thermal transport (open circles; gray shaded area indicates the uncertainty which arises from the error in $\kappa_c$ at high T and $\rho_{ab}$ at low T) leads to a curve that is much more reminiscent of an ordinary metal at high temperature. For comparison the blue squares show the Lorenz ratio for a silver sample measured using the same apparatus.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps)
A rather high value of $\kappa^{tot}_{ab}$ = [$250\,\textnormal{W K}^{-1}\textnormal{m}^{-1}$]{} at 300K (Fig. \[fig2\](a)) is comparable to the noble metals and much higher than both pure Pd metal ([$72\,\textnormal{W K}^{-1}\textnormal{m}^{-1}$]{}) and the related [Na$_x$CoO$_2$]{} ([$<20\,\textnormal{W K}^{-1}\textnormal{m}^{-1}$]{}) which shares the same [CoO$_2$]{} layers but has a disordered network of Na$^+$ between them [@Foo2004]. The thermal conductivity consists of two contributions, arising from heat transported by electronic quasiparticles and phonons, $\kappa^{tot} = \kappa^{el} + \kappa^{ph}$. In the elastic scattering limit reached at low and high temperatures, the Wiedemann-Franz law (WFL) requires that $\kappa^{el} = L_0T/\rho$, where $L_0$ is the Sommerfeld constant. Using the WFL, we estimate that $\kappa_{c}^{el}$ is never greater than [$6\,\textnormal{W K}^{-1}\textnormal{m}^{-1}$]{}. We conclude that $\kappa^{tot}_{c} \approx \kappa^{ph}_{c}$ is dominated by phonon heat transport (Fig. \[fig2\](b)). Thermal transport by phonons is usually rather isotropic. For example, [TiS$_2$]{} has the same [CdI$_2$]{}-structure layers but they are held together by relatively weak van der Waals forces. We might expect therefore, that heat transport perpendicular to these layers would be strongly inhibited, however, single crystal measurements show that the thermal conductivity anisotropy is only a factor of 2 at 300K [@Imai2001]. In [PdCoO$_2$]{} where the Pd atoms bond the layers together strongly, we would expect the anisotropy in the phonon heat transport to be even weaker.
This is supported by the dimensionless Lorenz ratio of the thermal to the electrical conductivity, which according to the WFL, should tend to unity as the temperature approaches the Debye temperature $\Theta_D$. This ratio is plotted in Fig. \[fig2\](c) for the in-plane direction. It exceeds unity by $\sim 20$% at 300K. When $\kappa^{ph}$ is subtracted, however, the ratio drops below unity, as is expected for a normal metal with a reasonably high $\Theta_D = 340$K. For comparison the Lorenz ratio of a silver sample (99.99% pure, $RRR\sim 200$, $\Theta_D = 220$K) is also shown; the behavior is very similar. The excess of $L/L_0$ at low temperatures ($<$20K) appears to be quite large, however the error here approaches $\pm 15$%. This should be studied by a more sensitive low-temperature measurement.
We will return to the discussion of the thermal conductivity after examining the in-plane thermoelectric power, $S_{ab}$. It is quasi-linear, small and positive at high temperature, quite different from previous results on polycrystals [@Hasegawa2002]. There are typically two contributions to the thermopower in clean metals, arising from electronic diffusion ($S_d \sim T$) and phonon drag ($S_g$, largest at $\Theta_D/5$).
While the sign of $S_{ab}$ is not that expected from a single band electron-like Fermi surface, both the sign and magnitude are in agreement with high temperature transport calculations which assume a constant, energy-independent relaxation time $\tau(\epsilon,k) = \tau_0$ [@Ong2010]. A constant $\tau_0$ was also used to successfully model the anisotropy of magnetoresistance [@Takatsu2013]. This suggests that the positive sign is the result of an inverted energy dependence of the band-structure, since: $$S = \frac{
\frac{1}{eT} \int \tau(\epsilon,k) v^2 (\epsilon-\mu)\frac{\partial f}{\partial \epsilon} d\epsilon
}{
\int \tau(\epsilon,k) v^2 \frac{\partial f}{\partial \epsilon} d\epsilon
}$$ where $f$ is the Fermi distribution.
![(color online) In-plane thermoelectric power of [PdCoO$_2$]{}. The diffusion thermopower ($S_d$) is linear at high temperatures and the same for all samples. The calculated curve from Ref. appears above 240K. At low temperature the negative peak is suppressed as the impurity level increases. This is characteristic of a phonon drag ($S_g$) contribution to the thermopower. The lines are fits to Eq. \[eqn:drag\].[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps)
If $S_d$ changes sign at 100K, this must be the result of a change in sign of the sampling function $(\epsilon-\mu)\frac{\partial f}{\partial \epsilon}$. This might be achieved if some part of the band-structure has a strong energy dependence within $k_BT$ of the Fermi energy, as was suggested for the highly warped hexagonal corners [@Ong2010]. On the other hand, de Haas-van Alphen results imply that this warping is of a different character than that anticipated by most band-structure calculations [@Eyert2008; @Ong2010], arising from direct overlap between Pd 5s states [@Hicks2012]. These are not necessarily incompatible observations, given that de Haas-van Alphen is a cold probe of Fermi surface geometry and should not be sensitive to the band-structure 100meV from $E_F$. A transport calculation based on the band-structure calculated with a finite $U$ on the Co site [@Hicks2012], compatible with the de Haas-van Alphen results, is currently lacking. This cannot, however, account for the strong sample dependence seen in the thermopower for $T<100$K.
Phonon drag is the typical mechanism by which non-monotonic temperature dependence of the thermopower can arise for temperatures around $\Theta_D/5$. It arises when the phonon distribution is out of equilibrium due to a lack of resistive process that dissipate momentum. $S_g$ is visible in most clean metals around $\Theta_D/5$, the canonical example being the noble metals, where a large peak in $S(T)$ is visible around 50K [@Foiles].
Ziman pointed out that $S_g$ can be of either sign, depending on whether electron-phonon scattering is dominated by normal or umklapp processes [@Ziman1959]. In the former case, a negative $S_g$ (for electrons) arises as phonon momentum acquired from the thermal gradient is transmitted to the electron system via e-p forward scattering, resulting in an additional build-up of negative charge at the cold end of the sample. In the latter case, e-p backscattering is dominant and a positive $S_g$ is the result. It is the former case which applies to [PdCoO$_2$]{}, where e-p umklapp scattering is strongly suppressed at low temperature.
A key feature of $S_g$ in clean metals is a strong dependence on sample purity. Higher peaks in $\kappa(T)$ imply a greater degree of sample purity (Fig. \[fig2\](a)), and the trend is matched by more strongly negative peaks in $S_g$ (Fig. \[fig3\]). The magnitude of the peak in $S_g$ depends on how far out of equilibrium the electron-phonon distribution can be. Impurity and boundary scattering, as well as phonon-phonon umklapp scattering, transfer momentum to the lattice and so restore thermal equilibrium, thus limiting the proportion of electron-phonon scattering relative to the total scattering rate. Within the Debye approximation, the phonon drag thermopower for free electrons and normal scattering is given by [@Blatt1976]: $$S_g =-3\frac{k_B}{e}\biggl(\frac{T}{\Theta_D}\biggr)^3
\int_0^{\Theta_D/T} \frac{x^4e^x}{(e^x-1)^2}
\frac{\Gamma_{pe}}{\Gamma_{pe} + \Gamma_{po}} dx
\label{eqn:drag}$$ where $\Gamma_{pe,po}$ are the scattering rates for phonons by electrons and other processes respectively. As the impurity level increases, the contribution of $\Gamma_{pe}$ becomes relatively smaller, and $S_g$ decreases. This formulation is the result of applying the Debye and relaxation-time approximations to the full variational equation derived by Bailyn [@Bailyn1967] and allows us to estimate $S_g$ without detailed knowledge of the phonon dispersion relation, or the momentum dependence of all the types of scattering including the electron-phonon interaction, generally information that can only be derived through complex *ab initio* calculations.
We can access $\Gamma_{po}$ by fitting $\kappa_c^{ph}$ to a Debye-Callaway model as follows [@Callaway1959]: $$\kappa^{ph}_c = 3Nk_Bv_{ph}^2 \biggl(\frac{T}{\Theta_D}\biggr)^3
\int_0^{\Theta_D/T} \tau \frac{x^4e^x}{(e^x-1)^2} dx
\label{eqn:callaway}$$ where $\tau^{-1} = \Gamma_{po} = A_1x^4T^4 + Bx^2T^5e^{-\Theta_D/bT}+v_{ph}/d$ is the scattering rate arising from the phonon-impurity, phonon-phonon and phonon-boundary processes. Other formulations, particularly of the phonon-phonon scattering rate, have been explored in the literature. For a good summary, see Ref. [@Tritt2004]. We here fit the data with a minimum of adjustable parameters. $d=125$$\mu$m is the average dimension of the sample, $v_{ph}=3650$ms$^{-1}$ is the sound velocity and the constants are found to be $A_1=99$s$^{-1}$K$^{-4}$, $B=0.067$s$^{-1}$K$^{-5}$ and $b=4$. The fit is shown in Fig. \[fig2\](b). These parameters are then used to evaluate Eq. \[eqn:drag\] where $\Gamma_{pe} = Cx$ is used to describe phonon-electron scattering [^1]. $C = 2.0\times 10^9$ is found to fit the thermopower data for sample 1 in the range 30-300K very well when $S_d/T = 18$nVK$^{-2}$ [^2]. Since $A$ is proportional to the impurity concentration, it is varied to fit the other samples, resulting in $A_2 = 129$s$^{-1}$K$^{-4}$ and $A_3 = 168$s$^{-1}$K$^{-4}$. This is in accord with the reduced in-plane thermal conductivity seen in samples 2 and 3 relative to 1. The fits are shown in Fig. \[fig3\]. A similar effect was seen when disorder was quenched into gold [@Huebener1964].
At low temperatures ($T<25$K) it is clear that there is further sample-dependent structure in the thermopower which is difficult to explain by the phonon drag mechanism, which should decrease monotonically below $\Theta_D/5$. One possible explanation is the presence of a single-ion Kondo effect due to very low-level concentrations of magnetic impurities, which can enhance the thermopower at temperatures comparable to the Kondo scale [@Kopp1975]. A very slight upturn in the $\rho_{ab}$ for $T<10$K may be a sign of this [@Hicks2012].
The additional constraint required to see signs of phonon drag in the resistivity is that electron-phonon umklapp scattering should also be suppressed. This results in the suppression of the ordinary electron-phonon resistivity and the exponential temperature dependence at $T\ll T_U$. Returning to the thermal conductivity, the resemblance of $L/L_0$ to an ordinary metal therefore suggests that $\kappa_{ab}^{el}$ must also be relatively enhanced. This implies that small-angle scattering, responsible for the dip in $L/L_0$ at $\Theta_D/5$, has been suppressed to the same degree as the large angle scattering channel responsible for electrical resistivity.
We emphasize that it is only the simplicity of the electronic structure near the Fermi energy which has allowed even such a qualitative interpretation of the data. Even in the alkali metals, however, the temperature dependence and sign of the thermopower does not always follow the simple expectations of Boltzmann transport theory; for example the positive thermopower of lithium can only be explained if the relaxation time approximation is false [@Xu2014]. [PdCoO$_2$]{} is a rather unique material that may well be the closest realization of a textbook 2D metal available in single crystal form. It is not unreasonable to propose that quantitative calculations of electron-phonon scattering could accurately model the drag resistivity and thermopower in this case. [PdCoO$_2$]{} is additionally remarkable for its elevated thermal conductivity compared to other oxides.
[99]{}
K. v. Klitzing, G. Dorda, and M. Pepper, Phys. Rev. Lett. **45** 494 (1980).
D.C. Tsui, H.L. Stormer, and A.C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. **48** 1559 (1982).
K.S. Novoselov, A.K. Geim, S.V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M.I. Katsnelson, I.V. Grigorieva, S.V. Dubonos and A.A. Firsov, Nature [**438**]{}, 197 (2005).
P. Roushan, J. Seo, C.V. Parker, Y.S. Hor, D. Hsieh, D. Qian, A. Richardella, M.Z. Hasan, R.J. Cava and A. Yazdani, Nature **460** 1106 (2009).
Y. Maeno, H. Hashimoto, K. Yoshida, S. NishiZaki, T. Fujuta, J.G. Bednorz, and F. Lichtenberg, Nature **372** 532 (1994).
J.G. Bednorz and K.A. Mueller, Z. Phys. B **64** 189 (1986).
H. Takatsu, S.Y. Onezawa, S.M. Ouri, S. Nakatsuji, K.T. Anaka and Y. Maeno, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn **76** 104701 (2007).
Y. Wang, N.S. Rogado, R.J. Cava and N.P. Ong, Nature **423** 425 (2003).
P. Limelette, S. Hébert, V. Hardy, R. Frésard, Ch. Simon, and A. Maignan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97** 046601 (2006).
H.J. Noh, J. Jeong, J. Jeong, H. Sung, K.J. Park, J.Y. Kim, H.D. Kim, S.B. Kim, K. Kim, B.I. Min, Phys. Rev. B **80** 073104 (2009).
C.W. Hicks, A.S. Gibbs, A.P. Mackenzie, H. Takatsu, Y. Maeno and E.A. Yelland, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109** 116401 (2012).
J. Bass, W.P. Pratt, Jr., P.A. Schroeder, Rev. Mod. Phys. **62** 645 (1990).
R.D. Shannon, D.B. Rogers and C.T. Prewitt, Inorg. Chem. **10** 713 (1971).
P.B. Allen, X. Du, L. Mihaly and L. Forro, Phys. Rev. B **49** 9073 (1994).
H.C. Montgomery, J. Appl. Phys., **42** 2971 (1971).
M.L. Foo, Y. Wang, S. Watauchi, H.W. Zandbergen, T. He, R.J. Cava and N.P. Ong Phys. Rev. Lett. **92** 247001 (2004).
H. Imai, Y. Shimakawa and Y. Kubo, Phys. Rev. B, **64** 241104(R) (2001).
M. Hasegawa, I. Inagawa, M. Tanaka, I. Shirotani, H. Takei, Solid State Comm. **121** 203 (2002).
K.P. Ong, D.J. Singh, P. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104** 176601 (2010).
H. Takatsu, J.J. Ishikawa, S. Yonezawa, H. Yoshino, T. Shishidou, T. Oguchi, K. Murata and Y. Maeno, Phys. Rev. Lett. **111** 056601 (2013).
V. Eyert, R. Frésard and A. Maignan, Chem. Mat. **20** 2370 (2008).
C.L. Foiles.: Figs. 1-39. K.-H. Hellwege, J.L. Olsen, (ed.). SpringerMaterials - The Landolt-Börnstein Database.
J.M. Ziman, Phil. Mag. **4** 371 (1959).
F.J. Blatt, P.A. Schroeder, C.L. Foiles and D. Greig, *Thermoelectric Power Of Metals*, (Plenum Press, New York, 1976).
M. Bailyn, Phys. Rev. **157** 480 (1967).
J. Callaway, Phys. Rev.**113** 1046 (1959).
T.M. Tritt (ed.), *Thermal Conductivity: Theory, Properties and Applications*, (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2004).
R.P. Huebener, Phys. Rev. **135** A1281 (1964).
J. Kopp, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. **5** 1211 (1975).
B. Xu and M.J. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett. **112** 196603 (2014).
P.G. Klemens, Handbuch der Physik, Vol. XIV, 198, Springer Verlag, Berlin (1956).
K. Behnia, D. Jaccard and J. Flouquet, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **16** 5187 (2004).
[^1]: The functional form of $\Gamma_{pe}$ will in general depend sensitively on the details of the Fermi surface and we have chosen the simplest function that provides a reasonable fit over a wide temperature range. Klemens proposed the very similar $\Gamma_{pe} \sim q \sim xT$ for a spherical Fermi surface [@Klemens1956]. Scattering of 3D phonons from a 2D Fermi surface will likely have a different parameterization
[^2]: Another estimate of $S_d$ is obtained using the Mott formula for the thermopower expressed in the low temperature limit [@Behnia2004], $S_d/T = \pm\frac{\pi^2k_B^2}{2e\varepsilon_F} = 16$nVK$^{-2}$ using experimental quantities and assuming parabolic dispersion, which agrees very well with the value obtained.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
2.5cm
[**[$L_{\infty}$ Algebras and Field Theory ]{}**]{}
0.5cm
2.0cm
[*$^1$ -.1truecm Simons Center for Geometry and Physics,\
Stony Brook University,\
Stony Brook, NY 11794-3636, USA* ]{}
[*$^2$ -.1truecm Center for Theoretical Physics,\
Massachusetts Institute of Technology\
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA* ]{}
[email protected], [email protected]\
2.5cm [**Abstract**]{}
0.5cm
We review and develop the general properties of $L_\infty$ algebras focusing on the gauge structure of the associated field theories. Motivated by the $L_\infty$ homotopy Lie algebra of closed string field theory and the work of Roytenberg and Weinstein describing the Courant bracket in this language we investigate the $L_\infty$ structure of general gauge invariant perturbative field theories. We sketch such formulations for non-abelian gauge theories, Einstein gravity, and for double field theory. We find that there is an $L_\infty$ algebra for the gauge structure and a larger one for the full interacting field theory. Theories where the gauge structure is a strict Lie algebra often require the full $L_\infty$ algebra for the interacting theory. The analysis suggests that $L_\infty$ algebras provide a classification of perturbative gauge invariant classical field theories.
Introduction and summary
========================
In bosonic open string field theory [@Witten:1985cc] the interaction of strings is defined by a multiplication rule, a star product of string fields that happens to be associative. While this formulation is advantageous for finding classical solutions of the theory, associativity is not strictly necessary for the formulation of the string field theory; [*homotopy*]{} associativity is. This more intricate structure has been investigated in [@Gaberdiel:1997ia] and has appeared when one incorporates closed strings explicitly in the open string theory [@Zwiebach:1997fe; @Zwiebach:1990qj; @Kajiura:2004xu]. The homotopy associative $A_\infty$ algebra of Stasheff [@stasheff] is the mathematical structure underlying the general versions of the classical open string field theory sector.
The product of closed string fields is analogous to Lie brackets in that they are graded commutative. But a strict Lie algebra does not appear to allow for the formulation of closed string field theory. Instead one requires a collection of higher products satisfying generalized versions of Jacobi identities. The classical string field theory is thus organized by a homotopy Lie algebra, an $L_\infty$ algebra whose axioms and Jacobi-like identities were given explicitly in [@Zwiebach:1992ie]. The axioms and identities were later given in different but equivalent conventions in [@Lada:1992wc]. These two formulations are related by a “suspension", an operation where the degree of all vector spaces is shifted by one unit. An earlier mathematical motivation for homotopy Lie algebras is found in [@sch-sta]. The $L_\infty$ algebra describes the structure of classical string field theory: the collection of string field products is all one needs to write gauge transformations and field equations. Equipped with a suitable inner product, one can also write an action. The interplay of $A_\infty$ and $L_\infty$ algebras feature in the study of open-closed string field theory [@Zwiebach:1997fe; @Kajiura:2004xu; @Munster:2011ij]. $L_\infty$ algebras have recently featured in a study of massive two-dimensional field theory [@Gaiotto:2015aoa].
The relevance of $L_\infty$ to closed string field theory, which is a field theory for an infinite number of component fields, suggests that it should also be relevant to arbitrary field theories, and this provided motivation for the present study. In particular, in a recent work Sen has shown how to define consistent truncations for a set of closed string modes [@Sen:2016qap]. For these degrees of freedom one has an effective field theory organized by an $L_\infty$ algebra that can be derived from the full algebra of the closed string field theory. This again suggests the general relevance of $L_\infty$ to field theories.
A first look into the problem of identifying the $L_\infty$ gauge structure of some field theories was given by Barnich [*et.al.*]{}[@Barnich:1997ij]. The early investigation of non-linear higher-spin symmetries in Berends [*et.al.*]{} [@Berends:1984rq] eventually led to an analysis by Fulp [*et.al.*]{} [@Fulp:2002kk] of [*gauge*]{} structures that under some assumptions define $L_\infty$ algebras. More recently, Yang-Mills-type gauge theories were fully formulated as $L_\infty$ algebras by Zeitlin using the BRST complex of open string field theory [@Zeitlin:2007vv; @Zeitlin:2007fp; @Zeitlin:2008cc].
In an interesting paper, Roytenberg and Weinstein [@roytenberg-weinstein] systematically analyzed the Courant algebroid in the language of $L_\infty$ algebras. The authors explicitly identified the relevant vector spaces, the products, and proceeded to show that the Jacobi-like homotopy identities are all satisfied. As it turns out, in this algebra there is a bracket $[ \, \cdot \,, \cdot \, ]$ that applied to two gauge parameters coincides with the Courant bracket, and a triple product $[ \, \cdot \,, \cdot \, , \, \cdot \, ]$ that applied to three gauge parameters gives a function whose gradient is the Jacobiator. No higher products exist in this particular $L_\infty$ algebra. The $L_\infty$ formulation of the C-bracket, the duality-covariant extension of the Courant bracket, was considered by Deser and Saemann [@Deser:2016qkw]. The authors used ‘derived brackets’ in their construction, making use of the results of [@Deser:2014mxa; @getzler; @roytenberg]. Since the Courant bracket underlies the gauge structure of double field theory [@Siegel:1993th; @Hull:2009mi; @Hull:2009zb; @Hohm:2010jy; @Hohm:2010pp], we were motivated by the above results to try to understand what would be the $L_\infty$ algebra of double field theory.
For the study of $L_\infty$ in field theory a fact about $L_\infty$ in closed string field theory was puzzling. In this theory there is a triple product $[ \, \cdot \,, \cdot \, , \, \cdot \, ]$ and it controls several aspects of the theory. It enters in the quartic interactions of fields, as the inner product of $\Psi$ with $[ \, \Psi \,, \Psi \, , \Psi \, ]$. It appears in the gauge transformations as a nonlinear contribution $\delta_\Lambda \Psi \sim \cdots + [ \, \Lambda \,, \Psi \, , \, \Psi \, ]$. It makes the commutator of two gauge transformations $\delta_{\Lambda_1}$ and $\delta_{\Lambda_2}$ a gauge transformation with a gauge parameter that includes a field-dependent term $[\Lambda_1 , \Lambda_2, \Psi]$. Finally, the triple product implies that the gauge transformations only close on shell, the extra term being $[\Lambda_1 , \Lambda_2, {\cal F}]$, where ${\cal F}$ is the string field equation. In closed string field theory all these peculiarities happen simultaneously because the triple product is non-vanishing; these facts are correlated. Moreover, the definition of the product is universal, valid for arbitrary input string fields.
These facts, however, are not correlated in ordinary field theories. Yang-Mills, for example, has a quartic interaction in the Lagrangian but the commutator of gauge transformations is a gauge transformation with a field-independent gauge parameter. The same is true for Einstein gravity in a perturbative expansion around a background. The gauge algebra of double field theory is field independent but there is a triple bracket associated to the failure of the Jacobi identity for the Courant bracket. The lack of correlation is quickly demystified by exploring such examples. Gauge parameters, fields, and field equations appear in different vector spaces, according to some relevant grading. In defining a triple product one must state its value for all possible gradings of the various inputs. While in the string field theory one has a universal definition controlled by some data about four-punctured Riemann spheres, the definition of products [*in a given field theory*]{} has to be done in a case by case approach as we vary the inputs. The product is non-vanishing for inputs with certain gradings and can vanish for other sets of inputs. The correlation observed in string field theory is not discernible in the various separate field theories.
Another important feature is revealed by the explicit analysis: there are at least two $L_\infty$ algebras associated to a field theory, one a subalgebra of the other. There is an ${L_\infty^{\phantom{0}}}^{\hskip-7pt \rm gauge}$ for the gauge structure which is a subalgebra of the larger ${L_\infty^{\phantom{0}}}^{\hskip-7pt \rm full}$ that includes the interactions associated with the action and the field equations: \^[-7pt gauge]{} [L\_\^]{}\^[-5pt full]{} . Any algebra for the gauge structure must include a vector space for gauge parameters. If the algebra is field dependent, it must include a vector space for fields. This algebra does not include interactions. When including interactions, the gauge algebra is supplemented by a new vector space for field equations and a set of new products, including some defined on fields and field equations. One can easily have a theory where ${L_\infty^{\phantom{0}}}^{\hskip-7pt \rm gauge}$ is a Lie algebra but ${L_\infty^{\phantom{0}}}^{\hskip-5pt \rm full}$ has higher products, because the theories have quartic or higher-order interactions. This is the case for Yang-Mills theory and for Einstein gravity. For a discussion of $L_\infty$ algebras associated with some class of gauge algebras with field-dependent structure constants see also [@Fulp:2002kk].
If ${L_\infty^{\phantom{0}}}^{\hskip-7pt \rm gauge}$ is field independent, there is a third, intermediate algebra \^[-7pt gauge+fields]{}, that includes the off-shell realization of the gauge transformations on fields but that does not include dynamics. Roytenberg and Weinstein [@roytenberg-weinstein], for example, computed the field-independent algebra ${L_\infty^{\phantom{0}}}^{\hskip-7pt \rm gauge}$ for the Courant bracket. We will review that work, translated in $O(d,d)$ covariant language, and extend it to consider the algebra ${L_\infty^{\phantom{0}}}^{\hskip-7pt \rm gauge+fields}$ and the algebra ${L_\infty^{\phantom{0}}}^{\hskip-5pt \rm full}$ for the interacting double field theory.
Our work here points to an intriguing possibility: any gauge invariant perturbative field theory may be represented by an $L_\infty$ algebra that encodes all the information about the theory, namely, the gauge algebra and its interactions. It is then possible that [ *gauge invariant perturbative field theories are classified by $L_\infty$ algebras.*]{} A few comments are needed here. Associated to any gauge structure, field theories can differ by the interactions. Since the interactions define some of the products in ${L_\infty^{\phantom{0}}}^{\hskip-5pt \rm full}$, that aspect of the theory is properly incorporated. Of course, field redefinitions establish equivalences between theories, and such equivalences must correspond to suitable isomorphisms of $L_\infty$ algebras, presumably in the way discussed for $A_\infty$ in [@Gaberdiel:1997ia]. We seem to be constrained to theories formulated in perturbative form, that is theories in which one can identify unambiguously terms with definite powers of the fields in the Lagrangian, although there may be exceptions. For Einstein gravity, which in the standard formulation contains both the metric and its inverse, one must expand around a background to obtain a perturbative expansion in terms of the fluctuating field. This formulation of gravity as $L_\infty$ is completely straightforward, as will be clear to the reader of this paper, but real insight would come only if some elegant explicit definition of the products could be given. Constrained fields, such as the generalized metric of double field theory, are also problematic as the power of the field in any expression may be altered by use of the constraint. All in all, we do not attempt to show that [*any*]{} gauge invariant field theory has a description as an $L_\infty$ algebra, although we suspect that the result is true for unconstrained fields. Perhaps a proof could be built using a different approach. Consider a perturbative theory that can be formulated in the Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism with a master action $S$ satisfying the classical Batalin-Vilkovisky master equation $\{ S, S\} =0$; see [@Henneaux:1989jq] for a review of these techniques. General arguments indicate that an $L_\infty$ structure can be systematically extracted from the master action [@Alexandrov:1995kv].
Since $A_\infty$ is the algebraic setup for open string field theory, one can ask why is $L_\infty$, the setup for closed string field theory, chosen for perturbative field theories. We have no general answer but it appears that the $L_\infty$ setup is rather flexible. We show that for Chern-Simons theory both an $A_\infty$ and a $L_\infty$ formulation exists. The first formulation requires describing the Lie algebra in terms of an associative algebra of matrix multiplication. The second formulation requires the use of a background metric in the definition of the products. We have not investigated if other field theories have both formulations. See, however, the general discussion in [@Movshev:2004aw] giving an $A_\infty$ setup to Yang-Mills theory. The formulation of gauge theories as $A_{\infty}$ algebras will also be investigated in [@MartinRocek].
A fraction of the work here deals with the structure of $L_\infty$ algebras. Following [@Zwiebach:1992ie] we discuss the axioms and main identities, but develop a bit further the analysis. We show explicitly that given an $L_\infty$ algebra with multilinear products with $n\geq 1$ inputs, one can construct consistent [*modified*]{} products with $n\geq 0$ inputs. A product $[ \cdot ]'$ without an input is just a special vector ${\cal F}$ in the algebra and that vector is in fact the field equation for a field $\Psi$ in the theory defined by the original products. The modified product with one input, $[ B]' = Q' B$, defines a linear operator $Q'$, built from $\Psi$ and a $Q$ operator that squares to zero and defines the one-input original product. We establish the $L_\infty$ identity \[bianchi-ft\] Q’ [F]{} = 0 , which can be viewed as the [*Bianchi identity*]{} of the original theory, and $Q'$ may be thought of as a [*covariant derivative*]{}. Indeed we also have $Q'^2 \sim {\cal F}$. The modified products simplify the analysis of the gauge structure of the theory. The gauge transformations take the form \_ = Q’ , and the computation of the gauge algebra $[ \delta_{\Lambda_2},
\delta_{\Lambda_1} ]$ can be simplified considerably. We also compute the ‘gauge Jacobiator’ \[gauge-jacobiator\] [J]{} (\_1, \_2, \_3) \_ . The right hand side is trivially zero for any theory with well-defined gauge transformations; this is clear by expansion of the commutators. On the other hand, this vanishing is a nontrivial constraint on the form of the gauge algebra. This constraint is satisfied by virtue of the identities satisfied by the higher products in the $L_\infty$ algebra.
In the above approach, called the $b$-picture of the $L_\infty$ algebra, the signs in the field equation, gauge transformations, action, and gauge algebra are known. There is another picture, the $\ell$-picture of the algebra [@Lada:1992wc] in which the signs of the Jacobi-like identities are more familiar. The two pictures are related by suspension, a shift in the degree of the various spaces involved. We use this suspension to derive the form of field equations, gauge transformation, action, and gauge algebra in the $\ell$ picture.
Here is a brief summary of this paper. We begin in section 2 with a description of the $L_{\infty}$ algebra in the conventions of the original closed string field theory and discuss the gauge structure, particularly the closure of the algebra and the triviality of the Jacobiator. In sec. 3 we begin by defining the axioms of $L_\infty$ algebras in two conventions, one (the $\ell$-picture) that is conventional in the mathematics literature and one (the $b$-picture) that is conventional in string field theory and hence directly related to sec. 2. In sec. 3.3 we make some general remarks how to identify for a given field theory the corresponding structures of an $L_{\infty}$ algebra. Moreover, we explain how gauge covariance of the field equations and closure of the gauge transformations imply that large classes of $L_\infty$ identities hold. (Readers mainly interested in the applications to field theory can skip sec. 2 and sec. 3.2.) These results will be applied in sec. 4 in order to describe Yang-Mills-like gauge theories, both for Chern-Simons actions in 3D and for general Yang-Mills actions. In sec. 5 we discuss the $L_{\infty}$ description of double field theory, which in turn is an extension of the construction by Roytenberg and Weinstein for the Courant algebroid. We finally compare these results with $A_{\infty}$ algebras by giving the $A_{\infty}$ description of Chern-Simons theory in sec. 6. We close with a summary and an outlook in sec. 7.
$L_\infty$ algebra and gauge Jacobiator {#LinfJac}
=======================================
In this section we review the definition of an $L_\infty$ algebra, state the main identities,[^1] and introduce the field equation and the action. We then turn to a family of identities for modified products, giving the details of a result anticipated in [@Zwiebach:1992ie]. They correspond to the products that would arise after the expansion of the string field theory action around a background that does not solve the string field theory equations of motion.[^2] With these products, the Bianchi identities of string field theory become clear and the modified BRST operator functions as a covariant derivative. We elaborate on the types of gauge transformations, and the modified products simplify the calculation of the gauge algebra. We are also able to verify that the gauge Jacobiator for a general field theory described with an $L_\infty$ algebra vanishes, as required by consistency.
The multilinear products and main identity
------------------------------------------
In an $L_\infty$ algebra we have a vector space $V$ graded by a degree, which is an integer. We will typically work with elements $B_i\in V$ of fixed degree.[^3] The degree enters in sign factors where, for convenience, we omit the ‘deg’ label. Thus, for example: (-1)\^[B\_1 B\_2]{} (-1)\^[[ ]{}(B\_1) (B\_2)]{} . In exponents, the degrees are relevant only mod 2. In an $L_\infty$ algebra we have multilinear products. In the notation used for string field theory the multilinear products are denoted by brackets $[ B_1, \ldots , B_n ]$ and are graded commutative \[Bcommutation\] \[ B\_i , B\_j , \] = (-1)\^[B\_i B\_j]{} \[ B\_j , B\_i , \]. All products are defined to be of intrinsic degree $-1$, meaning that the degree of a product of a given number of inputs is given by ( \[B\_1, … , B\_n\] ) = -1 + \_[i=1]{}\^n (B\_i) . The product with one input is sometimes called the $Q$ operator (for BRST) \[sgbv\] \[B\] QB . We also have a product $[ \cdot ]$ with no input whose value is just some special vector in the vector space.
The $L_\infty$ relations can be written in the form [@Zwiebach:1992ie]: \[hla-sft\] \_[l, k 0 l+k = n]{} \_[\_s]{} ( i\_l, j\_k) = 0 , n 0. Here $n$ is the number of inputs (if $n=0$ we still get a nontrivial identity). The inputs $B_1, \ldots, B_n$ are split into two sets: a first set $\{ B_{i_1} \ldots B_{i_l} \}$ with $l$ elements and a second set $\{ B_{j_1} \ldots B_{j_k}\}$ with $k$ elements, where $l+k = n$. The first set is empty if $l=0$ and the second set is empty if $k=0$. The two sets do not enter the identity symmetrically: the second set has the inputs for a product nested inside a product that involves the first set of elements. The set of numbers $\{ i_1, \ldots , i_l, j_1, \ldots, j_k\}$ is a permutation of the list $\{ 1, \ldots , n\}$.
The sums are over inequivalent splittings. Sets with different values of $l$ and $k$ are inequivalent, so we must sum over all possible values of $k$ and $l$. Two splittings with the same values of $l$ and $k$ are equivalent if the first set $\{ B_{i_1} \ldots B_{i_l} \}$ contains the same elements, regardless of order. The factor $\sigma(i_l, j_k)$ is the sign needed to rearrange the list $\{ B_*, B_1, \ldots ,B_n\}$ into $\{ B_{i_1}, \ldots B_{i_l}, B_* ,\, B_{j_1}, \ldots B_{j_k} \}$: { B\_\*, B\_1, …,B\_n} { B\_[i\_1]{}, …B\_[i\_l]{}, B\_\* , B\_[j\_1]{}, …B\_[j\_k]{} } , using the degrees to commute the $B$’s according to (\[Bcommutation\]) and thinking of $B_*$ as an element of odd degree. The element $B_*$ is needed to take into account that the products are odd.
For classical string field theory, or for any field theory expanded around a classical solution, the value of the zeroth product $[ \cdot ]$ will be set equal to the zero vector: \[zero-product\] \[ \] 0 . Using the above rules for sign factors, we can write out the $L_{\infty}$ identities (\[hla-sft\]). Note that in the absence of a zeroth product $k >0$ and thus $n>0$ to get a nontrivial identity. For $n=1, 2, 3$ one gets: \[clksshrss\]
0 &= Q ( Q B) ,\
0 &= Q \[ B\_1, B\_2\] + \[QB\_1 , B\_2\] + (-1)\^[B\_1]{} \[B\_1, QB\_2 \] ,\
0 &= Q \[B\_1 , B\_2, B\_3 \]\
&+ \[ QB\_1 , B\_2, B\_3 \] + (-1)\^[B\_1]{} \[B\_1 , Q B\_2, B\_3 \] + (-1)\^[B\_1+ B\_2]{} \[B\_1 , B\_2, Q B\_3 \]\
& +(-1)\^[B\_1]{} \[ B\_1 , \[B\_2, B\_3\] \] + (-1)\^[B\_2 (1+B\_1)]{} \[ B\_2 , \[B\_1, B\_3\] \]\
& + (-1)\^[B\_3 (1+B\_1+B\_2)]{} \[ B\_3 , \[ B\_1, B\_2\] \].\
We will now discuss how to define in this language equations of motion and actions for a field theory. To this end and for brevity, we write products with repeated inputs as powers. When there is no possible confusion we also omit the commas between the inputs: \[ , , \] , \[ B, , , \] . Here $\Psi$, called the field, is an element of degree zero: = 0 . If $\Psi$ had been of odd degree, the above products would vanish by the graded commutativity property.
Given a set of products satisfying the $L_\infty$ conditions and a Grassmann even field $\Psi$ we introduce a field equation ${\cal F}$ of degree minus one: \[calF-def\] [F]{} = \_[n=0]{}\^ \[\^n\] = Q + \[\^2\] + \[\^3 \] + … = Q+ \[ , \] + \[, , \] + … . Again, we used that the term with $n=0$ vanishes, as it involves a product with no input. The field equation ${\cal F}$ is of degree minus one because $\Psi$ is of degree zero and all products are of degree minus one. Certain infinite sums appear often when dealing with gauge transformations and make it convenient to define modified, primed products: \[ A\_1 …A\_n \]’ \_[p=0]{}\^ [1p!]{} \[ A\_1 …A\_n \^p \], n 1 . Thus, for example, \[primeQ\]
\[ A\]’ Q’ A = & QA + \[A \] + \[A \^2\] + …,\
\[ A\_1 …A\_n \]’ = & \[ A\_1 …A\_n \]+ \[ A\_1 …A\_n \]+ \[ A\_1 …A\_n \^2 \] + ….
The variation of those products is rather simple: \[var-primed-products\] ’ = \[ A\_1 …A\_n \]’ + …+ \[ A\_1…A\_n \]’ + \[ A\_1…A\_n \]’ . The identification of $[A]'$ with $Q' A$ is natural given (\[sgbv\]). The variation of the field equation takes the form of a modified product. We have \[varF\] = Q’ () , which is readily established: = \_[k=0]{}\^ \[\^k\] = \_[k=1]{}\^ \[\^[k-1]{}\] = \_[k=0]{}\^ \[\^k\] = \[ \]’.
[**Inner product and action:**]{} The action exists if there is a suitable inner product $\langle \cdot \,, \cdot \rangle$. One requires that \[gr-comm-ip\] A, B = (-1)\^[(A+1)(B+1)]{} B, A , and that the expression B\_1, \[B\_2 , …, B\_n\] , for $n \geq 1$ is a multilinear [*graded-commutative*]{} function of all the arguments. From the above one can show, for example, that \[jnctns\] QA , B = (-1)\^A A , QB . The action is given by \[jnbtflrgs\] S = \_[n=1]{}\^ [1(n+1)!]{}, \[\^n\] . A short calculation shows that that under a variation $\delta \Psi$ one has \[vary-action\] S = , [F]{} , confirming that ${\cal F}=0$ is the field equation corresponding to the action.
A family of identities
----------------------
In this subsection we will establish a number of identities that will be useful below when computing the Jacobiator. The products $[ \ldots ]'$ can in fact be viewed as a set of products satisfying a simple extension of the $L_\infty$ identities. To see this and to get the general picture we consider a few examples.
Consider (\[hla-sft\]) when all $B$’s are of even degree. The sign factor is then always equal to $+1$ and we have \[hla-sft1\] \_[l , k0 l+k = n]{} \_[\_s]{} = 0 , n 0 B\_k k . For $l$ and $k$ fixed there are $n! / (l! k!)$ inequivalent splittings of the inputs; this is the number of terms in the sum $\sum_{\sigma_s}$. Assume now that all the $B$’s are the same: $B_1 = B_2 = \ldots = B$, so that all those terms are equal. We then have \[hla-sft3\] \_[l, k 0 l+k = n]{} [1l! k!]{} = 0 , n 0, B , where we have taken out an overall factor of $n!$ from the numerator. If we now take $B = \Psi$ and sum over $n$ this identity becomes \[hla-sft4\] \_[n 0]{} \_[l, k 0 l+k = n]{} [1l! k!]{} = 0 . Reordering the double sum we have \[hla-sft5\] \_[l, k 0 ]{} [1l! k!]{} = \_[l 0 ]{} [1l!]{} = 0 , where we summed over $k$ in the second step and used (\[calF-def\]). Recalling (\[primeQ\]), the sum over $l$ finally gives Q’ [F ]{} = 0 . If we view $Q'$ as the analogue of the covariant derivative $D$ and ${\cal F}$ as the analogue of the non-abelian field strength $F$ in Yang-Mills theory, then this identity is the analogue of the Bianchi identity $DF=0$.
Let us consider a second $L_\infty$ identity again based on (\[hla-sft\]) but with $n+1$ inputs B\_1 = A , B\_2 = …= B\_[n+1]{} = B , B . There are two possible classes of splittings, both of which involve separating the $n$ copies of $B$ into a set with $l$ elements and a set with $k$ elements, with $l+k = n$. These are { A B\^l} , {B\^k} { B\^l} , {A B\^k} . The sign factors arise from reordering $B_* A B^l B^k$ into $A B^l B_*B^k$ for the first sequence, giving a sign $(-1)^A$, and into $B^l B_*AB^k$ for the second sequence, giving no sign. We thus have \_[l, k 0 l+k = n]{} [n!l! k!]{} ( (-1)\^A \[ A B\^l \[ B\^k\]\] + \[ B\^l \[ A B\^k\]\] ) = 0 . For $n=0$ all terms vanish. This is a fine identity but an alternative form is also useful. We cancel the $n!$ in the numerator and sum over $n$: \[vmbb\] \_[n0]{} \_[l, k 0 l+k = n]{} [1l! k!]{} ( (-1)\^A \[ A B\^l \[ B\^k\]\] + \[ B\^l \[ A B\^k\]\] ) = 0 , which becomes, reorganizing the sums and letting $B= \Psi$ \[vmbv\] \_[l, k 0 ]{} [1l! k!]{} ( (-1)\^A \[ A \^l \[ \^k\]\] + \[ \^l \[ A \^k\]\] ) = 0 . Performing the sum over $k$ gives \[vmkhrv\] \_[l, 0 ]{} [1l!]{} ( (-1)\^A \[ A \^l [F]{}\] + \[ \^l Q’A \] ) = 0 . Doing the sum over $l$ now gives \[vmksshrbv\] (-1)\^A \[ A [F]{}\]’ + Q’ ( Q’ A) = 0 . Since ${\cal F}$ is odd, this result is equivalent to \[vmdlcsbtt\] Q’ (Q’A) + \[ [F]{} A \]’ = 0 . Again, if we view $Q'$ and ${\cal F}$ as the analogues of covariant derivative $D$ and field strength $F$ in Yang-Mills theory, then this relation is the analogue of $D^2=F$.
Consider another $L_\infty$ identity, again based on (\[hla-sft\]), but with $n+2$ inputs and two string fields $A_1, A_2$: B\_1 = A\_1 , B\_2= A\_2 , B\_3 = …= B\_[n+2]{} = . This time the above procedure yields: 0 = Q’ \[ A\_1, A\_2\]’ + \[Q’A\_1 , A\_2\]’ + (-1)\^[A\_1]{} \[A\_1, Q’A\_2 \]’ + \[ [F]{}A\_1 A\_2 \]’. Comparing the above and (\[vmdlcsbtt\]) with the first two equations in (\[clksshrss\]) the pattern becomes clear. We are obtaining for the primed products the same $L_\infty$ identities with one extra term. In fact, the extra term corresponds to having a zeroth product, as in (\[zero-product\]), that this time is nonzero: ’ [F]{} . As noted in [@Zwiebach:1992ie] the identities (\[hla-sft\]) indeed give, for $n=0,1,2,3$ \[jyndlcsbtt\]
& 0 = Q’ [F]{} ,\
& 0 = Q’ ( Q’ A) + \[[F]{} A\]’ ,\
& 0 = Q’ \[ A\_1 A\_2\]’ + \[Q’A\_1 A\_2\]’ + (-1)\^[A\_1]{} \[A\_1 Q’A\_2 \]’ + \[ [F]{} A\_1 A\_2\]’ ,\
& 0 = Q’ \[A\_1 A\_2, A\_3 \]’\
& + \[ Q’A\_1 A\_2 A\_3 \]’ + (-1)\^[A\_1]{} \[A\_1 Q’ A\_2 A\_3 \]’ + (-1)\^[A\_1+ A\_2]{} \[A\_1 A\_2 Q’ A\_3 \]’\
& +(-1)\^[A\_1]{} \[ A\_1 \[A\_2 A\_3\]’ \]’ + (-1)\^[A\_2 (1+A\_1)]{} \[ A\_2 \[A\_1 A\_3\]’ \]’\
& + (-1)\^[A\_3 (1+A\_1+A\_2)]{} \[ A\_3 \[ A\_1 A\_2\]’ \]’ + \[ [F]{} A\_1 A\_2 A\_3\]’ .
We have thus demonstrated that the modified products satisfy an extended form of the $L_\infty$ identities, one that includes a nontrivial zeroth product. These identities simplify some of the work that was done in [@Zwiebach:1992ie] and allow us to examine the Jacobiator. The above identities would be needed to construct a classical field theory around a background that is not a solution of the field equations.
The inner product interacts nicely with the modified products. One can quickly use (\[jnctns\]) and multi-linearity to show that, for example, \[jnsmllyns\] Q’A , B = (-1)\^A A , Q’B .
Gauge transformations and algebra
---------------------------------
We now describe the gauge transformations and their gauge algebra. Here our primed identities are very helpful. We also discuss trivial or equation-of-motion symmetries of two types. We introduce the notion of trivial gauge parameters, and that of extended gauge transformations.
[**Standard Gauge transformations:**]{} These take a very simple form in terms of the new product: they are simply the result of $Q'$ acting on the gauge parameter $\Lambda$, an element of degree $+1$. Indeed \[vmlvsagdlck\] \_ = \[\]’ = Q’ = Q + \[\] + \[ \^2 \] + … . The key constraint is that the field equations must be gauge covariant. This requires that the gauge transformation of ${\cal F}$ vanishes when ${\cal F}=0$. With the help of the new products this is now a trivial computation. Using (\[varF\]) and the second of (\[jyndlcsbtt\]) \[jnlvltts\] \_ = Q’ (\_) = Q’ (Q’ ) = \[ [F]{}\]’ . We see that covariance holds. Writing out the result more explicitly, \[jnlvlsckbltts\] \_ = \[ [F]{}\] + \[ \] + \[ \^2 \] + …, makes it clear that the bare field appears on the right-hand side. The action is, of course, gauge invariant: S = \_, [F]{} = Q’ , [F]{} = -,Q’[F]{} = 0 , making use of (\[jnsmllyns\]) and the first identity in (\[jyndlcsbtt\]).
[**Equations-of-motion symmetries**]{}: These are transformations that vanish when using the equations of motion and are invariances of the action. For example, $\delta \Psi = [\chi, {\cal F}]$, for even $\chi$ is a trivial gauge transformation. It vanishes on-shell and leaves the action invariant because S = , [F]{} = [F]{}, \[, [F]{}\] = , \[[F]{}, [F]{}\] = 0, because ${\cal F}$ is Grassmann odd. Two types of equations-of-motion symmetries will play a special role, one parameterized by a Grassmann even single string field $\chi$ of ghost number zero and another parameterized by two gauge parameters $\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2$. They are:
\_\^[\^T]{} & \[ [F]{} \]’ = -Q’ (Q’) ,\
\^[\^T]{}\_[\_1, \_2 ]{} & \[ \_1 \_2 [F]{} \]’ ,
using (\[vmdlcsbtt\]) in the first line. The second type of equations-of-motion symmetries shows up in the commutator of two standard gauge transformations, as we will discuss now.
[**Gauge algebra:**]{} We claim that the standard gauge transformations form an algebra that includes the equations-of-motion symmetries of the second type. Indeed, assuming the gauge parameters $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$ are field independent we have[^4] \[jnhwlvly\] = \_[\[\_1 \_2\]’]{} + \^[\^T]{}\_[\_1, \_2 ]{} . With the help of our identities, the proof of this claim is much simplified. Using the variation formula (\[var-primed-products\]) we find \_[\_2]{} \_[\_1]{} = \_[\_2]{} \[ \_1 \]’ = \[\_1 \_[\_2]{} \]’ = \[ \_1 Q’ \_2\]’. Thus, it follows that = \[ \_1 Q’ \_2\]’ - \[ \_2 Q’ \_1\]’. The third identity in (\[jyndlcsbtt\]) gives 0 = Q’ \[ \_1 \_2\]’ + \[Q’\_1 \_2\]’ - \[\_1 Q’\_2 \]’ + \[ [F]{} \_1 \_2\]’ . As a result = Q’ \[ \_1 \_2\]’ + \[ \_1 \_2 [F]{}\]’ = \_[\[ \_1 \_2\]’]{} + \^[\^T]{}\_[\_1, \_2 ]{} , which is what we wanted to prove.
[**Trivial gauge parameters**]{}: A field-dependent parameter $\Lambda$ is said to be trivial if $\Lambda = Q'\chi$ for some Grassmann even $\chi$. A standard transformation with a trivial gauge parameter is a equations-of-motion symmetry of the first kind: \_[ Q’]{} = Q’ (Q’ ) = - \[[F]{} \]’ = -\_\^[\^T]{} .
[**Extended gauge transformations**]{}: They are the sum of a standard gauge transformation with parameter $\Lambda$ and a equations-of-motion symmetry of the first kind with parameter $\chi$ of ghost-number zero: \^[\^E]{}\_[, ]{} \_ + \_\^[\^T]{} = Q’ + \[ [F]{} \]’ .
[**Null transformations**]{}: These are extended gauge transformations that give no variation of the field. Indeed, if $\Lambda = Q' \chi$ the transformation $\delta^{\,{}^E}_{\Lambda, \chi } $ of the string field vanishes:
\^[\^E]{}\_[Q’, ]{} \_[Q’]{} + \^[\^T]{}\_ = Q’ (Q’) + \[ [F]{} \]’ = 0,
because $\chi$ is Grassmann even. We say that $\chi$ generates the null transformation $\delta^{\,{}^E}_{Q'\chi, \,\chi }$. Since null transformations give no variation of the fields we declare they are identically zero: $\delta^{\,{}^E}_{Q'\chi, \,\chi } = 0$.
Gauge Jacobiator
----------------
Given a set of gauge transformations one can consider the gauge algebra, as we did above. In addition, one can consider the ‘gauge Jacobiator’ ${\cal J}$, (\_1, \_2, \_3) \_ , a definition inspired by that of the Jacobiator of a bracket. Here the cyclic sum involves the sum of three terms in which we cycle the three indices $1,2,3$. The Jacobiator ${\cal J}$, if non-zero, would be a gauge transformation because gauge transformations close. But in the above, the brackets are simply commutators, and if the gauge transformations are well defined, upon expansion one can see that all terms vanish and this gauge Jacobiator should vanish.
This vanishing, however, is not a trivial constraint from the viewpoint of the $L_\infty$ algebra. One can compute ${\cal J}$ using the gauge algebra (\[jnhwlvly\]) and one finds that the vanishing requires the $L_\infty$ identities for three and four inputs. We will do this calculation below. Indeed, we will find that the gauge Jacobiator is a null transformation and thus vanishes identically. Namely, \_ = 0 .
[**Proof:**]{} Using the gauge algebra (\[jnhwlvly\]) we have \[cllckswtss\] \_ = \_ + \_ . For the first term on the right-hand side, we can use the gauge algebra noticing, however, the presence of an extra term because the gauge parameter $[\Lambda_1 \Lambda_2]'$ is now field dependent and must be varied using (\[var-primed-products\]). Following the same steps as in the derivation of the gauge algebra one finds \_ = \_[\_ ( ’ + ’) ]{} + \_ \^[\^T]{}\_[ \[\_1\_2\]’, \_3 ]{} , where the extra term is the one involving $ \bigl[\, \Lambda_1\Lambda_2 Q'\Lambda_3 \bigr]'$. We now use the last identity in (\[jyndlcsbtt\]), with $A_i = \Lambda_i$ to simplify the first term on the above right-hand side: \[first\_term\] \_ = \_[ ( - Q’ \[\_1\_2\_3\]’ + ’) ]{} + \_ \^[\^T]{}\_[ \[\_1\_2\]’, \_3 ]{} . This completes our simplification of the first term on the right-hand side of (\[cllckswtss\]). For the second term on that same right-hand side, acting on $\Psi$, we get \[skstkvg\] \_ = \_ ( -’ + ’ - ’ ) , where we had to use (\[jnlvltts\]). We now need to use the $L_\infty$ identity for four string-fields $\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2,\Lambda_3,{\cal F}$ and primed products. Although we did not include it in (\[jyndlcsbtt\]) it is readily obtained. Recalling also that $Q' {\cal F}=0$ and that any product with more than one ${\cal F}$ vanishes we get \_ = -\_ ’ - Q’ \[ \_1\_2 \_3[F]{} \]’ - ’ . We can now write the right-hand side in terms of familiar transformations and there is then no need to keep the string field explicitly: \[dkfjheriu\] \_ = - \_ \^[\^T]{}\_[ \[\_1\_2\]’, \_3 ]{} - \_[ \[ \_1\_2 \_3[F]{} \]’ ]{} - \^[\^T]{}\_[ \[\_1 \_2\_3 \]’ ]{}. This interesting equation can be thought of as part of the gauge algebra. It gives the commutator of a standard gauge transformation and an equations-of-motion transformation of the second type. The answer is an equations-of-motion transformation of the first type (last term), an equations-of-motion transformation of the second type (first term), and a middle term that could be thought of as a new, additional, equations-of-motion transformation.
Combining (\[dkfjheriu\]) and (\[first\_term\]) we see the cancellation of two equations-of-motion symmetries and two ordinary transformations, leaving: \_ = -\_[ Q’ \[\_1\_2\_3\]’ ]{} - \^[\^T]{}\_ [ \[\_1 \_2\_3 \]’ ]{} = -\^[\^E]{}\_[Q’, ]{} , = \[\_1\_2\_3\]’ . The gauge Jacobiator is a null transformation and thus, as claimed, vanishes identically. $\square$
If a gauge algebra is field independent and closes off-shell, as in the case of Courant brackets, we have \[jnhsbtfrgs\] = \_[\[\_1 \_2\]]{} . This requires that \[\_1 \_2 \^n \] = 0 , n 1, \[\_1 \_2 [F]{} \^n \] = 0 , n0 , so that the extra terms in the gauge algebra (\[jnhwlvly\]) vanish. In this case the gauge Jacobiator is equal to a gauge transformation with parameter equal to the standard Jacobiator:
[J]{} = \_ = \_ = \_[\_ \[ \[\_1 \_2\], \_3 \] ]{} .
The third identity in (\[clksshrss\]) then gives \[clclt\] [J]{} = -\_[ Q \[\_1 \_2\_3\]+ \[Q\_1 \_2\_3\] - \[\_1 Q\_2\_3\] + \[\_1 \_2 Q\_3\]]{}. The transformation on the right must vanish on fields. The way this works (as will be seen later in section 6.2) is that there are no 3-brackets between the field $Q\Lambda$ and two gauge parameters. Moreover, we also have \_[Q ]{} = 0 , meaning that such gauge parameters simply generate no transformations. These two facts imply with (\[clclt\]) that ${\cal J}=0$, as required by consistency.
$L_{\infty}$ algebra in $\ell$ picture and field theory
=======================================================
In the previous section we reviewed the axioms of $L_\infty$ algebras, in the formulation where all products have degree minus one. We will return to this briefly in a slightly different notation, with elements $\tilde x_i$ and products written as b\_n ( x\_1, …, x\_n) . We will call this the ‘$b$-picture’ of the $L_\infty$ algebra. The sign conventions we have described in this picture result in a simple action, field equations, and gauge transformations. The signs for the Jacobi-like identities, however, are a bit unfamiliar. Shortly after the work in [@Zwiebach:1992ie], the axioms of $L_\infty$ algebras were presented in a different convention [@Lada:1992wc] and later reviewed nicely in [@Lada:1994mn]. In this ‘$\ell$-picture’, the products $\ell_n$ satisfy Jacobi-like identities with more familiar signs. The action, field equations, and gauge transformations, however, have more intricate signs. These two pictures of the $L_\infty$ algebra are related by suspension.
In this section we begin by stating the general identitites for products in the $\ell$-picture. Recalling the analogous definitions for the $b$-picture we explain how suspension relates the two pictures. We are then able to use the familiar $b$-picture results for the field equations, action, and gauge transformations to obtain the corresponding formulae in the $\ell$-picture. In the following sections all of our discussions and examples will be stated in the $\ell$-picture. To set the stage for these examples, in the final subsection we discuss general features of field theories in this language. We show how to read large classes of products from the perturbative setup and identify large classes of $L_\infty$ identities that hold when the field equations are gauge covariant and gauge transformations close.
$L_\infty$ algebra identities; $\ell$-picture
---------------------------------------------
In an $L_\infty$ algebra we have a vector space $X$ graded by a degree: X = \_[n]{} X\_n , n . The elements of the vector space $X_n$ are said to be of degree $n$. We use the notation $x_1, x_2, \ldots$ to denote arbitrary vectors in $X$, but each one having definite degree; each $x_k$ belongs to some space $X_p$. The degree enters in sign factors where, for convenience, we omit the ‘deg’ label. Thus, for example: (-1)\^[x\_1 x\_2]{} (-1)\^[[ ]{}(x\_1) (x\_2)]{} . In exponents, the degrees are relevant only mod 2.
In an $L_\infty$ algebra we have multilinear products $\ell_1, \ell_2, \ell_3 , \cdots$. The multilinear product $\ell_k$ is said to have degree $k-2$: \_k = k-2 , meaning that when acting on a collection of inputs we find ( \_k (x\_1 , …, x\_k) ) = k-2 + \_[i=1]{}\^k (x\_i) . Thus (\_1) = -1 , (\_2) = 0, (\_3) = 1 , The products are defined to be *graded commutative*. For $\ell_2$, for example, \_2(x\_1,x\_2) = (-1)\^[1+ x\_1 x\_2]{} \_2(x\_2,x\_1). Note the extra sign added in the exponent, when compared to the $b$-picture formula in section 2. More generally for any permutation $\sigma$ of $k$ labels we have \_k ( x\_[(1)]{} , …, x\_[(k)]{} ) = (-1)\^(;x ) \_k (x\_1 , …, x\_k) . Here $(-1)^\sigma$ gives a plus sign if the permutation is even and a minus sign if the permutation is odd. The Koszul sign $\epsilon (\sigma;x )$ is defined by considering a graded commutative algebra $\Lambda (x_1, x_2, \cdots )$ with x\_i x\_j = (-1)\^[x\_i x\_j]{} x\_j x\_i , i, j , and reading its value from the relation x\_1…x\_k = (; x) x\_[(1)]{} … x\_[(k)]{} .
The $L_\infty$ identities given in $b$-language can be stated in $\ell$-language and are enumerated by a positive integer $n$ [@Lada:1994mn]: \[main-Linty-identity\] \_[i+j= n+1]{} (-1)\^[i(j-1)]{} \_(-1)\^(; x) \_j ( \_i ( x\_[(1)]{} , …, x\_[(i)]{} ) , x\_[(i+1)]{}, … x\_[(n)]{} ) = 0. Here $n \geq 1$ is the number of inputs. The sum over $\sigma$ is a sum over “unshuffles” meaning that we restrict to permutations in which the arguments are partially ordered as follows (1) < < (i) , (i+1) < < (n) . Schematically, the identities are of the form \[main-Linty-identity-schem\] \_[i+j= n+1]{} (-1)\^[i(j-1)]{} \_j \_i = 0. For $n=1$ we have \[l1-identity\] \_1 ( \_1 (x)) = 0 . This means that the iterated action of $\ell_1$ gives zero. In string field theory $\ell_1$ is identified with the BRST operator. For $n=2$, the constraint is, schematically, \_1 \_2 = \_2 \_1, and in detail it gives \[L2L1\] \_1(\_2(x\_1,x\_2)) = \_2(\_1(x\_1),x\_2) + (-1)\^1 (-1)\^[x\_1x\_2]{}\_2(\_1(x\_2), x\_1), where $(-1)^1$ is the sign of $\sigma$ and $(-1)^{x_1x_2}$ the Koszul sign. The arguments in the last term can be exchanged to find \[L2L1\] \_1(\_2(x\_1,x\_2)) = \_2(\_1(x\_1),x\_2) + (-1)\^[x\_1]{}\_2(x\_1,\_1(x\_2)). We recognize this as the statement that $\ell_1$ is a derivation of the product $\ell_2$. The next identity arises for $n=3$, 0 = \_1 \_3 + \_3 \_1 + \_2 \_2 , and explicitly reads: \[L3L1\]
0 & = \_1(\_3 (x\_1,x\_2, x\_3))\
& + \_3(\_1 (x\_1) ,x\_2, x\_3) + (-1)\^[x\_1]{} \_3( x\_1 ,\_1(x\_2), x\_3) + (-1)\^[x\_1+ x\_2]{} \_3( x\_1 ,x\_2, \_1(x\_3))\
& + \_2(\_2(x\_1,x\_2),x\_3) + (-1)\^[(x\_1+ x\_2) x\_3]{}\_2(\_2(x\_3,x\_1),x\_2) +(-1)\^[(x\_2+ x\_3) x\_1 ]{}\_2(\_2(x\_2,x\_3),x\_1) .
The first four terms on the above right-hand side quantify the failure of $\ell_1$ to be a derivation of the product $\ell_3$. The last three terms are the Jacobiator for a bracket defined by $\ell_2$. The failure of $\ell_2$ to be a Lie bracket is thus related to the existence of the higher product $\ell_3$.
Let us consider one more identity. For $n=4$ we get, schematically, 0 = \_1 \_4 - \_2 \_3 + \_3 \_2 - \_4 \_1 . Explicitly we have \[ell4ell1\]
0 = & \_1 ( \_4 ( x\_1, x\_2, x\_3, x\_4))\
& - \_2 ( \_3 (x\_1, x\_2, x\_3) , x\_4) + (-1)\^[x\_3 x\_4]{} \_2 ( \_3 (x\_1, x\_2, x\_4) , x\_3)\
& + (-1)\^[(1+x\_1)x\_2]{} \_2 (x\_2, \_3 (x\_1, x\_3, x\_4)) - (-1)\^[x\_1]{} \_2 (x\_1, \_3 (x\_2, x\_3, x\_4) )\
& + \_3 ( \_2 (x\_1, x\_2 ) , x\_3, x\_4) + (-1)\^[1 + x\_2 x\_3]{} \_3 ( \_2 (x\_1, x\_3 ) , x\_2, x\_4)\
& + (-1)\^[x\_4 (x\_2 + x\_3)]{} \_3 ( \_2 (x\_1, x\_4 ) , x\_2, x\_3) - \_3 ( x\_1, \_2 (x\_2, x\_3 ) , x\_4)\
& + (-1)\^[x\_3x\_4]{}\_3 (x\_1, \_2 (x\_2, x\_4 ) , x\_3) + \_3 (x\_1, x\_2, \_2 (x\_3, x\_4 ) )\
& - \_4 (\_1 (x\_1), x\_2, x\_3, x\_4) - (-1)\^[x\_1]{} \_4 ( x\_1, \_1 (x\_2), x\_3, x\_4)\
& - (-1)\^[x\_1+x\_2]{} \_4 ( x\_1, x\_2, \_1 (x\_3), x\_4) - (-1)\^[x\_1+ x\_2 + x\_4]{} \_4 ( x\_1, x\_2, x\_3, \_1 (x\_4)).
We now turn to the $b$-picture and the relation between the two pictures.
From $b$-picture to $\ell$-picture
----------------------------------
In the $b$-picture of the $L_\infty$ algebra we have a vector space $\tilde X$ graded by a degree: X = \_[n]{} X\_n , n . The elements of the vector space $\tilde X_n$ are said to be of degree $n$. We use the notation $\tilde x_1, \tilde x_2, \ldots$ to denote arbitrary fixed-degree vectors in $\tilde X$. In the $b$ picture all products have degree minus one: b\_n = -1 . As we have already explained all products are *graded commutative*, with no additional factors: b\_n(…, x\_i, x\_j , …) = (-1)\^[x\_ix\_j]{} b\_n( …, x\_j, x\_i ,…), with exponents representing degrees. The inner product is completely graded commutative and has a simple exchange symmetry: \[clmgnfcnttts\]
x\_1 , b\_n(x\_2 , … , x\_n) = & (-1)\^[x\_1x\_2]{} x\_2 , b\_n(x\_1 , … , x\_n)\
x\_1 , x\_2 = & (-1)\^[(x\_1 +1)(x\_2+1)]{} x\_2 , x\_1 .
It follows from these that b\_1 (x\_1) , x\_2 = (-1)\^[x\_1]{} x\_1 , b\_1 (x\_2) . In this new notation, the $L_\infty$ identities are just a simple translation of those given in (\[clksshrss\]) and need not be repeated here. The gauge transformation and field equations, with $\Lambda \to \tilde \Lambda$ and the field denoted by $\tilde\Psi$, take the form (see (\[vmlvsagdlck\]) and (\[calF-def\]))
\_ = & b\_1 () + b\_2 (, ) + b\_3 ( , , ) + b\_3 ( , , , ) + …,\
= & b\_1 () + b\_2 ( , ) + b\_3 ( , , ) + …
The degrees of the various vectors here are \[vmmgnfcnttts\] = 1 , = 0 , = -1.
[**Suspension:**]{} Suspension is a map that starting with a graded vector space $X$ gives us a graded vector space $\tilde X$. Acting on $X_n$ suspension gives us the space $\tilde X_{n+1}$. The map simply copies the vectors in $X_n$ into $\tilde X_{n+1}$. The degree of the elements is then ‘suspended’, or increased by one unit. To track properly the various vectors we will write the suspension map as $s$ or sometimes as $\uparrow$ and say that x\_i = s x\_i = x\_i , leading to x\_i = x\_i + 1 . The inverse map is well defined and we will write x\_i = x\_i . For gauge parameters, fields and field equations we write, = s = , = s = , = s [F]{} = [F]{} . We note that given (\[vmmgnfcnttts\]) we now have \[vmglrsttts\] = 0 , = -1 , [F]{} = -2.
The products in the two pictures are related as follows. Up to a sign, $b_n (\tilde x_1, \ldots, \tilde x_n)$ is the same as $\ell_n (x_1, \ldots , x_n)$. As discussed in [@Gaberdiel:1997ia] and [@Lada:1994mn], we have \[clncbtt\] b\_[n+1]{} ( x\_1, …x\_[n+1]{}) = (-1)\^[x\_1 n + x\_2 (n-1) + …+ x\_n]{} s \_[n+1]{} ( x\_1, …, x\_[n+1]{} ) . In the above, the values $x_1 , \ldots , x_n$ in exponents denote the degrees as elements of $X$. Note that the degree of the right-hand side of (\[clncbtt\]) is 1 + ((n+1)-2) + \_[k=1]{}\^[n+1]{} x\_k = - 1 + \_[k=1]{}\^[n+1]{} ( x\_k +1) = -1 + \_[k=1]{}\^[n+1]{} x\_k, showing that (\[clncbtt\]) is consistent with the stated degrees of $\ell$ and $b$ products. The first few cases of (\[clncbtt\]) give
b\_1 (x) = & s \_1 (x),\
b\_2 (x\_1, x\_2) = & (-1)\^[x\_1]{} s \_2 (x\_1, x\_2),\
b\_3 (x\_1, x\_2, x\_3) = & (-1)\^[x\_2]{} s \_3 (x\_1, x\_2, x\_3),\
b\_4 (x\_1, x\_2, x\_3, x\_4) = & (-1)\^[x\_1+x\_3]{} s \_4 (x\_1, x\_2, x\_3, x\_4).\
One can verify with some explicit computation that the Jacobi-like $\ell_n$ identities, upon suspension become the corresponding $b_n$ identities.
It follows from (\[clncbtt\]), applied to a gauge parameter and $n$ fields, that b\_[n+1]{} ( , \^n) = (-1)\^[0 n + (-1) (n-1) + (-1) (n-2) + …+ (-1)]{} s \_[n+1]{} ( , \^n ) . Performing the sum in the exponent and applying $\downarrow$ we get b\_[n+1]{} ( , \^n) = (-1)\^[n(n-1)2]{} \_[n+1]{} ( , \^n ) . This formula allows us to translate the gauge transformations from the $b$ picture to the $\ell$ picture. Consider \_ = \_[n=0]{}\^ b\_[n+1]{} (, \^n) . Applying $\downarrow$ to the gauge transformation above, \_ = \_[n=0]{}\^ b\_[n+1]{} (, \^n) , and therefore \_ \_ = \_[n=0]{}\^ (-1)\^[n(n-1)2]{} \_[n+1]{} (, \^n) . Expanding, this gives a series whose signs alternate every two elements \[jnsqts\] \_ = \_1() + \_2(,) - \_3(, ,) - \_4(,,,) + ….
Let us now consider the action. For this we must consider the inner product. The identities for the inner product in the $\ell$ picture arise from the definition of this inner product in terms of the $b$-picture inner product: \[jnlvscm\] x\_1, x\_2 x\_1 , x\_2 . Here, $x_1, x_2 \in X$ and, with a slight abuse of notation, the inner product on the right-hand side is in the $b$-picture and the inner product on the left-hand side is in the $\ell$ picture. From the properties of the $b$-picture inner product (\[clmgnfcnttts\]) and the above definition we quickly derive the properties of the $\ell$-picture inner product: \[vmglrsbtt\]
x , \_n (x\_1, …x\_[n]{}) = & (-1)\^[x x\_1 +1]{} x\_1 , \_n (x, x\_2 …x\_[n]{}) ,\
x\_1, x\_2 = & (-1)\^[x\_1 x\_2 ]{} x\_2 , x\_2 .
As we can see the inner product is totally graded symmetric, just as the products are. A short computation shows that we also have:
\_1(x\_1), x\_2 = & (-1)\^[x\_1+1]{} x\_1 , \_1(x\_2) ,\
\_2 (x\_1 , x\_2) , x\_3) = & x\_1 , \_2 (x\_2, x\_3) .
The translation of the action S = \_[n=1]{}\^ , b\_n (\^n) , is done using (\[clncbtt\]), which gives b\_[n]{} ( \^[n]{}) = (-1)\^[n(n-1)2]{} \_[n]{} ( \^[n]{} ) . Indeed, together with (\[jnlvscm\]) we have the closed form expression for the action in the $\ell$ picture: S = \_[n=1]{}\^ , b\_n (\^n) = \_[n=1]{}\^ , \_n (\^n) . Again, if we expand we get alternating signs: S = , \_1 () - , \_2 (\^2) - , \_3 (\^3) + , \_4 (\^4) + …The field equation takes the form \[jngvmkss\] [F]{}() = \_[n=1]{}\^ \_n(\^n) = \_1() - \_2(\^2) - \_3(\^3) +\_4(\^4)+. The gauge transformation of the field equation can be translated starting from (\[jnlvltts\]) = \[ \] ’ together with b\_[n+2]{} (, , \^n) = (-1)\^[n(n-1)2]{} \_[n+2]{} (, [F]{} , \^n) This leads to \[clwsmbtt\] \_[F]{}() = \_2(,[F]{}) + \_3(,[F]{}(),) - \_4(,[F]{}(), \^2)+This expresses the gauge covariance of the field equation in the $\ell$ picture.
For the gauge algebra we had (\[jnhwlvly\]) stating that $\bigl[ \delta_{\tilde \Lambda_2} \,, \, \delta_{\tilde \Lambda_1} \bigr]$ is a gauge transformation with parameter \_[12]{} \[\_1 \_2\]’ , in addition to a trivial gauge transformation. In the $\ell$ picture the commutator $\bigl[ \delta_{ \Lambda_2} \,, \, \delta_{ \Lambda_1} \bigr]$ is a gauge transformation with parameter \[lClosure\] \_[12]{} = \_2 (\_1, \_2) + \_3 (\_1, \_2 , ) - \_4 ( \_1, \_2 , , ) - …, with the by-now-familiar alternating signs. This translation follows from the identity b\_[n+2]{} (\_1 , \_2, \^n) = (-1)\^[n(n-1)2]{} \_[n+2]{} (\_1, \_2, \^n) .
General remarks on the $L_\infty$ algebra of field theories {#fieldSEC}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Let us make a few general remarks about the extraction of products from a gauge invariant perturbative field theory.
We will focus on the part of the theory dealing with gauge parameters, fields, and field equations. We thus consider the graded vector space \[Hextendedvector\]
… & X\_[0]{} X\_[-1]{} X\_[-2]{} .\
& E
The arrows are defined as the map $\ell_1$. We will assume that there are no spaces $X_{-d}$ with $d\geq 3$. Recall that the field equations (\[jngvmkss\]) take the form \_1 () - \_2 (, ) - \_2 (, , ) + \_4 (, ,,) + … = 0 . It follows that knowledge of the field equations determines explicitly all products \_n ( , …, ) X\_[-2]{} , n 1, that involve fields. Here all arguments are identical, but a general result (a polarization identity) implies that a multilinear symmetric form is completely determined by the values on the diagonal. For example, defining $L_2 (\Psi) = \ell_2 (\Psi, \Psi)$ and $L_3(\Psi) = \ell_3 (\Psi, \Psi, \Psi)$ we have
2 \_2 (\_1, \_2) = & L\_2 (\_1 + \_2 ) - L\_2 (\_1) - L\_2 (\_2),\
3! \_3 (\_1, \_2, \_3) = & L\_3 (\_1 + \_2+ \_3 ) - L\_3 (\_1 + \_2) - L\_3 (\_1 + \_3) - L\_3 (\_2 + \_3)\
& + L\_3 (\_1)+ L\_3 (\_2)+ L\_3 (\_3) .\
More generally, defining $L_n (\Psi) = \ell_n (\Psi, \, \ldots\,, \Psi)$ we have
n! \_n (\_1, …, \_n) = & L\_n (\_1 + … + \_n)\
& - + - …\
& + (-1)\^[n-k]{} \[ L\_n (\_1 + …\_k) + …\] + …\
& + (-1)\^[n-1]{} \[ L\_n(\_1) + …+ L\_n (\_n) \] .
The pattern is clear. On the second line we subtract all terms with $L_n$ evaluated on the sum of fields leaving one out. As we proceed we alternate signs and leave out two, three, four, until we leave out all fields except one. This shows we have determined completely the multilinear products acting on arbitrary fields.
Consider now the $L_\infty$ identities acting on just fields. The first is \_1 ( \_1 ()) = 0 . Since $\ell_1 (\Psi)$ is an element $E$ of $X_{-2}$ we can satisfy this constraint by setting \_1 (E ) = 0 . For the second identity we have \_1 (\_2 ( , ) ) = 2 \_2 ( \_1 (), ) . The left-hand side is of the form $\ell_1 (E)$ and thus vanishes. Thus the identity holds if we set \_2 ( E, ) = 0. An inductive argument shows that all $L_\infty$ identities acting on fields are satisfied if we take \_[n+1]{} ( E, \_1, … , \_n) = 0 , n = 0,1, … This is not surprising, since all of the above are of degree $n+1-2 + (-2) - n = -3$ and we have not introduced a space $X_{-3}$. If we did, we could contemplate setting some of these products to be nonzero: for example setting $\ell_1 (E)$ to some value such that $\ell_1 ( \ell_1 (\Psi))=0$.
Let us now consider the gauge transformations. From (\[jnsqts\]) \_ = \_1() + \_2(,) - \_3(, ,) - \_4(,, ,) + …, we are now able to read off the products \_[n+1]{} (, \_1, …\_n) X\_[-1]{} , n 0 , where we can use the polarization identities above to deduce the value of the product for non-diagonal field entries.
We can now examine the $L_\infty$ identities when we input a list $(\Lambda, \Psi, \ldots, \Psi)$ of arguments. The identity $\ell_1 (\ell_1 (\Lambda)) =0$ is nontrivial but must hold due to gauge invariance of the linearized field equation. The next identity is \_1 (\_2 (, )) = \_2 ( \_1 (), ) + \_2 (, \_1 ()) . The left-hand side is already determined and so is the first term on the right-hand side. Thus this identity determines \_2 ( , E) X\_[-2]{} . The next identity can be seen to determine $\ell_3 ( \Lambda, E, \Psi)$. All in all, the set of $L_\infty$ identities acting on $(\Lambda, \Psi, \ldots, \Psi)$ determine the products \_[n+2]{} (, E, \_1, …\_n) X\_[-2]{} , n 0 . The identities that lead to this determination are in fact the ones relevant to the gauge covariance (\[jnlvlsckbltts\]) of the field equation. We can now iterate this process and consider the $L_\infty$ identities on a list $(\Lambda, E, \Psi, \ldots , \Psi)$. This time this would lead us to consider products $\ell_{n+3} (\Lambda, E_1, E_2, \Psi, \ldots, \Psi)$. But these products are all of degree minus three, and thus they vanish with the assumption that $X_{-3}$ does not exist.
The gauge algebra commutator leads to the determination of the following products. From the field-dependent gauge parameter we read \_[n+2]{} (\_1, \_2 , \_1, …\_n) X\_[0]{} , n 0 . If we have only on-shell closure we then read \_[n+3]{} (\_1, \_2 , E, \_1, …\_n) X\_[-1]{} , n 0 . Using the $L_\infty$ identities for inputs of the form $(\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2, \Psi, \ldots , \Psi)$ we get constraints on the products $\ell_{n+3} (\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2, E, \Psi_1 , \ldots \Psi_n) \in X_{-1}$ determined by on-shell closure. By use of the identities for inputs of the form $(\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2, E, \Psi, \ldots , \Psi)$ we can get information about products of the form $\ell_{n+4} (\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2, E_1, E_2, \Psi_1 , \ldots \Psi_n) \in X_{-2}$. Note that the products vanish on $\Lambda$ diagonals and on $E$ diagonals.
We want to emphasize an important point. We have seen in detail how a consistent set of $L_\infty$ products leads to gauge transformations under which the field equation transforms covariantly and to a gauge algebra that closes. We now want to explain that the reverse is true. More precisely:
1. If we have gauge transformations and gauge covariance properties of the field equations of a certain standard type, c.f. (\[equall\]) below, $L_\infty$ identities acting on inputs $$(\Lambda, \Psi, \ldots),$$ with arbitrary numbers of $\Psi$’s, are all satisfied.
2. If we have gauge transformations of the standard type and a standard-form gauge algebra, then the $L_\infty$ identities acting on inputs $$(\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2,\Psi\ldots)\,,$$ with arbitrary numbers of $\Psi$’s, are all satisfied.
Consider the first item above, and work for simplicity in the $b$ picture where all signs are simple. We recall the following equalities \[equall\]
\_ = & Q+ \[,\] + \[, ,\] + \[,,,\] + …,\
[F]{}() = & Q+ \[, \] + \[, , \] +\[ , , , \]+,\
\_[F]{}() = & \[,[F]{}\] + \[,[F]{},\] + \[,[F]{}, , \]+
The first equation is what we mean by standard gauge transformations and the last one what we mean by a standard-type field-equation covariance. Think of the first two equations as definitions. Then, we used some subset of the $L_\infty$ identities to show that the last one holds. But in fact the last one holds [*if and only if*]{} that subset of the $L_\infty$ identities hold. The equation is checked in powers of $\Psi$, and for each power $\Psi^n$ [*one*]{} $L_\infty$ identity is involved. It is also clear, because ${\cal F}$ is a sum of products of fields, that the relevant $L_\infty$ identities are those with one $\Lambda$ and any number of $\Psi$’s.
For the second item now consider the gauge algebra (\[jnhwlvly\]) acting on a field, \[jnhwlvly77\] = \_[\[\_1 \_2\]’]{} + \[\_1\_2 [F]{}\]’ . We call this a standard-form gauge algebra. We have checked before that using the above gauge transformations the gauge algebra above follows if the collection of $L_\infty$ identities that involve inputs $(\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2, \Psi, \ldots)$ hold. In fact the gauge algebra holds [*if and only if*]{} those $L_\infty$ identities hold. Again, equation (\[jnhwlvly77\]) is checked in powers of $\Psi$ and for each power $\Psi^n$ one $L_\infty$ identity with inputs $(\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2, \Psi^n)$ is involved.
The utility of the above remarks is that if we identify a perturbative field theory in which we have standard gauge transformations, field-equation covariance, and gauge algebra, we are guaranteed that the products that can be easily read off from those expressions will satisfy large subsets of the $L_\infty$ identities.
Non-abelian gauge theories and $L_{\infty}$ algebras
====================================================
In this section we formulate Yang-Mills-type gauge theories as $L_{\infty}$ algebras. In the first subsection we discuss the Yang-Mills gauge structure in this framework. As examples we then consider in the second subsection the dynamical theory based on the Chern-Simons action in three dimensions and, in the third subsection, the usual Yang-Mills theory that exists in arbitrary dimensions. Yang-Mills theories were first formulated as $L_{\infty}$ algebras in [@Zeitlin:2007vv; @Zeitlin:2007fp; @Zeitlin:2008cc] using the BRST complex of open string field theory, which is larger than the complex we use here.
Generalities on Yang-Mills theory
---------------------------------
Consider a Lie algebra ${\cal G}$ with generators $T_\alpha$: = f\_\^ T\_, where $f_{\alpha\beta}{}^\gamma$ are the structure constants. We also consider Lie algebra valued gauge fields $A_\mu (x) = A_\mu^\alpha (x) T_\alpha$ and gauge parameters $\lambda (x) = \lambda^\alpha(x) T_\alpha$. The gauge field transformations are \[a-gauge-transformation\] \_A\_\^ = \_\^ +\^ , and they close according to the Lie algebra structure: \[gauge-algebra\] = \_[\[\_1,\_2\]]{}. We also have the field strength \[field-strength-gauge-field\] F\_\^ = \_A\_\^-\_A\_\^ +\^, that transforms covariantly under gauge transformations: \[f-gauge-transformation\] \_F\_ = . Our goal is now to determine the appropriate $L_\infty$ algebra for Chern-Simons theory in 3D and for Yang-Mills theory in arbitrary dimensions. For both of these cases the total graded vector space $X$ will be taken to contain three spaces of fixed degrees:
&X\_0X\_[-1]{} X\_[-2]{}\
&\^A\_\^ E\_\^
The gauge parameters $\lambda$ are of degree zero, gauge fields $A$ have degree minus one, and equations of motion $E$ have degree minus two. We write this as () = 0, (A) = -1, (E) = -2. Recalling that $\ell_2(x_1,x_2) \ = \ (-1)^{1+ x_1 x_2}\, \ell_2(x_2,x_1)$ we have that $\ell_2$ is antisymmetric for gauge parameters, as it befits a Lie algebra, and symmetric for fields, as it befits the interactions of a bosonic field.
We define the inner product that is non-vanishing only when the total degree is minus three: \[INNER0\]
A, E dx \_ \^ A\_\^ (x) E\_\^(x) ,\
where $\kappa_{\alpha\beta}$ is the Cartan-Killing form and $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ a fixed spacetime metric (say the Minkowski metric) and we include the integration over spacetime, as the inner product is supposed to give a number.
The homotopy Lie algebra implies an infinite number of identities. Of course, for polynomial gauge theories we only need to check a finite number of them. Here is a table of the identities, ordered by total degree of the identity, and showing the degrees of total inputs that must be checked given the relevant complex exists at degree zero, minus one and minus two.
\[table-gauge-products\]
= -2, \_1 \_1 = 0, &
=0 :
\
= -1, \_1 \_2 - \_2 \_1= 0 , &
= 0: \
= -1: A
\
= 0 , \_3 \_1 + \_2 \_2 + \_1 \_3 = 0, &
= 0: \
= -1: A\
= -2 : A A , E
\
= 1 , \_1 \_4 - \_2 \_3 + \_3 \_2 -\_4 \_1 = 0, &
= -1 : A\
= -2 : AA , E\
= -3 : A A A , AE
\
= 2 , \_1 \_5 \_2 \_4 \_3 \_3 …= 0, &
…
For Chern-Simons theory there are only $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ products and thus just the first three identities must be checked. Yang-Mills theory has also an $\ell_3$ and thus all identities above must be checked. As we will see, the last one ends up holding trivially, so we did not include the various subcases above.
Since the gauge structure is the same for Chern-Simons and Yang-Mills theories, we can read off some of the basic products. Comparing the gauge transformation (\[a-gauge-transformation\]) with the expression \[deltaAvm\] \_A = \_1 () + \_2 (, A) + …we infer:
\_1() & = \_ X\_[-1]{} ,\
\_2(, A) & = X\_[-1]{} .
All products involving a gauge parameter and two or more fields vanish. We can write the indices in these equations explicitly
\[\_1()\]\_\^ & = \_\^ X\_[-1]{} ,\
\[\_2(, A)\]\_\^ & = \^ X\_[-1]{}.
Note that to comply with the graded commutativity we must also define \_2( A, ) - \_2(, A) = - \[ A, \] . We can now use the gauge algebra to identify the product $\ell_2$ acting on two gauge parameters. From (\[deltaAvm\]) we quickly find that
\[ \_[\_1]{} , \_[\_2]{} \] A = & \_[\_1]{} ( \_1(\_2) + \_2 (\_2 , A) ) - (1 2)\
= & \_2 (\_2 , \_[\_1]{}A) - \_2 (\_1 , \_[\_2]{}A)\
= & \_2 (\_2 , \_1(\_1)) - \_2 (\_1 , \_1(\_2) ) + [O]{} (A)\
= & - \_2 ( \_1(\_1), \_2) - \_2 (\_1 , \_1(\_2) ) + [O]{} (A)
We now use the $\ell_1 \ell_2 = \ell_2 \ell_1$ identity to identify the gauge transformation on the right-hand side: A = \_1 (-\_2 (\_1, \_2) ) + [O]{} (A) = \_[- \_2 (\_1, \_2)]{} A . The $A$ dependent terms on the right-hand side are not needed for the identification. Comparing with (\[gauge-algebra\]) we infer \_2(\_1,\_2) = - X\_0.
Chern-Simons Theory
-------------------
We now turn to the Chern-Simons theory. In order to define an action we have to assume that for the Lie algebra there exists an invariant inner product. We write for this inner product of Lie algebra valued objects \[INNER\] A\_, B\_ = \_ A\_\^ B\_\^ , where $\kappa_{\alpha\beta}$ is the Cartan-Killing metric. With this definition, the full inner product (\[INNER0\]) becomes \[IntInner\] A, E = \^3x \^ A\_, E\_ . Consider now the gauge invariant 3D Chern-Simons action \[CS-gauge-invariant\] S = \^3x \^ A\_,\_A\_+ \[A\_,A\_\] . The Chern-Simons action is topological and hence does not depend on the spacetime metric. The general variation of the action is given by
S = & \^3x A\_ , \^ ( \_A\_-\_A\_ + \[A\_,A\_\])\
= & \^3x \^ A\_ , \_\^ ( \_A\_+ \[A\_ , A\_\])\
= & A , \_\* ( A + \[A,A\]) ,\
where the star denotes the position of the free index on the epsilon symbol and we used the definition of the inner product. Comparing with the expected form of the field equation, \_1 (A ) - \_2 (A , A) = 0, we get \[CSproducts\]
\[\_1(A)\]\_\^ &= \_\^\_A\_\^ X\_[-2]{},\
\[\_2(A\_1,A\_2)\]\_\^ &= - \_\^ \^ X\_[-2]{} .
In index free notation we would write \[CSproductsIF\]
\_1(A) &= \_[\*]{}A X\_[-2]{},\
\_2(A\_1,A\_2) &= -\_[\*]{} X\_[-2]{}.
As expected $\ell_2$ is *symmetric* under the exchange of gauge fields.[^5] Note that the inner product in (\[IntInner\]) now contains the spacetime metric, which is also used in $\ell_1(A)$ to lower the index on the epsilon tensor. Thus, the $L_n$ formulation obscures the topological nature of the Chern-Simons action, but that is unavoidable if we have spaces $X_1$ and $X_2$ with the same index structure.
We now confirm that the action has the expected form \[LnCS\] S = A,\_1(A)-A,\_2(A,A) = A , \_1(A) -\_2(A,A) . The Chern-Simons action given above can be written as
S = & \^3x A\_, \^ \_A\_+ \^ \[A\_,A\_\] ,\
= & A, \_\* A + \_\* \[A,A\] .
Comparing with (\[CSproductsIF\]) we see that the action is indeed correctly reproduced.
Let us verify the $L_n$ axioms.
[**Checking $\ell_1 \ell_1 = 0$**]{}. This is only nontrivial at degree zero. Indeed, we have \[\_1(\_1())\]\_\^ = \_\^\_\[\_1()\]\_\^ = \_\^\_\_\^ = 0. This is just linearized gauge invariance.
[**Checking $\ell_1 \ell_2 = \ell_2 \ell_1$**]{}. This means checking (\[L2L1\]) at degree zero and minus one.
. At this degree we must act on two gauge parameters: \[DEGREE0\] \_1(\_2(\_1,\_2)) = \_2(\_1(\_1),\_2) + \_2(\_1,\_1(\_2)) . This gives
-( \[\_1,\_2\]) = & \_2(\_1,\_2) + \_2(\_1,\_2)\
= & - \[\_1, \_2\] - \[ \_1, \_2 \],
which works out correctly.
. We must verify \_1(\_2(A,)) = \_2(\_1(A),) - \_2(A,\_1()) . We then have that the left-hand side is \[ell1ell2\]
\[\_1(\_2(A,))\]\_\^ &= \_\^ \_\[\_2(A,)\]\_\^ = - \_\^\_\^\
&= - \_\^\^ - \_\^\^\
&= ( - + \_\*)\_\^ .
The right-hand side is \_2(\_\* A ,) - \_2(A,) = \_2(\_\* A ,) + \_\* \[ A,\] . In order for this to agree with the left-hand side we have to define for $E\in X_{-2}$, $\lambda \in X_0$ \[e-lambda\] \_2(E,) = - X\_[-2]{}.
[**Checking $\ell_3\ell_1+\ell_1\ell_3+\ell_2\ell_2=0$**]{}. Since $\ell_3$ is assumed to be zero this means checking that $\ell_2 \ell_2=0$. From (\[L3L1\]) this requires that \[L3L1-reduced\] \_2(\_2(x\_1,x\_2),x\_3) + (-1)\^[(x\_1+ x\_2) x\_3]{}\_2(\_2(x\_3,x\_1),x\_2) +(-1)\^[(x\_2+ x\_3) x\_1 ]{}\_2(\_2(x\_2,x\_3),x\_1) = 0. As indicated in our table this identity can only be nontrivial acting on elements whose total degree equals zero, minus one, or minus two.
. We must act on three gauge parameters. Since they have degree zero, we have \[L3L1-reduced-lambda\] \_2(\_2(\_1,\_2),\_3) +\_2(\_2(\_3,\_1),\_2) +\_2(\_2(\_2,\_3),\_1) = 0 . Using $\ell_2 (\lambda_1, \lambda_2) = -[\lambda_1 \,, \lambda_2] $ we obtain \[L3L1-reduced-lambda-vm\] -\_2(\[\_1,\_2\],\_3) -\_2(\[\_3,\_1\],\_2) -\_2(\[\_2,\_3\],\_1) = 0 . Since the bracket is another gauge parameter, we use the same expression for $\ell_2$ to see that we must have \[L3L1-reduced-lambda-vmbb\] \[\[\_1,\_2\],\_3\] +\[\[\_3,\_1\],\_2\] +\[\[\_2,\_3\],\_1\] = 0 . This holds because ${\cal G}$ is a Lie-algebra.
. Here we have two gauge parameters and one gauge field \[L3L1-reduced-vmk\] \_2(\_2(\_1,\_2),A) + \_2(\_2 (A,\_1),\_2) + \_2( \_2 (\_2, A),\_1) = 0 . Again, first replacing the nested in products \[L3L1-reduced-vmks\] - \_2(\[ \_1,\_2\] ,A) - \_2(\[A,\_1\],\_2) - \_2(\[\_2, A\],\_1) = 0 . Since $[A, \lambda]\in X_{-1}$ we can now take \[L3L1-reduced-vmkss\] \[\[ \_1,\_2\] ,A\] + \[\[A,\_1\],\_2\] + \[\[\_2, A\],\_1\] = 0 , which holds by virtue of the Jacobi identity of the Lie algebra ${\cal G}$.
. We now act on two gauge fields and one gauge parameter $(AA\lambda)$ or two gauge parameters and one field equation $(\lambda\lambda E)$. First, for the former we have \[L2Jacobi\] \_2(\_2(A\_1,A\_2),) + \_2(\_2(,A\_1), A\_2) - \_2(\_2(A\_2,),A\_1) = 0, and we compute \[L2Jacobi99\] -\_2(\_\*\[A\_1, A\_2\],) - \_2(\[,A\_1\], A\_2) + \_2(\[A\_2,\],A\_1) = 0. For the first term we use (\[e-lambda\]) \[L2Jacobi999\] \_\* \[ \[A\_1, A\_2\],\] + \_\*\[ \[,A\_1\], A\_2\] - \_\* \[\[A\_2,\],A\_1\] = 0. In the first two terms the second and third indices in $\varepsilon$ are contracted with $A_1$ and $A_2$ respectively. Not so in the third, so we can factor out $\varepsilon$ by changing the sign of the last term: \[L2Jacobi9999\] \_\*( \[ \[A\_1, A\_2\],\] +\[ \[,A\_1\], A\_2\] + \[\[A\_2,\],A\_1\] ) = 0. This holds on account of the Jacobi identity of ${\cal G}$.
Now for the second case ($\lambda \lambda E$) we have \_2 (\_2 (\_1, \_2), E) + \_2 (\_2 (E, \_1) \_2) + \_2 (\_2 (\_2, E) \_1) = 0 . This simply gives + \[\[E, \_1\], \_2\] + \[\[ \_2, E\], \_1\] = 0 , which again holds by the Jacobi identity.
With all checks done, we list the complete set of [*nonvanishing*]{} $L_2$ products: \[Lnproducts\] The versions with explicit indices were given above.
With the identities one can verify that the field equations transform covariantly, \_(\_1(A)-\_2(A,A)) = \_2(\_1(A)-\_2(A,A),), which is the correct covariant transformation.
In order to compute the field equations and check gauge invariance we need the invariance properties of the inner product: Assuming that we can integrate by parts under the integral implicit in the inner product (\[IntInner\]), we have for $A,B\in X_{-1}$ A,\_1(B) = \_1(A),B. Moreover, for $A,B,C\in X_{-1}$ we have explicitly A , \_2(B,C) = \^3 x \^(A\_, ) . The invariance of the Cartan-Killing form then implies cyclicity, i.e., A,\_2(B,C) = C,\_2(B,A), The general variation of the Chern-Simons action is then
S &= A , \_1(A) + A, \_1(A) + A, \_2(A,A) + A, \_2(A,A)\
&= A , \_1(A) + A, \_2(A,A) + A, \_2(A,A)\
&= A, \_1(A)+ \_2(A,A),
implying the correct field equation.
Yang-Mills theory
-----------------
We now turn to the dynamical Yang-Mills theory, for which we keep the general conventions for Yang-Mills gauge transformations as above. Consider the Yang-Mills Lagrangian and its expansion in powers of the gauge field:
[L]{} &= -F\^,F\_\
&= A\^,\^(\_A\_-\_A\_) - \^A\^,\[A\_,A\_\] -,\[A\_,A\_\].
To derive a few of the products we consider the field equations:
0 & = D\^F\_ = \^F\_+\[A\^,F\_\]\
&= \^(\_A\_-\_A\_+\[A\_,A\_\]) +\[A\^,\_A\_-\_A\_+\[A\_,A\_\]\]\
&= A\_-\_ A +\^ +\[A\^,\_A\_-\_A\_\] +\[ A\^, \[A\_,A\_\]\] .
We now compare with the expectation for the gauge transformations and the equations of motion
\_A &= \_1() + \_2(, A),\
[F]{}(A) & \_1(A)-\_2(A,A)-\_3(A,A,A) = 0 ,
and we read off
\_1(A) = & A-(A) ,\
\[\_2(A\_1,A\_2)\]\_ = & -\^\[A\_[1]{}, A\_[2]{}\] - \[\_A\_[1]{}-\_A\_[ 1 ]{}, A\_[2]{}\^\] +(12),\
\_3(A\_1,A\_2,A\_3)\_ = & -\[A\_1\^,\[A\_[2]{},A\_[3]{}\]\] - \[A\_2\^,\[A\_[3]{},A\_[1]{}\]\] -\[A\_3\^,\[A\_[1]{},A\_[2]{}\]\]\
& -\[A\_2\^,\[A\_[1]{},A\_[3]{}\]\] - \[A\_1\^,\[A\_[3]{},A\_[2]{}\]\] -\[A\_3\^,\[A\_[2]{},A\_[1]{}\]\] .
Since the gauge field has degree minus one, the above products are symmetric under the exchange of any two gauge fields. We can confirm that $\ell_2$, so defined, gives the correct cubic terms in the action:
-A,\_2(A,A) &= A\^, \^\[A\_, A\_\] + \[\_A\_-\_A\_[ ]{}, A\^\]\
&= - \^A\^, \[A\_, A\_\] - A\^, \[ A\^ , \_A\_-\_A\_[ ]{} \]\
&= - \^A\^, \[A\_, A\_\] - \[A\^, A\^\] , \_A\_ \]\
&= - \^A\^ , \[A\_, A\_\] ,
where from the first to second line we integrated by parts and used the invariance of the Cartan-Killing metric.
In the following we verify the $L_{\infty}$ relations:\
[**Checking $\ell_1 \ell_1 = 0$**]{}. This must only be checked at degree zero, and it works out immediately: \_1(\_1()) = \_1 ( ) = \_\* - \_\* ( ) = 0 . [**Checking $\ell_1 \ell_2 = \ell_2 \ell_1$**]{}. At degree zero the computation is identical to that for Chern-Simons. At degree minus one we must verify \[Degree-1\] \_1(\_2(A,)) = \_2(\_1(A),) - \_2(A,\_1()) . All terms are calculable except for the first one on the right-hand side. This identity works out correctly if, again, we choose \[e-lambda-ym\] \_2(E,) = - X\_[-2]{}. There are no more cases to check here.
[**Checking $\ell_3 \ell_1 + \ell_2 \ell_2 + \ell_1 \ell_3 = 0$**]{}.
Since the products on the identity do not change degree, this identity is nontrivial only in degrees zero, minus one and minus two.
We set the following combinations to zero: \[AAlambdaiszero\] \_3(\_1,\_2,\_3) = 0, \_3(\_1,\_2,A) = 0, \_3(A,A,) = 0, \_3 ( \_1,\_2,E) = 0 , because there is no Lie algebra Jacobiator, no $\ell_3(A,A,\lambda)$ term in $\delta_{\lambda}A$, no field dependent structure constants $\ell_3(\lambda_1 ,\lambda_2,A)$ in the gauge algebra, and no $\ell_3 ( \lambda_1,\lambda_2,E)$ because the algebra closes on shell.
At degree zero we act on $(\lambda\lambda\lambda)$ and the $\ell_3$ terms in the identity will vanish because the $\ell_3$ acts on $(\lambda\lambda\lambda)$ or $(\lambda\lambda A)$. At degree minus one we act on $(\lambda\lambda A)$ and the $\ell_3$ terms in the identity will vanish because $\ell_3$ acts on $(\lambda\lambda A)$, $(\lambda AA)$ or $(\lambda \lambda E)$. Thus both at degree zero and minus one the computation reduces to $\ell_2 \ell_2 =0$ and is the same as in CS.
At degree minus two we have $AA\lambda$ and $\lambda\lambda E$. For the first one, (\[L3L1\]) requires
& \_2(\_2(A\_1,A\_2),) + \_2(\_2(,A\_1),A\_2)-\_2(\_2(A\_2,),A\_1)\
& = -\_1(\_3(A\_1,A\_2,)) -\_3(\_1(A\_1),A\_2,) + \_3(A\_1,\_1(A\_2),) -\_3(A\_1,A\_2, \_1()).
A computation of the l.h.s. gives = \[\[\_, A\_[1]{}\],A\_[2]{}\^\] - \[\[\_, A\_[1]{}\],A\_[2]{}\^\] -\[\[A\_[1]{},A\_[2]{}\],\^\] +(12) . On the r.h.s. the first term is zero because of (\[AAlambdaiszero\]). The final term on the r.h.s. is -\_3(A\_1,A\_2, \_1())\_ = \[\[A\_1\^,\[A\_[2]{},\_\]\] +\[A\_1\^,\[\_,A\_[2]{}\]\] +\[\^,\[A\_[1]{},A\_[2]{}\]\]+(12) . This agrees precisely with the l.h.s., and so the identity holds in the form \[Degree-2\] \_2(\_2(A\_1,A\_2),) + \_2(\_2(,A\_1),A\_2)-\_2(\_2(A\_2,),A\_1) = - \_3(A\_1,A\_2, \_1()), implying that we can satisfy the equation by setting \_3(E, A, ) = 0. The second one is $\lambda \lambda E$. The $\ell_3$ terms in the identity will find $\ell_3$ acting on $\lambda \lambda E$ and $\lambda A E$, both of which vanish. Thus we again have to check only $\ell_2\ell_2=0$ and this is the same check as in Chern-Simons. At degree minus three there is nothing to check.
[**Checking $\ell_1 \ell_4 - \ell_2 \ell_3 + \ell_3 \ell_2 -\ell_4 \ell_1 = 0$**]{}. Since we will take $\ell_4 =0$ we just need to check \_2 \_3 = \_3 \_2. Since $\ell_2 \ell_3$ has degree plus one, this identity must only be checked on four arguments adding to degree $-1, -2,$ or $-3$. Since $\ell_3$ is only non-vanishing on three $A$’s, we claim we need three $A$’s and the last one must be a $\lambda$, giving total degree $-3$. Indeed, if there are two or less $A$’s no term survives: when $\ell_3$ acts first there are no three $A$’s to give something nonzero. When it acts after $\ell_2$ there are no three $A$’s either, since $\ell_2$ does not change degree. Thus the only nontrivial check is on $AAA\lambda$: The explicit form given in (\[ell4ell1\]) then requires \[Degree-3\] \_2(\_3(A\_1,A\_2,A\_3),) = \_3(\_2(A\_1,),A\_2,A\_3) +\_3(A\_1,\_2(A\_2,),A\_3)+\_3(A\_1,A\_2,\_2(A\_3,)) . This relation can be proved by multiple use of the Jacobi identity.
[**Checking $\ell_1 \ell_5 \pm \ell_2 \ell_4 \pm \ell_3 \ell_3 \pm \ell_4\ell_2 \pm \ell_5 \ell_1 = 0$**]{}.
Here we only need to check the \_3 \_3 = 0. Conceivably, having degree $+2$, this equation should be tested on degrees $-2, -3$, and $-4$. But acting on $AAA$, the product $\ell_3$ produces an $E$ and then the second $\ell_3$ will always give zero. So this equation is trivially satisfied.
[**Checking $\sum_{i,j} \ell_i \ell_j = 0$ with $i+j \geq 7$.**]{} In here every term has an $\ell_k$ with $k\geq 4$ therefore these are trivially satisfied.
\[LnproductsNEW\]
Double field theory and $L_{\infty}$ algebras
=============================================
In this section we discuss double field theory (DFT) in the framework of $L_{\infty}$ algebras. In the first subsection, following the notation and setup of Roytenberg and Weinstein, we discuss the subalgebra corresponding to the pure gauge structure, given by the C-bracket algebra, which in turn is the $O(D,D)$ covariantization of the Courant algebroid. The results in this subsection were obtained by Deser and Saemann [@Deser:2016qkw] in a geometrical setup that involves symplectic N$Q$-manifolds and a derived bracket construction [@Deser:2014mxa]. In the second subsection we extend this to the $L_{\infty}$ algebra that also encodes fields and their off-shell gauge transformations. Finally, in the third subsection, we discuss the full $L_{\infty}$ algebra describing the complete DFT symmetries and dynamics, using perturbation theory around flat space.
DFT C-bracket algebra as an $L_3$ algebra
-----------------------------------------
We begin by recalling a few generalities of DFT, which is manifestly $O(D,D)$ covariant. We denote $O(D,D)$ indices by $M,N=1,\ldots, 2D$, and the group-invariant inner product is defined on vectors by V\_1, V\_2 = \_[MN]{} V\_1\^M V\_2\^N, \_[MN]{}
0 & [**1**]{}\
[**1**]{} & 0
. The role of infinitesimal gauge transformations will be played by generalized Lie derivatives w.r.t. to a gauge parameter $\xi^M$, \_V\^M = \^N\_NV\^M + (\^M\_N-\_N\^M)V\^N. The generalized Lie derivatives form an algebra, $[{\cal L}_{\xi_1},{\cal L}_{\xi_2}]={\cal L}_{[\xi_1,\xi_2]_c}$, which is governed by the antisymmetric C-bracket \_c\^M \_1\^K\_K \_2\^M - \_1\^K \^M \_[2K]{} - (1 2) , where in the following we will sometimes leave out the sub-index $c$ in order not to clutter the equations. Both the inner product and the C-bracket are covariant under the action of the generalized Lie derivative. Moreover, the generalized Lie derivative and the C-bracket are equal up to a total derivative of the inner product, \_[V]{}W = \[V,W\]+ V,W. The generalized Lie derivative w.r.t. a gauge parameter that is a total derivative, $\xi^M=\partial^M\chi$, acts trivially on fields as a consequence of the strong constraint ($\partial^M\partial_M A =0$ and $\partial^M A\, \partial_M B = 0$ for all $A, B$). Moreover, when one of the two gauge parameters (vectors) inside the C-bracket is trivial, i.e., $\xi_2 = \partial \chi$ for some function $\chi$, one finds \[c-bracket-trivial-vector\] \[, \] = ( \^K \_K ) = , . The C-bracket satisfies a Jacobiator identity \[CJACO\] J (\_1, \_2, \_3 ) 3 = + = T(\_1, \_2, \_3) , where the antisymmetrization is over all three indices, c.p. denotes ‘cyclic permutation’, and $T$ is defined by T(\_1, \_2, \_3) \[\_[\[1]{}, \_2 \] , \_[3\]]{} = ( \[\_1, \_2 \] , \_3 + ) .
Since the above identities take the same form as for the Courant algebroid, the setup of Roytenberg and Weinstein applies here, and we can next reformulate this as an $L_3$ homotopy Lie algebra. The total graded vector space $X$ will be taken to contain three spaces of fixed degrees:
0 &X\_2 X\_[1]{} X\_[0]{}\
& c \^M
The space of degree zero contains the gauge parameters, the space of degree one contains functions, and the space of degree zero contains the constants. The above arrows define the $\ell_1$ map. From $X_2$ to $X_1$ it is the inclusion map $\iota: c \to \iota c$, which is the same constant, now viewed as a trivial function in $X_1$. From $X_1$ to $X_2$ is the partial derivative $\partial$. Acting on $X_0$ the map $\ell_1 $ is defined to give zero \_1 () = 0 , in agreement with the fact that we are not taking fields into account.
The non-vanishing multilinear maps are \[Courantprod\] Note that no product, except for $\ell_1$, involves an input from the space $X_2$ nor does any product give an element of $X_2$. Additionally, we have the following interesting relations: \[note-nice\]
\_3 (\_1, \_2 , \_3) = & - J(\_1, \_2 , \_3) ,\
\_2 ( , ) = & \_2 ( , ) .
The first relates the Jacobiator (\[CJACO\]) to the derivative of $\ell_3$. The second encodes the behavior (\[c-bracket-trivial-vector\]) of the C-bracket when one of the inputs is a trivial vector.
[**Step by step construction.**]{} We now sketch how the construction of the above algebra is done, step by step, starting with the C-bracket.
1. We begin with the space $X_0$ of gauge parameters. From the C-bracket one sets the product $\ell_2 (\xi_1, \xi_2)$ equal to the bracket itself. At this stage one does not know if any other products are needed or not.
2. With just $\ell_2 \not= 0$ the only nontrivial identity would be $\ell_2 \ell_2 = 0$, acting on three $\xi$’s. But $\ell_2 \ell_2$ gives the Jacobiator $J(\xi_1, \xi_2, \xi_3)$, which does not vanish. This implies we have to introduce both $\ell_3$ and $\ell_1$ to fix this identity.
3. Since the Jacobiator can be written as $\partial T(\xi_1, \xi_2, \xi_3)$ this suggests setting $\ell_3$ on three gauge parameters equal to the function $T(\xi_1, \xi_2, \xi_3)$. Since $\ell_3$ has degree plus one, we now need a space $X_1$ of functions. On this space of functions $\ell_1$ acts as a derivative and this fixes the homotopy identity $\ell_1 \ell_3 + \ell_2 \ell_2 + \ell_3 \ell_1 = 0$, assuming the last term is zero.
4. The presence of $\ell_1$ forces one to reconsider the lower identities. In order to guarantee that $\ell_1 \ell_1 =0$ acting on $X_1$ we now set $\ell_1 : X_0 \to 0$. This now confirms the last term in the previous item vanishes.
5. We then consider $\ell_1 \ell_2 = \ell_2 \ell_1$ which is only nontrivial acting on a $\chi\in X_1$ and a gauge parameter $\xi\in X_0$. That identity determines $\ell_2 (\xi, \chi)$.
6. At this point all nontrivial products have been determined and one must verify that all homotopy identities hold without the need of additional products.
7. If one wishes to have an exact sequence of spaces then one can introduce the space $X_2$ of constants, and $\ell_1$ acting on it simply gives the same constant, now as an element of the space of functions $X_1$. This completes the construction.
As indicated above, the only nontrivial computation is checking that no $\ell_4$ is needed because the identity $\ell_3 \ell_2 - \ell_2 \ell_3= 0$ holds when acting on four gauge parameters. Indeed, using (\[ell4ell1\]) we see that \[eofi\] \_3 \_2 - \_2 \_3 = 6 \_3 (\[ \_[\[1]{}, \_2\] , \_3, \_[4\]]{}) - 4 \_2 (\_3 (\_[\[1]{}, \_2, \_3) , \_[4\]]{} ) . We will show that $\ell_3 \ell_2 - \ell_2 \ell_3$ must be a constant by proving that its derivative vanishes. But this means that $\ell_3 \ell_2 - \ell_2 \ell_3$ actually vanishes, because it is a local function of arbitrary space-dependent gauge parameters; if it did not vanish it would have to have space dependence and could not be a constant. Taking the derivative of the above equation and using both lines in (\[note-nice\]), we compute (\_3 \_2 - \_2 \_3 ) = -6 J (\[ \_[\[1]{}, \_2\] , \_3, \_[4\]]{}) + 4 \_2 (J (\_[\[1]{}, \_2, \_3) , \_[4\]]{} ) . Rearranging the inputs on both terms and recalling the definition of $\ell_2$ on two vectors we get (\_3 \_2 - \_2 \_3 ) = -6 J ( \_[\[1]{}, \_2 , \[\_3, \_[4\]]{}\] ) + 4 \[ \_[\[1]{} , J (\_[2]{}, \_3, \_[4\]]{} ) \] . It is straightforward to see that the right-hand side vanishes. It does so trivially, just upon using the definition $J (\xi_1, \xi_2, \xi_3 ) \equiv 3\bigl[ \, [\xi_{[1} , \xi_2 ] \,, \xi_{3]} \bigr]
= \bigl[ \, [\xi_1, \xi_2 ] \,, \xi_3 \bigr] + \hbox{c.p.}$. Thus, as claimed, the derivative of $\ell_3 \ell_2 - \ell_2 \ell_3$ is guaranteed to vanish by our definitions. As argued above, this means that $\ell_3 \ell_2 - \ell_2 \ell_3=0$.
We can contemplate the possibility that in some other scenario $\ell_3 \ell_2 - \ell_2 \ell_3\not= 0$ is a non-vanishing constant and we would require an $\ell_4$ product that would contribute, for example, a term $\ell_1 \ell_4$ to the identity. Note that acting on four gauge parameters $\ell_4 \in X_2$, which is correctly identified as the space of constants. That constant in $X_2$ would be mapped by $\ell_1$ to the same constant in $X_1$, allowing the possibility of cancellation of the constant $\ell_3 \ell_2 - \ell_2 \ell_3\not= 0$. The space $X_2$ would then play an important role. This, however, does not happen for the C-bracket.
A more conventional proof of the identity $\ell_3 \ell_2 - \ell_2 \ell_3= 0$ is just by direct computation: Indeed, starting from (\[eofi\]) we can show that
\_3 \_2 - \_2 \_3 = & 6 \_3 (\[ \_[\[1]{}, \_2\] , \_3, \_[4\]]{}) - 4 \_2 (\_3 (\_[\[1]{}, \_2, \_3) , \_[4\]]{} )\
= & - 6 T (\[ \_[\[1]{}, \_2\] , \_3, \_[4\]]{}) + 4 \_2 ( T (\_[\[1]{}, \_2, \_3) , \_[4\]]{} )\
= & - \[ \[ \_[\[1]{} , \_2 \] , \_3 \] , \_[4\]]{} - \[ \_[\[3]{} , \_4 \] , \[ \_1 \_[2\]]{} \] - \[ \_[\[4]{} , \[ \_[\[1]{} , \_2 \] \], \_[3\]]{}\
& - 2 \_[\[4]{} , T (\_[1]{}, \_2, \_[3\]]{}) \
= & -2 \[ \[ \_[\[1]{} , \_2 \] , \_3 \] , \_[4\]]{} - \[ \_[\[1]{} , \_2 \] , \[ \_3 \_[4\]]{} \] - 2 \_[\[4]{} , J (\_[1]{}, \_2, \_[3\]]{}) \
= & - J ( \_[\[1]{} , \_2 , \_3 ) , \_[4\]]{} - \[ \_[\[1]{} , \_2 \] , \[ \_3 \_[4\]]{} \] + 2 J (\_[\[1]{}, \_2, \_[3]{}) , \_[4\]]{} \
= & - J ( \_[\[1]{} , \_2 , \_3 ) , \_[4\]]{} - \[ \_[\[1]{} , \_2 \] , \[ \_3 \_[4\]]{} \] \
= & - - = - (2 [**J**]{} + [**K**]{} ) .
Here, following Roytenberg-Weinstein, we have defined the scalars
[**J**]{}(\_1,\_2,\_3,\_4) & 4J(\_[\[1]{},\_2,\_3),\_[4\]]{} = -2\_[\[1]{},\_[4\]]{}.\
[**K**]{}(\_1,\_2,\_3,\_4) & 3.
Writing the antisymmetrizations out one has
[**J**]{} & J(\_1, \_2, \_3), \_4 - J(\_1, \_2, \_4), \_3 + J(\_1, \_3, \_4), \_2 -J(\_2, \_3, \_4), \_1 ,\
[**K**]{} & , \[\_3, \_4\] - , \[\_4, \_4\] +, \[\_2, \_3\] .
The requisite identity is satisfied because \[KJident\] [**K**]{} + 2[**J**]{}= 0, as we show now. Using the covariance of the inner product and bracket, leaving the total antisymmetrization in the four arguments implicit from now on, we compute
\_[1]{},\_[4]{} = [L]{}\_[\_[1]{}]{},\_[4]{} &= 2 ,\_[4]{}+ ,[L]{}\_[\_[1]{}]{} \_[4]{}\
&= 2 ,\_[4]{}+ ,\[[\_[1]{}]{}, \_[4]{}\]\
&= J(\_1,\_2,\_3),\_4+ ,\[[\_[3]{}]{}, \_[4]{}\]\
&= - \_1 ,\_[4]{}+ ,\[[\_[3]{}]{}, \_[4]{}\] ,
where we used ${\cal L}_{X}Y=[X,Y]+\frac{1}{2} \partial \langle X,Y\rangle$, noting that under the total antisymmetrization the symmetric terms drop out. Thus, bringing the first term on the r.h.s. to the l.h.s., \_1 ,\_[4]{} = ,\[[\_[3]{}]{}, \_[4]{}\] , and thus 2[**J**]{}(\_1,\_2,\_3,\_4) = -4 \_[1]{},\_[4]{} = -3 ,\[[\_[3]{}]{}, \_[4]{}\] = -[**K**]{}(\_1,\_2,\_3,\_4), proving (\[KJident\]). Thus, we have proved that all $L_{\infty}$ identities are satisfied.
Off-shell DFT as extended $L_3$ algebra
---------------------------------------
Here we extend the $L_3$ algebra describing the C-bracket algebra to include the fields and gauge transformations of DFT, but still without taking dynamics into account. In other words, we consider the off-shell gauge structure of the DFT fields and build the algebra \^[-7pt gauge+fields]{} described in the introduction. We discuss two alternative formulations. In the first we include only the generalized metric ${\cal H}_{MN}$ and its gauge transformations. In the second we include the non-symmetric metric ${\cal E}_{ij}$ and its gauge transformations. Both formulations are background independent and non-perturbative: there is no need to consider expansions around some specific backgrounds.
### Gauge structure in terms of ${\cal H}_{MN}$ {#gauge-structure-in-terms-of-cal-h_mn .unnumbered}
We start by extending the total graded vector space as follows: \[Hextendedvector\]
0 &X\_2 X\_[1]{} X\_[0]{} X\_[-1]{}\
& c \^M \_[MN]{}
Since there is no vector space of degree minus two, we have \_n ([H]{}\^n) = 0, n 1 . This also implies that there are no field equations and no dynamics. The gauge transformation of ${\cal H}_{MN}$ is given by the generalized Lie derivative \[genLieH\] \_[H]{}\_[MN]{} [L]{}\_[H]{}\_[MN]{} = \^K\_K [H]{}\_[MN]{} + K\_[M]{}\^[K]{}[H]{}\_[KN]{} + K\_[N]{}\^[K]{}[H]{}\_[MK]{}, where we defined $K_{MN}\equiv \partial_M\xi_N-\partial_N\xi_M$. The generalized metric satisfies ${\cal H}\eta{\cal H}=\eta$, and this constraint is preserved by the generalized Lie derivative. In this background independent formulation the gauge transformations are homogenous in the fields. We now compare the above with the general form (\[jnsqts\]) of the gauge transformations. This comparison shows that we require one new non-trivial product: \[newL2\] \_2(,[H]{}) [L]{}\_[H]{}. The gauge transformation then reads, by definition, $\delta_{\xi}{\cal H}=\ell_2(\xi,{\cal H})$. The lack of an inhomogeneous term and of terms nonlinear in the field imply that \_1() = 0, \_[n+1]{} ( , \^n) = 0 , n 1 . We claim that with the addition of the product (\[newL2\]) to the list of products (\[Courantprod\]) we have a consistent $L_3$ algebra structure on the vector space (\[Hextendedvector\]).
In order to prove this claim we have to verify the $L_{\infty}$ relations. The relation $\ell_1^2=0$ does not need to be re-checked because the $\ell_1$ product is not modified. The relation $\ell_1\ell_2=\ell_2\ell_1$, c.f. (\[L2L1\]), tells us that $\ell_2 (\chi, {\cal H})$ and $\ell_2 (c, {\cal H})$ can be taken to be zero. The first one is a bit nontrivial: take $x_1=\chi$, $x_2={\cal H}$ for a scalar function $\chi$: \[secondL3\] \_1 \_2(,[H]{}) = \_2(,[H]{}) , using $\ell_1(\chi)=\partial\chi$. The left-hand side is zero because $\ell_1$ is acting on a vector in $X_0$. But the right-hand side is also zero, \[secondL3p\] \_2(,[H]{}) = [L]{}\_[H]{} = 0 , because $\partial^M\chi$ is a trivial parameter and the associated generalized Lie derivative (\[genLieH\]) vanishes by the strong constraint. The consistency of setting $\ell_2 (c , {\cal H}) =0$ now follows quickly.
We now turn to the relation $0=\ell_1\ell_3+\ell_3\ell_1+\ell_2\ell_2$, c.f. (\[L3L1\]), which requires three inputs. We must check it on inputs that include at least one ${\cal H}$. If we introduce no new $\ell_3$ products, the $\ell_1 \ell_3$ and $\ell_3 \ell_1$ terms must vanish and the identity reduces to $\ell_2 \ell_2 =0$. To get something non-vanishing when having an ${\cal H}$ we must then have two $\xi$’s. Thus we find that for arguments $\xi_1, \xi_2, {\cal H}$, the identity reads \_2(\_2(\_2,\_1),[H]{}) = \_2(\_2,\_2(\_1,[H]{}))-(12). It is easy to see that this is precisely the closure condition of $\delta_{\xi}$ on ${\cal H}$ and hence satisfied by the general DFT results.
Finally, the $L_{\infty}$ relation (\[ell4ell1\]) and all higher ones are trivially satisfied, because they involve products like $\ell_3$ or higher. Since all higher products vanish under our assumption, we need only concern ourselves with the appearance of $\ell_3$. The $\ell_3$ product is only non-zero evaluated for three gauge parameters and takes values in the space $X_1$ of scalar functions. But there is no non-zero product for ${\cal H}$ and an argument in $X_1$. This proves that the $L_{\infty}$ or $L_3$ relations remain valid after the extension in (\[Hextendedvector\]) and the addition of the new product (\[newL2\]).
### Gauge structure in terms of ${\cal E}_{ij}$ {#gauge-structure-in-terms-of-cal-e_ij .unnumbered}
Let us now turn to a similar but somewhat more intriguing extension of the $L_3$ algebra. We still work with non-perturbative off-shell fields, in this case the ‘non-symmetric metric’ ${\cal E}=g+b$, so that the graded vector space is still given by (\[Hextendedvector\]), but with the elements of $X_{-1}$ now being fields ${\cal E}$. The products (\[Courantprod\]) encoding the pure C-bracket algebra are unchanged, but we decompose the gauge parameter as $\xi^M=(\tilde{\xi}_i, \xi^i)$, with $i = 1, \ldots , D$. Despite being non-perturbative, the gauge transformations of ${\cal E}$ have inhomogeneous and higher order terms. Specifically, the gauge transformation can be written as \[deltaE\] \_[E]{} = \_1() + \_2(,[E]{}) - \_3(, [E]{},[E]{}) , where according to eqn. (2.32) in [@Hohm:2010jy] \[sgbtfltts\]
\[\_1()\]\_[ij]{} &= \_[i]{}\_[j]{} - \_[j]{}\_[i]{} ,\
\[\_2(,[E]{})\]\_[ij]{} &= [ L]{}\_[E]{}\_[ij]{}+\_[E]{}\_[ij]{},\
\[\_3(, [E]{}\_1,[E]{}\_[2]{})\]\_[ij]{} &= [E]{}\_[1ik]{}(\^k\^l -\^l\^k) [E]{}\_[2lj]{}+(12),
using the notation of [@Hohm:2010jy] for Lie derivatives $L_{\xi}$ and dual Lie derivatives $\tilde{L}_{\tilde{\xi}}$, defined by \[LLIIEE\]
L\_[E]{}\_[ij]{} &= \^k\_k [E]{}\_[ij]{} +\_i\^k [E]{}\_[kj]{} +\_j\^k [E]{}\_[ik]{},\
\_[E]{}\_[ij]{} &= \_k\^k [E]{}\_[ij]{} -\^k\_i[E]{}\_[kj]{} -\^k\_j[E]{}\_[ik]{}.
Since the gauge algebra is field independent and we have no dynamics, \[zeroproducts\] \_[n+2]{}(\_1,\_2,[E]{}\^n) = 0, n1, \_n([E]{},…, [E]{}) = 0 n1 . We claim that with the addition of the products (\[sgbtfltts\]) to the list of products (\[Courantprod\]) we have a consistent $L_3$ algebra structure on the vector space (\[Hextendedvector\]) (with ${\cal E}$ replacing ${\cal H}$).
Let us now verify the $L_{\infty}$ relations. First, the relations involving only gauge parameters $\xi$ and functions $\chi$ still hold as in the first subsection, since we merely changed the notation by splitting $\xi^M$ into $\tilde{\xi}_i$ and $\xi^i$. For instance, $\ell_1^2=0$ on $X_1$ holds for ${\ell_1(\chi)}_i=\partial_i\chi$: \_1(\_1())\_[ij]{} = \_i[\_1()]{}\_j -\_j[\_1()]{}\_i = 0. Second, the relation $\ell_1\ell_2=\ell_2\ell_1$ of the same form as in (\[secondL3\]), with ${\cal H}$ replaced by ${\cal E}$, follows again because $\tilde{\xi}_i=\partial_i\chi$, $\xi^i=\tilde{\partial}^i\chi$ are trivial parameters of (\[deltaE\]), which can be easily verified by use of (\[LLIIEE\]) and the strong constraint. So again we have that $\ell_2 (\chi, {\cal E})$ and $\ell_2 (c, {\cal E}) $ can be set to zero.
Under our assumption that there are no additional products, the $L_\infty$ identities of the form $\ell_i \ell_j + \ldots =0$ with $i+j \geq 7$ are trivially satisfied, since we have no products $\ell_n$ with $n\geq 4$. We must consider the identities for $i+j = 4,5,6$, having 3,4, and 5 inputs, respectively. In each case we must have at least one field ${\cal E}$ among the inputs, otherwise the identity was checked before (note that the products in (\[Courantprod\]) can never generate an object in $X_{-1}$).
We sketch the procedure now. Take $i+j=4$, which corresponds to the identity $\ell_1 \ell_3 + \ell_3 \ell_1 + \ell_2 \ell_2 =0$, of intrinsic degree zero. This requires three inputs. Three ${\cal E}$ works trivially because of degree. The cases $(\star, {\cal E}{\cal E})$ for $\star = \xi, \chi, c$ also work trivially. From the six cases $(\star, \star, {\cal E})$ the only nontrivial one happens to occur for $(\xi\xi {\cal E})$. For $i+j=5$ the identity is $\ell_3 \ell_2 = \ell_2 \ell_3$ and it requires four inputs. An enumeration shows that the only nontrivial case occurs for inputs $(\xi \xi {\cal E} {\cal E})$. Finally, for $i+j =6$ the identity is $\ell_3 \ell_3 =0$ and requires 5 inputs, the only nontrivial one being $(\xi \xi {\cal E} {\cal E} {\cal E})$. It follows that the remaining non-trivial $L_{\infty}$ relations are \[Linftyidentities\]
\_2(\_2(\_2,\_1),[E]{}) &= \_2(\_2,\_2(\_1,[E]{})) - \_3(\_2,\_1(\_1),[E]{}) - (12),\
\_3(\_2(\_2,\_1),[E]{},[E]{}) &= \_2(\_2,\_3(\_1,[E]{},[E]{})) +2\_3(\_2,\_2(\_1,[E]{}),[E]{}) - (12),\
0 &= \_3(\_2,\_3(\_1,[E]{},[E]{}),[E]{})- (12),
with diagonal arguments for fields ${\cal E}$, which by the general discussion is sufficient for the validity of the $L_{\infty}$ relations.[^6] These relations, together with those in (\[Courantprod\]), are sufficient for closure of the gauge transformations,
= \_1(\_[12]{})+\_2(\_[12]{},[E]{})-\_3(\_[12]{},[E]{},[E]{}),
where $\xi_{12} \equiv [\xi_2,\xi_1]_{c} \equiv \ell_2(\xi_2,\xi_1)$, c.f. (\[lClosure\]). As explained at the end of section 3.3, the closure of the gauge algebra implies that the identities (\[Linftyidentities\]) hold. We have also verified (\[Linftyidentities\]) by direct computations.
Perturbative DFT as $L_{\infty}$ algebra
----------------------------------------
We finally take dynamics into account, employing a perturbative formulation obtained by expanding DFT around a background. The fundamental fields are the dilaton $\phi$ and the generalized metric ${\cal H}$, which is expanded around a constant background as follows: \[expandHAAA\] [H]{}\_[MN]{} = |[H]{}\_[MN]{} + h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}+ h\_[[-6pt [N]{}]{}|[M]{}]{} - h\^[[-6pt [K]{}]{}]{}\_[|[M]{}]{} h\_[[-6pt [K]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} + h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}\^[|[K]{}]{} h\_[[-6pt [N]{}]{}|[K]{}]{} + [O]{}(h\^3). This expansion is compatible with the constraint ${\cal H}_{M}{}^{K}{\cal H}_{K}{}^{N}=\delta_M{}^{N}$. We use projected $O(D,D)$ indices defined for a vector by $V_{\,{\underline{\phantom{h}}\hskip-6pt {M}}}=P_M{}^{N}V_N$, $V_{\bar{M}}=\bar{P}_M{}^{N}V_N$, with the projectors \[projectorsINTRO\] P\_M\^[N]{} = (\_M\^[N]{} - |[H]{}\_M\^N), |[P]{}\_M\^[N]{} = (\_M\^[N]{} + |[H]{}\_M\^N). Indeed, $P^2=P$, $\bar{P}^2=\bar{P}$, and $P\bar{P}=0$ as a consequence of the constraint on the background generalized metric, $\bar{\cal H}_{M}{}^{K}\bar{\cal H}_{K}{}^{N}=\delta_M{}^{N}$.
Let us now discuss the $L_{\infty}$ algebra encoding the symmetries and dynamics of the above perturbative field variables. To this end we extend the above sequence once more to
0 &X\_2 X\_[1]{} X\_[0]{} X\_[-1]{} X\_[-2]{}\
& c \^M (h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{},) ([R]{}\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}, [R]{})
where $X_{-1}$ encodes the fields and $X_{-2}$ the field equations. More precisely, since we have the fundamental fields $h_{\,{\underline{\phantom{h}}\hskip-6pt {M}}\bar{N}}$ and $\phi$ we have a further decomposition into direct sums: X\_[-1]{} = X\_[-1,t]{} X\_[-1,s]{} , X\_[-2]{} = X\_[-2,t]{} X\_[-2,s]{}, with subscript ‘$s$’ denoting the dilaton (scalar) component and subscript ‘$t$’ the tensor component. Collectively, we denote fields by $\Psi=(h_{\,{\underline{\phantom{h}}\hskip-6pt {M}}\bar{N}},\phi)$ and field equations by $E=({\cal R}_{\,{\underline{\phantom{h}}\hskip-6pt {M}}\bar{N}}, {\cal R})$, so that \[\_t\]\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} = h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}, \_s = , \_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} = [R]{}\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}, E\_s = [R]{}. We will leave out the subindex of the grading if the tensor character is evident from the index structure.
Before starting the construction we must digress. The gauge parameters are $\xi^M$ as above, and the gravitational field is $h_{\,{\underline{\phantom{h}}\hskip-6pt {M}}\bar{N}}$, but the conventional perturbative DFT expressions are defined in terms of gauge parameters $\lambda_i$ and $\bar{\lambda}_i$ and closed string field theory (CSFT) variables $e_{ij}$ and $d=-\tfrac{1}{2}\phi$ [@Hull:2009mi]. By means of background frame fields it is straightforward to translate the indices $i, j$ of the original perturbative DFT expressions to the projected $2D$ valued $O(D,D)$ indices. Indeed, we assume a constant background frame field $E_{A}{}^{M}$ (an anchor map), and use [@Hohm:2011dz; @Hohm:2014xsa] \[eandh\] [E]{}\_[a]{}\^i[E]{}\_[|[b]{}]{}\^[j]{} e\_[ij]{} = [E]{}\_[a]{}\^[M]{} [E]{}\_[|[b]{}]{}\^[N]{} h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}, and \[barredunbarred\]
\_i & - E\_[i]{}\^[a]{} E\_[a]{}\^[M]{}\_M , |\_i E\_[i]{}\^[|[a]{}]{} E\_[|[a]{}]{}\^[M]{} \_[M]{},\
D\_i & E\_[i]{}\^[a]{} E\_[a]{}\^[M]{}\_M, |[D]{}\_i E\_[i]{}\^[|[a]{}]{} E\_[|[a]{}]{}\^[M]{}\_M,
where the sign in the first line is introduced for convenience, in order to comply with the CSFT conventions for $\lambda, \bar{\lambda}$. Note that we could also replace the $O(D,D)$ indices appearing above immediately as projected indices, so that e.g. $\bar{\lambda}_i = E_{i}{}^{\bar{a}} E_{\bar{a}}{}^{M} \xi_{\bar{M}}$. Moreover, one must recall that the flattened $O(D,D)$ metric ${\cal G}_{AB}={E}_A{}^M {E}_{BM}$ is related to the background metric $G$ via G\_[ij]{} = - [E]{}\_[i]{}\^[a]{} [E]{}\_[j]{}\^[[b]{}]{} [G]{}\_[ab]{} = [E]{}\_[i]{}\^[|[a]{}]{} [E]{}\_[j]{}\^[|[b]{}]{} [G]{}\_[|[a]{}|[b]{}]{}, where ${E}_{i}{}^{a}$ is the inverse of ${E}_{a}{}^{i}$ and similarly for the other fields.
The $L_{\infty}$ products governing the C-bracket algebra are given by (\[Courantprod\]) and still apply in this construction. If desired, they could be rewritten in terms of projected gauge parameters using (\[barredunbarred\]). We must now determine what are the extra products that make up the complete dynamical ${L_\infty^{\phantom{0}}}^{\hskip-7pt \rm full}$ of the interacting DFT.
We begin by inspecting the perturbative gauge transformations for the CSFT variable $e_{ij}$, given by [@Hohm:2010jy]
e\_[ij]{} = & D\_i|\_j+|[D]{}\_[j]{}\_i +(D+||[D]{})e\_[ij]{}\
& +(D\_i\^k-D\^k\_i) e\_[kj]{} +(|[D]{}\_j|\^k-|[D]{}\^k|\_j) e\_[ik]{} +e\_[ ik]{}(D\^l|\^k - |[D]{}\^k\^l) e\_[ lj]{}.
Converting to $O(D,D)$ indices by means of (\[eandh\]), this implies \[exactHgauge\]
\_ h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} = & 2(\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}\_[|[N]{}]{}-\_[|[N]{}]{}\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}) + \^[P]{}\_P h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}+ K\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}\^[[-6pt [K]{}]{}]{} h\_[[-6pt [K]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} + K\_[|[N]{}]{}\^[|[K]{}]{} h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[K]{}]{}\
& +h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[K]{}]{} K\^[[-6pt [L]{}]{}|[K]{}]{} h\_[[-6pt [L]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} .
This form of the gauge transformation can be taken to be exact. More precisely, there is a choice for the higher order terms in the expansion (\[expandHAAA\]) of ${\cal H}$ so that $\delta_\xi {\cal H} = {\cal L}_\xi {\cal H}$ yields (\[exactHgauge\]) exactly. Finally, the gauge transformation of the dilaton reads \_ = \^N\_N+\_N\^N. The products read off from this and (\[exactHgauge\]) are \[fieldparametERRR\]
\[\_1()\]\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} = & 2(\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}\_[|[N]{}]{}-\_[|[N]{}]{}\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}),\
\[\_2(,h)\]\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} = & \^[P]{}\_P h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}+ K\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}\^[[-6pt [K]{}]{}]{} h\_[[-6pt [K]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} + K\_[|[N]{}]{}\^[|[K]{}]{} h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[K]{}]{},\
\[\_3(,h\_1,h\_2)\]\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} = & -h\_[1[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[K]{}]{} K\^[[-6pt [L]{}]{}|[K]{}]{} h\_[2[-6pt [L]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} +(12),\
\_1()\_s = & \_N\^N,\
\_2(,)\_s = & \^N \_N .
All other products involving only gauge parameters $\xi$ and fields are zero.
Let us now turn to the field equations. The full field equations can be written in terms of the generalized metric and the dilaton, \[DFTFIELDeq\] [R]{}\_[MN]{}([H]{},) = 0, ([H]{},) = 0. Expanding around a constant background and taking ‘off-diagonal’ projections, one obtains 0 = [R]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}(h,)+ [R]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}(h,)+ , 0 = [R]{}\^[(1)]{}(h,)+ [R]{}\^[(2)]{}(h,) + , where the superscript denotes the number of fields. The linearized equations can be read off from eq. (6.7) in [@Hohm:2014xsa] (defining $\square=\partial^{\,{\underline{\phantom{h}}\hskip-6pt {M}}}\partial_{\,{\underline{\phantom{h}}\hskip-6pt {M}}}$)
[R]{}\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}\^[(1)]{} &= h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}-\^[[-6pt [K]{}]{}]{} \_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{} h\_[[-6pt [K]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} +\^[|[K]{}]{} \_[|[N]{}]{} h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[K]{}]{} -2\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}\_[|[N]{}]{} ,\
[R]{}\^[(1)]{} &= \^[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}\^[|[N]{}]{} h\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} -2 .
We can now read off the $\ell$ products taking values in the space of field equations $X_{-2}$. Specifically, to lowest order we find the two projections \[ell1EOM\]
\[\_1()\_t\]\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} &= [R]{}\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}\^[(1)]{},\
\_1()\_s &= [R]{}\^[(1)]{}.
The higher products taking values in $X_{-2}$ can be determined algorithmically by expanding (\[DFTFIELDeq\]) to the desired order and using the polarization identities of sec. \[fieldSEC\] to determine the product for arbitrary different arguments in the space of fields $X_{-1}$. For instance, the correction to second order in fields for ${\cal R}$ has been given explicitly in [@Hohm:2010jy] in terms of the original CSFT variables. Writing \[R2isell2\] [R]{}\^[(2)]{} = -\_2(,)\_s, we read off from eq. (4.28) in [@Hohm:2010jy] for the (diagonal) product \[ell2psipsi\]
\_2(,)\_s = & 2D\^iD\_i -4e\^[ij]{}D\_i|[D]{}\_[j]{}-2D\^ie\_[ij]{} |[D]{}\^j- 2|[D]{}\^je\_[ij]{} D\^i +D\^pe\^[ij]{} D\_pe\_[ij]{}\
& + e\^[ij]{}(D\_iD\^k e\_[kj]{} +|[D]{}\_j|[D]{}\^ke\_[ ik]{}) +(D\_le\^[li]{} D\^k e\_[ki]{} +|[D]{}\_le\^[il]{} |[D]{}\^k e\_[ ik]{}) ,
or, translating into $O(D,D)$ indices by means of the anchor map, \[ell2psipsi\]
\_2(\_1,\_2)\_s = & -2\^[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}\_1\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}\_2 +4h\_1\^[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}\_[|[N]{}]{}\_2 +2\^[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}h\_[1[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} \^[|[N]{}]{}\_2\
& +2 \^[|[N]{}]{}h\_[1[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} \^[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{} \_2 +\^[[-6pt [K]{}]{}]{}h\_1\^[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} \_[[-6pt [K]{}]{}]{}h\_[2[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}\
& +h\_1\^[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[N]{}]{}(\_[[-6pt [M]{}]{}]{}\^[[-6pt [K]{}]{}]{} h\_[2[-6pt [K]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} - \_[|[N]{}]{}\^[|[K]{}]{}h\_[2 [-6pt [M]{}]{}|[K]{}]{})\
& +(\_[[-6pt [L]{}]{}]{}h\_1\^[[-6pt [L]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} \^[[-6pt [K]{}]{}]{} h\_[2[-6pt [K]{}]{}|[N]{}]{} -\_[|[L]{}]{}h\_1\^[[-6pt [M]{}]{}|[L]{}]{} \^[|[K]{}]{} h\_[2 [-6pt [M]{}]{}|[K]{}]{}) + (12) ,
where we restored the two arbitrary field arguments. In general, the field equations contain arbitrary powers of the fields and hence are non-polynomial. Thus, all higher products for fields are expected to be non-vanishing, \_n(, …, ) 0 n1 .
Finally, we employ the gauge covariance of the field equations in order to determine the products involving arguments in the space of field equations $X_{-2}$. The full field equations (\[DFTFIELDeq\]) transform covariantly according to generalized Lie derivatives: \[EOMCOV\]
\_[R]{}\_[MN]{} & = [L]{}\_\_[MN]{} = \^K\_K [R]{}\_[MN]{} +K\_M\^K [R]{}\_[KN]{} + K\_N\^K [R]{}\_[MK]{} ,\
\_[R]{} &= [L]{}\_ = \^K\_K [R]{}.
Note that the right-hand sides are linear in the field equations and do not contain bare fields. On the other hand, as we showed in (\[clwsmbtt\]) one has a general formula for the gauge variation of the field equations \[clwsmbtty\] \_[F]{} = \_2(,[F]{}) + \_3(,[F]{}(),) +…Comparing the two equations above we see that only the first term on the right-hand side of the second equation is present. We learn therefore that \[jnwsmtts\] \_2(,E) = [L]{}\_E X\_[-2]{}, and higher products vanish \[onemoreZERO\] \_[n+2]{}(, E, \^n ) = 0 , n1.
As a consistency check, we can show that (\[jnwsmtts\]) is required by the $L_\infty$ relation $\ell_1\ell_2=\ell_2\ell_1$. We focus on the dilaton and thus expand the second equation in (\[EOMCOV\]) to first order in fields, \[Rcovariance\] \^K\_K [R]{}\^[(1)]{} = \^[(1)]{}[R]{}\^[(1)]{} + \^[(0)]{}[R]{}\^[(2)]{} . Here $\delta^{(n)}$ refers to the terms in the gauge variation with $n$ powers of the fields, i.e., the terms encoded in the product $\ell_{n+1}(\xi, \Psi^n)$. For the dilaton component $\ell_1\ell_2=\ell_2\ell_1$, gives \[ellIDENTTY\] \_2(, \_1())\_s = \_1(\_2(, ))\_s - \_2(\_1(), )\_s. To this end, we rewrite the two terms on the right-hand side of (\[Rcovariance\]) as follows. First, using $\delta^{(1)}\Psi=\ell_2(\xi,\Psi)$, we compute with (\[ell1EOM\]) \^[(1)]{}[R]{}\^[(1)]{} = \^[(1)]{}(\_1()\_s) = \_1(\^[(1)]{})\_s = \_1(\_2(,))\_s. Second, using $\delta^{(0)}\Psi=\ell_1(\xi)$, we compute with (\[R2isell2\]) \^[(0)]{}[R]{}\^[(2)]{} = -\^[(0)]{}(\_2(,))\_s = -\_2(\^[(0)]{},)\_s = -\_2(\_1(),)\_s, where we used the symmetry of $\ell_2$ for two arguments in the space of fields. We have thus shown that the right-hand side of (\[ellIDENTTY\]) equals the right-hand side of (\[Rcovariance\]). Therefore, (\[ellIDENTTY\]) is satisfied if the left-hand sides are also equal, i.e., \_2(, \_1())\_s = \^N\_N [R]{}\^[(1)]{}. This relation is satisfied provided we define the product for a general $E\in X_{-2}$ to be \[scaltrans\] \_2(,E)\_s = \^N\_N E\_s. This is what we wanted to show. The above derivation goes through for the tensor component in the same way.
So far we have determined the non-trivial $\ell_2$ product between gauge parameters and field equations, and it is easy to see that there are no higher products involving one gauge parameter and several field equations. For instance, an $\ell_3$ product like \_3(, E, E) X\_[-3]{}, has to vanish because there is no space $X_{-3}$, and similarly for higher products. Moreover, there is no product $\ell_3(\xi_1, \xi_2,E)$ of two gauge parameters and a field equation, because this would imply that closure of the gauge algebra holds only on-shell, while in DFT we have off-shell closure. Similarly, there is no need for higher products with two gauge parameters and an arbitrary number of field equations, so those are also zero.
We now claim that the products we have identified so far are all the products that are non-zero. In summary, the non-vanishing products for the $L_{\infty}$ algebra describing the full (perturbative) DFT are the following:
- the products governing the pure gauge structure, i.e., gauge parameters $\xi$, ‘trivial’ functions $\chi$ and constants $c$, which are non-vanishing for \[jnfntstbtt\] \_1(), \_1(c), \_2(\_1,\_2), \_2(,), \_3(\_1,\_2,\_3), and given explicitly in (\[Courantprod\]);
- the products involving gauge parameters and fields describing the full gauge transformations of fields, which are non-vanishing for \[jnfntstbtt1\] \_1(), \_2(, ), \_3(,\_1,\_2), and given explicitly in (\[fieldparametERRR\]);
- products $\ell_n$ for arbitrary $n$ involving only fields $\Psi$, \[jnfntstbtt2\] \_n(\_1, …, \_n) \_1, …, \_n X\_[-1]{}, such as given to lowest order in (\[ell1EOM\]), (\[ell2psipsi\]); we did not attempt to write these products in a closed form, but we explained how they can be determined systematically from the field equations to any desired order $n$;
- the product between gauge parameter and field equation, \[jnfntstbtt3\] \_2(,E) = [L]{}\_E .
[**Proof.**]{} We now explain why all $L_\infty$ identities are satisfied. For this we will consider the possible lists of inputs for the identities. The inputs, of course, can be various numbers of $c$’s, $\chi$’s, $\xi$’s, $\Psi$’s, and $E$’s. Note that given a list of $n$ inputs there is a single $L_\infty$ identity that must be cheched, the identity with sums of products of the form $\ell_i \ell_j$, with $i+j = n+1$. For any term $\ell_i \ell_j$ we will call $\ell_j$ the [*first*]{} product and $\ell_i$ the [*second*]{} product, as they act first and second, respectively, on any list of inputs.
As discussed in section 3.3 we do not need to consider any identity on only pure $\Psi$ inputs as they hold if all products involving one $E$ and any number of $\Psi$’s vanish, as they do here. Moreover it is explained there as well that we need not consider identities acting on input sets $(\xi, \Psi^n)$ with one gauge parameter and multiple $\Psi$’s as those identities hold when the field equations transform covariantly, as we have checked before. Finally, we need not consider identities acting on input sets $(\xi_1\xi_2\Psi^n)$ with two gauge parameters and multiple $\Psi$’s as those identities hold when the gauge algebra takes a standard form.
[*Claim 1: Any list of inputs that includes one or more $E$’s leads to correctly satisfied identities.*]{} Suppose there is one $E$. If the first product involves the $E$ then it must be an $\ell_2$ that couples it to a $\xi$ and gives another $E$. The second product must then couple the new $E$ to another $\xi$. The inputs in this case are $\xi_1 \xi_2 E$ and are relevant to the $\ell_1 \ell_3 + \ell_2 \ell_2 + \ell_3 \ell_1=0$ identity. The identity holds: terms with $\ell_3$ vanish and $\ell_2 \ell_2=0$ because Lie derivatives form a Lie algebra. If the first product does not involve $E$ then the second product must, and has to be of the form $\ell_2 (E, \xi)$. This means that the first product must have taken some inputs and given a gauge parameter. The options for this are $\ell_1(\chi)$ and $\ell_2 (\xi_1, \xi_2)$. Thus the possible lists to check are $E \chi$ and $E\xi_1\xi_2$. The second list was dealt with a few lines above. The first list is relevant to the identity $\ell_1 \ell_2 = \ell_2 \ell_1$ and holds because $\ell_2 (E, \ell_1(\chi))$ vanishes as it is a generalized Lie derivative along a trivial parameter. Now consider the case when there are two $E$’s in the original list. Since there is no product that includes two $E$’s the first product must involve an $E$. But the product gives another $E$, and therefore the second product is faced with two $E$’s and it must vanish. The case of more than two $E$’s works for analogous reasons. $\square$
[*Claim 2: Any list of inputs that includes one or more $c$’s leads to correctly satisfied identities.*]{} If there are two or more $c$’s any sequence of products will give zero because the only product involving $c$ is $\ell_1$. If there is one $c$ and no other inputs, this is trivially satisfied. If there is one $c$ and some other inputs, the first product cannot act on the other inputs because then there would be no suitable second product. The only possibility is that the first product is $\ell_1$ and acts on $c$ to give a constant $\chi$. That $\chi$ can be acted by another $\ell_1$, in which case the identity is trivial, or appear in $\ell_2 (\chi, \xi)$, which vanishes because $\chi$ is constant. $\square$
[*Claim 3: Any list of inputs that includes one or more $\chi$’s leads to correctly satisfied identities.*]{} Consider first the case when we have two $\chi$’s. Assume the first product is not acting on any of the $\chi$’s. Then there is no available second product that acts on a list with at least two $\chi$’s. If the first product acts on one of the $\chi$’s it could be in the form $\ell_1(\chi)$ or $\ell_2 (\chi, \xi)$, because of (\[jnfntstbtt\]). Since the latter gives another $\chi$, it must be the former. The second product is then faced with at least a $\chi$ and a $\xi$. But there can be no more inputs, so that we can use $\ell_2$. In summary, the only possibility for the original list is $\chi\chi$. This is certainly a trivially satisfied identity. The same argument holds for more than two $\chi$’s.
Consider now the case of a single $\chi$ in the list of inputs. If the first product does not act on $\chi$ then it must act on all of the other inputs to produce a $\xi$. Looking again at the list of products (\[jnfntstbtt\]), the only option is $\ell_2 (\xi_1, \xi_2)$ showing that the original list must have been $(\chi \xi\xi)$. The associated identity was already checked in the Courant algebroid. If the first product acts on the $\chi$ it may act with $\ell_2$ or $\ell_1$. If it acts with $\ell_2$, it must be $\ell_2(\xi, \chi)$ giving another $\chi$-type input. The second product can be $\ell_1$ if the list is $(\chi\xi)$ or another $\ell_2$ in which case the list is $(\chi\xi\xi)$. Both lists were checked in the Courant algebroid. If the first product acts on the $\chi$ with $\ell_1$ it turns it into a $\xi$ and for nontrivial products one must then have at most two $\Psi$’s. So the only possibilities are inputs $(\chi \Psi)$ or $(\chi \Psi\Psi)$. In both cases these vanish because the $\xi$ obtained as $\ell_1(\chi)$ is a trivial gauge parameter. $\square$
Because of our earlier observations and the three claims above we need only check identities with inputs that have three or more $\xi$’s and any number of $\Psi$’s. The case when all inputs are $\xi$ need not be considered because this was part of the analysis in the Courant algebroid.
Consider the lists $(\xi\xi\xi \Psi^n)$ with three $\xi$’s and a number $n\geq 1$ of $\Psi$’s. With three $\xi$’s we cannot have both the first and the second product arise from the list $\ell_1 (\xi), \ell_2 (\xi, \Psi),
\ell_3 (\xi,\Psi,\Psi)$ that use one $\xi$. One of them must be a $\ell_3 (\xi,\xi,\xi)$. Suppose the first product is $\ell_3 (\xi,\xi,\xi)$. Then the second product is acting on $(\chi\Psi^n)$ and vanishes, as $\chi$ never couples to a field. Suppose the first product is not $\ell_3 (\xi,\xi,\xi)$, then the chosen product uses one $\xi$ and returns a $\Psi$, leaving for the second product inputs $(\xi\xi\Psi^k)$ with $k\geq 1$. But no product is non-zero for this list.
The lists $(\xi\xi\xi\xi \Psi^n)$ with four $\xi$’s and a number of $n\geq 1$ of $\Psi$’s also leads to no constraints. If the first product is one of $\ell_1 (\xi), \ell_2 (\xi, \Psi),
\ell_3 (\xi,\Psi,\Psi)$, then the second product is facing the list $(\xi\xi\xi\Psi^k)$ with $k\geq 1$ gives zero. If the first product is $\ell_3 (\xi,\xi,\xi)$ the second product faces the list $(\chi\xi\Psi^n)$ and gives zero. It is clear that more than four $\xi$’s and a number $n\geq 1$ of $\Psi$’s will also give trivially satisfied identities. This concludes our proof that the products listed in (\[jnfntstbtt\] –\[jnfntstbtt3\]) define a consistent $L_\infty$ algebra for DFT. $\square$
Comments on Einstein gravity
----------------------------
We close this section be briefly commenting on the description of Einstein gravity as $L_{\infty}$ algebra. Einstein gravity is contained in DFT, so this is a special case of our results above, but it is instructive to see how the $L_{\infty}$ algebra simplifies for pure gravity. As before, we consider perturbative gravity, in which the Einstein-Hilbert theory is expanded around flat space, writing $g_{mn}=\eta_{mn}+h_{mn}$. The diffeomorphism symmetry acts on the massless spin-2 fluctuation $h_{mn}$ as \_h\_[mn]{} = \_m\_n+\_n\_m + L\_h\_[mn]{}, where $L_{\xi}$ is the conventional Lie derivative, defined like in the first line of (\[LLIIEE\]). These transformations close according to the Lie bracket $[\,,]$ of vectors fields, which in turn satisfies the Jacobi identity. Thus, there is no need for a space $X_1$ of ‘trivial’ functions, and it is sufficient to consider the graded vector space
& X\_[0]{} X\_[-1]{} X\_[-2]{}\
& \^m h\_[mn]{} R\_[mn]{}
The non-zero products are the following:
- the product governing the pure diffeomorphism Lie algebra for $\xi$, \_2(\_1,\_2) = \[\_1,\_2\]
- the products involving gauge parameters and fields describing the gauge transformations, \_1()\_[mn]{} = \_m\_n+\_n\_m , \_2(, h) = L\_h
- products $\ell_n$ for arbitrary $n$ involving only the field $h$, \_n(h, …, h) h X\_[-1]{}, as can be determined from the Einstein equations to any desired order;
- the product between gauge parameter and field equation, \_2(,E) = [L]{}\_E .
$A_{\infty}$ algebras and revisiting Chern-Simons
=================================================
In this final section we briefly contrast the $L_{\infty}$ constructions of this paper with the $A_{\infty}$ formulation of Chern-Simons theory. The $A_\infty$ axioms relevant to the construction of a theory include a set of products $m_n$, with $n= 1,2,3, \ldots$. The product $m_n$, with $n$ inputs, is of degree $n-2$. The first couple of identities are [@Gaberdiel:1997ia]: \[first-two-A-infty\]
m\_1 ( m\_1 (x) ) = & 0 ,\
m\_1 (m\_2 (x\_1, x\_2) = & m\_2 (m\_1 (x\_1) , x\_2) + (-1)\^[x\_1]{} m\_2 ( x\_1, m\_1 (x\_2)).\
For the example we want to discuss, and for Witten’s open string field theory, the product $m_{3}$ and all higher ones vanish. In this case, the remaining identity in the algebra is the associativity condition for $m_2$: \[A-infty-associativity\] m\_2 ( m\_2 (x\_1, x\_2) , x\_3 ) = m\_2 ( x\_1 , m\_2 (x\_2, x\_3) ) . If we supply an inner product one can also write an action. The inner product must satisfy
x\_1 , x\_2 = & (-1)\^[x\_1x\_2]{} x\_2, x\_1 ,\
m\_1 (x\_1), x\_2 = & - (-1)\^[x\_1]{} x\_1, m\_1 (x\_2) ,\
x\_1 , m\_2 (x\_2, x\_3) = & m\_2 (x\_1, x\_2) , x\_3 .
In writing a field theory with a field $A \in X_{-1}$ we have an action S = A , m\_1 (A) + A , m\_2 ( A, A) . The field equation takes the form ${\cal F}=0$ with (A) m\_1 (A) + m\_2 (A, A) . With a gauge parameter $\lambda \in X_0$ the gauge transformations leaving the action invariant take the form \[ainfty-gt\] \_A = m\_1 () + m\_2 (A, ) - m\_2 (, A). The gauge algebra takes the form \[a-infty-gauge-algebra\] = \_[ m\_2 (\_1, \_2) - m\_2 (\_2 , \_1) ]{} . The field equation is gauge covariant: we have \_ = m\_2 ([F]{} , ) - m\_2 (, [F]{} ) .
In order to formulate the Chern-Simons theory we consider the graded vector space
&X\_0X\_[-1]{} X\_[-2]{}\
& A\_ E\_
Here we think of these objects as [*matrix valued*]{} fields: \^ t\_, A\_ A\_\^ t\_, E\_ E\_\^ t\_, where the $t_\alpha$ can be chosen as the adjoint representation of the generators $T_\alpha$ of the Lie algebra. We have the commutator $[t_\alpha, t_\beta] = f_{\alpha\beta}{}^\gamma t_\gamma$ and the relation $\kappa_{\alpha\beta} = - \hbox{tr} ( t_\alpha t_\beta)$.
The inner product is given by A , E d\^3 x \^ ( A\_E\_ ) = d\^3 x \^ \_ A\_\^ E\_\^.
We list the complete set of [*nonvanishing*]{} $A_\infty$ products: \[Lnproducts\] Note that the products $m_2$ have no exchange property: they are neither symmetric nor antisymmetric; they are intrinsically non-commutative products, which are associative, however.
Let us briefly go over the derivation of such products and the check that they satisfy the relevant identities. Comparing the gauge transformation $\delta_\lambda A = m_1 (\lambda) + m_2 (A, \lambda) - m_2 (\lambda , A)$ with $\delta_\lambda A_\mu = \partial_\mu \lambda + A_\mu \lambda - \lambda A_\mu$ (which follows from (\[a-gauge-transformation\])) we read off expressions for $m_1 (\lambda) $, $m_2 (A, \lambda)$ and $m_2 (\lambda , A)$. Next, we compare the field equation $m_1 (A ) + m_2 (A, A)= 0$ to the explicit field equation $F=0$, which using (\[field-strength-gauge-field\]) reads $ \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}
+A_{\mu}A_{\nu} - A_{\nu}A_{\mu}=0$. This allows us to read off $m_1(A)$ and $m_2 (A, A)$. Comparing the gauge algebra (\[a-infty-gauge-algebra\]) to the gauge algebra $[ \delta_{\lambda_1} , \delta_{\lambda_2}] = \delta_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2 - \lambda_2 \lambda_1}$ we obtain the value of $m_2 (\lambda_1, \lambda_2)$. The last two entries in the above table are obtained from the identities themselves.
The list (\[table-gauge-products\]) of gauge theory inputs to products applies here. The identity $m_1 m_1 =0$ need only be checked acting on $X_0$ and holds trivially. The identity $m_1 m_2 = -m_2 m_1$ must be checked on $(A, \lambda)$, $(\lambda, A)$ and $(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)$. The first two determine $m_2 (E, \lambda)$ and $m_2 (\lambda, E)$, respectively. The last holds trivially. The associativity condition (\[A-infty-associativity\]) must be checked on $\lambda\lambda \lambda$, $\lambda\lambda A$, $\lambda A A$ and $\lambda \lambda E$. All those are readily verified.
The Chern-Simons action is also reproduced correctly:
A , m\_1 (A) + m\_2 ( A, A) = & d\^3 x \^ ( A\_, (\_A\_-\_A\_) + (A\_A\_- A\_A\_) )\
= & d\^3 x \^ ( A\_, \_A\_+ (A\_A\_- A\_A\_) ),
which agrees with (\[CS-gauge-invariant\]). As discussed before neither the inner product nor the products refer to a spacetime metric. In this sense the $A_\infty$ formulation seems more natural than the $L_\infty$ formulation for Chern-Simons theory.
Conclusions and outlook
=======================
Homotopy Lie algebras or $L_{\infty}$ algebras are generalizations of Lie algebras that describe the underlying algebraic structure of classical closed string field theory. It might appear that $L_{\infty}$ algebras are somewhat exotic, because the gauge symmetries of ordinary field theories, properly extended to include equations-of-motion symmetries, form a Lie algebra. We argued that, on the contrary, $L_{\infty}$ algebras are the underlying algebraic structure for any consistent classical field theory. We illustrated this with examples and outlined a general algorithm to determine the $L_{\infty}$ structures for a given field theory. It must be emphasized that this is not in conflict with the fact that in conventional classical field theories field products are naturally associative and symmetry variations always satisfy a Jacobi identity.
One possible application is to formulate the ‘Wilsonian effective actions’ recently described by Sen [@Sen:2016qap]. In principle, these can be obtained by integrating out all modes except for some specific sub-sectors that, along with massless fields, can also include arbitrarily massive fields. A particularly interesting case is that of double field theory as envisioned in [@Hull:2009mi], where one would include the Kaluza-Klein and winding modes associated with the massless fields of string theory in toroidal backgrounds. While in this paper we have made no attempt to construct such theory, the results here should be the proper starting point for any such endeavor.
Other possible applications are in M-theory, for which we have exceptional field theory [@Hohm:2013pua], a formulation analogous to double field theory that makes the U-duality groups E$_{d(d)}$, $d=2,\ldots, 8$, manifest. Unlike double field theory, these theories require a ‘split-formulation’ in which the coordinates of $D=11$ supergravity are decomposed into external and internal coordinates in analogy to Kaluza-Klein. The internal coordinates are then enlarged to transform in the fundamental representation of E$_{d(d)}$. The theory features $p$-forms of various ranks with respect to the *external* space, transforming as generalized tensors under the *internal* symmetries. The gauge structure of these $p$-forms is governed by so-called tensor hierarchies, which were originally introduced in gauged supergravity [@deWit:2005hv] and have various features in common with $L_{\infty}$ algebras. Notably, the gauge algebra structure does not satisfy the Jacobi identity; rather, the failure of the Jacobi identity is ‘absorbed’ by higher-form gauge symmetries, with a ‘generalized Cartan structure’ emerging naturally [@Hohm:2015xna; @Wang:2015hca]. It thus appears likely that there is an $L_{\infty}$ description of the tensor hierarchy, which in turn could shed light on a more fundamental formulation of exceptional field theory. Indeed, so far exceptional field theory has only been constructed on a case-by-case basis, for each duality group E$_{d(d)}$ separately. One might hope that eventually there will be a formulation based on a larger algebraic structure, realizing the U-duality groups as sub-structures. This algebraic structure might well be an $L_{\infty}$ algebra.
Finally, $L_{\infty}$ algebras are important for higher-spin gravity. Indeed, the early investigation of the consistency of non-linear higher-spin symmetries in [@Berends:1984rq] naturally led to a structure that can be interpreted as a homotopy Lie algebra. It would therefore be interesting to reformulate or extend higher-spin theories such as constructed by Vasiliev (see [@Vasiliev:2014vwa] for a recent review) in terms of $L_{\infty}$ algebras. Aspects of this relation have already been discussed in [@Vasiliev:2005zu]. Specifically, in the formulation of higher-spin theories in [@Vasiliev:1992av] the gauge symmetries are governed by a Lie algebra (albeit infinite-dimensional), but this is achieved thanks to additional unphysical coordinates. Upon ‘integrating them out’ one should recover an $L_{\infty}$ algebra. It would be interesting to see if other theories whose gauge symmetries need $L_{\infty}$ structures can be reformulated with pure Lie algebras by using additional coordinates. Further illuminating the $L_\infty$ description of higher-spin symmetries may also shed a new light on the open problem of constructing an action for higher-spin gravity, which would be important for holographic applications. Perhaps the $L_\infty$ algebra can be naturally constructed by adding sets of free fields, in the way that the difficulties in constructing actions for superstring field theories were overcome in [@Sen:2015uaa].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Martin Rocek, Ashoke Sen, and Anton Zeitlin for useful discussions, and Andreas Deser, Christian Saemann, Jim Stasheff, and Misha Vasiliev for comments on the first version of this paper.
O.H. is supported by a DFG Heisenberg Fellowship of the German Science Foundation (DFG). The work of B.Z. is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant Contract Number de-sc0012567.
[99]{}
E. Witten, “Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**268**]{}, 253 (1986). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(86)90155-0 M. R. Gaberdiel and B. Zwiebach, “Tensor constructions of open string theories. 1: Foundations,” Nucl. Phys. B [**505**]{}, 569 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00580-4 \[hep-th/9705038\]. B. Zwiebach, “Oriented open - closed string theory revisited,” Annals Phys. [**267**]{}, 193 (1998) doi:10.1006/aphy.1998.5803 \[hep-th/9705241\].
B. Zwiebach, “Quantum open string theory with manifest closed string factorization,” Phys. Lett. B [**256**]{}, 22 (1991). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90212-9
H. Kajiura and J. Stasheff, “Homotopy algebras inspired by classical open-closed string field theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**263**]{}, 553 (2006) doi:10.1007/s00220-006-1539-2 \[math/0410291 \[math-qa\]\].
J. Stasheff, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**108**]{} (1963) 293; H-spaces from a homotopy point of view, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 161 (Springer Verlag, 1970).
B. Zwiebach, “Closed string field theory: Quantum action and the B-V master equation,” Nucl. Phys. B [**390**]{}, 33 (1993) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90388-6 \[hep-th/9206084\].
T. Lada and J. Stasheff, “Introduction to SH Lie algebras for physicists,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**32**]{}, 1087 (1993) doi:10.1007/BF00671791 \[hep-th/9209099\].
M. Schlessinger and J. D. Stasheff, The Lie algebra structure of tangent cohomology and deformation theory, J. of Pure and Appl. Algebra [**38**]{} (1985), 313-322.
K. Munster and I. Sachs, “Quantum Open-Closed Homotopy Algebra and String Field Theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**321**]{}, 769 (2013) \[arXiv:1109.4101 \[hep-th\]\]. “Homotopy Classification of Bosonic String Field Theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**330**]{}, 1227 (2014) \[arXiv:1208.5626 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Gaiotto, G. W. Moore and E. Witten, “Algebra of the Infrared: String Field Theoretic Structures in Massive ${\cal N}=(2,2)$ Field Theory In Two Dimensions,” arXiv:1506.04087 \[hep-th\]. A. Sen, “Wilsonian Effective Action of Superstring Theory,” arXiv:1609.00459 \[hep-th\].
G. Barnich, R. Fulp, T. Lada and J. Stasheff, “The sh Lie structure of Poisson brackets in field theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**191**]{}, 585 (1998) \[hep-th/9702176\].
F. A. Berends, G. J. H. Burgers and H. van Dam, “On the Theoretical Problems in Constructing Interactions Involving Higher Spin Massless Particles,” Nucl. Phys. B [**260**]{}, 295 (1985). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90074-4
R. Fulp, T. Lada and J. Stasheff, “sh-Lie algebras induced by gauge transformations,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**231**]{}, 25 (2002). doi:10.1007/s00220-002-0678-3
A. M. Zeitlin, “Homotopy Lie Superalgebra in Yang-Mills Theory,” JHEP [**0709**]{} (2007) 068 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/068 \[arXiv:0708.1773 \[hep-th\]\].
A. M. Zeitlin, “String field theory-inspired algebraic structures in gauge theories,” J. Math. Phys. [**50**]{}, 063501 (2009) doi:10.1063/1.3142964 \[arXiv:0711.3843 \[hep-th\]\].
A. M. Zeitlin, “Conformal Field Theory and Algebraic Structure of Gauge Theory,” JHEP [**1003**]{}, 056 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2010)056 \[arXiv:0812.1840 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Roytenberg and A. Weinstein, “Courant Algebroids and Strongly Homotopy Lie Algebras," Lett. Math. Phys. [**46**]{} (1998), 81–93 \[arXiv:math/9802118\].
A. Deser and C. Saemann, “Extended Riemannian Geometry I: Local Double Field Theory,” arXiv:1611.02772 \[hep-th\].
A. Deser and J. Stasheff, “Even symplectic supermanifolds and double field theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**339**]{}, no. 3, 1003 (2015) doi:10.1007/s00220-015-2443-4 \[arXiv:1406.3601 \[math-ph\]\]. E. Getzler, “Higher derived brackets", arXiv:1010.5859.
D. Roytenberg, “Courant algebroids, derived brackets and even symplectic supermanifolds" arxiv:math/9910078.
W. Siegel, “Superspace duality in low-energy superstrings,” Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 2826 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.2826 \[hep-th/9305073\].
C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Double Field Theory,” JHEP [**0909**]{}, 099 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/099 \[arXiv:0904.4664 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “The Gauge algebra of double field theory and Courant brackets,” JHEP [**0909**]{}, 090 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/090 \[arXiv:0908.1792 \[hep-th\]\].
O. Hohm, C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Background independent action for double field theory,” JHEP [**1007**]{}, 016 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2010)016 \[arXiv:1003.5027 \[hep-th\]\].
O. Hohm, C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Generalized metric formulation of double field theory,” JHEP [**1008**]{}, 008 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2010)008 \[arXiv:1006.4823 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Henneaux, “Lectures on the Antifield-BRST Formalism for Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**18A**]{}, 47 (1990). doi:10.1016/0920-5632(90)90647-D
M. Alexandrov, M. Kontsevich, A. Schwartz and O. Zaboronsky, “The Geometry of the master equation and topological quantum field theory,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**12**]{}, 1405 (1997) doi:10.1142/S0217751X97001031 \[hep-th/9502010\]. M. Movshev and A. S. Schwarz, “Algebraic structure of Yang-Mills theory,” Prog. Math. [**244**]{}, 473 (2006) doi:10.1007/0-8176-4467-9-14 \[hep-th/0404183\].
Martin Rocek and Anton M. Zeitlin, “Homotopy Algebras of Differential (Super)forms in Three and Four Dimensions", to appear.
T. Lada and M. Markl, “Strongly homotopy Lie algebras,” hep-th/9406095.
A. Sen, “Equations of Motion in Nonpolynomial Closed String Field Theory and Conformal Invariance of Two-dimensional Field Theories,” Phys. Lett. B [**241**]{}, 350 (1990). “Some applications of string field theory,” hep-th/9109022. T. Kugo, H. Kunitomo and K. Suehiro, “Nonpolynomial Closed String Field Theory,” Phys. Lett. B [**226**]{}, 48 (1989). T. Kugo and K. Suehiro, “Nonpolynomial Closed String Field Theory: Action and Its Gauge Invariance,” Nucl. Phys. B [**337**]{}, 434 (1990). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90277-K O. Hohm, “Background Independent Double Field Theory at Order $\alpha'$: Metric vs. Frame-like Geometry,” arXiv:1612.06453 \[hep-th\].
O. Hohm, “On factorizations in perturbative quantum gravity,” JHEP [**1104**]{}, 103 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2011)103 \[arXiv:1103.0032 \[hep-th\]\].
O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, “Double field theory at order $\alpha'$,” JHEP [**1411**]{}, 075 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)075 \[arXiv:1407.3803 \[hep-th\]\].
O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, “Exceptional Form of D=11 Supergravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 231601 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.231601 \[arXiv:1308.1673 \[hep-th\]\]; “Exceptional Field Theory I: $E_{6(6)}$ covariant Form of M-Theory and Type IIB,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, no. 6, 066016 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.066016 \[arXiv:1312.0614 \[hep-th\]\]; “Exceptional field theory. II. E$_{7(7)}$,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 066017 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.066017 \[arXiv:1312.4542 \[hep-th\]\].
B. de Wit and H. Samtleben, “Gauged maximal supergravities and hierarchies of nonAbelian vector-tensor systems,” Fortsch. Phys. [**53**]{}, 442 (2005) doi:10.1002/prop.200510202 \[hep-th/0501243\].
O. Hohm and Y. N. Wang, “Tensor hierarchy and generalized Cartan calculus in SL(3) × SL(2) exceptional field theory,” JHEP [**1504**]{}, 050 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)050 \[arXiv:1501.01600 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. N. Wang, “Generalized Cartan Calculus in general dimension,” JHEP [**1507**]{}, 114 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2015)114 \[arXiv:1504.04780 \[hep-th\]\].
M. A. Vasiliev, “Higher-Spin Theory and Space-Time Metamorphoses,” Lect. Notes Phys. [**892**]{}, 227 (2015) \[arXiv:1404.1948 \[hep-th\]\].
M. A. Vasiliev, “Actions, charges and off-shell fields in the unfolded dynamics approach,” Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. [**3**]{}, 37 (2006) doi:10.1142/S0219887806001016 \[hep-th/0504090\].
M. A. Vasiliev, “More on equations of motion for interacting massless fields of all spins in (3+1)-dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B [**285**]{} (1992) 225. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)91457-K
A. Sen, “BV Master Action for Heterotic and Type II String Field Theories,” JHEP [**1602**]{}, 087 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2016)087 \[arXiv:1508.05387 \[hep-th\]\].
[^1]: The identities for gauge invariance of the classical theory first appeared in [@Kugo:1989aa] and were re-cast as $L_\infty$ identities in [@Zwiebach:1992ie]. Note that the structure of quantum closed string field theory goes beyond $L_\infty$ algebras.
[^2]: After expansion of the string field theory around a background that satisfies the equations of motion, the type of algebraic structure is not changed [@Sen:1990ff].
[^3]: In closed string field theory degree ‘deg’ is related to ghost number ‘gh’ as deg $= 2- $gh.
[^4]: In [@Zwiebach:1992ie] the equations-of-motion symmetry on the right hand side has a wrong sign.
[^5]: This is the first instance where we derive the general product starting with the product evaluated on diagonals.
[^6]: These relations were applied recently in [@Hohm:2016yvc].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The cross section for producing a heavy reaction product, $\sigma$$_{EVR}$, can be represented by the equation $$\sigma _{EVR}=\sum_{J=0}^{J_{\max }}\sigma
_{capture}(E_{c.m.},J)P_{CN}(E^{*},J) W_{sur}(E^{*},J)$$ where $\sigma _{capture}(E_{c.m.},J)$ is the capture cross section at center of mass energy E$_{c.m.}$ and spin J. P$_{CN}$ is the probability that the projectile-target system will evolve from the contact configuration inside the fission saddle point to form a completely fused system rather than re-separating (quasifission, fast fission). W$_{sur}$ is the probability that the completely fused system will de-excite by neutron emission rather than fission. I discuss results of experiments that characterize these quantities in heavy element synthesis reactions. I also discuss the possibilities of synthesizing heavy nuclei using damped collisions and reactions using radioactive beams.
address: 'Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA'
author:
- 'W. Loveland'
title: Synthetic Paths to the Heaviest Elements
---
Complete fusion
===============
Overview
--------
Most heavy element synthesis reactions to date have involved complete fusion reactions. For these reactions, the cross section for producing a heavy evaporation residue, $\sigma$$_{EVR}$, can be written as $$\sigma _{EVR}=\sum_{J=0}^{J_{\max }}\sigma
_{capture}(E_{c.m.},J)P_{CN}(E^{*},J) W_{sur}(E^{*},J)$$ where $\sigma _{capture}(E_{c.m.},J)$ is the capture cross section at center of mass energy E$_{c.m.}$ and spin J. P$_{CN}$ is the probability that the projectile-target system will evolve from the contact configuration inside the fission saddle point to form a completely fused system rather than re-separating (quasifission, fast fission). W$_{sur}$ is the probability that the completely fused system will de-excite by neutron emission rather than fission. For a quantitative understanding of the synthesis of new heavy nuclei, one needs to understand the spin and isospin dependence of $\sigma _{capture}$, P$_{CN}$, and W$_{sur}$ for the reaction system under study.
The first question we might ask ourselves about heavy element fusion cross sections is how well can we predict them. The answer to this question is “very well". There are a number of predictions of the evaporation residue cross sections in hot and cold fusion reactions that agree remarkably well with measured evaporation residue cross sections \[1\]. This is a significant achievement considering that the measured cross sections span at least six orders of magnitude. However, taking cold fusion reactions as an example, we show, in Figure 1, a typical set of predictions of the evaporation residue cross sections in cold fusion reactions \[2-7\]. The measured data are well described by all the predictions. However if we look at the values (Fig. 2) of the quantities in equation \[1\] such as P$_{CN}$ we see that the values of P$_{CN}$ can differ by orders of magnitude in the various calculations even though they all give the same (correct) answer for the value of the evaporation residue cross section.. We are engaged in efforts to measure the individual factors in equation (2) to better constrain/advise models to calculate heavy element evaporation residue cross sections.
![\[fig 1b\]Comparison of predictions of P$_{CN}$ for these cold fusion reactions](fig1.eps){width="18pc"}
![\[fig 1b\]Comparison of predictions of P$_{CN}$ for these cold fusion reactions](fig2.eps){width="18pc"}
![\[fig3\]Sample predictions of capture cross sections for reactions synthesizing heavy elements.](fig3a.eps){width="40pc"}
Capture cross sections
----------------------
The capture cross section is, in the language of coupled channel calculations, the “barrier crossing" cross section. It is the sum of the quasifission, fast fission, fusion-fission and fusion-evaporation residue cross sections. The latter cross section is so small for the systems studied in this work that it is neglected. The barriers involved are the interaction barriers and not the fusion barriers. There are several models for capture cross sections \[2,8-11\]. Each of them has been tested against a number of measurements of capture cross sections for reactions that, mostly, do not lead to the formation of the heaviest nuclei. In general, these models are able to predict the magnitudes of the capture cross sections with 50$\%$ and the values of the interaction barriers within 20$\%$. However, when one compares the predictions of these models with measured data for capture cross sections leading to the formation of heavy elements (Fig 3) the agreement between prediction and data is, at best, a factor of two. In detail, the calculated and measured cross sections are in reasonable agreement above the barrier, except for the formation of the heaviest elements but significant differences are observed for cross sections near or below the barrier. This conclusion is similar to that reached in \[12\] where the sub-barrier capture cross sections were estimated to be uncertain to an order of magnitude with much better agreement between prediction and data above the barrier. Amongst the many methods for estimating capture cross sections, the use of coupled channels calculations \[9,20\] appears to do the best job of predicting the capture cross sections.
Survival probabilities
----------------------
The calculation of the survival probabilities involves a well understood formalism in which the principal uncertainty is the height of the assumed fission barriers. In the best local approximation of these barrier heights \[13\], the average uncertainty in the fission barrier heights for the heaviest nuclei was 0.4 MeV, with a maximum deviation between estimated and deduced barrier heights being 1.0 MeV.
The survival probability W$_{sur}$ can be written as $$W_{sur}=P_{xn}(E_{CN}^{\ast })\prod\limits_{i=1}^{i_{\max }=x}\left( \frac{%
\Gamma _{n}}{\Gamma _{n}+\Gamma _{f}}\right) _{i,E^{\ast }}$$ where the index i is equal to the number of emitted neutrons and P$_{xn}$ is the probability of emitting exactly x neutrons \[14\]. In evaluating the excitation energy in equation \[2\], we start at the excitation energy E\* of the completely fused system and reduce it for each evaporation step by the binding energy of the emitted neutron and an assumed neutron kinetic energy of 2T where T (=(E\*/a)$^{1/2}$) is the temperature of the emitting system. For calculating $\Gamma _{n}/\Gamma _{f}$, we have used the classical formalism from Vandenbosch and Huizenga \[15\] $$\frac{\Gamma _{n}}{\Gamma _{f}}=\frac{4A^{2/3}\left( E^{\ast }-B_{n}\right)
}{k\left[ 2a^{1/2}\left( E^{\ast }-B_{f}\right) ^{1/2}-1\right] }\exp \left[
2a^{1/2}\left( E^{\ast }-B_{n}\right) ^{1/2}-2a^{1/2}\left( E^{\ast
}-B_{f}\right) ^{1/2}\right]$$ The constants k and a are taken to be 9.8 MeV and (A/12) MeV$^{-1}$, respectively. The fission barriers B$_{f}$ are written as the sum of liquid drop, B$_{f}^{LD}$, and shell correction terms as $$B_{f}(E_{CN}^{\ast })=B_{f}^{LD}+U_{shell}$$ where the shell correction energies , U$_{shell}$, to the LDM barriers are taken from \[16\] , and the liquid drop barriers are taken from \[17\]. Neutron binding energies, B$_{n}$ are taken from \[16\]. The fade-out of the shell corrections with increasing excitation energy is treated through the level density parameter using the method of Ignatyuk et al. \[18\] as $$a=\widetilde{a}\left[ 1+\delta E\frac{1-\exp (-\gamma E)}{E}\right]$$ $$\widetilde{a}=0.073A+0.095B_{s}(\beta _{2})A^{2/3}$$ where the shell damping parameter is taken to be 0.061. Variation of this parameter from system to system has been demonstrated by recent calculations \[19\] but, lacking firm guidance of how to specify the variation of this parameter, I have chosen to keep it constant. Collective enhancement effects of the level density are important for both deformed and spherical nuclei as are their dependence on excitation energy. \[21,22\]. I use the formalism of ref. \[9\] to express these effects via the equations $$K_{coll}=K_{rot}(E)\varphi (\beta _{2})+E_{vib}(E)\cdot (1-\varphi(\beta _{2}))$$ $$\varphi (\beta _{2})=\left[ 1+\exp \left( \frac{\beta _{2}^{0}-\left\vert\beta _{2}\right\vert }{\Delta \beta _{2}}\right) \right] ^{-1}$$ $$K_{rot(vib)}(E)=\frac{K_{rot(vib)}-1}{1+\left[ \left( E-E_{\alpha }\right)/\Delta E_{\alpha }\right] }+1$$ $$K_{rot}=\frac{J_{\bot }T}{\hbar ^{2}}$$ $$K_{vib}=\exp (0.0555A^{2/3}T^{4/3})$$
I took a group of about 75 reactions where there are well measured evaporation residue cross sections for the production of elements 98-108 \[23\] and where the product Z$_{1}$Z$_{2}$ was $\le$ 1000 (to insure P$_{CN}$ =1). I calculated $\sigma$$_{capture}$ using coupled channels calculations and calculated W$_{sur}$ using the formalism outlined above leading to a calculated value of the evaporation residue cross section. The ratio of the measured to calculated evaporation residue cross sections was 6.5. If I assume that the capture cross sections are uncertain to a factor of 2, then the survival probabilities are uncertain to a factor of 3-4.
Fusion probabilities
--------------------
The fusion probability, P$_{CN}$, is the most poorly known quantity in equation \[1\]. It is difficult to measure and there is considerable uncertainty (see Figure 2) about how to calculate this quantity. The essence of measuring P$_{CN}$ is to determine the fusion-fission cross section in the presence of the quasi-fission and fast fission cross sections.
The separation of quasifission from complete fusion-fission can be done in a variety of ways. The first method involves measuring the width of the fission mass distributions \[24-26\] . One assumes that fusion-fission gives symmetric mass distributions while quasifission gives rise to very asymmetric mass distributions. This distinction is roughly true but can be problematic in some situations where there is evidence of quasifission resulting in symmetric mass distributions \[27,28\].
A second method is based upon measuring the fission fragment angular distributions \[29,30\]. Fusion-fission is assumed to be described by the ordinary transition state model of fission angular distributions while quasifission is described by a somewhat arbitrary strongly fore-aft peaked distribution. This method appears to be very reliable, although some controversy exists over the possibility that, in some reactions, the K distribution at the saddle point is not fully equilibrated.
A third method, suggested by the group at Australian National University (ANU) group and others \[31-33\], involves defining a reduced cross section, $\widetilde{\sigma }$, as $\sigma$$_{EVR}$/$\pi$($\lambda$/2$\pi$)$^{2}$. One then measures the evaporation residue yields in a series of reactions of differing asymmetry that produce the same compound nucleus. Each reaction is run at a high excitation energy (E$^{*}$ $\geq$ 40 MeV) where P$_{CN}$ is roughly independent of excitation energy (see below). One assumes that all relevant partial waves are “saturated". One invokes the Bohr independence hypothesis that the decay of the completely fused system (W$_{sur}$) is independent of its mode of formation. Then, roughly speaking, the ratio of the reduced cross sections, $\widetilde{\sigma }$, is the ratio of the P$_{CN}$ factors for each reaction. If one of the reacting systems is very asymmetric (P$_{CN}$ =1), then one can get absolute values of P$_{CN}$. One strength of this method is that it is nominally useful for systems where P$_{CN}$ is less than 0.01 and where it is difficult to determine P$_{CN}$ by measuring mass-angle correlations.
Zagrebaev and Greiner \[1\] have suggested the following functional form for the excitation energy dependence of P$_{CN}$ $$P_{CN}(E^{\ast },J)=\frac{P_{CN}^{0}}{1+\exp \left[ \frac{E_{B}^{\ast
}-E_{int}^{\ast }(J)}{\Delta }\right] }$$ where P$_{CN}^{0}$ is the fissility dependent value of P$_{CN}$ at zero excitation energy, E$_{B}^{\ast}$ is the excitation energy at the Bass barrier, E$_{int}^{\ast }$(J) is the internal excitation energy (E$_{c.m.}$+Q-E$_{rot}$(J)) and $\Delta$ is 4 MeV. Figure 4 shows a comparison of the data of Knyazheva \[34\] with the predictions of this formula. The agreement between the predicted and measured values of P$_{CN}$ is excellent. (There are alternate treatments of these data that give different values of the dependence of P$_{CN}$ upon excitation energy \[35\].)
![\[fig4\]Comparison of measured \[34\] and predicted \[1\] values of P$_{CN}$ for the reaction of $^{48}$Ca with $^{154}$Sm.](casm.eps){width="28pc"}
In Figure 5, I show a comparison of the measured values of P$_{CN}$ for the $^{50}$Ti + $^{208}$Pb reaction. At an excitation energy of about 33 MeV one sees the results of measurement of P$_{CN}$ by the angular distribution method \[44\] and the mass distribution method \[43\]. The encouraging approximate agreement between the two measurements is a measure of how well one can measure P$_{CN}$. One next directs attention to the points at an excitation energy of 15 MeV, the excitation energy used in cold fusion reactions. The calculated values of P$_{CN}$ differ by two orders of magnitude with a modest number of estimates near the measured value of 0.02. The estimates of the excitation energy dependence of P$_{CN}$ are in rough agreement with the experimental data.
![\[fig5\]Comparison of measured \[44\] and predicted values of P$_{CN}$ for the reaction of $^{50}$Ti with $^{208}$Pb](radhika.eps){width="28pc"}
To understand the dependence of P$_{CN}$ upon fissility (or some other scaling variable that reflects the entrance channel), I compiled a current list of measured values of P$_{CN}$ using the angular distribution method (AD) the mass distribution method (MY), or the mass-angle correlation (MAD) that is shown in Table 1. The scaling parameter z equals Z$_{1}$Z$_{2}$/(A$_{1}$$^{1/3}$+A$_{2}$$^{1/3}$).
Proj. Target CN E$_{c.m.}$(MeV) E\*(MeV) Z$_{1}$Z$_{2}$ z x$_{eff}$ P$_{CN}$ Ref Method
------------ ------------ ------------ ----------------- ---------- ---------------- ------- ----------- --------------- -------- --------
$^{11}$B $^{204}$Pb $^{215}$At 48-60 31-43 410 50.6 0.325 1-1 \[45\] AD
$^{16}$O $^{186}$W $^{202}$Pb 70-121 48-100 592 72.0 0.420 1-1 \[46\] MAD
$^{18}$O $^{197}$Au $^{215}$At 71-89 39-56 632 74.9 0.413 1-1 \[45\] AD
$^{19}$F $^{208}$Pb $^{227}$Pa 101-174 51-124 738 85.89 0.459 0.78-0.83 \[29\] AD
$^{24}$Mg $^{208}$Pb $^{232}$Pu 126-188 52-114 984 111.7 0.549 0.64-0.71 \[29\] AD
$^{48}$Ca $^{144}$Sm $^{192}$W 141-167 38-64 1240 139.7 0.600 1-1 \[46\] MAD
$^{28}$Si $^{208}$Pb $^{236}$Cm 141-229 50-138 1148 128.1 0.597 0.37-0.63 \[29\] AD
$^{26}$Mg $^{248}$Cm $^{274}$Hs 119-146 37-64 1152 124.6 0.572 0.6 \[48\] MY
$^{32}$S $^{182}$W $^{214}$Th 141-221 56-136 1184 133.9 0.613 0.14-0.51 \[49\] AD
$^{48}$Ca $^{154}$Sm $^{202}$Pb 139-185 49-95 1240 137.9 0.594 0.55-0.94 \[46\] MAD
$^{40}$Ca $^{154}$Sm $^{194}$Pb 139-158 56-75 1240 141.3 0.633 0.89-0.98 \[46\] MAD
$^{32}$S $^{197}$Au $^{229}$Am 151-194 60-98 1264 140.6 0.641 0.42-0.58 \[45\] AD
$^{32}$S $^{208}$Pb $^{240}$Cf 172-217 66-111 1312 144.2 0.641 0.45-0.46 \[29\] AD
$^{36}$S $^{238}$U $^{274}$Hs 153-173 36-56 1472 155.0 0.647 0.043-0.3 \[48\] MY
$^{50}$Ti $^{208}$Pb $^{258}$Rf 184-202 14-33 1804 187.8 0.725 0.02-0.19 \[44\] AD
$^{48}$Ca $^{238}$U $^{286}$Cn 185-215 26-56 1840 187.2 0.713 0.00025-0.125 \[51\] MY
\[table1\]
: Measurements of P$_{CN}$
Using fissility as a typical scaling variable, I show a combined picture of all the data represented in Table 1 as Figure 6. There appears to be no easily discerned variation of P$_{CN}$ upon fissility in this plot. Restricting attention to a limited region of excitation energy (E$^{*}$ = 40 -50 MeV) results in a clearer pattern as shown in Figure 7. If we further note that the “discordant" points in Figure 7 near x$_{eff}$ =0.6 are cases where the projectile is the doubly magic $^{48}$Ca, then we might postulate, as others have done \[42\], that there are nuclear structure effects on P$_{CN}$. Neglecting these nuclear structure effects leads to a straightforward dependence of P$_{CN}$ upon fissility shown by the lines in figure 7. Clearly any estimates of P$_{CN}$ based upon the excitation energy and fissility dependences outlined herein are uncertain to at least an order of magnitude.
![\[fig 7\]Same as Figure 6 except values have been restricted to E\* = 40-50 MeV](pcnfissmeasured.eps){width="18pc"}
![\[fig 7\]Same as Figure 6 except values have been restricted to E\* = 40-50 MeV](pcn-log.eps){width="18pc"}
Predictions
-----------
If we accept the formulation discussed above ( a coupled channels calculation of $\sigma$$_{capture}$, the classical treatment of W$_{sur}$ and the semi-empirical treatment of P$_{CN}$), we can make predictions as to the outcome of various complete fusion reactions. These predictions are shown in Table 2. Please remember these predictions are based upon the use of the global mass tables of \[16\] and they are uncertain to at least one order of magnitude.
[@l\*[15]{}[l]{}]{} Reaction&$\sigma$$_{EVR}$(pb)\
$^{249}$Bk($^{48}$Ca,3n)$^{294}$117&1\
$^{249}$Bk($^{50}$Ti,4n)$^{295}$119&0.07\
$^{248}$Cm($^{54}$Cr,4n)$^{302}$120&0.02\
$^{244}$Pu($^{58}$Fe,4n)$^{302}$120&0.006\
$^{238}$U($^{64}$Ni,3n)$^{302}$120&0.004\
Alternate reactions
===================
The predicted cross sections for the formation of new superheavy elements shown in Table 2 indicate that it will be challenging to pursue the synthesis of new heavy elements. However, significant insights into the behavior of the heaviest elements may be possible by studying the more n-rich nuclei of nuclei of lower Z which have as yet not been synthesized. I discuss a few of these synthetic pathways
Damped collisions
-----------------
Recently , there has been a revival of interest in the use of damped collisions of massive nuclei at near barrier energies to synthesize superheavy nuclei, particularly those nuclei with large neutron excess, approaching the N=184 shell. In the 1980s \[50\] there were attempts to use the $^{238}$U + $^{238}$U and the $^{238}$U + $^{248}$Cm reactions at above barrier energies to produce trans-target nuclides. While there was evidence for the formation of neutron-rich isotopes of Fm and Md at the 0.1 $\mu $b level, no higher actinides were found. The fundamental problem was that the nuclei that were produced far above the target nucleus were the result of events with high total kinetic energy loss, i.e., high excitation energies and resulting poor survival probabilities. Very recently, Zagrebaev and Greiner \[51-58\] using a new model \[59\] for these collisions, have examined the older experiments and some proposed new experiments ($^{232}$Th +$^{250}$Cf, $%
^{238}$U+$^{238}$U, and $^{238}$U +$^{248}$Cm). With their new model which emphasizes the role of shell effects in damped collisions, they are able to correctly describe the previously measured fragment angular, energy and charge distributions from the $^{136}$Xe + $^{209}$Bi reaction and the isotopic yields of Cf , Es, Fm and Md from the $^{238}$U + $^{248}$Cm reaction. They predict that by a careful choice of beam energies and projectile-target combinations, one might be able to produce n-rich isotopes of element 112 in the $^{248}$Cm +$^{250}$Cf reaction. They suggest the detection of $^{267,268}$Db and $^{272,271}$Bh (at the pb level) in the Th + Cf or U + Cm reactions to verify these predictions. Such experiments are very difficult because of the low cross sections, the lower intensities of these massive projectile beams and the problems of detecting the reaction products in an ocean of elastically scattered particles, etc.
However, in 2007, Zagrebaev and Greiner \[63\] outlined a simpler test of their theoretical predictions. They applied the same model used to study the U + Cm, Th + Cf and U + U collisions to the $^{160}$Gd + $^{186}$W reaction. As an experimentalist, I really appreciate this suggestion of a surrogate reaction that allows one to check the theoretical predictions in a more accessible system.
In Figure \[8\] I show the results of an experimental study using radiochemical techniques of the $^{160}$Gd + $^{186}$W reaction.\[64\] Both the measured and predicted mass distributions show the expected “rabbit ears". i.e, a peak in the yields near the mass of the target and the projectile nuclei. The measured distribution shows yields of what are probably fission fragments and intermediate mass fragments not predicted by the model. Perhaps the most significant feature of the mass distribution is a peak in the mass distribution for trans target nuclei (A= 190-200) A closer look at that peak is shown in Figures \[9\] and \[10\]. This trans target peak appears to be at Z=79 (Au), reminding one of the “goldfinger" seen in studies of low energy deep inelastic scattering in the 1970s. All this is consistent of the formation of a much heavier product that decays by fission and then particle emission to give rise to this trans target peak. Zagrebaev and Greiner had actually predicted enhanced trans target yields in the Pb isotopes, which were searched for but not observed. This result and the results of the TAMU group \[65,66\] for the 7.5 A MeV $^{197}$Au + $^{232}$Th reaction are encouraging for the effort to use these reactions to produce new n-rich heavy nuclei.
![\[fig8\]Comparison of measured \[64\] and predicted \[63\] values of the fragment mass distribution for the reaction of $^{160}$Gd with $^{186}$W.](fig7a.eps){width="28pc"}
![\[fig 1b\]Contour plot of isotopic distribution of trans target nuclides.](WGdMY-1.eps){width="18pc"}
![\[fig 1b\]Contour plot of isotopic distribution of trans target nuclides.](contour.eps){width="18pc"}
Radioactive Beams
=================
The question can be posed as to why people want to use radioactive ion beams (RIBs) to produce new heavy nuclei. The answers include : (a) The lower fusion barrier due to using n-rich projectiles allows the synthesis reactions to take place using lower beam energies and hence lower excitation energies, i.e, leading to higher survival probabilities. (b) The formation of n-rich compound nuclei by itself leads to higher survival probabilities. (c) The product nuclei have longer half-lives because the half-lives of the heaviest nuclei increase logarithmically with increasing neutron number and thus more detailed studies of the chemistry and atomic physics of the heaviest elements are enabled.
We can apply what we know about the synthesis of the heaviest nuclei to the problem of making new heavy nuclei with radioactive beams. The calculational model I employ \[3\] is simple and unsophisticated. One takes the beam list for any radioactive beam facility (FRIB, SPIRAL2, ReA3, CARIBU, etc.\[67-72\]) and then considers every possible combination of a radioactive projectile with all “stable" targets. One varies the projectile energy and evaluates $\sigma$$_{capture}$, P$_{CN}$ and W$_{sur}$ to get $\sigma$$_{EVR}$. From this, one uses reasonable assumptions about target thickness (0.5 mg/cm$^{2}$) and calculates the product yield in atoms/day.
Some insight into the nature of the problem can be gained without doing any calculations but just looking at the intensities of typical radioactive beams from modern facilities. In Figure \[11\] I show typical reported beam intensities for the re-accelerated rare gas beams available from several facilities. (In this tabulation, i also include the predicted re-accelerated beams intensities for the defunct RIA project, a US facility that was too expensive to build). I choose to compare the rare gas beams as the release times and subsequent losses for these beams should be minimal. In each sub-panel of Figure \[11\] I show a horizontal line corresponding to a beam intensity of 1 particle micro ampere, a beam intensity that represents current stable beam facilities. For the Ne beams one sees the radioactive beam intensities are at least 2-3 orders of magnitude less than the stable beam intensities and the intensities become far less as one goes further n-rich. A similar situation occurs with the Ar beams except the radioactive beam intensities are even less. For the Kr beams (which represent typical n-rich fission fragment beams) , the RIA concept was predicted to produce radioactive beams with intensities approaching those of stable beams. The ISOL facility SPIRAL2 is projected to produce n-rich Kr beams that are about 2 orders of magnitude below stable beam intensities but the PF facilities such as FRIB and ReA3 have low intensities of these beams. The $^{252}$Cf facility CARIBU is predicted to produce beam intensities of 10$^{4}$-10$^{5}$ particle/sec of the n-rich Kr isotopes.
![\[fig11\]Rare gas beam intensities from several radioactive beam facilities](beamcombo.eps){width="40pc"}
An important [*caveat*]{} about these beam intensities should be noted. The quoted beam intensities represent the predicted intensities of re-accelerated beams. This choice represents a conservative cautious approach to the possible beam intensities. Some have advocated a different more aggressive approach in which one takes, for PF facilities, such as FRIB, the “fast" beam intensities which are typically 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than the re-accelerated beam intensities and assumes that one will be able to deliver these beams at Coulomb barrier energies with 10$\%$ efficiency. A related issue is that of “targeted beams", i.e., special beams of such importance that campaigns could be created to produce these beams by special developments. For example, several studies of heavy element synthesis reactions involve the use of $^{48}$Ca beams of intensities of the order of 1 particle micro ampere (with projected future developments of beams of 10 particle micro amperes.) One could conceive of efforts to produce n-rich K beams by fragmentation or transfer reactions involving the use of $^{48}$Ca beams.
In Figures 12 and 13 I show a comparison of the best stable beam reaction production rate vs. the best radioactive beam production rate for cold and hot fusion reactions. The radioactive beam production rates are 3 orders of magnitude below the stable beam production rates. [ **Radioactive beams are not a pathway to new superheavy elements.**]{} Does that mean that radioactive beams are worthless when it comes to making new heavy nuclei? No, radioactive beams are useful tools for producing new n-rich isotopes of elements 104-107. In Table 3 I show a list of new n-rich isotopes of elements 104-107 that can be made at rates greater than 5 atoms/day and the reactions that produce them.
![\[fig 13\]Predicted heavy element production rates using stable and radioactive beams for hot fusion reactions](coldstablernbcomp.eps){width="20pc"}
![\[fig 13\]Predicted heavy element production rates using stable and radioactive beams for hot fusion reactions](hotstablernbcomp.eps){width="20pc"}
[@l\*[15]{}[l]{}]{} Nucleus&Reaction\
$^{264}$Rf&$^{252}$Cf($^{16}$C,4n)\
$^{265}$Db&$^{249}$Bk($^{20}$O,4n)\
$^{268}$Sg&$^{252}$Cf($^{20}$O,4n)\
$^{267}$Bh &$^{252}$Cf($^{21}$F,4n)\
One might pose the question as to which radioactive beams are projected to be the most useful in synthesizing these n-rich nuclei. The answer to this question is the light beams such as O, Ne, Mg, etc. because of their high intensities. In Table 4 I show the reactions and rates for the production of new n-rich isotopes of Sg, which all involve these light nuclei.
[llll]{} Reactants&Products &FRIB beam intensity (p/s)&Production Rate (atoms/day)\
$^{26}$Ne + $^{248}$Cm&$^{271}$Sg + 4n&2.2 x 10$^{6}$&0.004\
$^{30}$Mg + $^{244}$Pu&$^{270}$Sg + 4n&7.1 x 10$^{6}$&1\
$^{29}$Mg + $^{244}$Pu&$^{269}$Sg + 4n&3.6 x 10$^{7}$&0.2\
$^{20}$O + $^{252}$Cf&$^{268}$Sg + 4n&1.5 x 10$^{8}$&5\
$^{23}$Ne + $^{248}$Cm&$^{267}$Sg + 4n&1.6 x 10$^{8}$&1\
I conclude that: (a) RNBs offer unique opportunities to explore the physics and chemistry of n-rich heavy nuclei in the short and long term. (b)RNBs are not a path to new chemical elements (c) RNB research can help us to understand the isospin dependence of fundamental quantities in heavy element science.
Conclusions
===========
I conclude that: (a) New directions in synthesizing heavy nuclei can be pursued to make n-rich heavy nuclei with transfer reactions and reactions with radioactive beams. (b) There is work to be done to understand the physics of the fusion reactions used to date. (c) Heavy element synthesis studies remain a laboratory for studying nuclei, their structure and reactions at the limits of stability.
Acknowledgements
================
This work was supported in part by the Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Nuclear Physics Division, US Department of Energy, under Grant No. DE-FG06-97ER41026
References
==========
[99]{}
See, for example, Zagrebaev V and Greiner W 2008 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**78**]{} 034610
Swiatecki W J, Siwek-Wilczynska K and Wilczynski J 2005 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**71**]{}, 014602.
Loveland W 2007 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**78**]{}, 014612 .
Adamian G G, Antonenko N V and Scheid W 2000 [*Nucl. Phys.*]{}A [**678**]{}, 24.
Feng Z-Q, Jin G-M, Li J-Q , and Scheid W 2007 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**76**]{} 044606
Veselsky M 1999 [*Acta Phys. Slovaca*]{} [**49**]{}101.
Siwek-Wilczynska K, Skwira-Chalot I and Wilczynski J 2007 [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} E [**16**]{}, 483.
Bian B-A, Zhang F-S, and Zhou H-Y 2009 [*Nucl. Phys.*]{}A [**829**]{}, 1.
http://nrv.jinr.ru/nrv/webnrv/fusion/
Wang N, Wu X, Li Z, Liu M, and Scheid W 2006 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**74**]{} 044604
Nasirov A, Giardina G, Mandaglio G, Manganaro M, and Scheid W 2011 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 282 012010
Zagrebaev V, Aritomo Y,Itkis M G, Oganessian Y T, and Ohta M 2001 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**65**]{}, 014607
Kowal M, Jachimowicz, P, Sobiczewski, A 2010 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**82**]{} , 014303
Jackson J D 1956 [*Can. J. Phys.*]{}[**34**]{}, 767 .
Vandenbosch R and Huizenga J R 1973, Nuclear Fission (Academic, New York), p. 323.
Moller P, Nix J R , Myers W D, and Swiatecki W J 1995 [ *At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables*]{} [**59**]{}185.
Myers W D and Swiatecki W J 1999 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**60**]{}, 014606
Ignatyuk A V, Itkis M G, Okolovich V N, Smirenkin G N, and Tishin A S 1975 [*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**21**]{}, 612
Pei J C, Nazarewicz W, Sheikh J A, and Kerman A K 2009 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**102**]{} 192501
Hagino K, Rowley N, Kruppa A T 1999 [*Comm. Phys. Comm*]{} [**123**]{} 143
Bjornholm S, Bohr A, and Mottelson B R 1974 Proc. Int. Conf. on the Physics and Chemistry of Fission. Rochester 1973 (IAEA, Vienna, 1974) Vol. 1, p 367
Junghans A R, de Jong M, Clerc H.-G., Ignatyuk A V, Kudyaev G A, and Schmidt K.-H. 1998 Nucl. Phys. A 629 635
Gregorich K and Duellmann C 2012 (private communication)
Choudhury R K and Thomas R G 2011 [*J. Phys. Conf, Series*]{} [**282**]{}, 012004
Ghosh T K et al. 2009 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**79**]{} 054607
Itkis M G , Bogachev A A, Chernysheva E V, Itkis I M, Knyazheva G N, and Kozulin E M 2010 [*AIP Conf, Proc.*]{} [**1238**]{}, 52
Hinde D J, du Rietz R, Dasgupta M, Thomas R G, and Gasques L R 2008 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**101**]{} 09270
Kozulin E M, Gonnenwein F, Itkis M G, Knyazheva G N, Krupa L, Oganessian Y T, and Zagrebaev V I 2009 [*AIP Conf, Proc.*]{} [**1175**]{}, 138
Back B B 1985 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**31**]{}, 2104
Back B B et al. 1996 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**53**]{}, 1734
Berriman A C, Hinde D J, Dasgupta M, Morton C R, Butt R D, and Newton J O 2001 [*Nature*]{} [**413**]{}, 144
Hinde D J, Dasgupta M, and Mukherjee A 2002 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**89**]{} 282701
Stefanini A M et al. 2005 [*Eur. Phys. J* ]{} A [**23**]{} 573
Knyazheva G N et al. 2007 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**75**]{}, 064602
Giardina G, Nasirov A K, Mandaglio G, Curciarello F , De Leo V, Fazio G, Manganara M, Romanik M, and Sacca C 2011 [*J. Phys. Conf. Series*]{} [**282**]{}, 012006
Adamian G G, Antonenko N V and Scheid W 2000 [*Nucl. Phys.*]{}A [**678**]{} 24
Blocki J, Shvedov L, and Wilczynski J 2006 [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} E [**15**]{} 426
Siwek-Wilczynska K, Skwira-Chalot I, and Wilczynski J 2007 [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} E [**16**]{} 483
Siwek-Wilczynska K, Skwira-Chalot I, and Wilczynski J 2006 [*AIP Conference Proceedings*]{} [**CP853**]{} 265
Adamian G G , Antonenko N V, Diaz-Torres A, Ivanova S P, Scheid W, and Volkov V V 2001 [*Acta Phys. Hungarica, Heavy Ion Physics*]{} [**14**]{}3
Veselsky M 2009 [*Acta Phys. Slovaca*]{}[**49**]{}101
Armbruster P 1999 [*Rep. Prog. Phys.*]{}[**62**]{} 465
Itkis M G , et al. 2007 [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} A [**787**]{} 150c
Naik R S et al. 2007 \[ [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**76**]{} 054604
Appannababu S, et. al., 2009 [*Phys. Rev.*]{}C [**80**]{}, 024603
Knyazheva G N , et al. 2007 [*Phys. Rev.*]{}C [**75**]{}, 064602
Itkis I M, et al., 2011 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**83**]{}, 064613
Keller J G , et al. 1987 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**36**]{}, 1364
Kozulin E M et al. 2010 [*Phys. Letter*]{} B [**686**]{}, 227
See G.T. Seaborg and W. Loveland, The Elements Beyond Uranium (Wiley, New York, 1990) for a review of these data.
[V.I. Zagrebaev, Y.T. Oganessian, M.G. Itkis and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C**73**, 031602(R) (2006).]{}
V. Zagrebaev, and W. Greiner, J. Phys. G **34**1 (2007).
V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, J. Phys. G **35**, 125103 (2008).
V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett **101**, 122701 (2008)
V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, CP1098, FUSION08: New Aspects of Heavy Ion Collisions Near the Coulomb Barrier, K.E. Rehm, B.B. Back, H. Esbensen, and C.J. Lister, ed., (AIP, New York, 2009) pp326-333
V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Nucl. Phys. A **834**, 366c (2010).
V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C**78**, 034610 (2008).
V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner,Russ. Chem. Rev. **78**, 1089 (2009).
V. Zagrebaev, and W. Greiner, J. Phys. G **31**, 825 (2005).
Z. Li, X. Wu, and N. Wang, Romanian Rep. in Phys. **59**, 729 (2007)
J.L. Tian, X. Wu, Z. Li and K. Zhao, Chinese Phys. C **32**, 34 (2008).
K. Zhao, X. Wu and z. Li, Phys. Rev. C**80**, 054607 (2009).
V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, J. Phys. G **34**, 2265 (2007).
Loveland W, Vinodkumar A M, Peterson D, and Greene J P 2011 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**83**]{} 044610
Barbui M et al. 2009 [*Intl. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} E [**18**]{}1036
Barbui M et al. 2011 [*J. Phys.: Conf. Series*]{} 312 082012
https://groups.nscl.msu.edu/frib/rates/fribrates.html
http://www.nscl.msu.edu/exp/sr/yields
http://pro.ganil-spiral2.eu/spiral2/spiral2-beams/radioactive-ion-beams-of-spiral2/post-accelerated-cime-isol-rib-beams-available-for-the-day-1-spiral2-phase-2-experiments
http://pro.ganil-spiral2.eu/spiral2/spiral2-beams/radioactive-ion-beams-of-spiral2/radioactive-ion-beams-of-spiral2-of-fission-fragments/view
http://www.phy.anl.gov/atlas/facility/caribubeams.html
Jiang C L, Back B B, Gomes I, Heinz A M, Nolen J, Rehm K E, Savard G, and Schiffer J P 2002 [*Nucl. Instru. Meth. Phys. Res.* ]{} A [**492**]{} 57
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'There are three main results in this paper. First, we find an easily computable and simple condition which is necessary and sufficient for a commuting tuple of contractions to possess a non-zero Toeplitz operator. This condition is just that the adjoint of the product of the contractions is not pure. On one hand this brings out the importance of the product of the contractions and on the other hand, the non-pureness turns out to be equivalent to the existence of a pseudo-extension to a tuple of commuting unitaries. The second main result is a commutant pseudo-extension theorem obtained by studying the unique canonical unitary pseudo-extension of a tuple of commuting contractions. The third one is about the $C^*$-algebra generated by the Toeplitz operators determined by a commuting tuple of contractions. With the help of a special completely positive map, a different proof of the existence of the unique canonical unitary pseudo-extension is given.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, 400076, India.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam 781039, India.'
author:
- Tirthankar Bhattacharyya
- 'B. Krishna Das'
- Haripada Sau
title: ' Toeplitz operators and pseudo-extensions'
---
Introduction
============
A contraction $P$ acting on a Hilbert space is called $pure$ if $P^{*n}$ converges to zero strongly as $n \rightarrow \infty$.
Let $\mathbb D$ be the open unit disk while $\mathbb D^d$, $\overline{\mathbb D}^d$ and $\mathbb T^d$ denote the open polydisk, the closed polydisk, and the $d$-torus, respectively in $d$-dimensional complex plane for $d\ge 2$.
The seminal paper [@BH] of Brown and Halmos introduced the study of those operators $X$ on the Hardy space which satisfy $M_z^*XM_z = X$ where $M_z$ is the unilateral shift on the Hardy space. These are called $Toeplitz$ operators and have been greatly studied. Among the many directions in which Toeplitz operators have been generalized, operators $X$ on a Hilbert space $H$ that satisfy $P^*XP = X$ for a contraction $P$ on $H$ hold a prime place. Prunaru generalized this to study Toeplitz operators corresponding to a commuting contractive tuple (also called a $d$-contraction) in [@PrunaruJFA]. Prunaru’s techniques are specific to the Euclidean unit ball.
In connection with the polydisk, the Toeplitz operators that have been well studied are those which satisfy $$M_{z_j}^*XM_{z_j}=X \text{ for each } j=1,2,\dots,d,$$where $M_{z_j}$ is multiplication by the coordinate function ‘$z_j$’ on $H^2(\mathbb D^d)$, the Hardy space over $\mathbb D^d$. The class of these Toeplitz operators is large and has been studied greatly, see [@CKL] and the references therein. Thus the following definition is natural.
Let $\underline{T}=(T_1, T_2, \dots,T_d)$ be a commuting tuple of contractions on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$. A bounded operator $A$ on $\mathcal H$ is said to be a [*$\underline{T}$-Toeplitz operator*]{} if it satisfies [*Brown-Halmos relations*]{} with respect to $\underline{T}$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gen-Brown-Halmos-Poly}
T_i^*AT_i=A \text{ for each $1\leq i \leq d$}.\end{aligned}$$ The $*$–closed and norm closed vector space of all $\underline{T}$-Toeplitz operators is denoted by $\mathcal T(\underline{T})$.
One of the aims of this note is to answer when this vector space $\mathcal T(\underline{T})$ is [*non-trivial*]{}, i.e., contains a non-zero operator. The prime tool for deciding this question is the product operator.
For a $d$-tuple $\underline{T}=(T_1,T_2,\dots,T_d)$ of commuting contractions on a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}$, the contraction $P=T_1T_2\cdots T_d$ will be refereed to as the [*product contraction*]{} of $\underline{T}$.
A remarkable fact in the theory of Hilbert space operators says that a commuting tuple of isometries extends to a commuting tuple of unitaries. This is true, in particular, for the shifts $M_{z_j}$ on the Hardy space of the polydisk. A natural question then arises. Is there a connection between the richness of the class of Toeplitz operators $\mathcal T(M_{z_1}, M_{z_2}, \ldots , M_{z_d})$ on the Hardy space of the polydisk and the fact that the tuple $(M_{z_1}, M_{z_2}, \ldots , M_{z_d})$ extends to commuting unitaries? This motivates the definition below and the theorem following it.
\[D:Ext-PDisk\] Let $\underline{T}=(T_1,T_2,\dots,T_d)$ be a $d$-tuple of commuting bounded operators on a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}$. A $d$-tuple $\underline{U}=(U_1,U_2,\dots,U_d)$ of commuting bounded operators on a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal K}}$ is called a pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$, if
- there is a non-zero contraction ${{\mathfrak J}}: {{\mathcal H}}\to {{\mathcal K}}$, and
- ${{\mathfrak J}}T_j=U_j{{\mathfrak J}}$, for every $j=1,2,\dots,d$.
We denote such a pseudo-extension of $\underline T$ by $({{\mathfrak J}},{{\mathcal K}}, \underline{U})$.
A pseudo-extension $({{\mathfrak J}},{{\mathcal K}},\underline{U})$ of $T$ is said to be minimal if ${{\mathcal K}}$ is the smallest reducing space for each $U_j$ containing ${{\mathfrak J}}{{\mathcal H}}$. We say that two pseudo-extensions $({{\mathfrak J}},{{\mathcal K}},\underline{U})$ and $(\tilde{{\mathfrak J}},\tilde{{\mathcal K}},\tilde{\underline{U}})$ of $\underline{T}$ are unitarily equivalent if there exists a unitary $W:{{\mathcal K}}\to\tilde{{\mathcal K}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
W U_j = \tilde{U}_j W \text{ for all } j=1,2 \ldots , d \text{ and } W{{\mathfrak J}}=\tilde{{\mathfrak J}}.\end{aligned}$$
A minimal pseudo-extension $({{\mathfrak J}},{{\mathcal K}},\underline{U})$ of $\underline T$ is called canonical if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ContEmbedd}
{{\mathfrak J}}^*{{\mathfrak J}}=\operatorname{SOT-}\lim P^{*n}P^n.\end{aligned}$$
The role of the contraction ${{\mathfrak J}}$ may need to be emphasized at times and then we shall say that $\underline{U}$ is a pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$ through ${{\mathfrak J}}$. The condition (2) in the above definition implies that each $U_j$ is an extension of $\tilde T_j:\overline{\operatorname{Ran}}\;{{\mathfrak J}}{{\mathcal H}}\to\overline{\operatorname{Ran}}\;{{\mathfrak J}}{{\mathcal H}}$ densely defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde T_j ({{\mathfrak J}}h):={{\mathfrak J}}T_jh, \text{ for every }h\in{{\mathcal H}}.\end{aligned}$$ This is why we call $\underline U$ is a pseudo-extension of $\underline T$.
A tuple of commuting contractions on a Hilbert space does not possess a unitary extension, in general. However, existence of a unitary pseudo-extension for a $d$-tuple of commuting contraction $\underline T$ can now be characterized in terms of a condition on the product contraction $P$ of $\underline T$. This is also intimately related to the non-triviality of $\mathcal T(\underline T)$.
\[Thm:Ext\] Let $\underline{T}=(T_1,T_2,\dots,T_{d})$ be a $d$-tuple of commuting contractions on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$. Then the following are equivalent.
1. $\mathcal T(\underline{T})$ is non-trivial.
2. The adjoint of the product contraction $P$ of $\underline{T}$ is not pure, i.e., $P^n\nrightarrow 0$ strongly.
3. There exists a unique (up to unitary equivalence) canonical unitary pseudo-extension of the tuple $\underline{T}$.
This theorem is proved in section 2.
A fundamental concept, called dilation, introduced by Sz.-Nagy has stimulated extensive research in operator theory.
\[dilation\] Let $\underline{T}=(T_1,T_2,\dots,T_d)$ be a $d$-tuple of commuting bounded operators on a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}$. A $d$-tuple $\underline{V}=(V_1,V_2,\dots,V_d)$ of commuting bounded operators on a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal K}}$ is called a dilation of $\underline{T}$, if ${{\mathcal H}}$ is a subspace of ${{\mathcal K}}$ and $V_i^*|_{{\mathcal H}}= T_i^*$ for $i=1,2, \ldots ,d$. The dilation is called isometric if $V_i$ are isometries.
It is well-known that a commuting tuple of contractions does not have a commuting isometric dilation in general. In case $\underline{T}^*$ has a commuting isometric dilation can we talk of the unitary part of the isometric dilation tuple and is that then an example of a pseudo-extension to a tuple of commuting unitaries? This question has a gratifying answer. Recall that the classical Wold decomposition [@Wold] states that any isometry $V$ acting on a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}$ is unitarily equivalent to the direct sum of a unilateral shift $M_z$ of multiplicity equal to $\dim(I_{{{\mathcal H}}}-VV^*)$ and a unitary operator $U$. The unitary operator $U$ is often regarded as the ‘unitary part’ of the isometry $V$. Several attempts have been made to obtain a multivariable analogue of Wold decomposition, see [@Burdak; @SarkarLAA; @Slo1980; @Slo1985] and references therein. Perhaps the most elegant among these models is the one obtained by Berger, Coburn and Lebow [@BCL], see Theorem \[Thm:BCL\]. We shall use its elegance to analogously define the [*unitary part*]{} of a commuting tuple of isometries. Then we shall answer the question above affirmatively in Theorem \[non-canonical\].
The relation between the existence of a non-zero operator in $\mathcal T(\underline{T})$ and the existence of a pseudo-extension $({{\mathfrak J}},{{\mathcal K}},\underline{U})$ of $\underline T$ goes much further. A study of the unital $C^*$-algebra $\mathcal C$ generated by $I_{{{\mathcal H}}}$ and ${{\mathcal T}}(\underline{T})$ reveals that it has a $*$-representation $\pi$ onto the commutant of $\underline{U}$, denoted by $\underline{U}'$. In fact, there exists a natural [*completely isometric cross section*]{} $\rho$ of the $*$-representation $\pi$ that maps onto ${{\mathcal T}}(\underline{T})$. This in turn proves that ${{\mathcal T}}(\underline{T})$ and $\underline{U}'$ are in one-to-one correspondence. Furthermore, we prove that every element $X$ in $\underline{T}'$, the commutant of $\underline{T}$, can be ${{\mathfrak J}}$-extended to an element $\Theta(X)$ in $\underline{U}'$ and that the correspondence $$X\mapsto\Theta(X)$$ is completely contractive, unital and multiplicative. This is the content of Theorem \[Thm:ComLftPDisk\].
$\underline{T}$-Toeplitz operators and pseudo-extensions {#S:PseudoExt}
========================================================
This section has the proof of Theorem \[Thm:Ext\]. We shall take up the path $(1)\Longrightarrow(2)\Longrightarrow(3)\Longrightarrow(1)$.
Let there be a non-zero $\underline{T}$-Toeplitz operator $A$. This means that $T_j^*AT_j = A$ for all $j=1,2, \ldots , d$. This implies $P^*AP = A$ where $P$ is the product contraction. Thus, for all $n \geq 0$ we have $A = P^{*n}AP^n$ and hence $\| Ah \| \le \| A\| \| P^nh\| $ for every vector $h$. So, if $P^n$ strongly converges to $0$, then $A = 0$ which is a contradiction.
For two hermitian operators $T_1$ and $T_2$, we say that $T_1 \preceq T_2$ if $T_2 - T_1$ is a positive operator. The following well known result called Douglas’s Lemma has found many applications.
\[L:DougLem\]\[Theorem 1, [@Douglas]\] Let $A$ and $B$ be two bounded operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Then there exists a contraction $C$ such that $A=BC$ if and only if $$AA^*\preceq BB^*.$$
The proof is easy. Indeed, defining $C^*$ on the range of $B^*$ as $C^*B^*x = A^*x$ i all that is required. We shall need it below.
[**Proof of $(2)\Rightarrow(3)$:**]{} Let $\underline{T}=(T_1,T_2,\dots,T_d)$ be a $d$-tuple of commuting contractions such that $P^n\nrightarrow0$ strongly. As $P$ is a contraction $$I_{\mathcal{H}}\succeq P^*P\succeq P^{*2}P^2\succeq \cdots\succeq {P^*}^nP^n\succeq \cdots\succeq 0.$$ This guarantees a positive contraction $Q$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{assymplimit}
Q=\operatorname{SOT-}\lim P^{*n}P^n.\end{aligned}$$ The hypothesis makes $Q$ non-zero. From the above expression of $Q$ one can read off the validity of $$P^*QP= Q.$$ Hence we can define an isometry $X : \overline{\operatorname{Ran}}Q \rightarrow \overline{\operatorname{Ran}}Q $ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{X}
X:Q^\frac{1}{2}h \mapsto Q^\frac{1}{2}Ph \text{ for each }h\in{{\mathcal H}}.\end{aligned}$$ We note that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq1}
T_j^*QT_j \preceq Q \text{ for each }j=1,2,\dots,d.\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, since $P$ is the product contraction, we get for each $j=1,2,\dots,d$, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_j^*QT_jh,h\rangle = \lim_n\langle P^{*n}(T_j^*T_j)P^nh,h \rangle
\leq \lim_n\langle P^{*n}P^{n}h,h\rangle = \langle Qh,h\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ By Douglas’s Lemma \[L:DougLem\], we obtain a contraction $X_j : \overline{\operatorname{Ran}}Q \rightarrow \overline{\operatorname{Ran}}Q$ such that for every $h\in{{\mathcal H}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Xj}
X_j:Q^\frac{1}{2}h \mapsto Q^\frac{1}{2}T_jh \text{ for each $j=1,2,\dots,d$}.\end{aligned}$$ The contractions $X_j$ are commuting because using the commutativity of $\underline{T}$ we get for each $i,j=1,2,\dots,d$ and $h\in{{\mathcal H}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
X_iX_j Q^\frac{1}{2}h = X_iQ^\frac{1}{2}T_jh &= Q^\frac{1}{2}T_iT_jh\\
&=Q^\frac{1}{2}T_jT_ih=X_jQ^\frac{1}{2}T_ih=X_jX_iQ^\frac{1}{2}h.\end{aligned}$$Since $P$ is the product contraction, a computation similar to the one above yields $X=X_1X_2\cdots X_d$. But $X$ is an isometry. So all of its commuting factors have to be isometries and hence the contractions $X_j$ have to be isometries. Let $\underline{W}=(W_1,W_2,\dots,W_d)$ acting on ${{\mathcal K}}$ be a minimal unitary extension of $\underline{X}$. Define a contraction ${{\mathfrak J}}:{{\mathcal H}}\to{{\mathcal K}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak J}}:h\mapsto Q^\frac{1}{2}h \text{ for every } h \in {{\mathcal H}}.\end{aligned}$$ The computation below shows that ${{\mathfrak J}}$ intertwines each $W_j$ with $T_j$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Int}
W_j{{\mathfrak J}}h=W_jQ^\frac{1}{2}h=X_jQ^\frac{1}{2}h=Q^\frac{1}{2}T_jh={{\mathfrak J}}T_jh.\end{aligned}$$Finally, by definition of ${{\mathfrak J}}$ and $Q$, it follows that ${{\mathfrak J}}^*{{\mathfrak J}}$ is the limit of $P^{*n}P^n$ in the strong operator topology and hence $({{\mathfrak J}}, {{\mathcal K}},\underline{W})$ is a canonical pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$.
For the uniqueness part, let us suppose that $({{\mathfrak J}},{{\mathcal K}},{\underline{U}}=( U_1,\dots, U_d))$ and $(\tilde{{\mathfrak J}},\tilde{{\mathcal K}},\tilde{\underline{U}}=(\tilde U_1,\dots,\tilde U_d))$ be two canonical unitary pseudo-extensions of $\underline{T}$. We show that these two are unitarily equivalent. To that end, let us define the operator $\tau:\mathcal K \to \tilde{\mathcal K}$ densely by $$\tau:f(\underline{U}, \underline{U}^*){{\mathfrak J}}h\mapsto f(\underline{\tilde{U}}, \underline{\tilde{U}}^*) \tilde{{\mathfrak J}}h$$ for every $h\in \mathcal H$ and polynomial $f$ in $\bm z$ and $\overline{\bm z}$. Since $(\tilde{{\mathfrak J}},\tilde{{\mathcal K}},\tilde{\underline{U}})$ is minimal, $\tau$ is surjective. Note that $\tau$ clearly satisfies $\tau{{\mathfrak J}}=\tilde{{\mathfrak J}}$. We will be done if we can show that $\tau$ is an isometry. Let $f$ be a polynomial in $\bm z$ and $\overline{\bm z}$ and $\bar{f}f=\sum a_{\bm n,\bm m}\bm z^{\bm n}\overline{\bm z}^{\bm m}$. Then for every $h\in {{\mathcal H}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{UniqComp}
\notag \|f(\underline{U}, \underline{U}^*){{\mathfrak J}}h\|^2
\notag & = \sum a_{\bm n,\bm m}\langle {{\mathfrak J}}^*\underline{U}^{* \bm m}\underline{U}^{\bm n}{{\mathfrak J}}h, h\rangle\\
\notag & = \sum a_{\bm n,\bm m}\langle \underline{T}^{* \bm m}{{\mathfrak J}}^*{{\mathfrak J}}\underline{T}^{\bm n}h, h\rangle\\
& = \sum a_{\bm n,\bm m}\langle \underline{T}^{* \bm m} Q\underline{T}^{\bm n}h, h\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Since the last term only depends on the $d$-tuple $\underline{T}$, $\tau$ is an isometry.
[**Proof of $(3)\Rightarrow(1)$:**]{} Note that if a $d$-tuple $\underline{T} = (T_1, T_2, \ldots , T_d)$ of commuting contractions has even an isometric pseudo-extension $\underline{V} = (V_1, V_2, \ldots , V_d)$ through ${{\mathfrak J}}$, then for all $j=1,\cdots, d$ $$T_j^* {{\mathfrak J}}^*{{\mathfrak J}}T_j = {{\mathfrak J}}^* V_j^* V_j {{\mathfrak J}}= {{\mathfrak J}}^* {{\mathfrak J}}.$$ This proves that the non-zero operator ${{\mathfrak J}}^* {{\mathfrak J}}$ belongs to $\mathcal T(\underline{T})$. This in particular establishes that (3) implies (1).
\[R:Can-nonCan\] Several remarks are in order.
- It follows from the proof of $(3)\Rightarrow(1)$ of Theorem \[Thm:Ext\] that if a $d$-tuple $\underline{T}$ of commuting contractions has an isometric pseudo-extension, then it has a canonical unitary pseudo-extension. Indeed, if $({{\mathfrak P}},{{\mathcal L}},\underline{W})$ is any isometric pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$, then as observed in the proof of $(3)\Rightarrow(1)$ of Theorem \[Thm:Ext\], the non-zero operator ${{\mathfrak P}}^* {{\mathfrak P}}$ is a $\underline{T}$-Toeplitz operator. Hence by Theorem \[Thm:Ext\] there exists a canonical unitary pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$.
- Let $T$ be a contraction acting on a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}$. It is known that the minimal unitary (or isometric) dilation space of $T$ is always infinite dimensional even in the case when ${{\mathcal H}}$ is finite dimensional. We observe that, unlike the case of the dilation theory, if $\underline{T}$ is a $d$-tuple of commuting contraction acting on a finite dimensional Hilbert space, then the canonical unitary pseudo-extension space for $\underline{T}$ is also finite dimensional. Since any two canonical unitary pseudo-extensions of a given tuple are unitarily equivalent, we consider the canonical unitary pseudo-extension constructed in the proof of $(2)\Rightarrow(3)$ of Theorem \[Thm:Ext\]. Recall that for each $j=1,2,\dots,d$, the isometry $X_j$ as defined in is itself a unitary because it acts on a finite dimensional space, viz., $\overline{\operatorname{Ran}}Q$. Therefore the tuple $X=(X_1,X_2,\dots,X_d)$ acting on $\overline{\operatorname{Ran}}Q$ is a canonical unitary pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$.
- We also observe that a $d$-tuple $\underline{T}$ of commuting contractions has a unitary pseudo-extension through an isometry ${{\mathfrak J}}$ if and only if $\underline{T}$ is a commuting tuple of isometries. Thus, Theorem \[Thm:Ext\] subsumes the standard extension of commuting isometries to commuting unitaries as a special case.
We now link pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$ with isometric dilation of $\underline{T}^*$ when it exists. To that end, we need an old result of Berger, Coburn and Lebow which has gained a lot of attention recently. Indeed it is the result of Berger, Coburn and Lebow that inspired explicit constructions of Andô dilation in [@DSS-Adv2018] for a special case and then in [@BS-Ando] for the general case.
\[Thm:BCL\] Let $(V_1,V_2,\dots,V_d)$ be a $d$-tuple of commuting isometries acting on a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal K}}$. Then there exist Hilbert spaces ${{\mathcal E}}$ and ${{\mathcal F}}$, unitary operators ${{\mathcal U}}=\{U_1, \dots, U_d\}$ and projection operators ${{\mathcal P}}=\{P_1, \dots, P_d\}$ acting on ${{\mathcal E}}$, and commuting unitary operators ${{\mathcal W}}=\{W_1, \dots, W_d\}$ acting on ${{\mathcal F}}$ such that ${{\mathcal K}}$ can be decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VWold}
{{\mathcal K}}=H^2({{\mathcal E}})\oplus{{\mathcal F}}\end{aligned}$$ and with respect to this decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BCL1}
&V_j = M_{U_j(P_j^\perp+zP_j)}\oplus W_j,\;
V_{(j)}=M_{(P_j+zP_j^\perp) U_j^*}\oplus W_{(j)} \text{ for }1 \le j \le d,\\
&\text{ and } V =V_1V_2\cdots V_d= M_z\oplus W_1W_2\cdots W_d,
\label{WoldV}\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{(j)}=\prod\limits_{i\neq j} V_i$ and $W_{(j)}=\prod\limits_{i\neq j}W_i$.
The decomposition of the product isometry $V=V_1V_2\cdots V_d$ with respect to is actually the same as the Wold decomposition of $V$. It is remarkable that the Wold decomposition of $V$ reduces each of its commuting factors into the direct sum of two operators.
For a $d$-tuple $\underline{V}=(V_1,V_2,\dots,V_d)$ of commuting isometries, the $d$-tuple ${{\mathcal W}}=(W_1,W_2,\dots,W_d)$ of commuting unitaries obtained in Theorem \[Thm:BCL\] is called the unitary part of $\underline{V}$.
The following theorem relates pseudo-extensions with dilation theory and also provide examples of non-canonical pseudo-extensions.
\[non-canonical\] For a $d$-tuple of commuting contractions $\underline T$ on $\mathcal H$, if $\underline{T}^*$ has a minimal isometric dilation $\underline{V}=(V_1,V_2,\dots,V_d)$ on ${{\mathcal K}}$ with non-zero unitary part $\underline{U}=(U_1,U_2,\dots,U_d)$ acting on ${{\mathcal F}}\subseteq {{\mathcal K}}$ then $\underline{U}$ is a unitary pseudo-extension of $\underline T$.
To prove $\underline U$ is a unitary pseudo-extension of $\underline T$, the required contraction $ {{\mathfrak J}}:\mathcal H \to {{\mathcal K}}$ is defined as $${{\mathfrak J}}:h\to P_{{{\mathcal F}}}h,\quad (h\in\mathcal H)$$where $P_{{\mathcal F}}$ denotes the orthogonal projection of ${{\mathcal K}}$ onto ${{\mathcal F}}$. Since $\underline{V}$ is minimal, ${{\mathcal F}}$ cannot be orthogonal to ${{\mathcal H}}$ and hence ${{\mathfrak J}}$ is non-zero. Since each $V_j^*$ is an extension of $T_j$ and since ${{\mathcal F}}$ is reducing for each $V_j$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
U_j^*{{\mathfrak J}}h=V_j^*P_{{{\mathcal F}}}h=P_{{{\mathcal F}}}V_j^*h=P_{{{\mathcal F}}}T_jh={{\mathfrak J}}T_jh\end{aligned}$$ for each $h$ in ${{\mathcal H}}$. This completes the proof.
We observed that the unitary pseudo-extension obtained in Theorem \[non-canonical\] is non-canonical, in general, because the contraction ${{\mathfrak J}}$ need not satisfy . We remark here that for $d=2$, there is an explicit construction of dilation whose unitary part gives rise to the canonical unitary pseudo-extension, see Theorem 3 of [@BS-Ando].
From the above theorem follows the following corollary.
\[P:Aux\] Let $\underline{T}$ be a $d$-tuple of commuting contractions such that
1. $P^n\to0$ strongly and
2. $\underline{T}^*$ has an isometric dilation.
Then the unitary part of the minimal isometric dilation of $\underline{T}^*$ is zero.
Let $\underline{V}$ be a minimal isometric dilation of $\underline{T}^*$. If the unitary part $\underline{U}$ of $\underline{V}$ is non-zero, then by the above discussion $\underline{U}^*$ is a pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$. This contradicts the fact that $P^n\nrightarrow0$ is a necessary and sufficient condition for existence of a pseudo-extension $\underline{T}$.
We end this section by establishing a relation between a non-canonical unitary pseudo-extension and the canonical unitary pseudo-extension of a given tuple of commuting contractions. It shows that any unitary pseudo-extension of a given tuple of commuting contractions factors through the canonical unitary pseudo-extension.
Let $\underline{T}$ be a $d$-tuple of commuting contractions acting on a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}$ such that $P^n\nrightarrow 0$ strongly as $n\to \infty$. Let $({{\mathfrak P}},{{\mathcal L}},\underline{W})$ be a unitary pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$. If $({{\mathfrak J}},{{\mathcal K}},\underline{U})$ is the canonical pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$, then
1. ${{\mathfrak P}}^*{{\mathfrak P}}\leq\operatorname{SOT-}\lim P^{*n}P^n={{\mathfrak J}}^*{{\mathfrak J}}$ and
2. $\underline{W}$ is a unitary pseudo-extension of $\underline U$ through a contraction ${{\mathfrak T}}:{{\mathcal K}}\to{{\mathcal L}}$ such that ${{\mathfrak T}}{{\mathfrak J}}={{\mathfrak P}}$.
We have seen in the proof of $(3)\Rightarrow(1)$ of Theorem \[Thm:Ext\] that if $({{\mathfrak P}},{{\mathcal L}},\underline{W})$ is a unitary pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$, then ${{\mathfrak P}}^*{{\mathfrak P}}$ is a $\underline{T}$-Toeplitz operator. In particular, ${{\mathfrak P}}^* {{\mathfrak P}}$ is in ${{\mathcal T}}(P)$. This implies $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak P}}^*{{\mathfrak P}}=P^{*n}{{\mathfrak P}}^*{{\mathfrak P}}P^n \leq P^{* n}P^n \text{ for every } n.
\end{aligned}$$ This proves part (1) of the proposition.
For part (2) we define the operator ${{\mathfrak T}}:\mathcal K \to {{\mathcal L}}$ densely by $${{\mathfrak T}}:f(\underline{U}, \underline{U}^*){{\mathfrak J}}h\mapsto f(\underline{W}, \underline{W^*}) {{\mathfrak P}}h$$ for every $h\in \mathcal H$ and polynomial $f$ in $\bm z$ and $\overline{\bm z}$. Using part (1) of the proposition, a similar computation as done in yields $$\begin{aligned}
\|f(\underline{W}, \underline{W}^*){{\mathfrak P}}h\|\leq \|f(\underline{U}, \underline{U}^*){{\mathfrak J}}h\| \text{ for every }h\in{{\mathcal H}}.\end{aligned}$$ This shows that ${{\mathfrak T}}$ is not only well-defined but also a contraction. Finally, it readily follows from the definition of ${{\mathfrak T}}$ that it intertwines $\underline{U}$ and $\underline{W}$ and that ${{\mathfrak T}}{{\mathfrak J}}={{\mathfrak P}}$.
A commutant pseudo-extension theorem
====================================
The classical commutant lifting theorem – first by Sarason [@Sarason] for a special case and later by Sz.-Nagy–Foias (see Theorem 2.3 in [@Nagy-Foias]) for the general case – is a profound operator theoretic result with wide-ranging applications especially in the theory of interpolation. The most general form of this result states that [*if $T$ is a contraction with $V$ as its minimal isometric dilation, then any bounded operator $X$ commuting with $T$ has a norm-preserving lifting to an operator $Y$ that commutes with $V$.*]{} Here a [*lifting*]{} is defined to be a co-extension. In this section, we prove a version of the commutant lifting theorem, herein called commutant pseudo-extension theorem.
\[Thm:PLT\] Let $\underline{T}$ be a commuting tuple of contractions and $({{\mathfrak J}},{{\mathcal K}},\underline{U})$ be its canonical unitary pseudo-extension. Then every $X$ in the commutant of $\underline{T}$ has a pseudo-extension to $Y$ in the commutant of $\underline{U}$ such that $\|Y\|\leq \|X\|$.
Let $P$ be the product contraction of $\underline{T}$ and $Q$ be the limit as in . The idea is to obtain a bounded operator $\tilde X$ acting on $\overline{\operatorname{Ran}}Q$ commuting with each isometry $X_j$ as defined in with norm no greater than $\|X\|$ and then apply the standard commutant extension theorem for commuting isometries.
We first do a simple inner product computation. For every $h\in{{\mathcal H}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\|Q^\frac{1}{2}Xh\|^2=\langle X^*QXh,h\rangle=\lim_n\langle P^{*n}X^*XP^nh,h \rangle\leq\|X\|^2\langle Qh,h\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Thus there is a bounded operator $\tilde X:\overline{\operatorname{Ran}}Q\to\overline{\operatorname{Ran}}Q$ such that $$\tilde X:Q^\frac{1}{2}h\mapsto Q^\frac{1}{2}Xh.$$with norm at most $\|X\|$. Let $j=1,2,\dots,d$ and $X_j$ be the isometry as defined in , then for each $h\in{{\mathcal H}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde X X_jQ^\frac{1}{2}h=\tilde X Q^\frac{1}{2}T_jh=Q^\frac{1}{2}XT_jh=Q^\frac{1}{2}T_jXh=X_jQ^\frac{1}{2}Xh=X_j\tilde XQ^\frac{1}{2}h\end{aligned}$$ showing that $\tilde X$ commutes with the tuple $\underline{X}=(X_1,X_2,\dots,X_d)$ of commuting isometries. We observed in that the minimal unitary extension $\underline{W}$ acting on ${{\mathcal K}}$ of $\underline{X}$ is actually a canonical unitary pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$ through a contraction ${{\mathfrak J}}:{{\mathcal H}}\to{{\mathcal K}}$ defined as ${{\mathfrak J}}h=Q^\frac{1}{2}h$. Now by a well-known commutant lifting theorem (see, [@Atha Proposition 10]), there exists an operator $Y$ in the commutant of $\underline{W}$ such that $Y|_{\overline{\operatorname{Ran}}Q}=\tilde X$ and $\|Y\|=\|\tilde X\|\leq \|X\|$. Finally to show that $({{\mathfrak J}},{{\mathcal K}},Y)$ is a pseudo-extension of $X$, we see that for every $h\in{{\mathcal H}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak J}}Xh=Q^\frac{1}{2}Xh=\tilde XQ^\frac{1}{2}h=YQ^\frac{1}{2}h=Y{{\mathfrak J}}h.\end{aligned}$$This completes the proof.
The following intertwining pseudo-extension theorem is easily obtained as a corollary to Theorem \[Thm:PLT\].
Let $\underline{T}$ and $\underline{T'}$ be two commuting tuples of contractions acting on ${{\mathcal H}}$ and ${{\mathcal H}}'$, respectively. Let $({{\mathfrak J}},{{\mathcal K}},\underline{U})$ and $({{\mathfrak J}}',{{\mathcal K}}',\underline{U'})$ be their respective canonical unitary pseudo-extensions. Then corresponding to any operator $X:{{\mathcal H}}\to{{\mathcal H}}'$ intertwining $\underline{T}$ and $\underline{T'}$ there exists another operator $Y:{{\mathcal K}}\to{{\mathcal K}}'$ such that $Y$ intertwines $\underline{U}$ and $\underline{U'}$, $Y{{\mathfrak J}}={{\mathfrak J}}' X$ and $\|Y\|\leq \|X\|$.
Set $\tilde X:={\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0&0\\X&0
\end{smallmatrix}\right]}:{{\mathcal H}}\oplus{{\mathcal H}}'\to{{\mathcal H}}\oplus{{\mathcal H}}'$. Then it is easy to see that $\tilde X$ commutes with $\tilde T_j:={\left[\begin{smallmatrix} T_j&0\\0&T_j'
\end{smallmatrix}\right]}:{{\mathcal H}}\oplus{{\mathcal H}}'\to{{\mathcal H}}\oplus{{\mathcal H}}'$ for each $j=1,2,\dots,d$. Set the unitary operators $\tilde U_j:={\left[\begin{smallmatrix} U_j&0\\0&U_j'
\end{smallmatrix}\right]}:{{\mathcal K}}\oplus{{\mathcal K}}'\to{{\mathcal K}}\oplus{{\mathcal K}}'\text{ for each }j=1,2,\dots,d$ and denote $\underline{\tilde U}:=(\tilde U_1,\tilde U_2,\dots,\tilde U_d)$. Then by hypothesis it is easy to check that $(\tilde {{\mathfrak J}},\tilde{{\mathcal K}}, \underline{\tilde U})$ is a canonical unitary pseudo extension of $\underline{\tilde T}=(\tilde T_1,\tilde T_2,\dots,\tilde T_d)$, where the contraction $\tilde{{\mathfrak J}}$ is given by $$\tilde{{\mathfrak J}}={\left[\begin{smallmatrix} {{\mathfrak J}}&0\\0&{{\mathfrak J}}'
\end{smallmatrix}\right]}:{{\mathcal H}}\oplus{{\mathcal H}}'\to{{\mathcal K}}\oplus{{\mathcal K}}'=\tilde{{\mathcal K}}.$$By Theorem \[Thm:PLT\] there exists $$\tilde Y={\left[\begin{smallmatrix} Y_{11}&Y_{12}\\Y&Y_{22}
\end{smallmatrix}\right]}:{{\mathcal K}}\oplus{{\mathcal K}}'\to{{\mathcal K}}\oplus{{\mathcal K}}'$$such that $\tilde Y\underline{\tilde U}=\underline{\tilde U}\tilde Y$, $\tilde{{\mathfrak J}}\tilde X=\tilde Y\tilde {{\mathfrak J}}$ and $\|\tilde Y\|\leq\|\tilde X\|$. From these relations of $\tilde Y$, it follows that $Y$ has all the desired properties.
One disadvantage in the commutant pseudo-extension theorem is that unlike the classical commutant lifting theorem, the pseudo-extension of a commutant is not norm-preserving, in general and instead the correspondence $X\mapsto Y$ from a commutant to its pseudo-extension is only contractive. We shall see in the next section that this correspondence is actually completely contractive.
Algebraic structure of the Toeplitz $C^*$-algebra
=================================================
For a $d$-tuple $\underline{T}$ of commuting contractions, the [*Toeplitz $C^*$-algebra*]{}, denote by $C^*(I_{{{\mathcal H}}},{{\mathcal T}}(\underline{T}))$, is the $C^*$-algebra generated by $I_{{{\mathcal H}}}$ and the vector space ${{\mathcal T}}(\underline{T})$ of $\underline{T}$-Toeplitz operators. The objective of this section is to study the Toeplitz $C^*$-algebra, which leads to an existential proof of the canonical pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$.
We begin with a preparatory lemma that gives us a completely positive map with certain special properties that we need. The central idea of the proof goes back to Arveson, see Proposition 5.2 in [@Arveson-Nest]. For a subnormal operator tuple, in the multivariable situation, Eschmeier and Everard have proven a similar result by direct construction, see Section 3 of [@EE].
\[L:PJFA\] Let $P$ be a contraction on the Hilbert space $\mathcal H$. Then there exists a completely positive, completely contractive, idempotent linear map $\Phi : \mathcal B(\mathcal H) \to \mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ such that $Ran \Phi = \mathcal T(P)$. Moreover, if $ A,B \in \mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ satisfy $P^*(AXB) P = A P^*XPB$ for all $X \in \mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ then $\Phi(AXB) = A\Phi(X)B$. In addition, $$\Phi(I_\mathcal H ) = Q = \lim_{n\to \infty} P^{*n}P^n$$ where the limit is in the strong operator topology.
We start by recalling that a Banach limit is a positive linear functional $\mu : l^\infty(\mathbb N) \rightarrow \mathbb C$ which is shift invariant in the sense that $$\mu(x_1, x_2, \ldots ) = \mu (x_2, x_3, \ldots )$$ and which extends the natural positive linear functional $x\mapsto \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} x_n$ defined on the space of convergent sequences. For $X$ in $\mathcal B (\mathcal H)$ and vectors $\xi, \eta$ in $\mathcal H$, consider the bounded sesqui-linear form $$[\xi, \eta ] = \mu ( \{ \langle P^*XP \xi, \eta \rangle , \langle P^{*2}XP^2 \xi, \eta \rangle , \ldots \} ).$$ Since this form gives rise to a bounded operator, let us call that $\Phi(X)$. Then $\Phi: X\mapsto \Phi(X)$ defines a linear map on $\mathcal B(\mathcal H)$. Shift invariance of $\mu$ gives us that $\mbox{Ran }\Phi = \mathcal T(P)$. As a consequence, $\Phi$ is idempotent. Other properties of $\Phi$ are straightforward.
The map $\Phi$ obtained above enjoys certain convenient properties as the following lemma shows. We do not prove it because it is part of the proof of Theorem 3.1 in Choi and Effros [@CE]. We have singled out what we need.
\[L:CE\] Let $\Phi :\mathcal B(\mathcal H) \to \mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ be a completely positive and completely contractive map such that $\Phi\circ\Phi=\Phi$. Then for all $X$ and $Y$ in $\mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Identities}
\Phi(\Phi(X)Y)= \Phi ( X\Phi(Y)) = \Phi( \Phi(X) \Phi(Y)).\end{aligned}$$
We are now ready for the main theorem of this section. The classical Toeplitz operators – the Toeplitz operators with respect to the unilateral shift on the Hardy space over the unit disk – are precisely the compressions of the commutant of the minimal unitary extension of the unilateral shift. Part (1) of the following theorem – the main result of this section – is a generalization of this result to our context.
\[Thm:ComLftPDisk\] Let $\underline{T}=(T_1,T_2,\dots,T_d)$ be a tuple of commuting contractions acting on a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}$ such that $P^n\nrightarrow0$. There exists a canonical unitary pseudo-extension $({{\mathfrak J}},{{\mathcal K}},\underline{U})$ of $\underline{T}$ such that
1. [**Pseudo-compression:**]{} The map $\Gamma$ defined on $\{U_1,\dots,U_{d}\}'$ by $$\Gamma(Y)={{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}},$$ is a complete isometry onto $\mathcal T(\underline{T})$;
2. [**Representation:**]{} There exists a surjective unital $*$-representation $$\pi:\mathcal C^*\{I_{\mathcal H}, \mathcal T(\underline{T})\}\to \{U_1,\dots,U_{d}\}'$$ such that $\pi \circ \Gamma =I;$
3. [**Commutant pseudo-extension:**]{} There exists a completely contractive, unital and multiplicative mapping $$\Theta:\{T_1,\dots,T_{d}\}'\to \{U_1,\dots,U_{d}\}'$$ defined by $\Theta(X)=\pi({{\mathfrak J}}^*{{\mathfrak J}}X)$ which satisfies $$\Theta(X){{\mathfrak J}}={{\mathfrak J}}X.$$
We start with the contraction $P = T_1T_2 \ldots T_d$ and the idempotent, completely positive and completely contractive map $\Phi:\mathcal B(\mathcal H)\to \mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P-Toep}
\text{Ran}\Phi=\{X\in \mathcal B(\mathcal H):P^*XP=X\}=\mathcal T(P),\end{aligned}$$ as obtained in Lemma \[L:PJFA\]. Let $\mathcal C^*(I_\mathcal H, \mathcal T(P))$ denote the $C^*$-algebra generated by $\mathcal T(P)$ and $I_{{{\mathcal H}}}$. We restrict $\Phi$ to $\mathcal C^*(I_\mathcal H, \mathcal T(P))$ and continue to call it $\Phi$ remembering that the underlying $C^*$-algebra on which it acts is now $\mathcal C^*(I_\mathcal H, \mathcal T(P))$.
Let $(\mathcal K, \pi, {{\mathfrak J}})$ be the minimal Stinespring dilation of $\Phi$. Thus, $\mathcal K$ is a Hilbert space, ${{\mathfrak J}}: \mathcal H \rightarrow \mathcal K$ is a bounded operator and $\pi$ is a unital $*$-representation of $\mathcal C^*(I_\mathcal H, \mathcal T(P))$ taking values in $\mathcal B(\mathcal K)$ such that $$\label{Stines}
\Phi(X) = {{\mathfrak J}}^*\pi (X){{\mathfrak J}}\text{ for every $X\in \mathcal C^*(I_\mathcal H, \mathcal T(P))$}.$$ Note that $Q=\Phi(I_\mathcal H)={{\mathfrak J}}^*{{\mathfrak J}}=\operatorname{SOT-}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} P^{*n}P^n.$
We shall need to go deeper into the properties of the Stinespring triple $({{\mathcal K}},\pi,{{\mathfrak J}})$. The first property we get is
(${\bf{ P_1}}$) [*$U:=\pi(QP)$ is a unitary operator. Moreover, ${{\mathfrak J}}P=U{{\mathfrak J}}$ and $\mathcal K$ is the smallest reducing subspace for $U$ containing ${{\mathfrak J}}\mathcal H$.*]{}
The proof is somewhat long. Since $\Phi$ has now been restricted to the $C^*$-algebra $C^*(I_\mathcal H, \mathcal T(P))$, its kernel is an ideal in $C^*(I_\mathcal H, \mathcal T(P))$ by Lemma \[L:CE\] (when $\Phi$ is allowed as a map on whole of $\mathcal B (\mathcal H)$, its kernel may not be an ideal). In view of the kernel of $\Phi$ being an ideal, it follows from the construction of the minimal Stinespring dilation that $\text{Ker }\!\Phi= \text{Ker }\!\pi$. Thus $$\label{pix=piphix} \pi(X)=\pi(\Phi(X)) \text{ for any } X\in C^*(I,\mathcal T(P)).$$ This will be used many times. Since $\pi$ is a representation, a straightforward computation gives us $$U^*\pi(X)U = \pi(X) \text{ for any } X \in C^*(I,\mathcal T(P)).$$
Since $\pi$ is unital, we get that $U$ is an isometry. If $P'$ is a projection in the weak\* closure of $\pi(C^*(I,\mathcal T(P)))$, then we also have $U^*P'U=P'$ and $U^* P'^{\perp}U=P'^{\perp}$. This shows that $UP'=P'U$ and therefore $$\pi(X)U=U\pi(X)$$ for all $X\in C^*(I,\mathcal T(P))$. In particular, it follows that $U$ is a unitary and $$\pi(C^*(I_\mathcal H,\mathcal T(P)))\subseteq\{U\}'.$$ We can harvest a quick crucial equality here, viz., $$\label{thetaXVisVX} \pi(QX){{\mathfrak J}}={{\mathfrak J}}X$$ if $X \in \mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ commutes with $P$.
The proof of follows from two computations. For every $h, h^\prime \in \mathcal H$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \pi(QX){{\mathfrak J}}h,{{\mathfrak J}}h^\prime \rangle&=\langle {{\mathfrak J}}^*\pi(QX){{\mathfrak J}}h,k\rangle\\
&=\langle \Phi(QX)h,h^\prime \rangle \quad [\text{using } (\ref{Stines})]\\
&=\langle QXh,h^\prime \rangle \quad [\text{because } \mathcal T (P) \text{ is fixed by } \Phi] =\langle {{\mathfrak J}}Xh,{{\mathfrak J}}h^\prime \rangle \end{aligned}$$ showing that $P_{\overline{\rm{Ran}} {{\mathfrak J}}}\pi(QX){{\mathfrak J}}= {{\mathfrak J}}X$. On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\|\pi(QX){{\mathfrak J}}h\|^2 &=\langle {{\mathfrak J}}^*\pi(X^*Q^2X){{\mathfrak J}}h,h \rangle \\
&=\langle \Phi(X^* Q^2X)h,h \rangle \\
&=\langle X^* \Phi(Q^2)Xh,h \rangle \quad [\text{by Lemma \ref{L:PJFA}}]\\
&=\langle X^*QXh,h\rangle \quad[\text{by Lemma \ref{L:CE}}] =\| {{\mathfrak J}}Xh \|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $\pi(QX){{\mathfrak J}}={{\mathfrak J}}X$ for every $X\in \{P\}'$. This, in particular, proves that $U{{\mathfrak J}}={{\mathfrak J}}P$. To complete the proof of ${\bf{ P_1}}$, it is required to establish that $\mathcal K$ is the smallest reducing subspace for $U$ containing ${{\mathfrak J}}\mathcal H$. To that end, we consider a map $\Gamma$ from Ran $\pi$ into $\mathcal T (P)$ given by $$\Gamma(\pi(X))={{\mathfrak J}}^*\pi(X){{\mathfrak J}}=\Phi(X) \text{ for all } X\in C^*(I, \mathcal T(P)).$$ It is injective because $\text{Ker }\!\Phi= \text{Ker }\!\pi$.
Since $\Gamma\circ \pi=\Phi$, we have $\Gamma\circ \pi$ to be idempotent and this coupled with the injectivity of $\Gamma$ gives us $\pi\circ\Gamma=I$ on $\pi\{C^*(I,\mathcal T(P))\}$. This immediately implies that $\Gamma$ is a complete isometry.
Let $\mathcal K_0\subseteq \mathcal K$ be the smallest reducing subspace for $U$ containing ${{\mathfrak J}}\mathcal H$. Let $P_{\mathcal K_0}$ be the projection in $\mathcal B(\mathcal K)$ onto the space $\mathcal K_0$. Consider the vector space $$P_{\mathcal K_0}\{U\}'P_{\mathcal K_0}:=\{P_{\mathcal K_0}XP_{\mathcal K_0}: X\in\{U\}'\}= \{P_{\mathcal K_0}X|_{\mathcal K_0}\oplus 0_{\mathcal K_0^{\perp}}: X\in\{U\}'\}.$$ and the map $\Gamma': P_{\mathcal K_0}\{U\}'P_{\mathcal K_0}\to \mathcal T(P)\subseteq \mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ defined by $X\mapsto {{\mathfrak J}}^* X{{\mathfrak J}}$. This is injective.
Indeed, it is easy to check that ${{\mathfrak J}}^* X{{\mathfrak J}}\in \mathcal T(P)$ for $X\in \{U\}'$. Now if ${{\mathfrak J}}^*X{{\mathfrak J}}=0$ for some $X\in \{U\}'$ then using the identity ${{\mathfrak J}}P=U{{\mathfrak J}}$, we get that $$\langle X f(U, U^*){{\mathfrak J}}h, g(U,U^*){{\mathfrak J}}k\rangle =0$$ for any two variable polynomials $f$ and $g$ and $h,k\in\mathcal H$. This shows that $P_{\mathcal K_0}XP_{\mathcal K_0}=0$ and therefore, $\Gamma'$ is injective. For any $Y\in P_{\mathcal K_0}\{U\}'P_{\mathcal K_0}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma'(P_{\mathcal K_0}\pi({{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}})P_{\mathcal K_0}-Y)={{\mathfrak J}}^*\pi({{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}}){{\mathfrak J}}-{{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}}= \Phi({{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}})-{{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by the injectivity of $\Gamma'$, we have $$P_{\mathcal K_0}\pi(C^*(I,\mathcal T(P)))P_{\mathcal K_0}=P_{\mathcal K_0}\{U\}'P_{\mathcal K_0}$$ In other words, we have a surjective complete contraction $$\tilde{C}_{\mathcal K_0}: \pi(C^*(I,\mathcal T(P))) \to P_{\mathcal K_0}\{U\}'P_{\mathcal K_0}= \{P_{\mathcal K_0}X|_{\mathcal K_0}\oplus 0_{\mathcal K_0^{\perp}}: X\in\{U\}'\},$$ defined by $X\mapsto P_{\mathcal K_0}X P_{\mathcal K_0}$. Since $\Gamma=\Gamma'\circ \tilde{C}_{\mathcal K_0}$ and $\Gamma$ is a complete isometry, $\tilde{C}_{\mathcal K_0}$ is a complete isometry. Then the induced compression map $$C_{\mathcal K_0}: \pi(C^*(I,\mathcal T(P))) \to \{P_{\mathcal K_0} U|_{\mathcal K_0}\}'\subseteq\mathcal B(\mathcal K_0),\quad X\mapsto P_{\mathcal K_0}X|_{\mathcal K_0}$$ is a unital complete isometry and therefore a $C^*$-isomorphism by a result of Kadison ([@Kadison]). Hence by the minimality of the Stinespring representation $\pi$ we have $\mathcal K=\mathcal K_0$ and therefore $\pi(C^*(I,\mathcal T(P))) =\{U\}'$. This not only completes the proof of ${\bf{ P_1}}$, but also proves
(${\bf{ P_2}}$) [*The map $\Gamma:\{U\}' \to \mathcal T(P)$ defined by $\Gamma (Y)={{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}}$, for all $Y\in \{U\}'$, is surjective and a complete isometry.*]{}
(${\bf{ P_3}}$) [*The Stinesrping triple $({{\mathcal K}},\pi,{{\mathfrak J}})$ satisfies $\pi\circ\Gamma=I$. In particular, $$\pi(C^*(I_\mathcal H,\mathcal T(P)))=\{U\}'.$$*]{} The final property that we shall need is
(${\bf{ P_4}}$) The linear map $\Theta : \{P\}' \to \{U\}'$ defined by $\Theta(X) = \pi(QX)$ is completely contractive, unital and multiplicative.
To prove ${\bf{ P_4}}$, first note that $\Theta$ is completely contractive and unital as $\pi(Q)=I$. We have also proved that $\Theta (X){{\mathfrak J}}={{\mathfrak J}}X$ for all $X\in\{P\}'$. Since, for $X,Y\in \{P\}'$, $$\Gamma(\Theta(XY)-\Theta(X)\Theta(Y))={{\mathfrak J}}^*{{\mathfrak J}}XY-{{\mathfrak J}}^*\Theta(X)\Theta(Y){{\mathfrak J}}=0,$$ then by injectivity of $\Gamma$ we have $\Theta$ is multiplicative and this completes the proof of ${\bf{ P_4}}$.
Since we have now developed the properties of the Stinespring dilation of $\Phi$ in detail, we are ready to complete the proof of the theorem. Define $$U_i := \pi (QT_i) \mbox{ for } 1\leq i \leq d.$$ We observe that $$U_1U_2\cdots U_d=\pi(QP)=U.$$ Indeed, using the property $({\bf P_4})$ above, we get $$\begin{aligned}
U=\pi(QP)=\Theta(P)&=\Theta(T_1)\Theta(T_2)\cdots\Theta(T_d)\\
&=\pi(QT_1)\pi(QT_2)\cdots\pi(QT_d)=U_1U_2\cdots U_d.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore each $U_j$ is a unitary operator.
That the triple $({{\mathfrak J}},{{\mathcal K}},\underline{U}=(U_1,U_2,\dots,U_d))$ is actually a canonical pseudo-extension of $\underline{T}$ follows from when applied to $X=T_j$ for each $j=1,2,\dots,d$. Minimality of the pseudo-extension $\underline{U}$ follows from $({\bf{P_1}})$, which says that ${{\mathcal K}}$ is actually equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\operatorname{span}}\{U^m{{\mathfrak J}}h:h\in{{\mathcal H}}\text{ and }m\in \mathbb Z\}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\Gamma$ be as in $(\bf P_2)$ above. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\{U_1,U_2,\dots,U_d\}'\subset\{U\}'.
\end{aligned}$$ Consider the restriction of $\Gamma$ to $\{U_1,U_2,\dots,U_d\}'$ and continue to denote it by $\Gamma$. Since complete isometry is a hereditary property, to prove part (1), all we have to show is that $\Gamma(Y)$ lands in ${{\mathcal T}}(\underline{T})$, whenever $Y$ is in $\{U_1,U_2,\dots,U_d\}'$ and $\Gamma$ is surjective. To that end, let $Y \in \{U_1,\dots,U_{n}\}'$. Then for each $j=1,2,\dots,d$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
T_j^*\Gamma(Y)T_j=T_j^*{{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}}T_j&=&{{\mathfrak J}}^*U_j^*YU_j{{\mathfrak J}}={{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}}=\Gamma(Y).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\Gamma$ maps $\{U_1,\dots,U_{d}\}'$ into $\mathcal T(\underline{T})$. For proving surjectivity of $\Gamma$, let $X\in \mathcal T (\underline{T})$. This, in particular, implies that $X$ is in $\mathcal T(P)$. Applying $({\bf{ P_2}})$ again we have an $Y$ in $\{U\}'$ such that $\Gamma(Y)={{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}}=X$. It remains to show that this $Y$ commutes with each $U_j$. Since $X\in \mathcal T (\underline{T})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
T_j^* XT_j=X \text{ for each } j=1,2,\dots, d\end{aligned}$$which is the same as $T_j^*{{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}}T_j = {{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}}$. Applying the intertwining property of ${{\mathfrak J}}$, we get for each $j$ $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak J}}^*U_j^*YU_j{{\mathfrak J}}= {{\mathfrak J}}^*Y{{\mathfrak J}}\end{aligned}$$ which is the same as $\Gamma(U_j^*YU_j-Y) =0$ for each $j$. Since $\Gamma$ is an isometry, the commutativity of $Y$ with each $U_j$ is established. This completes the proof of part (1).
Part (2) of the Theorem follows from the content of $({\bf{P_3}})$ if we restrict $\pi$ to ${C^*(I,\mathcal T(\underline{T}))}$ and continue to call it $\pi$.
For the last part of theorem, let us take $\Theta$ as in $({\bf{P_4}})$, i,e., $$\Theta(X)=\pi(QX)$$ for every $X$ in $\{P\}'$. Restrict $\Theta$ to ${\{T_1,\dots,T_{d}\}'}$ and continue to call it $\Theta$. The aim is to show that $\Theta(X)\in \{U_1, \ldots ,U_{d}\}'$ if $X\in \{T_1,\dots,T_{d}\}'$. For this we first observe that if $X$ commutes with each $T_j$, then $QX$ is in ${{\mathcal T}}(\underline{T})$. Now the rest of the proof follows from part (2) of the theorem and .
**Acknowledgement:** The first named author’s research is supported by the University Grants Commission Centre for Advanced Studies. The research works of the second and third named authors are supported by DST-INSPIRE Faculty Fellowships DST/INSPIRE/04/2015/001094 and DST/INSPIRE/04/2018/002458 respectively.
[99]{}
W. Arveson, [*Interpolation problems in nest algebras*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 20 (1975), 208-233.
A. Athavale, [*On the intertwining of joint isometries*]{}, J. Oper. Theory 23 (1990), 339-350.
C. A. Berger, L. A. Coburn and A. Lebow, [*[Representation and index theory for $\mathcal C^*$-algebras generated by commuting isometries]{}*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 27 (1978), 51-99.
A. Brown and P. R. Halmos, [*[Algebraic properties of Toeplitz operators]{}*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 213 (1963), 89-102.
Z. Burdak, [*On the model and invariant subspaces for pairs of commuting isometries*]{}, Integral Equations and Operator Theory (2019) 91: 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00020-019-2516-4.
B. R. Choe, H. Koo, and Y. J. Lee, [*Commuting Toeplitz operators on the polydisk*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 356 (2004), no. 5, 1727–-1749.
M. D. Choi and E. G. Effros, [*[Injectivity and operator spaces]{}*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 24 (1977), 156-209.
B. K. Das, S. Sarkar and J. Sarkar, [*[Factorizations of contractions]{}*]{}, Adv. Math. 322 (2017), 186-200.
R. G. Douglas, [*[Structure theory for operators. I.]{}*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 232 (1968), 180-193.
R. G. Douglas, [*[On majorization, factorization and range inclusion of operators on Hilbert space]{}*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 17 (1996), 413-415.
J. Eschmeier and K. Everard, [*Toeplitz projections and essential commutants*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 269 (2015), 1115-1135.
R. V. Kadison, [*Isometries of operator algebras*]{}, Ann. of Math. 54 (1951), 325-338.
V. Muller and F.-H. Vasilescu, [*Standard models for some commuting multioperators*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 117 (1993), 979-989.
S. Parrott, [*[Unitary dilations for commuting contractions]{}*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 34 (1970), 481-490.
V. Paulsen, [*Completely bounded maps and operator algebras*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
G. Popescu, [*Isometric dilations for infinite sequences of noncommuting operators*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 316 (1989), 523-536.
B. Prunaru, [*Toeplitz operators associated to commuting row contractions*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 254 (2008), no. 6, 1626-1641.
J. Sarkar, [*Wold decomposition for doubly commuting isometries*]{}, Linear Algebra Appl. 445 (2014), 289–301.
D. Sarason, [*Generalized interpolation in $H^\infty$*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 127 (1967), 179-203.
H. Sau, [*Ando dilations for a pair of commuting contractions: two explicit constructions and functional models*]{}, arxiv:1710.11368v4 .
J. J. Sch$\ddot{\mbox{a}}$ffer, [*On unitary dilations of contractions*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 (1955), 322.
M. Slocinskxi, [*On the Wold-type decomposition of a pair of commuting isometries*]{}, Annales Polonici Mathematici XXXVII (1980), 255–262.
M. Slocinski, [*Models for doubly commuting contractions*]{}, Annales Polonici Mathematici XLV (1985), 23–42.
B. Sz.-Nagy, C. Foias, H. Bercovici and L. Kerchy, [*[Harmonic analysis of operators on Hilbert space]{}*]{}, Second edition, Revised and enlarged edition, Universitext, Springer, New York, 2010.
H. Wold, [*[A study in the analysis of stationary time series,]{}*]{}, 2nd edition, Stokholm, 1954.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Recent progress in generating spatial optical solitons in nonlinear bulk media opens the possibility to study truly two-dimensional self-trapping of light and interaction of multi-dimensional solitary waves [@Science]. Robust nature of spatial solitons that they display in interactions allows us to draw a formal analogy with atomic physics and treat spatial solitons as “atoms of light”. Our motivation here is to find out whether more complex objects, viewed as “atom clusters”, can be constructed from a certain number of simple solitons – “atoms”. In this Letter, we describe, for the first time to our knowledge, the basic principles for constructing the so-called “soliton clusters”, ringlike multi-soliton bound states in a bulk media.
First, in order to discuss the formation of multi-soliton bound states in a homogeneous bulk medium, we should recall the physics of the coherent interaction of two spatial solitons. It is well known [@Science] that such an interaction depends crucially on the relative soliton phase, say $\theta$, so that two solitons attract each other for $\theta =0$, and they repel each other for $\theta = \pi$. For the intermediate values of the soliton phase, $0<\theta<\pi$, the solitons undergo an energy exchange and display inelastic interaction. As a result, [*no stationary bound states of two coherently interacting solitons are possible in a bulk medium.*]{}
[*Soliton spiraling*]{} was suggested theoretically [@spiral] and observed experimentally [@spiral1] as a possible scenario for a [*dynamical*]{} two-soliton bound state formed when two solitons are launched with [*initially twisted trajectories*]{}. However, it was clarified later [@spiral2] that the experimental observation of the soliton spiraling was possible due to an effectively [*vectorial*]{} beam interaction. As a matter of fact, the soliton spiraling reported in Refs. [@spiral1; @spiral2] is associated with large-amplitude oscillations of a dipole-mode vector state [@dipole] generated by the interaction of two initially mutually incoherent optical beams.
In spite of the fact that no bound states exist for two coherently interacting scalar solitons in a bulk medium, in this Letter we demonstrate that such bound states (or [*ringlike clusters*]{}) are indeed possible for larger number of solitons, namely for $N\geq 4$. The main reason for the existence of such multi-soliton states can be explained with the help of simple physics. Indeed, let us analyze possible [*stationary configurations*]{} of $N$ coherently interacting solitons in (2+1)-dimensions. The only finite-energy structures that would balance out the phase-sensitive coherent interaction of the neighboring solitons should possess a ringlike geometry. However, a ringlike configuration of $N$ solitons will be [*radially unstable*]{} due to an effective tension induced by bending of the soliton array. Thus, a ring of $N$ solitons will collapse, if the mutual interaction between the neighboring solitons is attractive, or otherwise expand, resembling the expansion of the necklace beams [@necklace]. Nevertheless, a simple physical mechanism will provide stabilization of the ringlike configuration of $N$ solitons, if we introduce [*an additional phase*]{} on the scalar field that twists by $2\pi m$ along the soliton ring. This phase introduces [*an effective centrifugal force*]{} that can balance out the tension effect and stabilize the ringlike soliton cluster. Due to a net angular momentum induced by such a phase distribution, such soliton clusters rotate with an angular velocity which depends on the number of solitons and phase charge $m$.
To build up the theory of the soliton clusters, we consider a coherent superposition of $N$ solitons with the envelopes $G_{n}(x,y,z)$, $n=1,2..N$, propagating in a self-focusing homogeneous bulk medium. The equation for the slowly varying field envelope $E = \sum G_{n}$ can be written in the form of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, $$\label{eq1}\
i\frac{\partial E}{\partial z}+\Delta _{\perp }E+f(I)E=0,$$ where $\Delta _{\perp}$ is the transverse Laplacian and $z$ is the propagation distance measured in the units of the diffraction length. Function $f(I)$ describes the nonlinear properties of an optical medium, and it is assumed to depend on the total beam intensity, $I=\left|E\right| ^{2}$.
General features of the dynamical system (\[eq1\]) are determined by its conservation laws, or [*integrals of motion*]{}: the [*beam power*]{}, $P=\int\left|E\right|^{2}d{\bf r}$, the [*linear momentum*]{}, ${\bf L}={\rm Im} \int E^{\ast}\nabla E d{\bf
r}$, and the [*angular momentum*]{}, $M{\bf e}_{z}={\rm Im}\int
E^{\ast} ({\bf r} \times \nabla E) d{\bf r}$. For a ring of identical [*weakly overlapping*]{} solitons launched in parallel, we can calculate the integrals of motion employing a Gaussian ansatz for a single beam $G_{n}$, $$\label{ans}\
G_{n}=A\exp\left(-\;\frac{|{\bf r} -{\bf r}_{n}|^{2}} {2a^{2}}+
i\alpha_{n}\right),$$ where ${\bf r}_{n}=\lbrace x_{n}; y_{n}\rbrace$ defines the position of the soliton center, and $\alpha_{n}$ is the phase of the $n$-th beam. Then, the integrals of motion take the form: $$\begin{array}{l}{\displaystyle
P=\pi a^{2}A^{2} \sum_{n,k=1}^N e^{Y_{nk}}\cos\theta_{nk},}\\*[9pt] \label{linmom}\ {\displaystyle
{\bf L} = \frac{\pi}{2} A^{2} \sum_{n,k=1}^N e^{Y_{nk}}({\bf r}_{n} - {\bf
r}_{k})\sin\theta_{nk},}\\*[9pt] {\displaystyle M = \pi A^{2} \sum_{n,k=1}^N e^{Y_{nk}}\vert{\bf
r}_{n}\times{\bf r}_{k}\vert\sin\theta_{nk},}
\end{array}$$ where $Y_{nk}=-|{\bf r}_{n} - {\bf r}_{k}|^{2}/4a^2$ and $\theta_{nk}=\alpha_{n}-\alpha_{k}$. We assume that the beams are arranged in [*a ring-shaped array*]{}: ${\bf r}_{n}=\lbrace
{R}\cos\varphi_{n}; {R}\sin\varphi_{n} \rbrace$ with $\varphi_{n}=2\pi n/N$, for which we find $Y_{nk}=-({R}/a)^{2}\sin^{2}[\pi(n-k)/N]$.
First of all, analyzing many-soliton clusters, we remove the centre-of-the mass motion and take ${\bf L}=0$. Applying this constraint to Eqs. (\[linmom\]), we find the conditions for the soliton phases, $\alpha_{i+n}-\alpha_{i}=\alpha_{k+n}-\alpha_{k}$, which are easy to satisfy provided the phase $\alpha_{n}$ has a linear dependence on $n$, i.e. $\alpha_{n}=\theta n$, where $\theta$ is the relative phase between two neighboring solitons in the ring. Then, we employ the phase periodicity condition taken in the form $\alpha_{n+N}=\alpha_{n}+2\pi m$, and find:
$$\label{phase}\
\theta=\frac {2\pi m}{N}.$$
In terms of the classical fields, Eq. (\[phase\]) gives the condition of the vanishing energy flow ${\bf L} = 0$, because the linear momentum ${\bf L}=\int {\bf j} d{\bf r}$ can be presented through the local current ${\bf j} = {\rm Im} ( E^{\ast}\nabla E)$. Therefore, Eq. (\[phase\]) determines a nontrivial phase distribution for the effectively elastic soliton interaction in the ring. In particular, for the well-known case of two solitons ($N=2$), this condition gives only two states with the zero energy exchange, when $m$ is even ($\theta = 0$, mutual attraction) and when $m$ is odd ($\theta =\pi$, mutual repulsion) [@Science].
For a given $N>2$, the condition (\[phase\]) predicts the existence of a discrete set of allowed stationary states corresponding to the values $\theta = \theta ^{(m)}$ with $m=0,\pm
1, \ldots, \pm (N-1)$. Here two states $\theta ^{(\pm |m|)}$ differ only by the sign (direction) of the angular momentum, similar to the case of vortex solitons. Moreover, for any positive (negative) $m_{+}$ within the domain $\pi <|\theta| < 2\pi$, one can find the corresponding negative (positive) value $m_{-}$ within the domain $0<|\theta|<\pi$, so that both $m_{+}$ and $m_{-}$ describe the same cluster. For example, in the case $N=3$, three states with zero energy exchange are possible: $\theta^{(0)}=0$, $\theta^{(1)}=2\pi/3$, and $\theta^{(2)}=4\pi/3$, and the correspondence is $\theta ^{(\pm
1)} \leftrightarrow \theta ^{(\mp 2)}$. Therefore, it is useful to introduce the main value of $\theta$ in the domain $0 \leq
\theta \leq \pi$, keeping in mind that all allowed states inside the domain $0< \theta < \pi$ are degenerated with respect to the sign of the angular momentum. The absolute value of the angular momentum vanishes at both ends of this domain, when $m=0$, for any $N$, and when $m=N/2$, for even $N$. The number $m$ determines the full phase twist around the ring, and it plays a role of the topological charge of a phase dislocation associated with the ring.
In order to demonstrate the basic properties of the soliton clusters for a particular example, we select the well-known saturable nonlinear Kerr medium with $F(I)=I(1+sI)^{-1}$, where $s$ is a saturation parameter. This model supports stable (2+1)-dimensional solitons. First, we apply the variational technique to find the parameters of a single soliton described by the ansatz (\[ans\]), and find $A=3.604$ and $a=1.623$ for $s=0.5$. Then, substituting Eq. (\[ans\]) into the system Hamiltonian, we calculate the effective interaction potential $U(R)=H(R)/|H(\infty)|$, where $H$ is the system Hamiltonian, $$H = \int \left\{|\nabla E|^2
- \frac{1}{s}|E|^2+ \frac{1}{s^2}\ln\left(1+s|E|^2\right)\right\} d{\bf r}.$$ As a result, for any $N$ we find [*three distinct types*]{} of the interaction potential $U(R)$, shown in Fig. 1 for the particular case $N=5$. Only one of them has a local minimum at finite $R$ which indicates the cluster stabilization against collapse or expansion.
To verify the predictions of our effective-particle approach, we perform a series of simulations of different $N$-soliton rings, using the fast-Fourier-transform split-step numerical algorithm and monitoring the conservation of the integrals of motion. Alongside with non stationary behavior, such as breathing and radiation emitting, we find the clusters dynamics in [*excellent agreement with our analysis*]{}. According to Fig. 1, the effective potential is always attractive for $m=0$, and thus the ring of $N=5$ in-phase solitons should exhibit oscillations and, possible, soliton fusion. Indeed, such a dynamics is observed in Fig. 2(a). Although the oscillations of the ring are well described by the effective potential $U(R)$, the ring dynamics is more complicated. Another scenario of the mutual soliton interaction corresponds to the repulsive potential \[shown, e.g., in Fig. 1 for the case $m=2$ and $\theta=4\pi/5$\]. In the numerical simulations corresponding to this case, the ringlike soliton array expands with the slowing down rotation, as is shown in Fig. 2(d).
Evolution of the stationary bound state that corresponds to a minimum of the effective potential $U(R)$ in Fig. 1 (for $m=1$) is shown in Fig. 2(b). Here the angular momentum is nonzero, and it produces a repulsive centrifugal force that balances out the soliton attraction. The effective potential predicts the stationary state at $R_{0}=3$ with a good accuracy, and the cluster does not change its form while rotating during the propagation. To continue the analogy between the soliton cluster and a rigid body, we calculate the cluster’s [*moment of inertia*]{}, ${\cal I}$, and its [*angular velocity*]{}, $\Omega$: $$\label{vel}\ {\cal I}=\int |E|^2 {\bf r}^2
d{\bf r},\;\;\Omega =M/{\cal I}.$$ For the case shown in Fig. 2(b), the numerically obtained value of the angular velocity is $\Omega_{num}\simeq\pi/20=0.157$, while the formula (\[vel\]) gives the value $\Omega = 0.154$. We also perform the numerical simulations of the “excited” clusters, as is shown in Fig. 2(c), and observed oscillations near the equilibrium state. Such a [*vibrational*]{} state of the “$N$-soliton molecule” demonstrates the dynamical radial stability of the bound state in agreement with the effective-particle approximation.
Our analysis is valid for any $N$, and it allows us to classify all possible scenarios of the soliton interaction in terms of the phase jump $\theta$ between the neighboring solitons in the array. Indeed, for $\theta=0$, the ring of $N$ solitons collapses through several oscillations. If the main value of $\theta$ belongs to the segment $0<\theta\leq\pi/2$, the interaction between solitons is [*attractive*]{}, the value of the induced angular momentum is finite, and there exists a rotating bound state of $N$ solitons. However, if $\theta$ belongs to the segment $\pi/2<\theta\leq\pi$, the soliton interaction is [*repulsive*]{} and the soliton ring expands with or without ($\theta=\pi$) rotation, similar to the necklace-type beams [@necklace]. For example, in the case $N=3$ two stationary states are possible, $\theta=0$ and $\theta=2\pi/3$, and there exist [*no bound states*]{}. For $N=4$ and $m=1$, the value of $\theta$ is $\pi/2$ and a cluster is indeed possible, as is shown in Fig. 3.
Together with the intensity of the four-soliton cluster, in Fig. 3 we show the phase distribution for the distances up to $60$ diffraction lengths. The initial staircase-like phase in the ring preserves its shape, and it is a nonlinear function of the polar angle $\varphi$, similar to the phase of the necklace-ring vector solitons with a fractional spin [@vecneck]. Note, that the phase of such a state can be described as a [*zeroth-order*]{} term in the expansion of the vortex phase near the $n$-th soliton center: $$\label{vort}\ m\varphi\simeq m\frac {2\pi n}{N} - m \frac
{y_{n}}{R^{2}} (x-x_{n})+m\frac {x_{n}}{R^{2}}(y-y_{n}) \ldots$$ Calculating the minimum of the potential $U(R)$ that corresponds to the soliton cluster, we find that for given $m$ and $N \gg 1$, the stationary cluster approaches a vortex soliton of the charge $m$. For example, the equilibrium radius $R_{0}$ for the clusters with $m=1$ is $R_{0}=3.8$ for $N=4$, and for $N \geq 4$ it approaches the corresponding vortex radius $R_{0}=3$. Furthermore, for $m=2$, the soliton bound states are possible only if $\theta=4\pi/N\leq\pi/2$. This gives the condition $N\geq 8$, and for $N\geq9$ we find $R_{0}=5$ which is close to the radius of a double-charged vortex. Thus, the ringlike soliton cluster can be considered as a nontrivial “discrete” generalization of the optical vortex soliton [@boris]. Clusters are generally metastable, and they experience the symmetry-breaking instability. However, they can propagate for many tenths of the diffraction length, being also asymptotically stable in some types of nonlinear media similar to the vortex solitons [@isaak].
In Figs. 4(a,b,d) we show some examples of the excited rotating clusters with different number of solitons $N$ and initial radius $R=N$, while in Fig. 4(c) we present the stationary rotating ringlike cluster of $N=8$ solitons.
We should stress that the staircase-like phase distribution is a distinctive feature of the soliton cluster. The evolution of the soliton ring with the linear phases, i.e. those presented by the first-order terms of Eq. (\[vort\]), can be associated with complex deformation of the vortex.
More interesting structures are found for the vector fields and incoherent interaction of solitons. For example, three coherently interacting solitons cannot form a bound state. However, adding a single “atom” to the incoherently coupled additional component $E_1$ \[see Fig. 5(a)\] leads to mutual trapping of all beams. Here, the incoherent attraction balances out both the coherent repulsion, as in the case of multipole vector solitons [@anton], and the centrifugal force induced by a net angular momentum. This leads to the cluster rotation similar to the two-lobe rotating “propeller” soliton [@propeller]. In Fig. 5(b), we show the five-lobe analogue of the necklace-ring vector solitons recently discussed in Ref. [@vecneck]. Unlike the necklace-ring solitons, the vector cluster rotates and undergoes internal oscillations as it propagates.
In conclusion, we have revealed a key physical mechanism for stabilizing multi-soliton bound states in a bulk medium in the form of rotating ringlike clusters. Such soliton clusters can be considered as a nontrivial generalization of the important concepts of the two-soliton spiraling, optical vortex solitons, and necklace scalar beams, and they provide an example of the next generation of multiple soliton-based systems operating entirely with light. We believe that the basic ideas presented in this Letter will be useful for other applications, such as the beam dynamics in plasmas [@plasma] and the Skyrme model of a classical field theory [@skyrme], and they can be also generalized to the inhomogeneous systems (such as the Bose-Einstein condensates in a trap [@bec]).
The authors are indebted to M. Segev and M. Soljaĉić for encouraging comments and suggestions, and E.A. Ostrovskaya for a help with numerical simulations and critical reading of this manuscript.
See, e.g., G.I. Stegeman and M. Segev, Science [**286**]{}, 1518 (1999), and references therein.
L. Poladian, A.W. Snyder, and D.J. Mitchell, Opt. Commun. [**85**]{}, 59 (1991); V.V. Steblina, Yu.S. Kivshar, and A.V. Buryak, Opt. Lett. [**23**]{}, 156 (1998); A.S. Desyatnikov and A.I. Maimistov, JETP [**86**]{}, 1101 (1998); J. Schj[ø]{}dt-Eriksen [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. A [**246**]{}, 423 (1998).
M. Shin, M. Segev, and G. Salamo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 2551 (1997).
A.V. Buryak [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 81 (1999).
J.J. García-Ripoll [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 82 (2000).
M. Soljaĉić, S. Sears, and M. Segev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 4851 (1998); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 420 (2001).
A.S. Desyatnikov and Yu.S. Kivshar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 033901 (2001).
The phase structure resembles the vortex solitons in a discrete model recently studied by B.A. Malomed and P.G. Kevrekidis, Phys. Rev. E [**64**]{}, 026601 (2001).
I. Towers [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**63**]{}, 055601 (2001).
A.S. Desyatnikov [*et al.*]{}, Opt. Lett. [**26**]{}, 435 (2001).
T. Carmon [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 143901 (2001).
C. Ren [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2124 (2000).
R. Battye and P.M. Sutcliffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 3989 (2001).
J.E. Williams and M.J. Holland, Nature [**401**]{}, 568 (1999).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the Hermitian-Yang-Mills (HYM) equations for gauge potentials on a complex vector bundle ${{\cal E}}$ over an almost complex manifold $X^6$ which is the twistor space of an oriented Riemannian manifold $M^4$. Each solution of the HYM equations on such $X^6$ defines a pseudo-holomorphic structure on the bundle ${{\cal E}}$. It is shown that the pull-back to $X^6$ of any anti-self-dual gauge field on $M^4$ is a solution of the HYM equations on $X^6$. This correspondence allows us to introduce new twistor actions for bosonic and supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories. As examples of $X^6$ we consider homogeneous nearly Kähler and nearly Calabi-Yau manifolds which are twistor spaces of $S^4$, ${\mathbb C}P^2$ and $B_4$, ${\mathbb C}B_2$ (real 4-ball and complex 2-ball), respectively. Various explicit examples of solutions to the HYM equations on these spaces are provided. Applications in flux compactifications of heterotic strings are briefly discussed.'
---
.
2.5cm
[**Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations and pseudo-holomorphic bundles\
on nearly Kähler and nearly Calabi-Yau twistor 6-manifolds**]{}
\
[*Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, JINR\
141980 Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia*]{}\
[Email: [[email protected]]{}]{}
Introduction
============
In the recent paper [@Lust], the flux compactifications of type IIA string theory of the form AdS$_4\times X^6$ with nearly Kähler internal spaces $X^6=\ $Sp(2)/Sp(1)$\times$U(1) or SU(3)/U(1)$\times$U(1) were considered (see also [@Toma]) and it was found that the Kaluza-Klein decoupling for the original AdS$_4$ vacua requires that the above-mentioned internal spaces are substituted by the nearly Calabi-Yau spaces Sp(1,1)/Sp(1)$\times$U(1), SU(1,2)/U(1)$\times$U(1) or by their compact analogues obtained by quotienting out the internal manifolds by a discrete group. In our paper, we describe various solutions of the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations on all these four coset spaces $X^6$ that can further be used in heterotic string compactifications with non-trivial background fluxes [@FL]-[@Zoupanos].
Since their discovery, more than ten years ago, tractable flux compactifications in string theory have become a very active area of research (see e.g. [@Grana; @DoKa; @BKLS] for reviews and references). This has been particularly explored in type IIB theory (see e.g. [@GKP]-[@LRS]), and some efforts have been devoted to moduli-fixing problem in the case of type IIA compactifications (see e.g. [@LoMi; @DKPZ; @GL]) where metric fluxes can arise partially from the T-duality of NS fluxes [@GLMW; @KSTT]. Compactifications in the presence of fluxes can be described in the language of $G$-structures on $d$-dimensional manifolds: SU(3) structure for dimension $d{=}6$, $G_2$ for $d{=}7$ and Spin(7) for $d{=}8$ (see e.g. [@GMPW]-[@XuPhD] and references therein). Note that 6-manifolds with SU(3) structure (i.e. SU(3) holonomy of the spin connection with torsion proportional to the $H$-field) can be described in terms of conditions on torsion classes of these manifolds [@CS]. Due to the inclusion of the $H$-field in the geometry of the internal manifold as torsion, we have to deal with non-Kähler and in some cases non-complex manifolds.
Most research in flux compactifications was done in type II string theories (see e.g. [@Grana]-[@BKLS] and [@group0]-[@group2] for more recent results). However, fluxes in heterotic string theory, which play a prominent role in stringy model building, have been considered as well (see e.g. [@FL; @BLP; @Zoupanos], [@LM]-[@papa] and references therein). Historically, heterotic flux compactifications have been known for quite some time, starting with the works [@SHW] in the mid-1980’s. In heterotic string compactifications one has the freedom to choose a gauge bundle since the simple embedding of the spin connection into the gauge connection is ruled out for compactifications with $dH\ne 0$. For the torsionful background, the allowed gauge bundle is restricted by the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations [@Don; @UY] and by the Bianchi identity for the $H$-field (anomaly cancellation). The existence of such vector bundles on some non-Kähler [*complex*]{} 3-folds, their stability and the procedure of solving the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations were discussed e.g. in [@BB; @Yau; @Yaugroup; @Fern]. Here we consider the procedure of solving the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations on the homogeneous nearly Kähler spaces Sp(2)/Sp(1)$\times$U(1), SU(3)/U(1)$\times$U(1) and nearly Calabi-Yau spaces Sp(1,1)/Sp(1)$\times$U(1), SU(1,2)/U(1)$\times$U(1) which may serve as a local model for compact case obtained by quotienting out by a discrete group.
The above-mentioned four manifolds are twistor spaces of the four-dimensional sphere $S^4$, projective plane ${\mathbb C}P^2$ and balls $B_4=\ $Sp(1,1)/Sp(1)$\times$Sp(1), ${\mathbb C}B_2=\ $SU(1,2)/S(U(1)$\times$U(2)) endowed with nonintegrable almost complex structure. Hence, complex vector bundles over these twistor spaces can carry a pseudo-holomorphic structure but not the holomorphic ones. That is why we begin our discussion with the notion of the pseudo-holomorphic bundles [@Bryant] and their relations with the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations. Then we consider the twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ of an oriented Riemannian 4-manifold $M^4$ along with the canonical projection $\pi : {{\cal T}}(M^4)\to M^4$ and a complex vector bundle $E$ with an anti-self-dual connection $A$. We show that any anti-self-dual gauge field $F=\diff A+A\wedge A$ on $M^4$ uplifted to the gauge field $\hat F:=\pi^*F$ on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ provides a solution to the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$. This correspondence allows us to introduce new twistor actions for bosonic and ${{\cal N}}{=}4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories.
Specializing to the cases $M^4=S^4$, ${\mathbb C}P^2$, $B_4$ and ${\mathbb C}B_2$, we describe Kähler, nearly Kähler and nearly Calabi-Yau structures on the twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ for these four cases. Various explicit solutions of the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ will be written down and their applications in flux compactifications of heterotic strings will be briefly discussed.
Pseudo-holomorphic bundles and Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations
=============================================================
[**Notation**]{}. Let $X^{2n}$ be an oriented Riemannian $2n$-dimensional manifold and $\{e^a\}$ a local orthonormal basis of $T^*X^{2n}$ , $a=1,...,2n$. For $p$-forms on $X^{2n}$ we use the notation $$\label{2.1}
F_p=\sfrac{1}{p!}\,F_{a_1...a_p}\, e^{a_1...a_p}{{\qquad{\rm with}\qquad}}e^{a_1...a_p}:=e^{a_1}\wedge ... \wedge e^{a_p}\ ,$$ $$\label{2.2}
(*F_p)_{a_1...a_{2n-p}}=\sfrac{1}{p!}\,\ve_{a_1...a_{2n-p}\, b_1...b_p}\,
F^{b_1...b_p}\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
F_p\wedge *F_p= \sfrac{1}{p!}\, F_{a_1...a_p}\,F^{a_1...a_p}\,{vol}_{2n} \ ,$$ where $*$ is the Hodge star operator and ${vol}_{2n}=e^1\wedge...\wedge e^{2n}$. We also use notation [@CS] $$\label{2.3}
(F_p\lrc\, S_{p+q})_{b_1...b_q}=\sfrac{1}{p!}\, (F_p)^{a_1...a_p}
(S_{p+q})_{a_1...a_p\,b_1...b_q}$$ that exploits the underlying Riemannian metric $\diff s^2 = \de_{ab}\, e^ae^b$ with the convention that $e^{12}\lrc\, e^{123}=e^3$ etc.
[**Pseudo-holomorphic bundles**]{}. Consider an oriented $2n$-dimensional manifold $X^{2n}$ with an almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}$ and a complex vector bundle ${{\cal E}}$ over $X^{2n}$ endowed with a connection ${{\cal A}}$. According to R.Bryant [@Bryant], a connection ${{\cal A}}$ on ${{\cal E}}$ is said to define a pseudo-holomorphic structure if it has curvature ${{\cal F}}=
\diff{{\cal A}}+{{\cal A}}\wedge{{\cal A}}$ of type (1,1) with respect to (w.r.t.) ${{\cal J}}$, i.e. $$\label{2.4}
{{\cal F}}^{0,2}=0={{\cal F}}^{2,0}\ .$$
One can endow the bundle ${{\cal E}}$ with a Hermitian metric and choose ${{\cal A}}$ to be compatible with the Hermitian structure on ${{\cal E}}$. If, in addition, $\o$ is an almost Hermitian structure on $(X^{2n}, {{\cal J}})$ and $$\label{2.5}
\o\,\lrc\,{{\cal F}}= \im\, \la\, \rm{Id}_{{{\cal E}}}$$ with $\la\in{\mathbb R}$, the connection ${{\cal A}}$ is said to be (pseudo-)Hermitian-Yang-Mills [@Bryant]. We shall consider (\[2.5\]) with $\la =0$, i.e. assume $c_1({{\cal E}})=0$ since for a bundle with field strength ${{\cal F}}$ of non-zero degree one can obtain a zero-degree bundle by considering $\widetilde{{\cal F}}={{\cal F}}- \sfrac{1}{k}(\tr{{\cal F}})\cdot
{\bf 1}_k$, where $k=\,$rank$\,{{\cal E}}$.
[**Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations**]{}. The Hermitian-Yang-Mills (HYM) equations[^1] read $$\label{2.6}
{{\cal F}}^{0,2}=0\und\o\,\lrc\,{{\cal F}}=0\ .$$ In the special case of an almost complex 4-manifold $X^4$ with a metric $g$ they coincide with the anti-self-dual Yang-Mills (ASDYM) equations $$\label{2.7}
*{{\cal F}}=-{{\cal F}}\ ,$$ where $*$ is the Hodge operator. Note that (\[2.7\]) is valid on manifolds $(M^4, g)$ which are not necessarily almost complex manifolds.
Recall that there are various generalizations of the first order ASDYM equations (\[2.7\]) to higher dimensions [@CDFN]-[@Tian] with some explicit solutions (see e.g. [@FN]). In particular, in $d{=}2n{=}6$ one can consider the equations [@Tian] $$\label{2.8}
*{{\cal F}}=-\o\wedge{{\cal F}}\ ,$$ where $\o$ is a two-form. Differentiating (\[2.8\]), we obtain $$\label{2.9}
\diff (*{{\cal F}})+{{\cal A}}\wedge*{{\cal F}}-*{{\cal F}}\wedge{{\cal A}}+*H\wedge{{\cal F}}=0\ ,$$ where the 3-form $H$ is defined by the formula $$\label{2.10}
H:=*\diff\o\ .$$ Equations (\[2.9\]) differ from the standard Yang-Mills equations by the last term with a 3-form $H$ which can be identified with a totally antisymmetric torsion. These equations naturally appear in string theory.
For manifolds $X^6$ with an almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}$ the equations (\[2.8\]) can be rewritten in the form (\[2.6\]) with an almost Hermitian structure $\o$. To each solution ${{\cal A}}$ of the HYM equation (\[2.6\]) there corresponds a pseudo-holomorphic structure on the vector bundle ${{\cal E}}$ over $X^6$. In the case of integrable almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}$ the first equation in (\[2.6\]) defines a holomorphic structure on ${{\cal E}}$ and the second equation in (\[2.6\]) is the requirement of (semi)stability of the bundle ${{\cal E}}$ [@Don; @UY]. Thus, for complex manifolds the HYM connections ${{\cal A}}$ (solutions to (\[2.6\])) describe (semi)stable holomorphic bundles ${{\cal E}}$. It would be interesting to generalize the notion of stability to pseudo-holomorphic bundles ${{\cal E}}$ and to learn whether the second equation in (\[2.6\]) is also equivalent to an expected stability of ${{\cal E}}$.
Twistor correspondence and pseudo-holomorphic bundles
=====================================================
[**Twistor space of $M^4$**]{}. Let us consider an oriented real four-manifold[^2] with a Riemannian metric $g$ and the principal bundle $P(M^4, SO(4))$ of orthonormal frames over $M^4$. The twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ of $M^4$ can be defined as an associated bundle [@AHS] $$\label{3.1}
{{\cal T}}(M^4) = P\times_{SO(4)} SO(4)/U(2)$$ with the canonical projection $$\label{3.2}
\pi : {{\cal T}}(M^4) \to M^4\ .$$ The fibres of this bundle are two-spheres $S^2_x\cong\,$SO(4)/U(2) which parametrize almost complex structures on the tangent spaces $T_x M^4$. As a real manifold, ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ has dimension six.
Another (equivalent) definition of ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ is obtained by considering the vector bundle $\La^2T^*M^4$ of two-forms on $M^4$. Using the Hodge operator (\[2.2\]), one can split $\La^2T^*M^4$ into the direct sum $\La^2T^*M^4=\La_+^2T^*M^4\oplus \La_-^2T^*M^4$ of the subbundles of self-dual and anti-self-dual two-forms on $M^4$. Then the twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ of $M^4$ can be defined as the unit sphere bundle $$\label{3.3}
{{\cal T}}(M^4)= S_1(\La_+^2T^*M^4)$$ in the vector bundle $\La_+^2T^*M^4$.
Note that while a manifold $M^4$ admits in general no almost complex structure, its twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ can always be equipped with two natural almost complex structures. The first, ${{\cal J}}={{\cal J}}_+$, introduced in [@AHS], is integrable if and only if the Weyl tensor of $g$ on $M^4$ is anti-self-dual, while the second ${{\cal J}}={{\cal J}}_-$, introduced in [@ES], is never integrable. In fact, ${{\cal J}}_+$ and ${{\cal J}}_-$ differ only on $S^2_x\cong{\mathbb C}P^1\hra{{\cal T}}(M^4)$ (${{\cal J}}_+|_{{\mathbb C}P^1}
= -{{\cal J}}_-|_{{\mathbb C}P^1}$) and coincide on $T_xM^4$. Twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ with an almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}$ can be considered as a particular case of almost complex manifolds $X^6$ discussed in section 2 in the context of the pseudo-holomorphic bundles and the HYM equations.
[**Pull-back of complex vector bundles from $M^4$ to ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$**]{}. Let $E$ be a rank $k$ complex vector bundle over $M^4$ and $A$ a connection one-form (gauge potential) on $E$ with the curvature $F=\diff A+A\wedge A$ (gauge field). Suppose that the gauge field $F$ satisfies the ASDYM equations (\[2.7\]). Bundles $E$ with such a connection $A$ are called anti-self-dual [@AHS]. Using the projection (\[3.2\]), we pull $E$ back to a bundle $\hat E:=\pi^*E$ over ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$. In accordance with the definition of a pull-back, the connection ${\hat{A}}:=\pi^* A$ on $\hat E$ is flat along the fibres ${\mathbb C}P^1_x$ of the bundle (\[3.2\]) and we can set the components of ${\hat{A}}$ along the fibres equal to zero. Thus, restrictions of the smooth vector bundle $\hat E$ to fibres ${\mathbb C}P^1_x$ of projection $\pi$ are holomorphically trivial for each $x\in M^4$.
It was shown in [@AHS] that if the Weyl tensor of $(M^4, g)$ is anti-self-dual then the almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}={{\cal J}}_+$ on the twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ is integrable and ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ inherits the structure of a complex analytic 3-manifold. Furthermore, it was proven that an anti-self-dual bundle $E$ over anti-self-dual $M^4$ lifts to a holomorphic bundle $\hat E$ over complex ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ defined by the equation ${\hat{F}}^{0,2}=0$, where ${\hat{F}}:=\pi^*F$ is the pull-back to $\hat E$ of an anti-self-dual (ASD) gauge field $F$ on $E$. In [@AHS] it was also mentioned in a remark that one can introduce a Hermitian metric on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ such that ${\hat{F}}$ will be orthogonal to the Hermitian form. However, the HYM equations were introduced later [@Don; @UY] in a different context.
[**Generalized twistor correspondence**]{}. The essence of the canonical twistor approach is to establish a correspondence between four-dimensional space-time $M^4$ and [*complex*]{} twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ of $M^4$. Using this correspondence, one transfers data given on $M^4$ to data on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ and vice versa. In twistor theory one considers [*holomorphic*]{} objects $h$ on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ (Čech cohomology classes, holomorphic vector bundles etc.) and transforms them to objects $f$ on $M^4$ which are constrained by some differential equations [@Penrose; @Ward77; @AHS; @Wells]. Thus, the main idea of twistor theory is to encode solutions of some differential equations on $M^4$ in holomorphic data on the complex twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ of $M^4$. In particular, solutions of the ASDYM equations on manifolds $M^4$ with the ASD Weyl tensor correspond to holomorphic vector bundles $\hat E$ over ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$. However, in Donaldson theory [@DK] one considers the ASDYM equations on manifolds $M^4$ whose Weyl tensor is not restricted and it is desirable to have a twistor description of this generic case.[^3].
In [@Popov] it has been shown that the vortex equations on a compact Riemann surface $\Sigma$ are equivalent to the ASDYM equations on $\Sigma\times{\mathbb C}P^1$ and to the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations on the twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ of $M^4=\Sigma\times{\mathbb C}P^1$. In the general case, the manifold $M^4$ is not anti-self-dual and an almost complex structure on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ is not integrable.[^4] Here, we show that this generalized twistor correspondence holds for the case of an arbitrary oriented 4-manifold $M^4$. Namely, we describe a correspondence between Hermitian vector bundles $E$ with ASD connections $A$ on an oriented 4-manifold $M^4$ and pseudo-holomorphic vector bundles $\hat E$ over an almost complex twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$.
[**Almost complex structure on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$**]{}. We fix an open subset[^5] ${{\cal U}}$ of $M^4$ with coordinates $\{x^{\m}\}$, $\m =1,...,4$, and an open subset $U={\mathbb C}P^1\setminus\{\infty\}$ of ${\mathbb C}P^1$ with a local complex coordinate $\zeta$. Then ${{\cal U}}\times U$ is an open subset of ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$. Note that over ${{\cal U}}$ there exists a section $J=(J^\n_\m )$ of the bundle (\[3.2\]) (a local almost complex structure) and this allows to introduce forms of type $(p,q)$ w.r.t. $J$. Globally such an almost complex structure $J$ on $M^4$ may not exist but this is not necessary for all twistor constructions.
Let $\{\vt^\m\}$ represents some orthonormal coframe on ${{\cal U}}\subset M^4$, i.e. $\diff s^2=\de_{\m\n}\vt^\m\vt^\n$. Using the canonical form of a local almost complex structure $J$, we introduce forms $$\label{3.4}
\th^1:=\vt^1+\im\vt^2\ ,\quad\th^2:=\vt^3+\im\vt^4\ ,\quad\th^{\1}:=\vt^1-
\im\vt^2\und\th^{\2}:=\vt^3-\im\vt^4\ ,$$ which provide a local basis of orthonormal (1,0)-forms w.r.t. $J$. Then one can introduce forms $$\label{3.5}
\o^1:=\frac{1}{(1{+}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})^\frac{1}{2}}(\th^1{-}\zeta\th^{\2})\ ,
\quad
\o^2:=\frac{1}{(1{+}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})^\frac{1}{2}}(\th^2{+}\zeta\th^{\1})
\and
\o^3:=\frac{1}{1{+}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}}}(\diff\zeta{-}\Gamma_+^iL_i^\zeta)\ ,$$ which may serve as the definition of an almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}$ on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ such that $$\label{3.6}
{{\cal J}}\,\o^i =\im\,\o^i\quad{\rm for}\quad i=1,2,3\ .$$ Here $\Gamma_+=(\Gamma_+^i)$ is the self-dual part of the Levi-Civita connection on $M^4$ and $L_i^{\zeta}$ are holomorphic components of vector fields $L_i=L_i^{\zeta}\pa_{\zeta}{+}L_i^{{\bar{\zeta}}}\pa_{{\bar{\zeta}}}$ on fibres ${\mathbb C}P^1_x\hra {{\cal T}}(M^4)$ which give a realization of the generators of the group SU(2) acting on ${\mathbb C}P^1{=}$SU(2)/U(1). One can take e.g. $L_1-\im L_2=-2\im$, $L_1+\im L_2=-2\im\zeta^2$ and $L_3=-2\im\zeta$. Note that the forms (\[3.5\]) extend to a basis of globally defined forms on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ of type (1,0) w.r.t. ${{\cal J}}$. That is why our discussion does not depend on the choice of local coordinates, forms etc.
[**From ASDYM on $M^4$ to HYM on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$**]{}. For the curvature $F=\diff A + A\wedge A$ of the vector bundle $E\to M^4$ we have $$\label{3.7}
F=\sfrac{1}{2}\,(F+*F) + \sfrac{1}{2}\,(F-*F)=:F^++F^-\ ,$$ where in the basis (\[3.4\]) of local forms $$\label{3.8}
F^+=\sfrac{1}{2}\,(F_{1\1}+F_{2\2})(\th^{1\1}+\th^{2\2})+F_{12}\th^{12}
+F_{\1\2}\th^{\1\2}\ ,$$ $$\label{3.9}
F^-=\sfrac{1}{2}\,(F_{1\1}-F_{2\2})(\th^{1\1}-\th^{2\2})+F_{1\2}\th^{1\2}
+F_{2\1}\th^{2\1}\ ,$$ with $\th^{1\1}:=\th^{1}\wedge\th^{\1},\ \th^{12}:=\th^{1}\wedge\th^{2}$ etc. Here $F^+$ and $F^-$ are self-dual and anti-self-dual parts of the curvature $F$, respectively.
For the pull-back ${\hat{F}}^{\pm}:=\pi^*F^{\pm}$ of the two-forms (\[3.8\]) and (\[3.9\]) on $M^4$ to ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ we obtain $$\label{3.10}
{\hat{F}}^+=\sfrac{1}{2}\,({\hat{F}}_{1\1}+{\hat{F}}_{2\2})(\o^{1\1}+\o^{2\2})+
{\hat{F}}_{12}\o^{12}+{\hat{F}}_{\1\2}\o^{\1\2}\ ,$$ $$\label{3.11}
{\hat{F}}^-=\sfrac{1}{2}\,({\hat{F}}_{1\1}-{\hat{F}}_{2\2})(\o^{1\1}-\o^{2\2})+
{\hat{F}}_{1\2}\o^{1\2}+{\hat{F}}_{2\1}\o^{2\1}\ ,$$ where $\o^{1\1}:=\o^{1}\wedge\o^{\1},\ \o^{12}:=\o^{1}\wedge\o^{2}$ etc. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\o^{12}=\frac{1}{1{+}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}}}\,[\th^{12}+\zeta (\th^{1\1}+\th^{2\2})
+\zeta^2\th^{\1\2}]\ ,\quad \o^{1\2}=\th^{1\2}\ ,\nonumber\\
\o^{\1\2}=\frac{1}{1{+}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}}}\,[\th^{\1\2}-{\bar{\zeta}}(\th^{1\1}+\th^{2\2})
+{\bar{\zeta}}^2\th^{12}]\ ,\quad \o^{2\1}=\th^{2\1}\ ,\nonumber\\
\o^{1\1}{+}\o^{2\2}=\frac{1}{1{+}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}}}\,[(1{-}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})
(\th^{1\1}{+}\th^{2\2}){+}2\zeta\th^{\1\2}{-}2{\bar{\zeta}}\th^{12}]\ ,\quad
\o^{1\1}{-}\o^{2\2}=\th^{1\1}{-}\th^{2\2}\ ,\label{3.12}\end{aligned}$$ as one can easily derive from (\[3.5\]). Also we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\hat{F}}_{12}=\frac{1}{1{+}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}}}\,[F_{12}+{\bar{\zeta}}(F_{1\1}+F_{2\2})
+{\bar{\zeta}}^2F_{\1\2}]\ ,\quad {\hat{F}}_{1\2}=F_{1\2}\ ,\nonumber\\
{\hat{F}}_{\1\2}=\frac{1}{1{+}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}}}\,[F_{\1\2}-\zeta (F_{1\1}+F_{2\2})
+\zeta^2F_{12}]\ ,\quad {\hat{F}}_{2\1}=F_{2\1}\ ,\nonumber\\
{\hat{F}}_{1\1}{+}{\hat{F}}_{2\2}=\frac{1}{1{+}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}}}\,[(1{-}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})
(F_{1\1}{+}F_{2\2}){-}2\zeta F_{12}{+}2{\bar{\zeta}}F_{\1\2}]\ ,\quad
{\hat{F}}_{1\1}{-}{\hat{F}}_{2\2}=F_{1\1}{-}F_{2\2}\ ,\label{3.13}\end{aligned}$$ and by construction $$\label{3.14}
{\hat{F}}_{i\3}={\hat{F}}_{i3}=0\und\rm{h.c.}$$ for $i=1,2,3$.
Using (\[3.5\]), we can introduce on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ an almost Hermitian form $$\label{3.15}
\o =\sfrac{\im}{2}\,\left(\o^1\wedge\o^{\1}+\o^2\wedge\o^{\2}+
\ve\o^3\wedge\o^{\3}\right)\ ,$$ where $\ve=\pm 1$.[^6] Then for ${\hat{F}}={\hat{F}}^-$ from (\[3.11\]) it follows that $$\label{3.16}
{\hat{F}}^{0,2}=0$$ and $$\label{3.17}
\o\,\lrc\,{\hat{F}}=0\ .$$ Thus, anti-self-dual gauge fields $F=F^-$ on the vector bundle $E\to M^4$ are pulled back to the gauge fields ${\hat{F}}$ on the vector bundle $\hat E$ over the twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ which satisfy the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations (\[3.16\]), (\[3.17\]) on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ without demanding integrability of an almost complex structure (\[3.6\]). In its turn, such gauge fields ${\hat{F}}$ define a pseudo-holomorphic structure on the vector bundle $\hat E$ which is holomorphically trivial on ${\mathbb C}P^1_x\hra
{{\cal T}}(M^4)$ for each $x\in M^4$. Conversely, any such pseudo-holomorphic bundle $\hat E\to{{\cal T}}(M^4)$ corresponds to a solution $A$ of the ASDYM equations on $M^4$.
Kähler geometry on twistor spaces of $S^4$ and $B_4$
====================================================
Here, as $M^4$ we consider the four-sphere $S^4$ with a metric $g$ of constant positive curvature and the open four-ball $B_4$ with a metric $g$ of constant negative curvature. In the next section 5 we shall consider the projective plane ${\mathbb C}P^2$ with the Fubini-Study metric and the complex two-ball ${\mathbb C}B_2$ with the metric of constant negative holomorphic sectional curvature. All these spaces $M^4$ are homogeneous manifolds (coset spaces) as well as their twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$. Although the geometry of these spaces is well-known, we describe it here by using local coordinates for fixing our notation. We also need this for self-consistency and further applications.
[**Manifolds $S^4$ and $B_4$ as coset spaces**]{}. Let us consider the group Sp(2) as a subgroup of SU(4) and the group Sp(1,1) as a subgroup of SU(2,2) defined as 4$\times$4 matrices $Q$ such that $$\label{4.1}
Q^\+\eta\,Q = Q\eta\, Q^\+=\eta{{\qquad{\rm with}\qquad}}\eta =\rm{diag}({\bf 1}_2, \ve{\bf 1}_2)\ ,$$ where $\ve =1$ for Sp(2)$\,\subset\,$SU(4) and $\ve =-1$ for Sp(1,1)$\,\subset\,$SU(2,2). We consider $S^4$ and $B_4$ as coset spaces $$\label{4.2}
S^4={\rm Sp}(2)/{\rm Sp}(1)\times {\rm Sp}(1)\und
B_4={\rm Sp}(1,1)/{\rm Sp}(1)\times {\rm Sp}(1)$$ of positive and negative scalar curvature, respectively. Then one can consider Sp(2) fibred over $S^4$ and Sp(1,1) fibred over $B_4$ as principal bundles $$\label{4.3}
{\rm Sp}(2)\to S^4\und
{\rm Sp}(1,1)\to B_4\ ,$$ both with the structure group Sp(1)$\times$Sp(1).
Let us consider local sections of the fibrations (\[4.3\]) which are given by 4$\times$4 matrices $$\label{4.4}
Q:= f^{-\frac{1}{2}}\begin{pmatrix}{\bf 1}_2 &-\ve x\\x^\+ &
{\bf 1}_2\end{pmatrix}
\und
Q^{-1} = \eta Q^\+\eta =f^{-\frac{1}{2}}\begin{pmatrix}{\bf 1}_2 &\ve x\\
-x^\+ & {\bf 1}_2\end{pmatrix}\ ,$$ where $$\label{4.5}
x=x^\m\tau_\m\ ,\quad x^\+=x^\m\tau_\m^\+\ ,\quad
f:=1+\ve\,x^\+ x= 1+\ve\,r^2=1+\ve\de_{\m\n}x^\m x^\n\ ,$$ and matrices $$\label{4.6}
(\tau_\m )= (-\im\s_i, {\bf 1}_2)\und
(\tau_\m^\+ )= (\im\s_i, {\bf 1}_2)$$ obey $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\tau_\m^\+ \tau_\n = \de_{\m\n}\cdot {\bf 1}_2 +
\eta_{\m\n}^i\,\im\,\s_i=:
\de_{\m\n}\cdot {\bf 1}_2 + \eta_{\m\n}\ ,\quad
\{\eta_{\m\n}^i\}=\{\ve^i_{jk}, \m{=}j, \n{=}k; \ \de_j^i,
\m{=}j, \n{=}4\}\ ,\\ \label{4.7}
\tau_\m\tau_\n^\+ = \de_{\m\n}\cdot {\bf 1}_2 + \bar\eta_{\m\n}^i\,
\im\,\s_i=: \de_{\m\n}\cdot {\bf 1}_2 + \bar\eta_{\m\n}\ ,\quad
\{\bar\eta_{\m\n}^i\}=\{\ve^i_{jk}, \m{=}j, \n{=}k; \ -\de_j^i,
\m{=}j, \n{=}4\}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Here $\{x^\m\}$ are local coordinates on ${{\cal U}}\subset S^4$ or $B_4$. Note that we will consistently combine formulae for both these spaces with the help of $\ve =\pm 1$. Matrices (\[4.4\]) are representative elements for cosets (\[4.2\]) encoding information about their differential geometry.
[**(Anti-)self-dual gauge fields**]{}. For $M^4=S^4$ or $B_4$, let us consider a flat connection ${{\cal A}}$ on the trivial vector bundle $M^4\times{\mathbb C}^4\to M^4$ given by the one-form $$\label{4.8}
{{\cal A}}= Q^{-1}\diff Q =:
\begin{pmatrix}A^- &-\ve\p\\ \p^\+ & A^+\end{pmatrix} \ ,$$ where from (\[4.4\]) we obtain $$\label{4.9}
A^-= \sfrac{\ve}{f}\bar\h_{\m\n}x^\m\diff x^\n =:
\begin{pmatrix}\a_- &-\bar\b_-\\ \b_- & -\a_-\end{pmatrix}\in su(2) \ ,$$ $$\label{4.10}
A^+= \sfrac{\ve}{f}\h_{\m\n}x^\m\diff x^\n =:
\begin{pmatrix}\a_+ &-\bar\b_+\\ \b_+ & -\a_+\end{pmatrix}\in su(2) \ ,$$ $$\label{4.11}
\p = \frac{1}{f}\diff x = -\frac{\im}{f}
\begin{pmatrix}\diff x^3{+}\im\diff x^4& \diff x^1{-}\im\diff x^2\\
\diff x^1{+}\im\diff x^2& -(\diff x^3{-}\im\diff x^4)\end{pmatrix}
=-\frac{\im}{f}\begin{pmatrix}\diff z&\diff\bar y\\ \diff y&-\diff\bar z
\end{pmatrix}=:-\frac{\im}{2\Lambda}\begin{pmatrix}\th^2&\th^{\1}\\
\th^1&-\th^{\2}\end{pmatrix}\ ,$$ with $$\label{4.12}
\a_-= \sfrac{\ve}{2f}({\bar{y}}\,\diff y + {\bar{z}}\,\diff z - y\,\diff {\bar{y}}-
z\,\diff {\bar{z}})\ ,\quad \b_-= \sfrac{\ve}{f}(y\,\diff z -z \,\diff y)\ ,$$ $$\label{4.13}
\a_+= \sfrac{\ve}{2f}({\bar{y}}\,\diff y + z\,\diff {\bar{z}}- y\,\diff {\bar{y}}-
{\bar{z}}\,\diff z)\ ,\quad \b_+= \sfrac{\ve}{f}(y\,\diff {\bar{z}}-{\bar{z}}\,\diff y)\ ,$$ $$\label{4.14}
\th^1:=\frac{2\La\diff y}{1+\ve r^2}\ ,\quad
\th^2:=\frac{2\La\diff z}{1+\ve r^2}\und
\th^{\1}:=\frac{2\La\diff {\bar{y}}}{1+\ve r^2}\ ,\quad
\th^{\2}:=\frac{2\La\diff {\bar{z}}}{1+\ve r^2}\ .$$ Here, the bar denotes complex conjugation. Note that the real parameter $\La$ can be identified with the “radius” of $M^4=S^4$ or $B_4$.
The connection (\[4.8\]) is flat, i.e. $$\label{4.15}
{{\cal F}}= \diff{{\cal A}}+ {{\cal A}}\wedge{{\cal A}}= \begin{pmatrix}
F^--\ve\,\p\wedge\p^\+&-\ve (\diff\p + \p\wedge A^+ + A^-\wedge\p)\\
\diff\p^\+ + A^+\wedge\p^\+ + \p^\+\wedge A^-& F^+-\ve\,\p^\+\wedge\p
\end{pmatrix} =0\ ,$$ where $F^\pm = \diff A^\pm + A^\pm\wedge A^\pm$. From (\[4.15\]) we get $$\label{4.16}
F^- = \ve\,\p\wedge\p^\+ = - \frac{\ve}{4\La^2}
\begin{pmatrix} \th^1\wedge\th^{\1} - \th^2\wedge\th^{\2}& 2\th^{\1}
\wedge\th^2\\
-2\th^1\wedge\th^{\2}&-\th^1\wedge\th^{\1} + \th^2\wedge\th^{\2}
\end{pmatrix}\ ,$$ $$\label{4.17}
F^+ = \ve\,\p^\+\wedge\p = - \frac{\ve}{4\La^2}
\begin{pmatrix} \th^1\wedge\th^{\1} + \th^2\wedge\th^{\2}&
2\th^{\1}\wedge\th^{\2}\\
-2\th^1\wedge\th^{2}&-\th^1\wedge\th^{\1} - \th^2\wedge\th^{\2}
\end{pmatrix}\ .$$ One can easily see that $*F^{\pm}=\pm F^{\pm}$, i.e. $F^+$ and $F^-$ are self-dual (SD) and anti-self-dual (ASD) gauge fields on a rank-2 complex vector bundle $E\to M^4$, respectively. They can be identified with SD and ASD parts of the Riemann tensor of the metric $\diff s^2=\th^1\th^{\1}+ \th^2\th^{\2}$.
[**Twistor manifolds of $S^4$ and $B_4$ as coset spaces**]{}. Let us consider the Hopf bundle $$\label{4.18}
S^3\to S^2$$ over the Riemann sphere $S^2\cong{\mathbb C}P^1$ and the one-monopole connection $a$ on the bundle (\[4.18\]) having in the local coordinate $\zeta\in{\mathbb C}P^1$ the form $$\label{4.19}
a=\frac{1}{2(1+\zeta\bar\zeta)}\, (\bar\zeta\,\diff\zeta -\zeta\,
\diff\bar\zeta)\ .$$ Consider a local section of the bundle (\[4.18\]) given by the matrix $$\label{4.20}
g=\frac{1}{(1+\zeta\bar\zeta)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\,
\begin{pmatrix}1&-\bar\zeta\\ \zeta & 1\end{pmatrix}
\in {\rm SU}(2)\cong S^3$$ and introduce the $su(2)$-valued one-form (flat connection) $$\label{4.21}
g^{-1}\diff g=:
\begin{pmatrix}a&-\frac{1}{2R}\th^{\3}\\
\frac{1}{2R}\th^{3} & -a\end{pmatrix}\ ,$$ where $$\label{4.22}
\th^3=\frac{2R\diff\zeta}{1+\zeta\bar\zeta}\und
\th^{\3}=\frac{2R\diff\bar\zeta}{1+\zeta\bar\zeta}$$ are the forms of type (1,0) and (0,1) on ${\mathbb C}P^1$, $a$ is the one-monopole gauge potential (\[4.19\]) and $R$ is the radius of the Riemann sphere ${\mathbb C}P^1$ with the metric $$\label{4.23}
\diff s^2_{{\mathbb C}P^1}=\th^3\th^{\3}=
\frac{4R^2\diff\zeta\,\diff\bar\zeta}{(1+\zeta\bar\zeta)^2}\ .$$ The Kähler form on ${\mathbb C}P^1$ is $$\label{4.24}
\o_{{\mathbb C}P^1}=\sfrac{\im}{2}\,\th^3\wedge\th^{\3}\ .$$
Let us introduce 4$\times$4 matrices $$\label{4.25}
G=\begin{pmatrix}{\bf 1}_2&0\\0&g\end{pmatrix}\und\hat Q=QG\in
\left\{\begin{array}{l}{\rm Sp}(2)\subset{\rm SU}(4)
\quad {\rm for}\quad \ve =1\\
{\rm Sp}(1,1)\subset{\rm SU}(2,2)
\quad {\rm for}\quad \ve =-1\end{array}\right.$$ where $Q$ and $g$ are given in (\[4.4\]) and (\[4.20\]). The matrix $\hat Q$ is a local section of the bundle $$\label{4.26}
{\rm Sp}(2) \to {\rm Sp}(2)/{\rm Sp}(1){\times}{\rm U}(1)
=:{{\cal T}}(S^4)$$ or $$\label{4.27}
{\rm Sp}(1,1) \to {\rm Sp}(1,1)/{\rm Sp}(1){\times}{\rm U}(1)
=:{{\cal T}}(B_4)\ ,$$ depending on the choice $\ve =1$ or $\ve =-1$. In (\[4.26\]) and (\[4.27\]) the twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$ and ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$ appear as coset spaces and the matrices $\hat Q(\ve=\pm 1)$ from (\[4.25\]) are representatives for the cosets ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$ and ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$ which both are fibred, $$\label{4.28}
\pi :\quad {{\cal T}}(M^4) \to M^4\ ,$$ over $M^4=S^4$ or $B_4$ with ${\mathbb C}P^1=\,$SU(2)/U(1) as a typical fibre.
[**Kähler structure on twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$ and ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$**]{}. Let us consider a trivial complex vector bundle ${{\cal T}}(M^4){\times}{\mathbb C}^4$ with the flat connection $$\label{4.29}
\hat{{\cal A}}={\hat{Q}}^{-1}\diff{\hat{Q}}=G^{-1}{{\cal A}}G + G^{-1}\diff G =:
\begin{pmatrix} {\hat{A}}^-&-\ve\hat\p\\ \hat\p^\+ & {\hat{A}}^+\end{pmatrix}\ ,$$ where $$\label{4.30}
\hat\p = \p g=:-\frac{\im}{2\La}\begin{pmatrix}\o^2&\o^{\1}\\
\o^1& -\o^{\2}\end{pmatrix}\ ,\quad
{\hat{A}}^-=A^-=\begin{pmatrix}\a_-&-{\bar{\beta}}_-\\
\b_-& -\a_-\end{pmatrix}\ ,\quad
{\hat{A}}^+=:\begin{pmatrix}\hat\a_+&-\frac{1}{2R}\,\o^{\3}\\
\frac{1}{2R}\,\o^{3}& -\hat\a_+\end{pmatrix}\ ,$$ with $\a_-$, $\b_-$ given in (\[4.12\]) and $$\label{4.31}
\hat\a_+:=\frac{1}{1+\zeta{\bar{\zeta}}}\left\{(1-\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})\,\a_+ + {\bar{\zeta}}\b_+
-\zeta{\bar{\beta}}_+ +\frac{1}{2}({\bar{\zeta}}\diff\zeta - \zeta\diff{\bar{\zeta}})\right\}\ ,$$ $$\label{4.32}
\o^1:=\frac{1}{(1+\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})^{\frac{1}{2}}}\, (\th^1-\zeta\th^{\2})\ ,
\quad
\o^2:=\frac{1}{(1+\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})^{\frac{1}{2}}}\, (\th^2+\zeta\th^{\1})\ ,$$ $$\label{4.33}
\o^3:=\frac{2R}{(1+\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})^{\frac{1}{2}}}\, (\diff\zeta +\b_+ -
2\zeta\a_+ +\zeta^2{\bar{\beta}}_+)\ .$$ Note that forms (\[4.32\]) and (\[4.33\]) define on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ an integrable almost complex structure [@AHS] ${{\cal J}}={{\cal J}}_+$ such that $$\label{4.34}
{{\cal J}}\,\o^i = \im\,\o^i$$ with $i=1,2,3$. In other words, $\o^i$’s are (1,0)-forms w.r.t. ${{\cal J}}$.
From flatness of the connection (\[4.29\]), $\diff\hat{{\cal A}}+
\hat{{\cal A}}\wedge\hat{{\cal A}}=0$, we obtain the equations $$\label{4.35}
\diff\begin{pmatrix}\o^1\\ \o^2\\ \o^3\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}\hat\a_++\a_-&-\b_-&\sfrac{1}{2R}\o^{\2}\\
{\bar{\beta}}_-&\hat\a_+-\a_-&-\sfrac{1}{2R}\o^{\1}\\
-\sfrac{\ve R}{2\La^2}\,\o^2& \sfrac{\ve R}{2\La^2}\,\o^1& 2\hat\a_+
\end{pmatrix}\wedge\begin{pmatrix}\o^1\\ \o^2\\ \o^3\end{pmatrix}$$ defining the connection on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ with $M^4=S^4$ or $B_4$. For both cases the metric on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ has the form $$\label{4.36}
\diff s^2_{\ve} = \o^1\o^{\1} +\o^2\o^{\2} + \ve\o^3\o^{\3}$$ and the almost Kähler 2-form $\o$ reads[^7] $$\label{4.37}
\o_{\ve} = \sfrac{\im}{2}\,(\o^1\wedge\o^{\1} +\o^2\wedge\o^{\2} +
\ve\o^3\wedge\o^{\3})$$ From (\[4.35\]) one obtains that the 2-form (\[4.37\]) is Kähler, i.e. $\diff\o_{\ve}=0$, if and only if $R^2=\La^2$. In this case (\[4.35\]) defines for $\ve =1$ the Levi-Civita connection with U(3) holonomy group on ${{\cal T}}(S^4)=\,$Sp(2)/Sp(1)$\times$U(1) $\cong$ SU(4)/U(3) $\cong {\mathbb C}P^3$ [@Hitchin]. Similarly, for $\ve =-1$ the structure equations (\[4.35\]) define on ${{\cal T}}(B_4)=\,$Sp(1,1)/Sp(1)$\times$U(1) the Levi-Civita connection for the metric (\[4.36\]) with the holonomy group U(2,1).
Kähler geometry on twistor spaces of ${\mathbb C}P^2$ and ${\mathbb C}B_2$
==========================================================================
[**Manifolds ${\mathbb C}P^2$ and ${\mathbb C}B_2$ as coset spaces**]{}. We introduce ${\mathbb C}P^2$ and ${\mathbb C}B_2$ as coset spaces $$\label{5.1}
{\mathbb C}P^2 = {\rm SU(3)/S(U(1)}{\times}{\rm U(2))}\und
{\mathbb C}B_2 = {\rm SU(1,2)/S(U(1)}{\times}{\rm U(2))}$$ and denote both of them as $M^4\cong {\mathbb C}P^2$ or ${\mathbb C}B_2$ with local complex coordinates $y^{\a}$, $\a =1,2$. Consider now the principal bundles $$\label{5.2}
{\rm SU(3)}\to{\mathbb C}P^2$$ and $$\label{5.3}
{\rm SU(1,2)}\to{\mathbb C}B_2\ ,$$ both having the structure group S(U(1)${\times}$U(2))$\cong$U(1)${\times}$SU(2). Local sections of the fibrations (\[5.2\]) and (\[5.3\]) are given by 3${\times}$3 matrices $$\label{5.4}
V=\g^{-1}\begin{pmatrix}1&-\ve T^{\+}\\T&W\end{pmatrix}\in
\left\{\begin{array}{l}{\rm SU}(3)\quad {\rm for}\quad \ve =1\\
{\rm SU}(1,2)\quad {\rm for}\quad \ve =-1\end{array}\right.$$ where $$\label{5.5}
T:=\begin{pmatrix}{\bar{y}}^{\2}\\y^1\end{pmatrix} ,\quad
W:=\g\cdot{\bf 1}_2 - \frac{\ve}{\g +1}\, TT^{\+}\und
\g = (1+\ve T^{\+}T)^{\sfrac{1}{2}}=(1+\ve y^{\a}{\bar{y}}^{{\bar{\alpha}}})^{\sfrac{1}{2}}>0$$ obey $$\label{5.6}
W^{\+}=W\ ,\quad WT=T\und W^2=\g^2\cdot{\bf 1}_2-\ve TT^{\+}$$ and therefore $$\label{5.7}
V^{\+}\eta\,V=V\,\eta\,V^{\+}=\eta{{\qquad{\rm with}\qquad}}\eta = {\rm diag} (1, \ve , \ve )\ .$$ Matrices (\[5.4\]) with $\ve=\pm 1$ are representative elements for cosets (\[5.2\]) and (\[5.3\]) encoding information about their geometry.
[**(Anti-)self-dual gauge fields on ${\mathbb C}P^2$ and ${\mathbb C}B_2$**]{}. Let us introduce a flat connection on the trivial vector bundle $M^4{\times}{\mathbb C}^4$ given by the formula $$\label{5.8}
{{\cal A}}= V^{-1}\diff V =: \begin{pmatrix}2b&-\sfrac{\ve}{2\La}\, \th^{\+}\\
\sfrac{1}{2\La} \th&B\end{pmatrix}$$ with $b\in u(1)$ and $B\in u(2)$ on $M^4\cong {\mathbb C}P^2$ or ${\mathbb C}B_2$, where from (\[4.4\]) we obtain $$\label{5.9}
b=\frac{\ve}{4\g^2}(T^{\+}\diff T - \diff T^{\+} T)\und
B=\frac{1}{\g^2}(W\diff W -T\diff T^{\+}- \frac{\ve}{2}\diff T^{\+}T -
\frac{\ve}{2}\,T^{\+}\diff T )\ ,$$ $$\label{5.10}
\th=\frac{2\La}{\g^2}\, W\,\diff T= \begin{pmatrix}\th^{\2}\\
\th^1\end{pmatrix}=\frac{2\La}{\g}\,
\begin{pmatrix}\diff{\bar{y}}^{\2}\\ \diff y^1\end{pmatrix}-
\frac{2\ve\La}{\g^2(\g +1)}\, \begin{pmatrix}{\bar{y}}^{\2}\\
y^1\end{pmatrix}({\bar{y}}^{\1}\diff y^{1} + y^2\diff{\bar{y}}^{\2})\ .$$ Here, $\th^1$ and $\th^2$ are local orthonormal basis of (1,0)-forms on ${\mathbb C}P^2$ for $\ve =1$ and ${\mathbb C}B_2$ for $\ve =-1$. The real parameter $\La$ characterizes “size” of these cosets.
The flatness condition, $\diff{{\cal A}}+ {{\cal A}}\wedge{{\cal A}}=0$, leads to the following component equations $$\label{5.11}
f^-:=\diff b=\frac{\ve}{8\La^2}\th^{\+}\wedge\th = -\frac{\ve}{8\La^2}
(\th^{1}\wedge\th^{\1}-\th^{2}\wedge\th^{\2})\ ,$$ $$\label{5.12}
B:= B^{+} - b\cdot{\bf 1}_2=\begin{pmatrix}a_+&-\bar b_+\\
b_+&-a_+\end{pmatrix} - b\cdot{\bf 1}_2\ ,$$ $$\label{5.13}
F=\diff B + B\wedge B=\frac{\ve}{4\La^2}\,\th\wedge\th^{\+}=
-\frac{\ve}{4\La^2}\,
\begin{pmatrix}\th^2\wedge\th^{\2}&\th^{\1}\wedge\th^{\2}\\
-\th^1\wedge\th^{2}&-\th^{1}\wedge\th^{\1}\end{pmatrix}=:
F^{+}-f^-\cdot{\bf 1}_2\ ,$$ where $$\label{5.14}
F^{+}=\diff B^{+} + B^{+}\wedge B^{+}=-\frac{\ve}{8\La^2}\,
\begin{pmatrix}\th^{1}\wedge\th^{\1}+\th^2\wedge\th^{\2}&2\th^{\1}
\wedge\th^{\2}\\-2\th^1\wedge\th^{2}&-\th^{1}\wedge\th^{\1}
-\th^2\wedge\th^{\2}\end{pmatrix}\ .$$ From (\[5.11\]) and (\[5.14\]) it follows that $*f^-=-f^-$ and $*F^{+}= F^{+}$, i.e. $b$ is an anti-self-dual $u(1)$-connection on a complex line bundle over $M^4$ and $B^{+}$ is a self-dual $su(2)$-connection on a rank-2 complex vector bundle over $M^4\cong{\mathbb C}P^2$ or ${\mathbb C}B_2$. Note that the field $B^{+}-b\cdot{\bf 1}_2$ can be identified with the $u(2)$-valued Levi-Civita connection on $M^4$ and then the curvature $F^{+}$ and $f^-\cdot{\bf 1}_2$ will be the self-dual ($su(2)$-valued) and anti-self-dual ($u(1)$-valued) parts of the Riemannian curvature tensor of the metric $\diff s^2=\th^1\th^{\1}+
\th^2\th^{\2}$ for $\th^{\a}$ given in (\[5.10\]).
[**Homogeneous twistor spaces of ${\mathbb C}P^2$ and ${\mathbb C}B_2$**]{}. Twistor spaces of ${\mathbb C}P^2$ and ${\mathbb C}B_2$ are the following nonsymmetric coset spaces: $$\label{5.15}
{{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2) = {\rm SU(3)/U(1)}{\times}{\rm U(1)}\und
{{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2) = {\rm SU(1,2)/U(1)}{\times}{\rm U(1)}\ .$$ They can be described via representative matrices similar to the twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$ and ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$ discussed before. Namely, we consider again the 2${\times}$2 matrix (\[4.20\]) and 3${\times}$3 matrices $$\label{5.16}
\hat G=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&g\end{pmatrix}\und
\hat V=V\hat G\in\left\{\begin{array}{l}{\rm SU}(3)\quad {\rm for}\quad
\ve =1\\{\rm SU}(1,2)\quad {\rm for}\quad \ve =-1\end{array}\right.$$ for $V$ given in (\[5.4\]). The matrix $\hat V$ defines a local section of the bundle $$\label{5.17}
{\rm SU(3)}\to{{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)\qquad{\rm or}\qquad{\rm SU(1,2)}\to{{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$$ depending on $\ve=\pm 1$. Both fibrations (\[5.17\]) have the group U(1)${\times}$U(1) as a typical fibre. Thus, the matrices (\[5.16\]) represent the twistor coset spaces (\[5.15\]). We again have fibrations (\[4.28\]) but with $M^4\cong{\mathbb C}P^2$ or $M^4\cong{\mathbb C}B_2$.
[**Kähler structure on twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$ and ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$**]{}. Consider a trivial complex vector bundle ${{\cal T}}(M^4)\times{\mathbb C}^4\to{{\cal T}}(M^4)$ with $M^4\cong{\mathbb C}P^2$ or ${\mathbb C}B_2$. A flat connection on this bundle is defined by formula $$\label{5.18}
\hat{{\cal A}}= \hat V^{-1}\diff\hat V =\hat G^{-1}{{\cal A}}\,\hat G +
\hat G^{-1}\diff\hat G =:
\begin{pmatrix}2b&-\sfrac{\ve}{2\La}\,\hat \th^{\+}\\
\sfrac{1}{2\La}\hat\th&\hat B\end{pmatrix} \ ,$$ where $$\label{5.19}
\hat\th = g^{\+}\th =\frac{1}{(1+\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\begin{pmatrix}
\th^{\2}+\bar\zeta\th^1\\ \th^1-\zeta\th^{\2}
\end{pmatrix}
=:
\begin{pmatrix}
\o^{\2}\\ \o^1
\end{pmatrix}\ ,\qquad
\hat\th^{\+}=\th^{\+}g=(\o^2\ \o^{\1})\ ,$$ $$\label{5.20}
\hat B = g^{\+}B\,g +g^{\+}\diff\,g=:
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat a_+& -\sfrac{1}{2R}\o^{\3}\\ \sfrac{1}{2R}\o^{3}&-\hat a_+
\end{pmatrix} -b\cdot{\bf 1}_2$$ with $$\label{5.21}
\hat a_+ =\frac{1}{1+\zeta{\bar{\zeta}}}\,\left\{ (1-\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})a_+ + {\bar{\zeta}}b_+ -
\zeta\bar b_+ + \frac{1}{2}({\bar{\zeta}}\diff\zeta -\zeta\diff{\bar{\zeta}})\right\}\ ,$$ $$\label{5.22}
\o^3 =\frac{2R}{1+\zeta{\bar{\zeta}}}\, \left(\diff\zeta + b_+ -2\zeta a_+ +
\zeta^2\bar b_+\right)\ ,$$ and $b, a_+, b_+$ are given in (\[5.9\])-(\[5.12\]).
From flatness of $\hat{{\cal A}}$ we obtain $$\label{5.23}
\hat{{\cal F}}= \diff\hat {{\cal A}}+\hat{{\cal A}}\wedge\hat{{\cal A}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
2\diff b -\frac{\ve}{4\La^2}\,\hat\th^{\+}\wedge\hat\th&
-\frac{\ve}{2\La}\,(\diff\hat\th^{\+}{+}\hat\th^{\+}\wedge
\hat B{-}2\hat\th^{\+}\wedge b)
\\[2mm]
\frac{1}{2\La}\,(\diff\hat\th{+}\hat B\wedge\hat \th{-}2b\wedge\hat\th)&
\hat F^+ -\diff b\cdot{\bf 1}_2 -\frac{\ve}{4\La^2}\,\hat\th\wedge\hat\th^{\+}
\end{pmatrix} =0$$ and therefore $$\label{5.24}
f^-=\diff b = -\frac{\ve}{8\La^2}\,(\o^1\wedge\o^{\1}-\o^2\wedge\o^{\2})=
-\frac{\ve}{8\La^2}\,(\th^1\wedge\th^{\1}-\th^2\wedge\th^{\2})\ ,$$ $$\label{5.25}
\hat F^+ = -\frac{\ve}{8\La^2}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\o^1\wedge\o^{\1}+\o^2\wedge\o^{\2}& 2\o^{\1}\wedge\o^{\2}\\
-2\o^{1}\wedge\o^{2}&-\o^1\wedge\o^{\1}-\o^2\wedge\o^{\2}
\end{pmatrix}$$ along with $$\label{5.26}
\diff\hat\th + (\hat B - 2b\cdot{\bf 1}_2)\wedge\hat\th =0\ .$$
The metric and an almost Kähler structure on ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$ and ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$ read $$\label{5.27}
\diff s^2 = \o^1\o^{\1} + \o^2\o^{\2} + \ve\o^3\o^{\3}\und
\o = \frac{\im}{2}(\o^1\wedge\o^{\1} + \o^2\wedge\o^{\2} + \ve\o^3\wedge\o^{\3})\ ,$$ where $\o^i$’s are given in (\[5.19\]) and (\[5.22\]). From (\[5.23\])-(\[5.26\]) it follows that $\o$ is Kähler, i.e. $\diff \o =0$, iff $R^2=2\La^2$. Furthermore, from (\[5.23\])-(\[5.26\]) we obtain the structure equations $$\label{5.28}
\diff\begin{pmatrix}\o^1\\ \o^2\\ \o^3\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}\hat a_++3b&0&\sfrac{1}{2R}\o^{\2}\\[1mm]
0&\hat a_+-3b&-\sfrac{1}{2R}\o^{\1}\\[1mm]
-\sfrac{\ve}{2R}\,\o^2& \sfrac{\ve }{2R}\,\o^1& 2\hat a_+
\end{pmatrix}\wedge\begin{pmatrix}\o^1\\ \o^2\\ \o^3\end{pmatrix}$$ which define the Levi-Civita U(3) connection on ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$ and the Levi-Civita U(1,2) connection on ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$.
Nearly Kähler and nearly Calabi-Yau twistor spaces
==================================================
[**Definitions**]{}. Let us consider an oriented 6-dimensional manifold $X^6$ with a Riemannian metric $g$ and an almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}$ (U(3)-structure). We may choose a local orthonormal basis $\{e^a\}$ of $T^*X^6$ with $a=1,...,6$ such that the metric and the fundamental 2-form $\o$ read $$\label{6.1}
\diff s^2 = \de_{ab}e^ae^b\ ,$$ $$\label{6.2}
\o = e^1\wedge e^2 + e^3\wedge e^4 + e^5\wedge e^6$$ and $$\label{6.3}
{{\cal J}}e^1 = -e^2\ ,\quad {{\cal J}}e^3 = -e^4\und {{\cal J}}e^5 = -e^6\ .$$ Then forms $\Theta^i$ of type (1,0) w.r.t. ${{\cal J}}$ read $$\label{6.4}
\Theta^1 = e^1+\im e^2\ ,\quad \Theta^2= e^3 +\im e^4\und
\Theta^3= e^5 +\im e^6\ ,$$ so that $$\label{6.5}
{{\cal J}}\Theta^i = \im \Theta^i$$ and $$\label{6.6}
\diff s^2 = \Theta^1\Theta^{\1} +\Theta^2\Theta^{\2} +\Theta^3\Theta^{\3}
\und
\o = \sfrac{\im}{2}\,(\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^{\1} +\Theta^2\wedge\Theta^{\2}
+\Theta^3\wedge\Theta^{\3})\ .$$
We assume that $c_1(X^6)=0$ and introduce a (3,0)-form $$\label{6.7}
\Omega:=\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^2\wedge\Theta^3={\rm Re}\,\Omega +
\im\, {\rm Im}\,\Omega
= e^{135}{+}e^{425}{+}e^{416}{+}e^{326}+
\im (e^{136}{+}e^{426}{+}e^{145}{+}e^{235})\ .$$ So, our manifold $X^6$ has an SU(3) structure defined by nowhere vanishing forms $\o$ and $\Omega$. Such a manifold is called [*nearly Kähler*]{} if $\o$ and $\Omega$ satisfy $$\label{6.8}
\diff\o = 3c\,{\rm Im}\,\Omega\und\diff\Omega = 2c\,\o\wedge\o$$ with a constant $c\in{\mathbb R}$. A manifold $(X^6, {{\cal J}}, \o , \Omega)$ is called [*nearly Calabi-Yau*]{} manifold [@XuPhD] if $$\label{6.9}
\diff\o =0\und\diff\,{\rm Im}\,\Omega =0\ .$$ For more details see [@CS]-[@XuPhD], [@Bryant], [@BM]-[@But].
In two previous sections we have described Kähler structures on the twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$, ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$, ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$ and ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$ endowed with integrable almost complex structures. In this section we provide these spaces with never integrable almost complex structures and introduce on them nearly Kähler or nearly Calabi-Yau structure.
[**Nearly Kähler structure on ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$**]{}. Consider the almost Kähler twistor space ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$ with the complex structure ${{\cal J}}={{\cal J}}_+$ [@AHS] such that ${{\cal J}}_+\o^i=\im\,\o^i$ with (1,0)-form $\o^i$ given in (\[4.32\]), (\[4.33\]). Let us introduce the forms $$\label{6.10}
\Theta^1:=\o^1\ ,\quad \Theta^2:=\o^2\und\Theta^3:=\o^{\3}\ ,$$ which are forms of type (1,0) w.r.t. an almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}= {{\cal J}}_-$ [@ES], ${{\cal J}}\,\Theta^i = \im\,\Theta^i$, defined in (\[6.5\]). Note that in terms of $\{e^a\}$ we have $$\label{6.11}
{{\cal J}}_{\pm}e^1 = -e^2\ ,\quad {{\cal J}}_{\pm}e^3 = -e^4\und {{\cal J}}_{\pm}e^5 = \pm e^6\ .$$ Here and in the following we consider ${{\cal J}}={{\cal J}}_-$ which is never integrable almost complex structure.
From (\[4.35\]) with $\ve =1$ we get $$\label{6.12}
\diff\begin{pmatrix}\Theta^1\\ \Theta^2\\ \Theta^3\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}\hat \a_++\a_-&-\b_-&0\\
{\bar{\beta}}_-&\hat\a_+-\a_-&0\\
0& 0& -2\hat\a_+
\end{pmatrix}
\wedge
\begin{pmatrix}\Theta^1\\ \Theta^2\\ \Theta^3\end{pmatrix}
+\frac{1}{2R}
\begin{pmatrix}\Theta^{\2}\wedge\Theta^{\3}\\ \Theta^{\3}\wedge\Theta^{\1}
\\ \frac{2R^2}{\La^2} \Theta^{\1}\wedge\Theta^{\2}\end{pmatrix}\ ,$$ where the first term defines the $su(2)\oplus u(1)$ (torsionful) connection and the last term defines the Nijenhuis tensor (torsion) with components $N^i_{{\bar{j}}{\bar{k}}}$ and their complex conjugate. Namely, we have $$\label{6.13}
N^1_{\2\3}=N^2_{\3\1}=\frac{1}{2R}\und N^3_{\1\2}=\frac{R}{\La^2}\ .$$ From (\[6.12\]) it follows that the manifold $({{\cal T}}(S^4), {{\cal J}}, \o ,
\Omega)$ is nearly Kähler, i.e. $\o$ and $\Omega$ from (\[6.6\]) and (\[6.7\]) satisfy the equations (\[6.8\]), if $R^2=\sfrac{1}{2}\La^2$ and $c=\sfrac{1}{2R}$. In this case we have $N^3_{\1\2}=\sfrac{1}{2R}$ and therefore the components $$\label{6.14}
N_{{\bar{i}}{\bar{j}}{\bar{k}}}=\de_{{\bar{i}}l}\,N^l_{{\bar{j}}{\bar{k}}}=\sfrac{1}{2R}\,\ve_{{\bar{i}}{\bar{j}}{\bar{k}}}
\und N_{ijk}=\sfrac{1}{2R}\,\ve_{ijk}$$ are totally antisymmetric. The connection with torsion $T =\sfrac{1}{4}\, N$ has holonomy contained in SU(3). Recall that the (3,0)-form $\Omega$ from (\[6.7\]) is a nowhere vanishing global section of the canonical bundle of ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$ which is a trivial bundle since the first Chern class of ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$ vanishes, $c_1({{\cal T}}(S^4))=0$.
[**Nearly Kähler structure on ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$**]{}. For the manifold ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$ we use the same redefinition (\[6.10\]) but with $\o^i$ given by (\[5.18\])-(\[5.22\]). This endows ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$ with a nonintegrable almost complex structure defined by (\[6.3\])-(\[6.5\]). Then from (\[5.23\])-(\[5.26\]) with $\ve =1$ we obtain the structure equations $$\label{6.15}
\diff\begin{pmatrix}\Theta^1\\ \Theta^2\\ \Theta^3\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}\hat a_++3b&0&0\\
0&\hat a_+-3b&0\\
0& 0& -2\hat a_+
\end{pmatrix}
\wedge
\begin{pmatrix}\Theta^1\\ \Theta^2\\ \Theta^3\end{pmatrix}
+ \frac{1}{2R}
\begin{pmatrix}\Theta^{\2}\wedge\Theta^{\3}\\ \Theta^{\3}\wedge\Theta^{\1}
\\ \frac{R^2}{\La^2} \Theta^{\1}\wedge\Theta^{\2}\end{pmatrix}\ ,$$ where the first term defines $u(1)\oplus u(1)$ connection and the last term defines torsion with $N^1_{\2\3}=N^2_{\3\1}=
\sfrac{1}{2R}$ and $N^3_{\1\2}=\sfrac{R}{2\La^2}$. For ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$, the conditions (\[6.8\]) for a manifold to be nearly Kähler yield $R^2=\La^2$ that follows from (\[6.15\]). Furthermore, for $R^2=\La^2$ one has $$\label{6.16}
N_{ijk}=\sfrac{1}{2R}\,\ve_{ijk}\und
N_{{\bar{i}}{\bar{j}}{\bar{k}}}=\sfrac{1}{2R}\,\ve_{{\bar{i}}{\bar{j}}{\bar{k}}}\ ,$$ so that $T=\sfrac{1}{4}\,N$ is a totally antisymmetric torsion.
[**Nearly Calabi-Yau structure on ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$**]{}. On ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$ we consider the redefinition (\[6.10\]) with $\o^i$ from (\[4.32\]), (\[4.33\]) and $\a_+, \b_+, \th^1, \th^2$ given by (\[4.13\]), (\[4.14\]) with $\ve =-1$. This redefinition again corresponds to the choice of the nonintegrable almost complex structure (\[6.3\])-(\[6.5\]) and $c_1({{\cal T}}(B_4))=0$. Then from (\[4.35\]) with $\ve =-1$ one obtains the equations $$\label{6.17}
\diff\begin{pmatrix}\Theta^1\\ \Theta^2\\ \Theta^3\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}\hat \a_++\a_-&-\b_-&0\\
{\bar{\beta}}_-&\hat\a_+-\a_-&0\\
0& 0& -2\hat\a_+
\end{pmatrix}
\wedge
\begin{pmatrix}\Theta^1\\ \Theta^2\\ \Theta^3\end{pmatrix}
+\frac{1}{2R}
\begin{pmatrix}\Theta^{\2}\wedge\Theta^{\3}\\ \Theta^{\3}\wedge\Theta^{\1}
\\ -\sfrac{2R^2}{\La^2} \Theta^{\1}\wedge\Theta^{\2}\end{pmatrix}\ ,$$ with the $u(2)$ torsional connection defined by the first term and the Nijenhuis tensor $N^i_{{\bar{j}}{\bar{k}}}$ defined by the second term. From (\[6.17\]) one readily derives that $(\o , \Omega)$ on ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$ satisfy the nearly Calabi-Yau requirements (\[6.9\]) if and only if $R^2=\La^2$. Note also that in this case $$\label{6.18}
\diff \o = \sfrac{1}{\La^2R}\,(R^2-\La^2)\,{\rm Im}\,\Omega =0
\qquad{\rm for}\qquad R^2=\La^2\ ,$$ $$\label{6.19}
\diff\Omega = -\sfrac{1}{2R}\,
(2\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^2\wedge\Theta^{\1}\wedge\Theta^{\2} -
\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^3\wedge\Theta^{\1}\wedge\Theta^{\3}-
\Theta^2\wedge\Theta^3\wedge\Theta^{\2}\wedge\Theta^{\3})\in
\La^{2,2}({{\cal T}}(B_4))\ ,$$ and therefore[^8] $$\label{6.20}
\bar\pa\Omega =0\ .$$
Thus, we again obtain a manifold with vanishing first Chern class and SU(3) structure. The manifold ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$ has negative scalar curvature and can, in principle, be used in string compactifications to the de Sitter space-time [@Lust]. Compact twistor spaces with negative scalar curvature can be obtained from ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$ via the quotients of $B_4$ by a discrete isometry group.
[**Nearly Calabi-Yau space ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$**]{}. In this case we consider the redefinition (\[6.10\]) with $\o^i$ from (\[5.19\]), (\[5.22\]) and $\th^\a$ given by (\[5.10\]) with $\ve =-1$. From (\[5.28\]) with $\ve =-1$ we obtain the structure equations $$\label{6.21}
\diff\begin{pmatrix}\Theta^1\\ \Theta^2\\ \Theta^3\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}\hat a_++3b&0&0\\
0&\hat a_+-3b&0\\
0& 0& -2\hat a_+
\end{pmatrix}
\wedge
\begin{pmatrix}\Theta^1\\ \Theta^2\\ \Theta^3\end{pmatrix}
+\frac{1}{2R}
\begin{pmatrix}\Theta^{\2}\wedge\Theta^{\3}\\ \Theta^{\3}\wedge\Theta^{\1}
\\ -\frac{R^2}{\La^2} \Theta^{\1}\wedge\Theta^{\2}\end{pmatrix}\ ,$$ defining the $u(1)\oplus u(1)$ connection and the Nijenhuis torsion $N^i_{{\bar{j}}{\bar{k}}}$ on ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$. From (\[6.21\]) we obtain $$\label{6.22}
\diff \o = \sfrac{1}{2\La^2R}\,(2\La^2-R^2)\,{\rm Im}\,\Omega
\und \diff\,{\rm Im}\,\Omega =0\ ,$$ so that ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$ is a nearly Calabi-Yau space iff $R^2=2\La^2$. Compact analogues of this manifold with an SU(3) structure can be obtained via quotients of ${\mathbb C}B_2$ by a discrete isometry group.
Hermitian-Yang-Mills gauge fields on twistor spaces of $S^4$, ${\mathbb C}P^2$, $B_4$ and ${\mathbb C}B_2$
==========================================================================================================
We have described Kähler, nearly Kähler and nearly Calabi-Yau structures on the twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$, ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$, ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$ and ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$. Now we will discuss in more details some explicit solutions of the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations defined on bundles $\hat E$ over these manifolds.
[**Kähler ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$ and ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$**]{}. Let us consider forms $\o^i$ of type (1,0) w.r.t. ${{\cal J}}={{\cal J}}_+$ given in (\[4.32\]), (\[4.33\]), the metric (\[4.36\]) and the (almost) Kähler (1,1)-form (\[4.37\]). Consider again the flat connection (\[4.29\]) for which we have $$\label{7.1}
\hat{{\cal F}}= \diff\hat{{\cal A}}+ \hat{{\cal A}}\wedge\hat{{\cal A}}= \begin{pmatrix}
{\hat{F}}^--\ve\,\hat\p\wedge\hat\p^\+&-\ve (\diff\hat\p + \hat\p\wedge {\hat{A}}^+ +
{\hat{A}}^-\wedge\hat\p)\\
\diff\hat\p^\+ + {\hat{A}}^+\wedge\hat\p^\+ + \hat\p^\+\wedge {\hat{A}}^-& {\hat{F}}^+-
\ve\,\hat\p^\+\wedge\hat\p\end{pmatrix} =0\ ,$$ where $\hat\p$ and ${\hat{A}}^\pm$ are given in (\[4.30\]). From (\[7.1\]) it follows that $$\nonumber
{\hat{F}}^- = \ve\,\hat\p\wedge\hat\p^\+ = - \frac{\ve}{4\La^2}
\begin{pmatrix} \o^1\wedge\o^{\1} - \o^2\wedge\o^{\2}& 2\o^{\1}\wedge\o^{2}\\
-2\o^1\wedge\o^{\2}&-\o^1\wedge\o^{\1} + \o^2\wedge\o^{\2}
\end{pmatrix}=$$ $$\label{7.2}
= - \frac{\ve}{4\La^2}\begin{pmatrix}
\th^1\wedge\th^{\1} - \th^2\wedge\th^{\2}& 2\th^{\1}\wedge\th^2\\
-2\th^1\wedge\th^{\2}&-\th^1\wedge\th^{\1} + \th^2\wedge\th^{\2}\end{pmatrix}
=\ve\,\p\wedge\p^\+ =F^-\ ,$$ $$\nonumber
{\hat{F}}^+ = \ve\,\hat\p^\+\wedge\hat\p = g^\+F^+g= - \frac{\ve}{4\La^2}
\begin{pmatrix} \o^1\wedge\o^{\1} + \o^2\wedge\o^{\2}&
2\o^{\1}\wedge\o^{\2}\\
-2\o^1\wedge\o^{2}&-\o^1\wedge\o^{\1} - \o^2\wedge\o^{\2}
\end{pmatrix}=$$ $$\label{7.3}
= {-}\frac{\ve}{2\La^2(1{+}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})}\begin{pmatrix}
\sfrac{1}{2}(1{-}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})(\th^{1\1}{+}\th^{2\2}){+}\zeta\th^{\1\2}{-}{\bar{\zeta}}\th^{12}&
\th^{\1\2}{-}{\bar{\zeta}}(\th^{1\1}{+}\th^{2\2}){+}{\bar{\zeta}}^2\th^{12} \\[2mm]
-[\th^{12}{+}\zeta(\th^{1\1}{+}\th^{2\2}){+}\zeta^2\th^{\1\2}] &
-\sfrac{1}{2}(1{-}\zeta{\bar{\zeta}})(\th^{1\1}{+}\th^{2\2}){-}\zeta\th^{\1\2}{+}{\bar{\zeta}}\th^{12}
\end{pmatrix}\ .$$ Recall that we use hats for fields on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ and denote fields on $M^4$ by letters without hats.
From (\[7.2\]) it follows that $$\label{7.4}
({\hat{F}}^-)^{0,2}=0\und\o\,\lrc\,{\hat{F}}^- =0\ ,$$ i.e. the $su(2)$-valued gauge field $ {\hat{F}}^-$ satisfies the HYM equations on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ with $M^4=S^4$ or $B_4$. This solution is a pull-back to ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ of the ASD gauge field $F=F^-$ on $M^4=S^4$ or $B_4$. However, there are solutions of the HYM equations on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ which are not lifted from instantons on $M^4$. To give an example, we rewrite the flat connection (\[4.29\]) in the form $$\label{7.5}
\hat{{\cal A}}=\begin{pmatrix} {\hat{A}}&-\ve\hat T_c\\ \hat T & \hat\a_+\end{pmatrix}
{{\qquad{\rm with}\qquad}}\hat T=\frac{\im}{2\La}(\o^1, -\!\o^2, -\!\im\o^3)\und
\hat T_c=-\frac{\im}{2\La}
\begin{pmatrix}
\o^{\1}\\-\o^{\2}\\ \im\ve\o^{\3}
\end{pmatrix}\ .$$ Then from the flatness condition $$\label{7.6}
\hat{{\cal F}}=\diff\hat{{\cal A}}+ \hat{{\cal A}}\wedge\hat{{\cal A}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
{\hat{F}}- \ve\hat T_c\wedge\hat T&
-\ve [\diff\hat T_c+({\hat{A}}+ \hat\a_+)\wedge\hat T_c]\\
\diff\hat T+\hat T\wedge ({\hat{A}}+ \hat\a_+)&
-(\diff\hat\a_++\ve\hat T\wedge\hat T_c)
\end{pmatrix} = 0$$ it follows that the Yang-Mills field $$\label{7.7}
{\hat{F}}=\diff{\hat{A}}+{\hat{A}}\wedge{\hat{A}}= \frac{\ve}{4\La^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
-\o^{1\1}&\o^{2\1}&\im\o^{3\1}\\
\o^{1\2}&-\o^{2\2}&-\im\o^{3\2}\\
-\im\ve\o^{1\3}&\im\ve\o^{2\3}&-\ve\o^{3\3}
\end{pmatrix}$$ satisfies the equations $$\label{7.8}
{\hat{F}}^{0,2}=0\und\o\,\lrc\,{\hat{F}}= -\sfrac{\ve}{4\La^2}\cdot {\bf 1}_3\ .$$ Therefore the connection $\At ={\hat{A}}{-}\sfrac{1}{3}\,(\tr{\hat{A}})\cdot {\bf 1}_3$ with the curvature $\Ft ={\hat{F}}{-}\sfrac{1}{3}\,(\tr{\hat{F}})\cdot {\bf 1}_3$ satisfies the HYM equations $$\label{7.9}
\Ft^{0,2}=0\und\o\,\lrc\,\Ft = 0\ .$$ From (\[7.7\]) one sees that ${\hat{F}}$ and $\Ft$ have nonvanishing components along ${\mathbb C}P^1\hra{{\cal T}}(M^4)$ and hence they cannot be obtained by the pull-back of an ASD gauge field on $M^4=S^4$ or $B_4$.
[**Kähler ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$ and ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$**]{}. In this case from (\[5.18\]) with $\hat B=\hat B^+-b\cdot{\bf 1}_2$ and (\[5.23\]) it follows that the Abelian gauge potential $$\label{7.10}
\hat B^-:= {\rm diag}(b, b)$$ satisfies the HYM equations for ${\hat{F}}^-:=\diff\hat B^-$, $$\label{7.11}
({\hat{F}}^-)^{0,2}=0\und\o\,\lrc\,{\hat{F}}^- = 0$$ since $$\label{7.12}
\diff b=-\sfrac{\ve}{8\La^2}(\o^1\wedge\o^{\1} - \o^2\wedge\o^{\2})\qquad
\Leftrightarrow\qquad
\o\,\lrc\,\diff b=0\ .$$
[**Nearly Kähler ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$ and ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$**]{}. Recall that an SU(3)-structure $({{\cal T}}(S^4), \o ,\Omega)$ is nearly Kähler if $R^2=\sfrac{1}{2}\La^2$ and an SU(3)-structure $({{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2), \o , \Omega)$ is nearly Kähler if $R^2=\La^2$. Assuming this and substituting (\[6.10\]) into (\[7.2\]), we obtain that $$\label{7.13}
{\hat{F}}^-= - \frac{1}{4\La^2}\begin{pmatrix}
\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^{\1} - \Theta^2\wedge\Theta^{\2}&
2\Theta^{\1}\wedge\Theta^2\\
-2\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^{\2}&
-\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^{\1} + \Theta^2\wedge\Theta^{\2}\end{pmatrix}$$ is a solution of the HYM equations on ${{\cal T}}(S^4)=\,$Sp(2)/Sp(1)${\times}$U(1) which is essentially the same as (\[7.2\]). At the same time, the analogue of 3${\times}$3 matrix ${\hat{F}}$ from (\[7.7\]) does not satisfy the HYM equations on the nearly Kähler space ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$ contrary to the Kähler case. On the other hand, on the nearly Kähler space ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$ we have [*two*]{} canonical Abelian connections satisfying the HYM equations on ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$, $$\label{7.14}
\hat B_1^-={\rm diag}(b, b){{\qquad{\rm with}\qquad}}\diff b = - \frac{1}{8\La^2}
(\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^{\1} - \Theta^2\wedge\Theta^{\2})$$ and $$\label{7.15}
\hat B_2^-={\rm diag}(\hat a_+, -\hat a_+){{\qquad{\rm with}\qquad}}\diff \hat a_+ = -
\frac{1}{8\La^2}(\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^{\1} + \Theta^2\wedge\Theta^{\2}
-2\Theta^3\wedge\Theta^{\3})\ ,$$ where $b$ and $\hat a_+$ are introduced in (\[5.18\])-(\[5.21\]). Note that the Abelian gauge potential $b$ is pulled back from ${\mathbb C}P^2$ but $\hat a_+$ is not.
[**Nearly Calabi-Yau ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$ and ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$**]{}. Recall that forms $\o$ and $\Omega$ define a nearly Calabi-Yau structure on an almost complex manifold $X^6$ if they obey equations (\[6.9\]). For the twistor space ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$ this yields $R^2=\La^2$ and the twistor space ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$ is a nearly Calabi-Yau manifold if $R^2=2\La^2$. Assuming this and substituting (\[6.10\]) into (\[7.1\]) with $\ve =-1$, we obtain that the gauge field $$\label{7.16}
{\hat{F}}^-= \diff{\hat{A}}^-+{\hat{A}}^-\wedge{\hat{A}}^-=\frac{1}{4\La^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^{\1} - \Theta^2\wedge\Theta^{\2}&
2\Theta^{\1}\wedge\Theta^2\\
-2\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^{\2}&
-\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^{\1} + \Theta^2\wedge\Theta^{\2}
\end{pmatrix}$$ satisfies the HYM equations (\[7.4\]) on ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$. Note that (\[7.16\]) differs by sign from (\[7.13\]).
Similarly, on nearly Calabi-Yau space ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$ we have the Abelian Hermitian-Yang-Mills connection $$\label{7.17}
\hat B^-={\rm diag}(b, b){{\qquad{\rm with}\qquad}}\diff b=\frac{1}{8\La^2}
(\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^{\1} - \Theta^2\wedge\Theta^{\2})$$ which is the pull-back of an Abelian anti-self-dual gauge potential on ${\mathbb C}B_2$.
[**Lifted ASD gauge fields**]{}. In section 3 we have shown that anti-self-dual gauge fields $F=F^-$ on any oriented Riemannian 4-manifolds $M^4$ are pulled back to Hermitian-Yang-Mills gauge fields on the twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ of $M^4$ with an almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}={{\cal J}}_+$. The same is true for the twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$, ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$, ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$ and ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$ with the never integrable almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}={{\cal J}}_-$ since ${\hat{F}}=\pi^*F$ has no components along ${\mathbb C}P^1_x\hra{{\cal T}}(M^4)$. Using $\Theta^i$ from (\[6.10\]) on all above-mentioned twistor spaces, we obtain $$\label{7.18}
{\hat{F}}^+=\pi^*F^+=\sfrac{1}{2}({\hat{F}}_{1\1}+{\hat{F}}_{2\2})(\Theta^{1\1} +
\Theta^{2\2}) +{\hat{F}}_{12}\Theta^{12}+{\hat{F}}_{\1\2}\Theta^{\1\2}\ ,$$ $$\label{7.19}
{\hat{F}}^-=\pi^*F^-=\sfrac{1}{2}({\hat{F}}_{1\1}-{\hat{F}}_{2\2})(\Theta^{1\1} -
\Theta^{2\2}) +{\hat{F}}_{1\2}\Theta^{1\2}+{\hat{F}}_{2\1}\Theta^{2\1}\ ,$$ where $\Theta^{1\1}=\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^{\1}$, $\Theta^{12}=
\Theta^1\wedge\Theta^{2}$ etc. Furthermore, for the components ${\hat{F}}_{i{\bar{j}}}$ we have the same formulae (\[3.13\]) and (\[3.14\]) as for the case of an almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}_+$. Thus, any anti-self-dual gauge field $F=F^-$ on a vector bundle $E$ over $M^4=S^4$, ${\mathbb C}P^2$, $B_4$ or ${\mathbb C}B_2$ lifted to the twistor space $({{\cal T}}(M^4), {{\cal J}}_-)$ satisfies the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations on the pulled-back bundle $\hat E=\pi^*E$ over ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$. Some particular examples of such solutions to the HYM equations on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ were described in this section. A lot of explicit solutions of the HYM equations on ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$ can be obtained by lifting multi-instanton solutions on $S^4$. Their moduli space is known from the ADHM construction [@ADHM]. Note that for $B_4$ families of solutions to the ASDYM equations were described in [@ST]. These ASD gauge fields are lifted to the HYM gauge fields on nearly Calabi-Yau space ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$. Furthermore, all HYM gauge fields on the nearly Calabi-Yau spaces ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ are obtainable from ASD gauge fields on $M^4$ lifted to ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$. This follows from the constraint equation $\diff\Omega\wedge{{\cal F}}=0$ which along with $\o\lrc\,{{\cal F}}=0$ yields ${{\cal F}}_{3\3}=0$.
Twistor action for bosonic and supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories
=================================================================
In the previous sections we considered the spaces $M^4=S^4$, ${\mathbb C}P^2$, $B_4$ and ${\mathbb C}B_2$ with the nearly Kähler twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$, ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$ and the nearly Calabi-Yau twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$, ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$. For all these cases $c_1({{\cal T}}(M^4))=0$ and on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ we have a nonintegrable almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}$, an almost Hermitian (1,1)-form $\o$ and a (3,0)-form $\Om$ satisfying (\[6.8\]) or (\[6.9\]) and defining an SU(3)-structure on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$. Furthermore, $$\label{8.1}
\bar\pa\,\Om :=\diff^{0,1}\Om =0\und\bar\pa\,\o =0$$ on the nearly Kähler spaces ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$, ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$ and $$\label{8.2}
\bar\pa\,\Om =0\und\diff\,\o =0$$ on the nearly Calabi-Yau spaces ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$, ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$ and their compact quotients. The SU(3)-structure on the above-mentioned twistor spaces allows us to introduce analogues of holomorphic Chern-Simons (hCS) theory on Calabi-Yau (super)spaces. We briefly recall the hCS theory.
[**Holomorphic Chern-Simons theory on Calabi-Yau manifolds**]{}. Let ${{\cal Z}}$ ($\cong X^6$) be a complex three-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifold, ${{\cal E}}$ a rank $k$ complex vector bundle over ${{\cal Z}}$ and ${{\cal A}}$ a connection one-form on ${{\cal E}}$. Consider the action [@Witt1] $$\label{8.3}
S=\int_{{{\cal Z}}}\Om\wedge\tr ({{\cal A}}^{0,1}\wedge\bar\pa{{\cal A}}^{0,1}+
\sfrac{2}{3}\,{{\cal A}}^{0,1}\wedge{{\cal A}}^{0,1}\wedge{{\cal A}}^{0,1})\ ,$$ where $\Om$ is a nowhere vanishing holomorphic (3,0)-form on ${{\cal Z}}$ and ${{\cal A}}^{0,1}$ is the (0,1)-component of the connection one-form ${{\cal A}}$. This action functional was obtained by Witten [@Witt1] as a full target space action of the open topological $B$-model on a complex three-dimensional target space, on which the Calabi-Yau restriction arises from $N=2$ supersymmetry of the corresponding topological sigma model and an anomaly cancellation condition.
The field equations following from the action functional (\[8.3\]) read $$\label{8.4}
{{\cal F}}^{0,2}=\bar\pa{{\cal A}}^{0,1}+{{\cal A}}^{0,1}\wedge{{\cal A}}^{0,1}=0\ .$$ Thus, the hCS theory (\[8.3\]), (\[8.4\]) describes inequivalent holomorphic structures $\bar\pa_{{{\cal A}}}=\bar\pa +{{\cal A}}^{0,1}$ on the bundle ${{\cal E}}\to{{\cal Z}}$.
[**Holomorphic Chern-Simons theory on Calabi-Yau supermanifolds**]{}. In [@Witt2] it was observed that the Calabi-Yau restriction on the manifold ${{\cal Z}}$ can be relaxed by considering a topological B-model (twistor string theory) whose target spaces are Calabi-Yau supermanifolds. For them, fermionic directions also make a contribution to $c_1({{\cal Z}})$ yielding more freedom to have an overall vanishing first Chern class. As a main example of ${{\cal Z}}$, Witten considered the supertwistor space ${{\cal P}}^{3|4}:=
{\mathbb C}P^{3|4}\setminus{\mathbb C}P^{1|4}$ with embedded projective lines ${\mathbb C}P^1_{x,\th}$ parametrized by the chiral superspace ${\cal R}^{4|8}
\ni (x^{\m}, \th^{\a A})$, where $\m =1,...,4$, $\a = 1,2$, $A=1,...,4$. Under some assumptions, including triviality of the bundle ${{\cal E}}\to{{\cal P}}^{3|4}$ after restriction to each[^9] ${\mathbb C}P^1_{x,\th}\hra{{\cal P}}^{3|4}$, it was shown that hCS theory on the supertwistor space ${{\cal P}}^{3|4}$ is equivalent to anti-self-dual ${{\cal N}}=4$ super-Yang-Mills (SYM) theory in four dimensions.[^10]
As equations of motion for hCS theory on ${{\cal P}}^{3|4}$ and ${\mathbb C}P^{3|4}$ one has (\[8.4\]) but with ${{\cal A}}^{0,1}$ holomorphically depending on fermionic coordinates. The spectrum of physical states contained in ${{\cal A}}^{0,1}$ is the same as that of ${{\cal N}}=4$ SYM theory but the interactions of both theories differ. It was also shown that the perturbative amplitudes of the full ${{\cal N}}=4$ SYM theory are recovered by adding to the hCS action a nonlocal term interpreted as D-instantons wrapping holomorphic curves in ${{\cal P}}^{3|4}$. Another option is to construct an action on the super-ambitwistor space [@Witt2; @PoSa; @MaSc] but this was not entirely successful.
[**Pseudo-holomorphic Chern-Simons theory**]{}. Recall that twistor string theory establish a connection with ${{\cal N}}=4$ SYM theory in four dimensions but, contrary to the standard topological string theory on Calabi-Yau 3-folds, lost the connection with superstring theory. For restoring such a connection one should consider not the superspace ${\mathbb C}P^{3|4}$ but an ordinary 6-manifold as a target space for twistor strings. In fact, the complex twistor space ${\mathbb C}P^{3}$ was used for some proposals on a possible twistor action for nonsupersymmetric $d=4$ Yang-Mills theory [@Mason]. However, nearly Kähler and/or nearly Calabi-Yau twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ may be more suitable for this purpose since all these twistor spaces carry an SU(3) structure defined by forms $\o$ and $\Om$. Thus, we can consider the action functional (\[8.3\]) with ${{\cal Z}}=
{{\cal T}}(M^4)$ and $M^4=S^4$, ${\mathbb C}P^2$ or $B_4$, ${\mathbb C}B_2$ (or their compact quotients) for almost complex ${{\cal Z}}$ with $c_1({{\cal Z}})=0$. In this case, ${{\cal A}}^{0,1}$ will be a (0,1)-form w.r.t. the nonintegrable almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}={{\cal J}}_-$ introduced in (\[6.3\])-(\[6.5\]) and (\[6.10\]). The field equations (\[8.4\]) of this pseudo-holomorphic Chern-Simons (pshCS) theory describe inequivalent pseudo-holomorphic structures $\bar\pa_{{{\cal A}}}=\bar\pa +{{\cal A}}^{0,1}$ on the bundle ${{\cal E}}\to
{{\cal Z}}$. In its turn, pshCS theory on the almost complex twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ is equivalent to the (bosonic) anti-self-dual Yang-Mills theory on $M^4=S^4$, ${\mathbb C}P^2$, $B_4$, ${\mathbb C}B_2$ or ${\mathbb R}^4$. Thus, one may consider (\[8.3\]) as a candidate to a twistor action for bosonic ASDYM theory and consider nearly Kähler & nearly Calabi-Yau twistor spaces as candidates for a target space for twistor string theory, which is close to the standard topological string theory.
[**Action functionals on nearly Kähler twistor spaces**]{}. As it was shown in section 3, for any anti-self-dual gauge field $F$ on $M^4$, its pull-back ${\hat{F}}:=\pi^*F$ to the twistor space[^11] ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ satisfies not only (\[8.4\]) but also the equation $\o\,\lrc\ {\hat{F}}=0$, where $\o$ is an almost Hermitian (1,1)-form on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$. Thus, ${\hat{F}}$ is a solution of the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ which are the BPS equations for Yang-Mills theory in $d=6$.
It is of interest that on nearly Kähler manifolds $X^6$ not only (\[8.4\]) but the full HYM equations can be obtained from the action functional [@XuPhD] $$\label{8.5}
S=\int_{X^6}{\rm Im}\,\Om\wedge\tr ({{\cal A}}\wedge\diff{{\cal A}}+
\sfrac{2}{3}\,{{\cal A}}\wedge{{\cal A}}\wedge{{\cal A}})\ ,$$ where ${{\cal A}}$ is a connection one-form on a complex vector bundle ${{\cal E}}$ over $X^6$ and $\Om$ is a (3,0)-form on $X^6$. Note that $\diff\o = 3c\,{\rm Im}\,\Om$ and therefore in (\[8.5\]) one can use $\diff\o$ instead of Im$\,\Om$.
The field equations following from (\[8.5\]) read $$\label{8.6}
{\rm Im}\,\Om \wedge{{\cal F}}=0\ ,$$ where ${{\cal F}}= \diff{{\cal A}}+{{\cal A}}\wedge{{\cal A}}$ is the curvature of ${{\cal A}}$. It is easy to show [@XuPhD] that on nearly Kähler manifolds from (\[8.6\]) it follows $$\label{8.7}
{\rm Re}\,\Om\wedge{{\cal F}}=0\ ,$$ and differentiating (\[8.7\]) we obtain $$\label{8.8}
\o\wedge\o\wedge{{\cal F}}=0\qquad\Leftrightarrow\qquad\o\,\lrc\ {{\cal F}}=0$$ after using (\[6.8\]) and the Yang-Mills Bianchi identities. In fact, on nearly Kähler manifolds eq.(\[8.8\]) follows from (\[8.4\]) due to (\[6.8\]).
The above observations allow us to propose (\[8.5\]) as a twistor action on $X^6\cong{\mathbb C}P^3$ (or SU(3)/U(1)$\times$U(1)) for the bosonic ASDYM theory on $S^4$ (or ${\mathbb C}P^2$) after assuming, as in hCS and pshCS theories, that components of ${{\cal F}}$ along ${\mathbb C}P^1_x\hra X^6$ vanish. Such ${{\cal F}}$ can be identified with the gauge field ${\hat{F}}$ pulled back from $S^4$ (or ${\mathbb C}P^2$) to $X^6$ with the components defined in (\[7.18\]), (\[7.19\]) and (\[3.13\]), (\[3.14\]). Furthermore, for the full $d=4$ (bosonic) Yang-Mills theory one can use the $d=6$ Yang-Mills action functional $$\label{8.9}
S=-\int_{{{\cal P}}^3}vol_6\ \tr({\hat{F}}_{ab}{\hat{F}}_{ab})\ .$$ Integrating (\[8.9\]) over ${\mathbb C}P^1\hra {{\cal P}}^3$, we obtain the standard Yang-Mills action on ${\mathbb R}^4$ (on $S^4$ for $X^6\cong{\mathbb C}P^3$). This action functional is a natural part of the low-energy heterotic string theory. On the other hand, anti-self-dual Yang-Mills theory on $S^4$ and ${\mathbb C}P^2$ is related with the Hermitian-Yang-Mills model on the twistor spaces ${\mathbb C}P^3$ and SU(3)/U(1)$\times$U(1), respectively, and with heterotic string theory compactified on these nearly Kähler spaces. It would be of interest to study open topological string theories (both A and B types) with such target spaces. According to [@DGNV], A-model on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ can be a holographic dual to topological M-theory on a $d=7$ $G_2$-manifold naturally associated with any nearly Kähler space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ [@AW].
[**Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations on supermanifolds**]{}. Our observation on relation between ASDYM theory on $M^4$ and HYM theory on the twistor space ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ of $M^4$ can be useful also in ${{\cal N}}=4$ supersymmetric case. Namely, consider the [*complex*]{} supertwistor space ${{\cal P}}^{3|4}=
{\mathbb C}P^{3|4}\setminus{\mathbb C}P^{1|4}$ [@PoSa] with holomorphic fermionic coordinates $$\label{8.10}
\th^A := \th^{2A} - \zeta\th^{1A}\ ,$$ where $\zeta\in U\subset{\mathbb C}P^1$ is a local coordinate on ${\mathbb C}P^1$ and $\th^{1A}, \th^{2A}$ are Grassmann variables. Introduce local fermionic (1,0)-forms $$\label{8.11}
\o^A = \frac{1}{(1+\zeta\bar\zeta)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\,(\diff\th^{2A} -
\zeta\,\diff\th^{1A})$$ taking values in the Hermitian line bundle ${{\cal L}}_{+1}$ over ${\mathbb C}P^1$ associated with the Hopf bundle (\[4.18\]) and the corresponding (0,1)-forms $$\label{8.12}
\o^{\bar A} = \frac{1}{(1+\zeta\bar\zeta)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\,
(\diff\th^{1A} + \bar\zeta\,\diff\th^{2A})=T^{\bar A\bar B}\overline{\o^B}
\quad{\rm{with}}\quad
T^{\1\2}{=}{-}T^{\2\1}{=}T^{\3\4}{=}{-}T^{\4\3}{=}-1$$ taking values in the dual line bundle ${{\cal L}}_{-1}\to{\mathbb C}P^1$. Thus, holomorphic fermionic “volume form” $vol_4\o$ takes values in ${{\cal L}}_{-4}$ and antiholomorphic fermionic “volume form” $vol_4\bar\o$ takes values in ${{\cal L}}_{+4}$. We also introduce odd (local) vector fields $$\label{8.13}
V_A = \frac{1}{(1+\zeta\bar\zeta)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\,\left
(\frac{\pa\ }{\pa\th^{2A}} - \bar\zeta\,\frac{\pa\ }{\pa\th^{1A}}\right )
\und
V_{\bar A} = \frac{1}{(1+\zeta\bar\zeta)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\,\left
(\frac{\pa\ }{{\pa\th^{1A}}^{\sfrac{}{}}} +
\zeta\,\frac{\pa\ }{{\pa\th^{2A}}^{\sfrac{}{}}}\right )$$ of type (1,0) and (0,1) which are dual to the forms (\[8.11\]) and (\[8.12\]), respectively.[^12] For discussion of reality conditions for odd variables $\th^{\a A}$ and more details see e.g. [@PoSa].
Let us consider a holomorphic vector bundle ${{\cal E}}$ over Calabi-Yau supermanifold ${{\cal P}}^{3|4}$ [@Witt2] and a connection one-form $$\label{8.14}
{{\cal A}}= {{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_i\,\o^i + {{\cal A}}^{\rm f}_B\,\o^B +
{{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_{\bar i}\,\o^{\bar i}
+ {{\cal A}}^{\rm f}_{\bar B}\,\o^{\bar B}=: {{\cal A}}^{1,0} + {{\cal A}}^{0,1}\ ,$$ where $\o^i$ are (1,0)-forms on ${{\cal P}}^3$ (see (\[4.32\]), (\[4.33\]) with $\th^1=\diff y$, $\th^2=\diff z$ and $\a_+=\b_+=0$) and by “b” and “f” we denote even and odd components of ${{\cal A}}$. Here, ${{\cal A}}^{1,0}$ are given by the first two terms in (\[8.14\]). On ${{\cal P}}^{3|4}$ we introduce the (1,1)-form $$\label{8.15}
\o = \sfrac{\im}{2}\,(\de_{i\bar j}\,\o^i\wedge\o^{\bar j}+
\de_{A\bar B}\,\o^A\o^{\bar B})\ ,$$ where $i,j=1,2,3$ and $A,B=1,...,4$.
The Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations on the supertwistor space ${{\cal P}}^{3|4}$ can be written as follows: $$\label{8.16}
{{\cal F}}^{0,2}=0
\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
{{\cal F}}_{\bar i\bar j}=0\ ,\quad
{{\cal F}}_{\bar i\bar A}=0\und{{\cal F}}_{\bar A\bar B}=0\ ,$$ $$\label{8.17}
\o\,\lrc\ {{\cal F}}=0 \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad\de^{i\bar j}{{\cal F}}_{i\bar j}+
\de^{A\bar B}{{\cal F}}_{A\bar B}=0\ ,$$ $$\label{8.18}
{{\cal F}}^{2,0}=0
\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
{{\cal F}}_{ij}=0\ ,\quad
{{\cal F}}_{iA}=0\und{{\cal F}}_{AB}=0\ .$$ Here, $$\label{8.19}
{{\cal F}}_{\bar i\bar j}=[V_{\bar i}+{{\cal A}}_{\bar i}^{\rm b}, V_{\bar j}+
{{\cal A}}_{\bar j}^{\rm b}]\ ,\quad
{{\cal F}}_{\bar i\bar A}=[V_{\bar i}+{{\cal A}}_{\bar i}^{\rm b}, V_{\bar A}+
{{\cal A}}_{\bar A}^{\rm f}]\ ,\quad
{{\cal F}}_{\bar A\bar B}=\left\{
V_{\bar A}+{{\cal A}}_{\bar A}^{\rm f}, V_{\bar B}+
{{\cal A}}_{\bar B}^{\rm f}\right\}\ ,$$ and similar for other components of ${{\cal F}}$.
[**Twistor action for ${{\cal N}}=4$ SYM theory**]{}. Let us introduce $$\label{8.20}
(x^{\a\dot\a})=
\begin{pmatrix}
x^{1\dot 1}&x^{1\dot 2}\\x^{2\dot 1}&x^{2\dot 2}
\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}
{\bar{z}}&{\bar{y}}\\y&-z
\end{pmatrix}\ ,\quad
(\th^{\a A})= (\th^{\a \dot\a}, \ \th^{\a {\a}'})=
\begin{pmatrix}
\th^{1\dot 1}&\bar\th^{2\dot 1}&\th^{11'}&\bar\th^{21'}\\
\th^{2\dot 1}&-\bar\th^{1\dot 1}&\th^{21'}&-\bar\th^{11'}
\end{pmatrix}$$ and $$\label{8.21}
(\zeta_\a ):=\rho
\begin{pmatrix}
-\zeta \\1
\end{pmatrix}, \
(\zeta^\a ):=\rho
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \zeta
\end{pmatrix}, \
(\hat\zeta_\a ):=\rho
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \bar\zeta
\end{pmatrix}, \
(\hat\zeta^\a ):=\rho
\begin{pmatrix}
\bar\zeta \\-1
\end{pmatrix}\ {\rm with}\
\rho{:=}\frac{1}{(1+\zeta\bar\zeta)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\ ,$$ where in (\[8.20\]) we used the Euclidean reality conditions [@PoSa] for $x^{\a\dot\a}$ and $\th^{\a A}$. Using (\[8.21\]), we can rewrite (\[8.10\])-(\[8.13\]) as $$\label{8.22}
\o^A=\zeta_\a\,\diff\th^{\a A}\ ,\quad
V_A=-\hat\zeta^\a \frac{\pa\ }{\pa\th^{\a A}}\ ,\quad
\o^{\bar A}=\hat\zeta_\a\,\diff\th^{\a A}\and
V_{\bar A}=\zeta^\a \frac{\pa\ }{\pa\th^{\a A}}\ .$$
The standard ${{\cal N}}=4$ anti-self-dual Yang-Mills equations [@Vol; @Siegel] can be written in terms of gauge potential components ${{\cal A}}_{\a\dot\a} (x, \th )$ and ${{\cal A}}_{\a A} (x, \th )$ and after introducing $$\label{8.23}
\bar V_{\dot\a}:=\zeta^{\a}\frac{\pa}{\pa x^{\a\dot\a}}\ ,\quad
\bar {{\cal A}}_{\dot\a}^{\rm b}:=\zeta^{\a}{{\cal A}}_{\a\dot\a}\ ,\quad
{{\cal A}}_{\3}^{\rm b}=0\and
{{\cal A}}_{\bar A}^{\rm f}:=\zeta^{\a}{{\cal A}}_{\a A}\ ,$$ they are equivalent to eqs.(\[8.16\]) (see e.g. [@PoSa]) with $$\label{8.24}
V_{\1} + {{\cal A}}_{\1}^{\rm b} =\bar V_{\dot 2} + \bar{{\cal A}}_{\dot 2}^{\rm b}\und
V_{\2} + {{\cal A}}_{\2}^{\rm b} =\bar V_{\dot 1} + \bar{{\cal A}}_{\dot 1}^{\rm b}$$ due to our definition of spinor and vector indices, and eqs.(\[8.18\]) are Hermitian conjugate to (\[8.16\]) for the reality conditions (\[8.20\]). In fact, (\[8.23\]) defines the pull-back of gauge fields from ${\cal R}^{4|8}$ to ${{\cal P}}^{3|4}$. Moreover, one can show by direct calculations that (\[8.17\]) is also equivalent to the ${{\cal N}}=4$ ASDYM equations for this Hermitian gauge. This is similar to the bosonic case.
Establishing the equivalence of the ${{\cal N}}=4$ ASDYM equations in four dimensions and the HYM equations (\[8.16\])-(\[8.18\]) on the bundle ${{\cal E}}$ over the supertwistor space ${{\cal P}}^{3|4}$, we can use such advantages of the twistor description as extended gauge symmetries. Namely, for the holomorphic bundle ${{\cal E}}\to{{\cal P}}^{3|4}$ one can always find a complex gauge transformation such that $$\label{8.25}
{{\cal A}}^{0,1}-{{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_{\3}\o^{\3}\ \to\ \tilde{{\cal A}}^{0,1}-
\tilde{{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_{\3}\o^{\3}=
g^{-1}({{\cal A}}^{0,1}-{{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_{\3}\o^{\3})g +
g^{-1}(\bar\pa-\o^{\3}V_{\3})g=0\ ,$$ where $g\in\ $SL$(k,{\mathbb C})$ and ${{\cal A}}^{0,1}-{{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_{\3}\o^{\3}$ have components ${{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_{\bar\a}$ and ${{\cal A}}^{\rm f}_{\bar A}$.[^13] The equations (\[8.16\]) in this gauge dissappear (resolved automatically) since $\tilde{{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_{{\bar{\alpha}}}=0$, $\tilde{{\cal A}}^{\rm f}_{\bar A}=0$, and (\[8.17\]) reduce to the equations $$\label{8.26}
\de^{\bar\a\a}V_{\bar\a}\tilde{{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_{\a} +
\de^{\bar AA}V_{\bar A}\tilde{{\cal A}}^{\rm f}_{A}=0$$ which are solved as $$\label{8.27}
\tilde{{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_{1}=-V_{\2}\Ups\ ,\quad
\tilde{{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_{2}=V_{\1}\Ups\and
\tilde{{\cal A}}^{\rm f}_{A}=V_{\bar A}\Ups\ ,$$ where the $sl(k, {\mathbb C})$-valued prepotential $\Ups$ has weight $-2$, i.e. takes value in the bundle ${{\cal L}}_{-2}$ over ${\mathbb C}P^1$. Substituting (\[8.27\]) into the rest equations (\[8.18\]), we obtain three group of equations (cf. [@Siegel]): one equation without the Grassmann derivatives and two groups with $V_A$ entering linearly. The equations with the derivatives $V_A$ simply fix the dependence of $\Ups$ on $\th^A$ in terms of the “physical” field $$\label{8.28}
\Phi (x, \zeta , \bar\zeta , \th^{\bar A})=
\Ups(x, \zeta , \bar\zeta , \th^A, \th^{\bar A})\mid_{\th^A=0}$$ and its derivatives.
We omit the details here[^14] and write out only final formulae. Namely, (\[8.18\]) reduce to the one equation $$\label{8.29}
(V_1V_{\bar 1}+V_2V_{\bar 2})\Phi +[V_{\bar 1}\Phi , V_{\bar 2}\Phi ]=0$$ on the matrix-valued [*prepotential*]{} $\Phi$ of weight $-2$ encoding all information about ${{\cal N}}=4$ ASDYM theory. Expanding the ${{\cal N}}=4$ $sl(k, {\mathbb C})$-valued prepotential $\Phi$ in $\bar\th^A:=\th^{\bar A}=
\hat\zeta_\a\th^{\a A}$, we obtain $$\label{8.30}
\Phi = \p_{\a\b}\hat\zeta^{\a}\hat\zeta^{\b}+\p_{\a A}\hat\zeta^{\a}\bar\th^A
+ \p_{AB}\bar\th^A\bar\th^B + \sfrac{1}{3!}\,\chi_{\a}^A\,\zeta^{\a}\,\ve_{ABCD}
\bar\th^A\bar\th^B\bar\th^C + G_{\a\b}\zeta^{\a}\zeta^{\b}\bar\th^1
\bar\th^2\bar\th^3\bar\th^4\ ,$$ where ($\p_{AB}(x), \chi_{\a}^A(x), G_{\a\b}(x)$) are space-time fields of helicities $(0, +\sfrac{1}{2}, +1)$ while $\p_{\a A}(x)$ and $\p_{\a\b}(x)$ are prepotentials for fields $\tilde\chi_{\dot\a A}$ and $f_{\dot\a\dot\b}$ which have helicities $-\sfrac{1}{2}$ and $-1$. Finally, the action, whose equations of motion are (\[8.29\]), have the form $$\label{8.31}
S=\int \diff^4x\,\frac{\diff\zeta\diff\bar\zeta}{(1+\zeta\bar\zeta)^2}\,
vol_4\bar\o\,\tr\left\{\Phi\square\Phi + \frac{2}{3}\,\Phi\,[V_{\bar 1}\Phi ,
V_{\bar 2}\Phi ]\right\} \ ,$$ where $\square :=V_1V_{\bar 1}+V_2V_{\bar 2}=\pa_y\pa_{\bar y} +
\pa_z\pa_{\bar z}$. Note that the Lagrangian in (\[8.31\]) has weight $-4$ and $vol_4\bar\o$ has weight $+4$ as it should be. The functional (\[8.31\]) is the twistor action describing ${{\cal N}}=4$ ASDYM theory in terms of a single prepotential $\Phi$. Furthermore, one can introduce a twistor action for the full ${{\cal N}}=4$ SYM theory by adding terms of 2nd, 3rd and 4th degree in $\Phi , \Phi^\+$ and their derivative w.r.t. $\bar\th^A$ and integrating them with the full Grassmann measure $vol_4\o\,vol_4\bar\o$. These terms are $$\nonumber
\Phi^\+\Phi\ ,\quad \bar\th^A\Phi\th^B\Phi^\+\frac{\pa}{\pa\bar\th^A}
\frac{\pa}{\pa\bar\th^B}\Phi\ ,$$ $$\nonumber
\left(\th^{A_1}\bar\th^{B_1}\frac{\pa}{\pa\bar\th^{A_1}}
\frac{\pa}{\pa\bar\th^{B_1}}\Phi\right)
\left(\th^{A_2}\bar\th^{B_2}\frac{\pa}{\pa\bar\th^{A_2}}
\frac{\pa}{\pa\bar\th^{B_2}}\Phi\right)
\left(\th^{C_1}\th^{D_1}\frac{\pa}{\pa\bar\th^{C_1}}
\frac{\pa}{\pa\bar\th^{D_1}}\Phi\right)
\left(\bar\th^{C_2}\bar\th^{D_2}\frac{\pa}{\pa\bar\th^{C_2}}
\frac{\pa}{\pa\bar\th^{D_2}}\Phi\right)\ .$$ Details will be published elsewhere.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we considered the twistor space $X^6={{\cal T}}(M^4)$ of an oriented Riemannian manifold $M^4$ and explored solvability properties of the first-order Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations for gauge fields on pseudo-holomorphic bundles ${{\cal E}}$ over $X^6$. It was shown that the anti-self-dual gauge fields on $M^4$ lifted to ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ satisfy the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$. Specializing to the cases $M^4=S^4$, ${\mathbb C}P^2$, $B_4$ or ${\mathbb C}B_2$, we discussed the nearly Kähler and nearly Calabi-Yau structures on their 6-dimensional twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ and wrote down some explicit solutions of the Hermitian-Yang-Mills equations on ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$. Note that for all these twistor spaces $X^6$ the first Chern class vanishes, $c_1(X^6)=0$, and these spaces carry an SU(3) structure. We hope that the described Yang-Mills instanton solutions on the nearly Kähler spaces ${{\cal T}}(S^4)$ and ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}P^2)$ can be used in the flux compactification of heterotic supergravity to AdS$_4$ and HYM gauge fields on the nearly Calabi-Yau spaces ${{\cal T}}(B_4)$, ${{\cal T}}({\mathbb C}B_2)$ and their compact quotients can be used in the compactifications to the de Sitter space dS$_4$ [@Lust; @Toma]. These possibilities will be explored and described elsewhere.
We have introduced an analogue of holomorphic Chern-Simons theory on nearly Kähler twistor spaces ${{\cal T}}(M^4)$ and shown that under some restrictions it is equivalent to the anti-self-dual Yang-Mills theory on $M^4=S^4$ or ${\mathbb C}P^2$. A twistor action for non-self-dual Yang-Mills theory is also proposed. Considering Yang-Mills theory on the supertwistor space ${\mathbb C}P^{3|4}$ and its open subset ${\cal P}^{3|4}$, we have shown that the HYM equations encoding the ${{\cal N}}=4$ supersymmetric ASDYM equations reduce to the equation on a single scalar superfield defined on the supertwistor space. An expansion of this superfield in Grassmann variables contains all fields from the ${{\cal N}}=4$ Yang-Mills supermultiplet or prepotentials for these fields. All terms for a proper twistor action for full ${{\cal N}}=4$ SYM theory are written down.
A natural direction for further study would be to solve explicitly the supersymmetry constraint equations of heterotic supergravity by using solutions to the HYM equations described in this paper. Further study of twistor actions for the ${{\cal N}}\le 4$ SYM theories may constitute another direction. It is also of interest to extend the techniques of the equivariant dimensional reduction for Kähler coset spaces [@PoSz]-[@DoSz] to heterotic supergravity compactified on six-dimensional nearly Kähler and nearly Calabi-Yau coset spaces.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Derek Harland and Olaf Lechtenfeld for useful remarks. I also wish to thank the Institute for Theoretical Physics of Hannover University, where this work was completed, for hospitality. This work was partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant 436 RUS 113/995) and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 08-01-00014-a and 09-02-91347).
[99]{}
C. Caviezel, P. Koerber, S. Kors, D. Lüst, D. Tsimpis and M. Zagermann, “The effective theory of type IIA AdS4 compactifications on nilmanifolds and cosets,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{} (2009) 025014 \[arXiv:0806.3458 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Tomasiello, “New string vacua from twistor spaces,” Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} (2008) 046007 \[arXiv:0712.1396 \[hep-th\]\]. A.R. Frey and M. Lippert, “AdS strings with torsion: Non-complex heterotic compactifications,” Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{} (2005) 126001 \[arXiv:hep-th/0507202\]. I. Benmachiche, J. Louis and D. Martinez-Pedrera, “The effective action of the heterotic string compactified on manifolds with SU(3) structure,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**25**]{} (2008) 135006 \[arXiv:0802.0410 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Chatzistavrakidis, P. Manousselis and G. Zoupanos, “Reducing the heterotic supergravity on nearly-Kähler coset spaces,” Fortsch. Phys. [**57**]{} (2009) 527 \[arXiv:0811.2182 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Grana, “Flux compactifications in string theory: A comprehensive review,” Phys. Rept. [**423**]{} (2006) 91 \[arXiv:hep-th/0509003\]. M.R. Douglas and S. Kachru, “Flux compactification,” Rev. Mod. Phys. [**79**]{} (2007) 733 \[arXiv:hep-th/0610102\]. R. Blumenhagen, B. Kors, D. Lüst and S. Stieberger, “Four-dimensional string compactifications with D-branes, orientifolds and fluxes,” Phys. Rept. [**445**]{} (2007) 1 \[arXiv:hep-th/0610327\];\
D. Lüst, “String landscape and the standard model of particle physics,” arXiv:0707.2305 \[hep-th\]. S.B. Giddings, S. Kachru and J. Polchinski, “Hierarchies from fluxes in string compactifications,” Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} (2002) 106006 \[arXiv:hep-th/0105097\]. S. Kachru, M.B. Schulz and S. Trivedi, “Moduli stabilization from fluxes in a simple IIB orientifold,” JHEP [**10**]{} (2003) 007 \[arXiv:hep-th/0201028\]. R. Blumenhagen, D. Lüst and T.R. Taylor, “Moduli stabilization in chiral type IIB orientifold models with fluxes,” Nucl. Phys. B [**663**]{} (2003) 319 \[arXiv:hep-th/0303016\]. D. Lüst, S. Reffert and S. Stieberger, “Flux-induced soft supersymmetry breaking in chiral type IIB orientifolds with D3/D7-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B [**706**]{} (2005) 3 \[arXiv:hep-th/0406092\]. J. Louis and A. Micu, “Type II theories compactified on Calabi-Yau threefolds in the presence of background fluxes,” Nucl. Phys. B [**635**]{} (2002) 395 \[arXiv:hep-th/0202168\]. J.P. Derendinger, C. Kounnas, P.M. Petropoulos and F. Zwirner, “Superpotentials in IIA compactifications with general fluxes,” Nucl. Phys. B [**715**]{} (2005) 211 \[arXiv:hep-th/0411276\]. T.W. Grimm and J. Louis, “The effective action of type IIA Calabi-Yau orientifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B [**718**]{} (2005) 153 \[arXiv:hep-th/0412277\]. S. Gurrieri, J. Louis, A. Micu and D. Waldram, “Mirror symmetry in generalized Calabi-Yau compactifications,” Nucl. Phys. B [**654**]{} (2003) 61 \[arXiv:hep-th/0211102\]. S. Kachru, M.B. Schulz, P.K. Tripathy and S.P. Trivedi, “New supersymmetric string compactifications,” JHEP [**03**]{} (2003) 061 \[arXiv:hep-th/0211182\]. J.P. Gauntlett, D. Martelli, S. Pakis and D. Waldram, “G-structures and wrapped NS5-branes,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**247**]{} (2004) 421 \[arXiv:hep-th/0205050\]; J.P. Gauntlett, D. Martelli and D. Waldram, “Superstrings with intrinsic torsion,” Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{} (2004) 086002 \[arXiv:hep-th/0302158\]. S. Chiossi and S. Salamon, “The intrinsic torsion of SU(3) and $G_2$ structures,” arXiv:math/0202282 \[math.DG\]. T. Friedrich, “On types of non-integrable geometries,” arXiv:math/0205149 \[math.DG\]. P. Ivanov and S. Ivanov, “SU(3)-instantons and $G_2$, Spin(7)-heterotic string solitons,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**259**]{} (2005) 79 \[arXiv:math/0312094\]; S. Ivanov and F.M. Cabrera, “SU(3)-structures on submanifolds of a Spin(7)-manifold,” Differ. Geom. Appl. [**26**]{} (2008) 113 \[arXiv:math/0510406\]. F. Xu, “Geometry of SU(3) manifolds,” PhD thesis, Duke University, 2008.
A.K. Kashani-Poor, “Nearly Kähler reduction,” JHEP [**11**]{} (2007) 026 \[arXiv:0709.4482 \[hep-th\]\]; G. Aldazabal and A. Font, “A second look at N=1 supersymmetric AdS$_4$ vacua of type IIA supergravity,” JHEP [**02**]{} (2008) 086 \[arXiv:0712.1021 \[hep-th\]\]; L. Anguelova, “Flux vacua attractors and generalized compactifications,” JHEP [**01**]{} (2009) 017 \[arXiv:0806.3820 \[hep-th\]\]. P. Koerber, D. Lüst and D. Tsimpis, “Type IIA AdS4 compactifications on cosets, interpolations and domain walls,” JHEP [**07**]{} (2008) 017 \[arXiv:0804.0614 \[hep-th\]\]; C. Caviezel, P. Koerber, S. Kors, D. Lüst, T. Wrase and M. Zagermann, “On the cosmology of type IIA compactifications on SU(3)-structure manifolds,” JHEP [**04**]{} (2009) 010 \[arXiv:0812.3551 \[hep-th\]\]; D. Lüst and D. Tsimpis, “Classes of AdS4 type IIA/IIB compactifications with SU(3)$\times$SU(3) structure,” JHEP [**04**]{} (2009) 111 \[arXiv:0901.4474 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Cassani and A.K. Kashani-Poor, “Exploiting N=2 in consistent coset reductions of type IIA,” Nucl. Phys. B [**817**]{} (2009) 25 \[arXiv:0901.4251 \[hep-th\]\]; L. Martucci, “On moduli and effective theory of N=1 warped flux compactifications,” JHEP [**05**]{} (2009) 027 \[arXiv:0902.4031 \[hep-th\]\]; P. Koerber, “A new family of non-homogeneous type IIA flux vacua from AdS4/CFT3,” arXiv:0904.0012 \[hep-th\]; H. Triendl and J. Louis, “Type II compactifications on manifolds with SU(2)$\times$SU(2) structure,” arXiv:0904.2993 \[hep-th\]. J. Louis and A. Micu, “Heterotic string theory with background fluxes,” Nucl. Phys. B [**626**]{} (2002) 26 \[arXiv:hep-th/0110187\]; A. Micu, “Heterotic compactifications and nearly-Kähler manifolds,” Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 126002 \[arXiv:hep-th/0409008\]; J. Louis and A. Micu, “Heterotic-type IIA duality with fluxes,” JHEP [**03**]{} (2007) 026 \[arXiv:hep-th/0608171\].
G.L. Cardoso, G. Curio, G. Dall’Agata and D. Lüst, “BPS action and superpotential for heterotic string compactifications with fluxes,” JHEP [**10**]{} (2003) 004 \[arXiv:hep-th/0306088\]. K. Becker, M. Becker, K. Dasgupta and P.S. Green, “Compactifications of heterotic theory on non-Kaehler complex manifolds. I,” JHEP [**04**]{} (2003) 007 \[arXiv:hep-th/0301161\]; K. Becker, M. Becker, P.S. Green, K. Dasgupta and E. Sharpe, “Compactifications of heterotic strings on non-Kaehler complex manifolds. II,” Nucl. Phys. B [**678**]{} (2004) 19 \[arXiv:hep-th/0310058\]. S. Gurrieri, A. Lukas and A. Micu, “Heterotic on half-flat,” Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 126009 \[arXiv:hep-th/0408121\]; B. de Carlos, S. Gurrieri, A. Lukas and A. Micu, “Moduli stabilisation in heterotic string compactifications,” JHEP [**03**]{} (2006) 005 \[arXiv:hep-th/0507173\]. S. Gurrieri, A. Lukas and A. Micu, JHEP [**12**]{} (2007) 081 \[arXiv:0709.1932 \[hep-th\]\]. P. Manousselis, N. Prezas and G. Zoupanos, “Supersymmetric compactifications of heterotic strings with fluxes and condensates,” Nucl. Phys. B [**739**]{} (2006) 85 \[arXiv:hep-th/0511122\]; G. Douzas, T. Grammatikopoulos and G. Zoupanos, “Coset space dimensional reduction and Wilson flux breaking of ten-dimensional N=1, E(8) gauge theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**59**]{} (2009) 917 \[arXiv:0808.3236 \[hep-th\]\]; A. Chatzistavrakidis and G. Zoupanos, “Dimensional reduction of the heterotic string over nearly-Kähler manifolds,” arXiv:0905.2398 \[hep-th\]. J.-X. Fu and S.-T. Yau, “Existence of supersymmetric Hermitian metrics with torsion on non-Kaehler manifolds,” arXiv:hep-th/0509028; “The theory of superstring with flux on non-Kaehler manifolds and the complex Monge-Ampere equation,” arXiv:hep-th/0604063; K. Becker, M. Becker, J.-X. Fu, L.-S. Tseng and S.-T. Yau, “Anomaly cancellation and smooth non-Kaehler solutions in heterotic string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**751**]{} (2006) 108 \[arXiv:hep-th/0604137\]. J.-X. Fu, L.-S. Tseng and S.-T. Yau, “Local heterotic torsional models,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**289**]{} (2009) 1151 \[arXiv:0806.2392 \[hep-th\]\]; M. Becker, L.-S. Tseng and S.-T. Yau, “New heterotic non-Kähler geometries,” arXiv:0807.0827 \[hep-th\]; K. Becker and S. Sethi, “Torsional heterotic geometries,” arXiv:0903.3769 \[hep-th\]. M. Fernandez, S. Ivanov, L. Ugarte and R. Villacampa, “Non-Kähler heterotic string compactifications with non-zero fluxes and constant dilaton,” arXiv:0804.1648 \[math.DG\]; “Compact supersymmetric solutions of the heterotic equations of motion in dimensions 7 and 8,” arXiv:0806.4356 \[math.DG\].
G. Papadopoulos, “New half supersymmetric solutions of the heterotic string,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{} (2009) 135001 \[arXiv:0809.1156 \[hep-th\]\]; H. Kunitomo and M. Ohta, “Supersymmetric AdS$_3$ solutions in heterotic supergravity,” arXiv:0902.0655 \[hep-th\]; G. Curio, “Perspectives on pfaffians of heterotic world-sheet instantons,” arXiv:0904.2738 \[hep-th\]. A. Strominger, “Superstrings with torsion,” Nucl. Phys. B [**274**]{} (1986) 253; C.M. Hull, “Anomalies, ambiguities and superstrings,” Phys. Lett. B [**167**]{} (1986) 51; “Compactifications of the heterotic superstring,” Phys. Lett. B [**178**]{} (1986) 357; B. de Wit, D.J. Smit and N.D. Hari Dass, “Residual supersymmetry of compactified D=10 supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B [**283**]{} (1987) 165.
S.K. Donaldson, “Anti-self-dual Yang-Mills connections over complex algebraic surfaces and stable vector bundles,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. [**50**]{} (1985) 1; “Infinite determinants, stable bundles and curvature,” Duke Math. J. [**54**]{} (1987) 231.
K. Uhlenbeck and S.-T. Yau, “On the existence of Hermitian-Yang-Mills connections in stable vector bundles,” Commun. Pure Appl. Math. [**39**]{} (1986) 257; A note on our previous paper: “On the existence of Hermitian-Yang-Mills connections in stable vector bundles” [*ibid.*]{} [**42**]{} (1989) 703.
R.L. Bryant, “On the geometry of almost complex 6-manifolds," Asian J. Math. [**10**]{} (2006) 561 \[arXiv:math/0508482 \[math.DG\]\].
E. Corrigan, C. Devchand, D.B. Fairlie and J. Nuyts, “First order equations for gauge fields in spaces of dimension greater than four,” Nucl. Phys. B [**214**]{} (1983) 452. R.S. Ward, “Completely solvable gauge field equations in dimension greater than four,” Nucl. Phys. B [**236**]{} (1984) 381. T.A. Ivanova and A.D. Popov, “(Anti)self-dual gauge fields in dimension $d{\ge}4$,” Theor. Math. Phys. [**94**]{} (1993) 225. R.R. Carrión, “A generalization of the notion of instanton,” Differ. Geom. Appl. [**8**]{} (1998) 1. G. Tian, “Gauge theory and calibrated geometry,” Ann. Math. [**151**]{} (2000) 193 \[arXiv:math/0010015 \[math.DG\]\]. D.B. Fairlie and J. Nuyts, “Spherically symmetric solutions of gauge theories in eight dimensions,” J. Phys. A [**17**]{} (1984) 2867; S. Fubini and H. Nicolai, “The octonionic instanton,” Phys. Lett. B [**155**]{} (1985) 369; T.A. Ivanova and A.D. Popov, “Self-dual Yang-Mills fields in $d{=}7, 8$, octonions and Ward equations,” Lett. Math. Phys. [**24**]{} (1992) 85.
M.F. Atiyah, N.J. Hitchin and I.M. Singer, “Self-duality in four-dimensional Riemannian geometry,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**362**]{} (1978) 425. J. Eells and S. Salamon, “ Constructions twistorielles des applications harmoniques,” C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris [**296**]{} (1983) 685.
R. Penrose, “Nonlinear gravitons and curved twistor theory,” Gen. Rel. Grav. [**7**]{} (1976) 31; “The twistor program,” Rept. Math. Phys. [**12**]{} (1977) 65. R.S. Ward, “On self-dual gauge fields,” Phys. Lett. A [**61**]{} (1977) 81; M.F. Atiyah and R.S. Ward, “Instantons and algebraic geometry,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**55**]{} (1977) 117. R.O. Wells, “Complex manifolds and mathematical physics,” Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**1**]{} (1979) 296.
S. Donaldson and P.B. Kronheimer, [*The geometry of four-manifolds*]{}, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990.
S. Salamon, “Harmonic and holomorphic maps,” Lect. Notes Math. [**1164**]{} (1985) 161.
A.G. Sergeev, “Harmonic mappings into homogeneous Riemannian manifolds: the twistor approach,” Russian Math. Surveys [**59**]{} (2004) 1181.
A.D. Popov, “Non-Abelian vortices on Riemann surfaces: an integrable case,” Lett. Math. Phys. [**84**]{} (2008) 139 \[arXiv:0801.0808 \[hep-th\]\]; “Integrability of vortex equations on Riemann surfaces,” in print, arXiv:0712.1756 \[hep-th\]. N.J. Hitchin, “Kählerian twistor spaces,” Proc. London Math. Soc. [**43**]{} (1981) 133.
F. Belgun and A. Moroiani, “Nearly Kähler 6-manifolds with reduced holonomy,” Ann. Glob. Anal. Geom. [**19**]{} (2001) 307.
A. Moroianu, P.-A. Nagy and U. Semmelmann, “Unit Killing vector fields on nearly Kähler manifolds,” arXiv:math/0406492 \[math.DG\].
B. Alexandrov, T. Friedrich and N. Schoemann, “Almost Hermitian 6-manifolds revisited,” J. Geom. Phys. [**53**]{} (2005) 1 \[arXiv:math/0403131 \[math.DG\]\].
M. Verbitsky, “An intrinsic volume functional on almost complex 6-manifolds and nearly Kähler geometry,” arXiv:math/0507179 \[math.DG\]. D. Conti and A. Tomassini, “Special symplectic six-manifolds,” arXiv:math/0601002 \[math.DG\].
F. Xu, “SU(3)-structures and special Lagrangian geometries,” arXiv:math/0610532 \[math.DG\].
L. Bedulli and L. Vezzoni, “The Ricci tensor of SU(3)-manifolds,” arXiv:math/0606786 \[math.DG\].
J.-B. Butruille, “Homogeneous nearly Kähler manifolds,” arXiv:math/0612655 \[math.DG\].
M.F. Atiyah, N.J. Hitchin, V.G. Drinfeld and Yu.I. Manin, “Construction of instantons,” Phys. Lett. A [**65**]{} (1978) 185. O. Sarioglu and B. Tekin, “Self-dual solutions of Yang-Mills theory on Euclidean AdS space,” Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{} (2009) 104024 \[arXiv:0903.3803 \[hep-th\]\]. E. Witten, “Chern-Simons gauge theory as a string theory,” Prog. Math. [**133**]{} (1995) 637 \[arXiv:hep-th/9207094\]. E. Witten, “Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**252**]{} (2004) 189 \[arXiv:hep-th/0312171\]. A.D. Popov, C. Saemann and M. Wolf, “The topological B-model on a mini-supertwistor space and supersymmetric Bogomolny monopole equations,” JHEP [**10**]{} (2005) 058 \[arXiv:hep-th/0505161\]. A.D. Popov, “Sigma models with N=8 supersymmetries in 2+1 and 1+1 dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B [**647**]{} (2007) 509 \[arXiv:hep-th/0702106\]. A.D. Popov and C. Saemann, “On supertwistors, the Penrose-Ward transform and N = 4 super Yang-Mills theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**9**]{} (2005) 931 \[arXiv:hep-th/0405123\]. L.J. Mason and D. Skinner, “An ambitwistor Yang-Mills lagrangian,” Phys. Lett. B [**636**]{} (2006) 60 \[arXiv:hep-th/0510262\]. L.J. Mason, “Twistor actions for non-self-dual fields: A derivation of twistor-string theory,” JHEP [**10**]{} (2005) 009 \[arXiv:hep-th/0507269\]. R. Dijkgraaf, S. Gukov, A. Neitzke and C. Vafa, “Topological M-theory as unification of form theories of gravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**9**]{} (2005) 603 \[arXiv:hep-th/0411073\]. M. Atiyah and E. Witten, “M-theory dynamics on a manifold of $G_2$ holonomy,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**6**]{} (2003) 1 \[arXiv:hep-th/0107177\]. I.V. Volovich, “Super-self-duality for supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory.” Phys. Lett. B [**123**]{} (1983) 329; “Supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories and twistors,” Phys. Lett. B [**129**]{} (1983) 429. W.Siegel, “The N=2 (4) string is self-dual N=4 Yang-Mills,” Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{} (1992) R3235 \[hep-th/9205075\]. A.D. Popov and R.J. Szabo, “Quiver gauge theory of nonabelian vortices and noncommutative instantons in higher dimensions,” J. Math. Phys. [**47**]{} (2006) 012306 \[arXiv:hep-th/0504025\]; O. Lechtenfeld, A.D. Popov and R.J. Szabo, “Quiver gauge theory and noncommutative vortices,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**171**]{} (2007) 258 \[arXiv:0706.0979 \[hep-th\]\]. O. Lechtenfeld, A.D. Popov and R.J. Szabo, “Rank two quiver gauge theory, graded connections and noncommutative vortices,” JHEP [**09**]{} (2006) 054 \[arXiv:hep-th/0603232\]; “SU(3)-equivariant quiver gauge theories and nonabelian vortices,” JHEP [**08**]{} (2008) 093 \[arXiv:0806.2791 \[hep-th\]\]. B.P. Dolan and R.J. Szabo, “Dimensional reduction, monopoles and dynamical symmetry breaking,” JHEP [**03**]{} (2009) 059 \[arXiv:0901.2491 \[hep-th\]\]; “Dimensional reduction and vacuum structure of quiver gauge theory,” arXiv:0905.4899 \[hep-th\].
[^1]: We omit the prefix ‘pseudo’ for conformity with the literature on string compactifications.
[^2]: It is not necessary that this manifold is almost complex. For instance, there is not any almost complex structure on the four-sphere $S^4$.
[^3]: This desire is supported by ideas of the theory of harmonic maps where never integrable almost complex structure ${{\cal J}}_-$ on twistor spaces play a key role [@ES; @Salamon]. For a recent review of this subject see e.g. [@Sergeev].
[^4]: In a special case, when the twistor geometry becomes integrable (holomorphic), the vortex equations on $\Sigma$ appear as a commutator of two auxiliary linear differential operators with a ‘spectral’ parameter, i.e. become integrable.
[^5]: This subset may coinside with a point $x\in M^4$.
[^6]: Note that the metric for $\ve =-1$ will have Hermitian signature (2,1). Later we shall see that $\ve =-1$ can be a proper choice for manifolds $M^4$ of negative scalar curvature.
[^7]: For $\ve =-1$ the metric (\[4.36\]) is not positive definite and one can say about pseudo-Hermitian metric, pseudo-Kähler 2-form etc. but we will avoid this.
[^8]: Recall that $\Omega\equiv\Omega^{3,0}$ and $\diff\Omega=(\diff^{1,0}+\diff^{0,1}+\diff^{-1,2}+\diff^{2,-1})\,
\Omega$, where $\diff^{1,0}=\pa$ and $\diff^{0,1}=\bar\pa$. On nearly Kähler manifolds (\[6.20\]) is also satisfied due to (\[6.8\]).
[^9]: This condition is equivalent to vanishing of a part of the curvature ${{\cal F}}=
\diff{{\cal A}}+ {{\cal A}}\wedge{{\cal A}}$ having components along subspaces ${\mathbb C}P^1_{x,\th}\hra{{\cal P}}^{3|4}$. Without this assumption the hCS theory is not equivalent to the anti-self-dual ${{\cal N}}=4$ SYM theory.
[^10]: For reductions of this model to $d=3$ and $d=2$ see [@PSW; @Popov1].
[^11]: Recall that $\pi : {{\cal T}}(M^4)
\to M^4$ is the canonical projection.
[^12]: Note that one can use a “nonsymmetric” formulation by erasing $(1+\zeta\bar\zeta)^{-\sfrac{1}{2}}$ in (\[8.13\]) and using $(1+\zeta\bar\zeta)^{-1}$ in (\[8.11\]), (\[8.12\]). Then $V_{\bar A}$ will take values in the holomorphic line bundle ${\cal O}(1)
\to{\mathbb C}P^1$, $\o^{\bar A}$ will be a smooth section of the bundle ${\cal O}(-1)$, $V_A\in\bar{\cal O}(1)$ and $\o^{A}\in\bar{\cal O}(-1)$.
[^13]: By the pull-back construction ${{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_{\3}=0$ but in general $\tilde{{\cal A}}^{\rm b}_{\3}\ne 0$. However, $\tilde{{\cal F}}_{3\3}=g^{-1}{{\cal F}}_{3\3}g=0$.
[^14]: The details will be published elsewhere.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We perform an up-to-date global fit of top quark effective theory to experimental data from the Tevatron, and from LHC Runs I and II. Experimental data includes total cross-sections up to 13 [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}, as well as differential distributions, for both single top and pair production. We also include the top quark width, charge asymmetries, and polarisation information from top decay products. We present bounds on the coefficients of dimension six operators, and examine the interplay between inclusive and differential measurements, and Tevatron / LHC data. All results are currently in good agreement with the Standard Model.'
author:
- |
The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">TopFitter</span> Collaboration\
Andy Buckley, Christoph Englert, James Ferrando, David J. Miller, \
Liam Moore, Michael Russell, and Chris D. White\
*SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow,*\
*Glasgow, G12 8QQ, United Kingdom*
bibliography:
- 'full\_ref.bib'
title:
---
GLAS-PPE/2015-08
Introduction
============
One of the primary goals of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is to uncover the precise mechanism responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking. Going beyond its ad hoc implementation in the Standard Model (SM), most realisations of this mechanism predict that new, possibly non-resonant physics will appear at the (multi-)[$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}scale. Faced with the large number of such scenarios, and the frequent degeneracy in their experimental signatures, it has become customary to parametrize deviations of LHC measurements from their Standard Model predictions in terms of *model-independent* parameters, where possible. In Higgs production, for instance, the deviations in early inclusive cross-section measurements are described by ‘signal strength’ ratios. Likewise, deviations in electroweak parameters are often expressed in the language of anomalous couplings.
With the LHC Run I at a close, the main message to be drawn is that, apart from a few scattered anomalies, all measurements are in agreement with Standard Model predictions. This suggests that the new degrees of freedom, if they exist at all, are separated in mass [@Appelquist:1974tg; @Wilson:1983dy] from the Standard Model fields[^1]. If this is true, the new physics can be modelled by an infinite series of higher-dimensional effective operators [@Buchmuller:1985jz; @Hagiwara:1986vm; @Burges:1983zg; @Leung:1984ni]. From a phenomenological perspective, these have the advantage over simple signal strengths in that they can also accommodate differential measurements and angular observables, since the operators lead to new vertex structures which modify event kinematics. They are also preferable to anomalous couplings since they preserve the Standard Model $SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ gauge symmetry, so can more easily be linked to ultraviolet completions than arbitrary form factors. These merits have not gone unnoticed, as effective field theory (EFT) techniques have received much attention in interpreting available Higgs results [@Azatov:2012bz; @Espinosa:2012im; @Plehn:2012iz; @Carmi:2012in; @Peskin:2012we; @Dumont:2013wma; @Djouadi:2013qya; @Lopez-Val:2013yba; @Englert:2014uua; @Ellis:2014dva; @Ellis:2014jta; @Falkowski:2014tna; @Corbett:2015ksa; @Buchalla:2015qju; @Aad:2015tna; @Berthier:2015gja; @Falkowski:2015jaa; @Englert:2015hrx]. This area, however, is still in its infancy, as such analyses are currently limited on the experimental side by low statistics.
Top quark physics, on the other hand, has entered a precision era, with data from the LHC and Tevatron far more abundant. In addition, the top quark plays a special role in most scenarios of Beyond the Standard Model physics, motivating scrutiny of its phenomenology. Furthermore, the top sector is strongly coupled to Higgs physics owing to the large top quark Yukawa coupling, and so represents a complementary window into physics at the electroweak scale. Thus, it is timely to compute the constraints on new top interactions through a global fit of all dimension-six operators relevant to top production and decay at hadron colliders.
There have been several studies of the potential for uncovering new physics effects in the top quark sector at the LHC and Tevatron, phrased in model-independent language, either through anomalous couplings [@AguilarSaavedra:2008zc; @Bernardo:2014vha; @Grzadkowski:2003tf; @Nomura:2009tw; @Hioki:2009hm; @Hioki:2010zu; @Hioki:2013hva; @Aguilar-Saavedra:2014iga; @Chen:2005vr; @AguilarSaavedra:2008gt; @AguilarSaavedra:2010nx; @AguilarSaavedra:2011ct; @Fabbrichesi:2014wva; @Fabbrichesi:2013bca; @Cao:2015doa; @GonzalezSprinberg:2011kx] or higher-dimensional operators [@Davidson:2015zza; @Jung:2014kxa; @Cao:2007ea; @Degrande:2010kt; @Zhang:2010dr; @Greiner:2011tt; @Degrande:2012wf]. Though there is a one-to-one correspondence between these two approaches (for the reasons discussed below) the latter is the approach taken through the rest of this paper. Other studies have also set limits on top dimension-six operators, but by considering different physics, such as precision electroweak data [@deBlas:2015aea], or flavour-changing neutral currents [@Aguilar:2015vsa; @Durieux:2014xla].
In a previous work [@Buckley:2015nca], we published constraints on all dimension-six operators that contribute to top pair and single top *production only* in a global fit. Our fitting approach used techniques borrowed from Monte Carlo event generator tuning, namely the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Professor</span> [@Buckley:2009bj] framework. The purpose of this paper is to expand on our previous study by adding new measurements, which are sensitive to a new set of operators not previously examined, including previously unreleased 8 and 13 [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}data and decay observables, and also to provide a more detailed review of our general fitting procedure.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section \[sec:ops\] we review the higher-dimensional operators relevant for top quark physics and in Section \[sec:fit\] we review the experimental measurements entering our fit, as well as the limit-setting procedure we adopt. In Section \[sec:results\] we present our constraints, and discuss the complementarity of LHC and Tevatron analyses, and the improvements obtained from adding differential distributions as well as inclusive rates. In Section \[sec:uvmodels\] we interpret our constraints in the context of two specific new physics models. Finally, in Section \[sec:conclusion\] we discuss our results and conclude.
Higher-dimensional operators {#sec:ops}
============================
In effective field theory language, the Standard Model Lagrangian is the first term in an effective Lagrangian $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{eff}}\xspace}= {\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{SM}}\xspace}+ \frac{1}{\Lambda}\mathcal{L}_{1}+\frac{1}{\Lambda^{2}}\mathcal{L}_{2}+ \ldots \,,$$ where $\Lambda$ generically represents the scale of the new physics. From a top-down viewpoint, the higher-dimensional terms that are suppressed by powers of $1/\Lambda$ originate from heavy degrees of freedom that have been integrated out. In this way, the low-energy effects of decoupled new physics can be captured, without the need to consign oneself to a particular ultraviolet model. The leading contributions to [$\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{eff}$]{}at collider energies enter at dimension-six $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{eff}}\xspace}= {\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{SM}}\xspace}+ \frac{1}{\Lambda^2}\sum_{i}C_{i}O_{i}(G^a_\mu,W^I_\mu,B_\mu,\varphi,q_L,u_R,d_R,l_L,e_R) +\mathcal{O}(\Lambda^{-4})\,.$$ $O_{i}$ are dimension-six operators made up of SM fields, and $C_{i}$ are dimensionless Wilson coefficients. At dimension-six, assuming minimal flavour violation and Baryon number conservation, there are 59 independent operators. Clearly, allowing 59 free parameters to float in a global fit is intractable. Fortunately, for any given class of observables, only a smaller subset is relevant. In top physics, we have the following effective operators, expressed in the so-called ‘Warsaw basis’ of Ref. [@Grzadkowski:2010es][^2] $$\begin{aligned}
O^{(1)}_{qq} &= (\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}q)( \bar{q}\gamma^{\mu}q) & O_{uW} &= (\bar{q}\sigma^{\mu \nu} \tau^I u)\tilde \varphi W_{\mu\nu}^{I} & O^{(3)}_{\varphi q} &= i(\varphi^\dagger \overleftrightarrow{D}^I_\mu \varphi )(\bar{q}\gamma^\mu \tau^I q) \nonumber \\
O^{(3)}_{qq} &= (\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}\tau^Iq)( \bar{q}\gamma^{\mu}\tau^I q) & O_{uG} &= (\bar{q}\sigma^{\mu \nu} T^A u)\tilde \varphi G_{\mu\nu}^{A} & O^{(1)}_{\varphi q} &= i(\varphi^\dagger \overleftrightarrow{D}_\mu \varphi )(\bar{q}\gamma^\mu q) \nonumber \\
O_{uu} &= (\bar{u}\gamma_{\mu}u)( \bar{u}\gamma^{\mu} u) & O_{G} &= f_{ABC} G_{\mu}^{A \nu}G_{\nu}^{B \lambda} G_{\lambda}^{C \mu} & O_{uB} &= (\bar{q}\sigma^{\mu \nu}u)\tilde \varphi B_{\mu\nu} \nonumber \\
O^{(8)}_{qu} &= (\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}T^Aq)( \bar{u}\gamma^{\mu} T^Au) & O_{\tilde G} &= f_{ABC} \tilde G_{\mu}^{A \nu}G_{\nu}^{B \lambda} G_{\lambda}^{C \mu} & O_{\varphi u} &= (\varphi^\dagger i \overleftrightarrow{D}_\mu\varphi)(\bar{u}\gamma^\mu u) \nonumber \\
O^{(8)}_{qd} &= (\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}T^Aq)( \bar{d}\gamma^{\mu} T^Ad) & O_{\varphi G} &= (\varphi^\dagger \varphi)G_{\mu\nu}^{A}G^{A \mu\nu} \nonumber & O_{\varphi \tilde G} &= (\varphi^\dagger \varphi) \tilde G_{\mu\nu}^{A}G^{A \mu\nu} \\
O^{(8)}_{ud} &= (\bar{u}\gamma_{\mu}T^Au)( \bar{d}\gamma^{\mu} T^Ad) \,.
\label{eqn:allops}\end{aligned}$$ We adopt the same notation as Ref. [@Grzadkowski:2010es], where $T^A=\tfrac{1}{2}\lambda^A$ are the $SU(3)$ generators, and $\tau^{I}$ are the Pauli matrices, related to the generators of $SU(2)$ by $S^I=\tfrac{1}{2}\tau^I$. For the four-quark operators on the left column of eq. (\[eqn:allops\]), we denote a specific flavour combination $(\bar{q}_i...q_j)(\bar{q}_k...q_l)$ by e.g. $O_{4q}^{ijkl}$. It should be noted that the operators $O_{uW}$, $O_{uG}$ and $O_{uB}$ are not hermitian and so may have complex coefficients which, along with $O_{\tilde G}$ and $O_{\varphi \tilde G}$, lead to $\mathcal{CP}$-violating effects. These do not contribute to Standard Model spin-averaged cross-sections, though they are in principle sensitive to polarimetric observables such as spin correlations, and should therefore be treated as independent operators. However, currently available measurements that would be sensitive to these degrees of freedom have been extracted by making model-specific assumptions that preclude their usage in our fit, e.g. by assuming that the tops are produced with either SM-like spin correlation or no spin correlation at all, as in Refs. [@Chatrchyan:2013wua; @Aad:2014pwa]. We will discuss this issue in more detail in the next section. With these caveats, a total of 14 constrainable ${\mathcal}{CP}$-even dimension-six operators contribute to top quark production and decay at leading order in the SMEFT.
Methodology {#sec:fit}
===========
Experimental inputs
-------------------
The experimental measurements used in the fit [@Aad:2014kva; @ATLAS:2012aa; @Aad:2012mza; @Aad:2012qf; @Aad:2012vip; @Aad:2014jra; @Aad:2015pga; @Chatrchyan:2013ual; @Chatrchyan:2012bra; @Chatrchyan:2012ria; @Chatrchyan:2012vs; @Chatrchyan:2013kff; @Chatrchyan:2013faa; @Khachatryan:2015uqb; @Aaltonen:2013wca; @Aad:2014fwa; @Aaltonen:2014qja; @Khachatryan:2014iya; @Abazov:2009pa; @Abazov:2011rz; @Aad:2014zka; @Aaltonen:2009iz; @Chatrchyan:2012saa; @Khachatryan:2015oqa; @Abazov:2014vga; @Aad:2013cea; @Chatrchyan:2014yta; @Aaltonen:2012it; @Abazov:2014cca; @Aaltonen:2013kna; @Abazov:2012vd; @Aad:2012ky; @Aaltonen:2012lua; @Chatrchyan:2013jna; @Abazov:2010jn; @Aad:2015uwa; @Aad:2015eua; @Khachatryan:2014ewa] are included in Table \[table:measurements\]. All these measurements are quoted in terms of ‘parton-level’ quantities; that is, top quarks and their direct decay products. Whilst it is possible to include particle-level observables, these are far less abundant and they are beyond the scope of the present study.
The importance of including kinematic distributions is manifest here. For top pair production, for instance, we have a total of 195 measurements, 174 of which come from differential observables. This size of fit is unprecedented in top physics, which underlines the need for a systematic fitting approach, as provided by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Professor</span>. Indeed top pair production cross-sections make up the bulk of measurements that are used in the fit. Single top production cross-sections comprise the next dominant contribution. We also make use of data from charge asymmetries in top pair production, as well as inclusive measurements of top pair production in association with a photon or a $Z$ ($t\bar{t}\gamma$ and $t\bar{t}Z$) and observables relating to top quark decay. We take each of these categories of measurement in turn, discussing which operators are relevant and the constraints obtained on them from data.
[max width=]{}
[l r l l || l r l l ]{} Dataset & $\sqrt{s}$ ([$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}) & [Measurements]{} & [arXiv ref.]{} & Dataset & $\sqrt{s}$ ([$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}) & [Measurements]{} & [arXiv ref.]{}\
\
&\
ATLAS & 7 & lepton+jets & 1406.5375 & ATLAS & 7 & $p_T (t),M_{t\bar{t}},|y_{t\bar{t}}|$ & 1407.0371\
ATLAS & 7 & dilepton & 1202.4892 & CDF & 1.96 & $M_{t\bar{t}}$ & 0903.2850\
ATLAS & 7 & lepton+tau & 1205.3067 & CMS & 7 & $p_T (t),M_{t\bar{t}},y_t,y_{t\bar{t}} $ & 1211.2220\
ATLAS & 7 & lepton w/o $b$ jets & 1201.1889 & CMS & 8 & $p_T (t),M_{t\bar{t}},y_t,y_{t\bar{t}}$ & 1505.04480\
ATLAS & 7 & lepton w/ $b$ jets & 1406.5375 & [$\text{D${\slashed{0}}$}$]{}& 1.96 & $M_{t\bar{t}},p_T(t),|y_t|$ & 1401.5785\
ATLAS & 7 & tau+jets & 1211.7205 & & &\
ATLAS & 7 & $t\bar{t},Z\gamma,WW$ & 1407.0573 &\
ATLAS & 8 & dilepton & 1202.4892 & ATLAS & 7 & [$A_\mathrm{C}$]{}(inclusive+$M_{t\bar{t}},y_{t\bar{t}}$) & 1311.6742\
CMS & 7 & all hadronic & 1302.0508 & CMS & 7 & [$A_\mathrm{C}$]{}(inclusive+$M_{t\bar{t}},y_{t\bar{t}}$) & 1402.3803\
CMS & 7 & dilepton & 1208.2761 & CDF & 1.96 & [$A_\mathrm{FB}$]{}(inclusive+$M_{t\bar{t}},y_{t\bar{t}}$) & 1211.1003\
CMS & 7 & lepton+jets & 1212.6682 & [$\text{D${\slashed{0}}$}$]{}& 1.96 & [$A_\mathrm{FB}$]{}(inclusive+$M_{t\bar{t}},y_{t\bar{t}}$) & 1405.0421\
CMS & 7 & lepton+tau & 1203.6810 & & &\
CMS & 7 & tau+jets & 1301.5755 & Top widths: & &\
CMS & 8 & dilepton & 1312.7582 & [$\text{D${\slashed{0}}$}$]{}& 1.96 & $\Gamma_{\!\mathrm{top}}$& 1308.4050\
CDF + [$\text{D${\slashed{0}}$}$]{}& 1.96 & Combined world average & 1309.7570 & CDF & 1.96 & $\Gamma_{\!\mathrm{top}}$ & 1201.4156\
&\
ATLAS & 7 & $t$-channel (differential) & 1406.7844 & ATLAS & 7 & & 1205.2484\
CDF & 1.96 & $s$-channel (total) & 1402.0484 & CDF & 1.96 & & 1211.4523\
CMS & 7 & $t$-channel (total) & 1406.7844 & CMS & 7 & & 1308.3879\
CMS & 8 & $t$-channel (total) & 1406.7844 & [$\text{D${\slashed{0}}$}$]{}& 1.96 & & 1011.6549\
[$\text{D${\slashed{0}}$}$]{}& 1.96 & $s$-channel (total) & 0907.4259 & & &\
[$\text{D${\slashed{0}}$}$]{}& 1.96 & $t$-channel (total) & 1105.2788 & & &\
&\
ATLAS & 7 & $t\bar{t}\gamma$ & 1502.00586 & CMS & 13 & $t\bar{t}$ (dilepton) & 1510.05302\
ATLAS & 8 & $t\bar{t}Z$ & 1509.05276 &&&&\
CMS & 8 & $t\bar{t}Z$ & 1406.7830 &&&&\
Treatment of uncertainties
--------------------------
The uncertainties entering our fit can be classed into three categories:
We generally have no control over these. In cases where statistical and systematic (and luminosity) errors are recorded separately, we add them in quadrature. Correlations between measurements are also an issue: the unfolding of measured distributions to parton-level introduces some correlation between neighbouring bins. If estimates of these effects have been provided in the experimental analysis, we use this information in the fit, if they are not, we assume zero correlation. However, we have checked that bin correlations have little effect on our numerical results.
There will also be correlations between apparently separate measurements. The multitude of different top pair production cross-section measurements will clearly be correlated due to overlapping event selection criteria and detector effects, etc. Without a full study of the correlations between different decay channels measured by the same experiment, these effects cannot be completely taken into account, but based on the negligible effects of the bin-by-bin correlations on our numerical results we can expect these effects to be small as well.
These stem from the choice of parton distribution functions (PDFs), as well as neglected higher-order perturbative corrections. As is conventional, we model the latter by varying the renormalisation and factorisation scales independently in the range $\mu_0/2\leq\mu_\mathrm{R,F}\leq 2\mu_0$, where we use $\mu_0=m_t$ as the default scale, and take the envelope as our uncertainty. For the PDF uncertainty, we follow the PDF4LHC recommendation [@Butterworth:2015oua] of using CT10 [@Nadolsky:2008zw], MSTW [@Martin:2009iq] & NNPDF [@Ball:2010de] NLO fits, each with associated scale uncertainties, then taking the full width of the scale+PDF envelope as our uncertainty estimate – i.e. we conservatively assume that scales and parton densities are 100% correlated. Unless otherwise stated, we take the top quark mass to be $m_t = 173.2 \pm 1.0~{\ensuremath{\text{G}\mspace{0.2mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}}\xspace}$. We do not consider electroweak corrections.
Only recently a lot of progress has been made in extending the dimension six-extended SM to higher order, see Refs. [@Passarino:2012cb; @Mebane:2013zga; @Jenkins:2013zja; @Jenkins:2013sda; @Jenkins:2013wua; @Alonso:2013hga; @Hartmann:2015oia; @Ghezzi:2015vva; @Zhang:2013xya; @Englert:2014cva; @Hartmann:2015aia; @Cheung:2015aba; @Drozd:2015rsp; @Gauld:2015lmb]. Including these effects is beyond the scope of this work, also because we work to leading order accuracy in the electroweak expansion of the SM. QCD corrections to four fermion operators included via renormalisation group equations are typically of the order of 15%, depending on the resolved phase space [@Englert:2014cva]. As pointed out in Ref. [@Berthier:2015oma], these effects can be important in electroweak precision data fits.
A small error relating to the Monte Carlo interpolation (described in more detail in the next section) is included. This is estimated to be 5% at a conservative estimate, as discussed in the following section, and subleading compared to the previous two categories.
Fitting procedure
-----------------
Our fitting procedure, briefly outlined in Ref. [@Buckley:2015nca], uses the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Professor</span> framework. The first step is to construct an $N$-dimensional hypercube in the space of dimension six couplings, compute the observables at each point in the space, and then to fit an [*interpolating function*]{} $f(\mathbf{C})$ that parametrises the theory prediction as a function of the Wilson coefficients $\mathbf{C}=\{C_i\}$. This can then be used to rapidly generate theory observables for arbitrary values of the coefficients. Motivated by the dependence of the total cross-section with a Wilson coefficient: $$\sigma \sim \sigma_\mathrm{SM} + C_i\sigma_{D6}+ C^2_i\sigma_{D6^2}\, ,
\label{eqn:sigmad6}$$ the fitting function is chosen to be a second-order or higher polynomial: $$f_b(\{C_i\}) = \alpha_0^b + \sum_{\substack{i}} \beta_i^bC_i + \sum_{\substack{i\leq j}}\gamma^b_{i,j}C_iC_j+\ldots\,.
\label{eqn:ipol}$$
![Residuals distributions for interpolated observable values (left) and uncertainties (right), evaluated over all input MC runs and all observables. The 4th order polynomial parameterisation gives the best performance and the vast majority of entries are within 5% of the explicit MC value. The poor performance of a constant uncertainty assumption based on the median input uncertainty is evident – since all three lines have the same normalisation, the majority of residual mismodellings for the median approach are (far) outside the displayed 10% interval.[]{data-label="fig:residuals"}](resval.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Residuals distributions for interpolated observable values (left) and uncertainties (right), evaluated over all input MC runs and all observables. The 4th order polynomial parameterisation gives the best performance and the vast majority of entries are within 5% of the explicit MC value. The poor performance of a constant uncertainty assumption based on the median input uncertainty is evident – since all three lines have the same normalisation, the majority of residual mismodellings for the median approach are (far) outside the displayed 10% interval.[]{data-label="fig:residuals"}](reserr.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
In the absence of systematic uncertainties, each observable would exactly follow a second-order polynomial in the coefficients, and higher-order terms capture bin uncertainties which modify this. The polynomial also serves as a useful check that the dimension-six approximation is valid. By comparing eq. (\[eqn:sigmad6\]) with eq. (\[eqn:ipol\]), we see that the terms quadratic in $C_i$ are small provided that the coefficients in the interpolating function $\gamma_{i,j}$ are small. This is a more robust way to ensure validity of the dimension-six approximation than to assume a linear fit from the start.
In practice, to minimise the interpolation uncertainty, we use up to a 4th order polynomial in eq. (\[eqn:ipol\]), depending on the observable of interest. The performance of the interpolation method is shown in Figure \[fig:residuals\], which depicts the fractional deviation of the polynomial fit from the explicit MC points used to constrain it. The central values and the sizes of the modelling uncertainties may both be parameterised with extremely similar performance, with 4th order performing best for both. The width of this residual mismodeling distribution being $\sim \text{3\%}$ for each of the value and error components is the motivation for a total 5% interpolation uncertainty to be included in the goodness of fit of the interpolated MC polynomial $f(\mathbf{C})$ to the experimentally measured value $E$: $$\chi^2(\mathbf{C}) = \sum_{\substack{\mathcal{O}} } \sum_{\substack{i,j} }\frac{(f_i(\mathbf{C}) - E_i)\rho_{i,j} (f_j(\mathbf{C}) - E_j)}{\sigma_i\sigma_j} \,,$$ where we sum over all observables $\mathcal{O}$ and all bins in that observable $i$. We include the correlation matrix $\rho_{i,j}$ where this is provided by the experiments, otherwise $\rho_{i,j}=\delta_{ij}$. The uncertainty on each bin is given by $\sigma_i = \sqrt{\sigma_{\mathrm{th},i}^2+\sigma_{\mathrm{exp},i}^2}$, i.e. we treat theory and experimental errors as uncorrelated. The parameterisation of the theory uncertainties is restricted to not become larger than in the training set, to ensure that polynomial blow-up of the uncertainty at the edges of the sampling range cannot produce a spuriously low $\chi^2$ and disrupt the fit.
We hence have constructed a fast parameterisation of model goodness-of-fit as a function of the EFT operator coefficients. This may be used to produce $\chi^2$ maps in slices or marginalised projections of the operator space, which are then transformed to confidence intervals on the coefficients $C_i$, defined by the regions for which $$1 - \mathrm{CL} \geq \int^{\infty}_{\chi^2(C_i)} f_k(x) dx \,,$$ where typically $\mathrm{CL} \in \{0.68,0.95,0.99\}$ and $f_k(x)$ is the $\chi^2$ distribution for $k$ degrees of freedom, which we define as $k = N_\mathrm{measurements} - N_\mathrm{coefficients}$.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The entire 59 dimensional operator set of Ref. [@Grzadkowski:2010es] was implemented in a FeynRules [@Christensen:2008py] model file. The contributions to parton level cross-sections and decay observables from the above operators were computed using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MadGraph/Madevent</span> [@Alwall:2014hca], making use of the Universal FeynRules Output (UFO) [@Degrande:2011ua] format. We model NLO QCD corrections by including Standard Model $K$-factors (bin-by-bin for differential observables), where the NLO observables are calculated using MCFM [@Campbell:2010ff], cross-checked with MC@NLO [@Frixione:2002ik; @Frixione:2010wd]. These $K$-factors are used for arbitrary values of the Wilson coefficients, thus modelling NLO effects in the pure-SM contribution only. More specifically, this amounts to performing a simultaneous expansion of each observable in the strong coupling $\alpha_s$ and the (inverse) new physics scale $\Lambda^{-1}$, and neglecting terms $\sim{\cal
O}(\alpha_S\Lambda^{-2})$. Our final 95% confidence limits for each coefficient are presented in Figure \[fig:constraints\]; we discuss them in more detail below.
Top pair production {#sec:toppair}
-------------------
By far the most abundant source of data in top physics is from the production of top pairs. The ${\mathcal}{CP}$-even dimension-six operators that interfere with the Standard Model amplitude are $$\begin{split}
{\mathcal}{L}_{D6} & \supset \frac{C_{uG}}{\Lambda^2} (\bar{q}\sigma^{\mu \nu} T^A u)\tilde \varphi G_{\mu\nu}^{A} + \frac{C_{G}}{\Lambda^2} f_{ABC} G_{\mu}^{A \nu}G_{\nu}^{B \lambda} G_{\lambda}^{C \mu} + \frac{C_{\varphi G}}{\Lambda^2} (\varphi^\dagger \varphi)G_{\mu\nu}^{A}G^{A \mu\nu} \\
& + \frac{C^{(1)}_{qq}}{\Lambda^2}(\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}q)( \bar{q}\gamma^{\mu}q) + \frac{C^{(3)}_{qq}}{\Lambda^2}(\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}\tau^Iq)( \bar{q}\gamma^{\mu}\tau^I q) + \frac{C_{uu}}{\Lambda^2}(\bar{u}\gamma_{\mu}u)( \bar{u}\gamma^{\mu} u) \\
& + \frac{C^{(8)}_{qu}}{\Lambda^2}(\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}T^Aq)( \bar{u}\gamma^{\mu} T^Au) + \frac{C^{(8)}_{qd}}{\Lambda^2}(\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}T^Aq)( \bar{d}\gamma^{\mu} T^Ad) + \frac{C^{(8)}_{ud}}{\Lambda^2}(\bar{u}\gamma_{\mu}T^Au)( \bar{d}\gamma^{\mu} T^Ad) \,.
\end{split}
\label{eqn:ttbarops}$$
As pointed out in Ref. [@Buckley:2015nca], the operator $O_{\varphi G}$ cannot be bounded by top pair production alone, since the branching ratio to virtual top pairs for a 125 [$\text{G}\mspace{0.2mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}Higgs is practically zero, therefore we do not consider it here. For a recent constraint from Higgs physics see e.g. Ref. [@Corbett:2015ksa; @Ellis:2014jta; @Falkowski:2015jaa; @Englert:2015hrx]. We further ignore the contribution of the operator $O^{11}_{uG}$, as this operator is a direct mixing of the left- and right- chiral $u$ quark fields, and so contributes terms proportional to $m_u$. We also note that the six four-quark operators of eq. (\[eqn:ttbarops\]) interfere with the Standard Model QCD processes $\bar{u}u,\,\bar{d}d\,\rightarrow\,\bar{t}t$ to produce terms dependent only on the four linear combinations of Wilson Coefficients (following the notation of Ref. [@Zhang:2010dr]) $$\begin{split}
C^1_u = &~C^{(1) {1331}}_{qq}+ C^{1331}_{uu}+ C^{(3) {1331}}_{qq} \\
C^2_u = &~C^{(8) {1133}}_{qu} + C^{(8) {3311}}_{qu} \\
C^1_d = &~C^{(3) {1331}}_{qq}+\tfrac{1}{4}C^{(8) {3311}}_{ud} \\
C^2_d = &~C^{(8) {1133}}_{qu} + C^{(8) {3311}}_{qd}\,.
\end{split}
\label{eqn:4fs}$$
![Sample Feynman diagrams for the interference of the leading-order SM amplitudes for top pair production with the operators of eq. (\[eqn:ttbarops\]). $O_{4q}$ denotes the insertion of any of the four-quark operators. []{data-label="fig:ttbarfeyn"}](ttbard6_feyn.pdf){width="95.00000%"}
It is these four that are constrainable in a dimension-six analysis. Finally, we note that the operator $O_G$, whilst not directly coupling to the top at tree-level, should not be neglected. Since it modifies the triple gluon vertex, and the $gg$ channel contributes $\sim 75\%$ $(90\%)$ of the total top pair production cross-section at the 8 (13) [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}LHC, moderate values of its Wilson coefficient can substantially impact total rates. We note, however, that in this special case, the cross section modifications are driven by the squared dimension six terms instead of the linearised interference with the SM. Nonetheless, in the interests of generality, we choose to include this operator in our fit at this stage, noting that bounds on its Wilson coefficient should be interpreted with caution.[^3] Representative Feynman diagrams for the interference of these operators are shown in Figure \[fig:ttbarfeyn\].
The most obvious place to look for the effects of higher-dimensional terms is through the enhancement (or reduction, in the case of destructive interference) of total cross-sections. Important differences between SM and dimension-six terms are lost in this approach, however, since operators can cause deviations in the shape of distributions without substantially impacting event yields. This is highlighted in Figure \[fig:distributions\], where we plot our NLO SM estimate for two top pair distributions, vs. one with a large interference term. Both are consistent with the data in the threshold region, which dominates the cross-section, but clear discrimination between SM and dimension-six effects is visible in the high-mass region, which simply originates from the scaling of dimension-six operator effects as $s/\Lambda^2$[^4] .
![Parton level differential distributions in top pair production, considering SM only (red) and the effects of the four-quark operator $O^2_u$, showing the enhancement in the tails of the distributions. Data taken from Ref. [@Aad:2014zka].[]{data-label="fig:distributions"}](atlas_observables.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Limits on these operators can be obtained in two ways; by setting all other operators to zero, and by marginalising over the other parameters in a global fit. In Figure \[fig:toppairops\] we plot the allowed 68%, 95% and 99% confidence intervals for various pairs of operators, with all others set to zero, showing correlations between some coefficients. Most of these operators appear uncorrelated, though there is a strong correlation between $C^1_u$ and $C^1_d$, due to a relative sign between their interference terms. Given the lack of reported deviations in top quark measurements, it is perhaps unsurprising to see that all Wilson coefficients are consistent with zero within the 95% confidence intervals, and that the SM hypothesis is an excellent description of the data. In Figure \[fig:c3c4diff\], the stronger joint constraints on $C_G$ vs $C^1_u$ obtained from including differential measurements make manifest the importance of utilizing all available cross-section information.
![68%, 95% and 99% confidence intervals for selected combinations of operators contributing to top pair production, with all remaining operators set to zero. The star marks the best fit point, indicating good agreement with the Standard Model. Here $\bar{C}_i = C_iv^2/\Lambda^2$.[]{data-label="fig:toppairops"}](top_pair_corrs.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Left: 68%, 95% and 99% confidence intervals on the operators $C_G$ vs. $C^1_u$ , considering differential and total cross-sections (contours, red star), and total cross-sections only (lines, white star). Right: Limits on $C^{33}_{uG}$ vs. $C^1_u$, considering both Tevatron and LHC data (contours) and Tevatron data only (lines).[]{data-label="fig:c3c4diff"}](c1c4_and_c3c4.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
It is also interesting to note the relative pull of measurements from the LHC and Tevatron, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:c3c4diff\]. It is interesting to see that although Tevatron data are naively more sensitive to four-quark operators, after the LHC Run I and early into Run II, the LHC data size and probed energy transfers lead to comparably stronger constraints. In our fit this is highlighted by the simple fact that LHC data comprise more than 80% of the bins in our fit, so have a much larger pull. This stresses the importance of collecting large statistics as well as using sensitive discriminating observables.
Single top production
---------------------
The next most abundant source of top quark data is from single top production. In our fit we consider production in the $t$ and $s$ channels, and omit $Wt$-associated production. Though measurements of the latter process have been published, they are not suitable for inclusion in a fit involving parton level theory predictions. As is well-known, $Wt$ production interferes with top pair production at NLO and beyond in a five-flavour scheme [@Zhu:2001hw; @Campbell:2005bb; @Cao:2008af], or at LO in a four-flavour one. Its separation from top pair production is then a delicate issue, discussed in detail in Refs. [@Frixione:2008yi; @White:2009yt; @Kauer:2001sp; @Kersevan:2006fq]. We thus choose to postpone the inclusion of $Wt$ production to a future study, going beyond parton level. The operators that could lead to deviations from SM predictions are shown below $$\begin{split}
{\mathcal}{L}_{D6} & \supset \frac{C_{uW}}{\Lambda^2} (\bar{q}\sigma^{\mu \nu} \tau^I u)\,\tilde \varphi\, W_{\mu\nu}^{I} + \frac{C^{(3)}_{\varphi q}}{\Lambda^2} i(\varphi^\dagger \overleftrightarrow{D}^I_\mu \varphi )(\bar{q}\gamma^\mu \tau^I q) \\
& + \frac{C_{\varphi ud}}{\Lambda^2} (\varphi^\dagger \overleftrightarrow{D}_\mu \varphi )(\bar{u}\gamma^\mu d) + \frac{C_{dW}}{\Lambda^2} (\bar{q}\sigma^{\mu \nu} \tau^I d)\,\tilde \varphi \,W_{\mu\nu}^{I} \\
& + \frac{C^{(3)}_{qq}}{\Lambda^2}(\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}\tau^Iq)( \bar{q}\gamma^{\mu}\tau^I q) + \frac{C^{(1)}_{qq}}{\Lambda^2}(\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}q)( \bar{q}\gamma^{\mu}q) + \frac{C^{(1)}_{qu}}{\Lambda^2}(\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}q)( \bar{u}\gamma^{\mu} u)\,.
\end{split}
\label{eqn:singletopops}$$
As in top pair production there are several simplifications which reduce this operator set. The right-chiral down quark fields appearing in $O_{dW}$ and $O_{\varphi ud}$ cause these operators’ interference with the left-chiral SM weak interaction to be proportional to the relevant down-type quark mass. For example, an operator insertion of $O^{33}_{\varphi ud}$ will always contract with the SM $Wtb$-vertex to form a term of order $m_b\, m_t\, C^{33}_{\varphi ud}/\Lambda^2$. Since $m_b$ is much less than both $\hat{s}$ and the other dimensionful parameters that appear, $v$ and $m_t$, we may choose to neglect these operators. By the same rationale we neglect $O^{(1)}_{qu}$ as its contribution to observables is $\mathcal{O}(m_u)$. We have further checked numerically that the contribution of these operators is practically negligible. Finally, all contributing four-fermion partonic subprocesses depend only on the linear combination of Wilson Coefficients:
$$\begin{split}
C_t = &~C^{(3) {1133}}_{qq} + \tfrac{1}{6}(C^{(1) {1331}}_{qq}- C^{(3) 1331}_{qq}).
\end{split}
\label{eqn:4fs2}$$
Single top production can thus be characterised by the three dimension-six operators $O_{uW}$, $O^{(3)}_{\varphi q}$ and $O_t$.
As noted in the introduction, several model-independent studies have noted the potential for uncovering new physics in single top production, though these have typically been expressed in terms of anomalous couplings, via the Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L}_{Wtb} = \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \bar{b} \gamma^\mu (V_L P_L + V_R P_R) t W^{-}_{\mu} + \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\bar{b}\frac{i\sigma^{\mu\nu}q_\nu}{M_W}(g_LP_L + g_RP_R)tW^-_\mu + h.c. \,$$ where $q = p_t - p_b$. There is a one-to-one mapping between this Lagrangian and those dimension-six operators that modify the $Wtb$ vertex: $$\begin{aligned}
V_L & \to V_{tb} + C^{(3)}_{\varphi q}v^2/\Lambda^2 & V_R & \to \frac{1}{2}C_{\varphi u d}v^2/\Lambda^2 \nonumber \\
g_L & \to \sqrt{2}C_{uW}v^2/\Lambda^2 & g_R & \to \sqrt{2}C_{dW}v^2/\Lambda^2\end{aligned}$$
What, then, is the advantage of using higher-dimensional operators when anomalous couplings capture most of the same physics? The advantages are manifold. Firstly, the power-counting arguments of the previous paragraph that allowed us to reject the operators $O_{dW}$, $O_{\varphi ud}$ at order $\Lambda^{-2}$ would not be clear in an anomalous coupling framework. In addition, the four-quark operator $O^{(3)}_{qq}$ in eq. (\[eqn:singletopops\]) can have a substantial effect on single-top production, but this can only be captured by an EFT approach. For a detailed comparison of these approaches, see e.g. Ref. [@Zhang:2010px]. The 95% confidence limits on these operators from single top production are shown in Fig. (\[fig:allvstev\]), along with those operators previously discussed in top pair production.
![Left: Individual (red) and marginalised (blue) 95% confidence intervals on dimension-six operators from top pair production and single top production (bottom three). Right: Marginalised 95 % bounds considering all data from LHC and Tevatron (green) vs Tevatron only (purple).[]{data-label="fig:allvstev"}](all_vs_tevatron.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Let us compare these results to our findings of Section \[sec:toppair\]. The bounds on operators from top pair production are typically stronger. The so-called chromomagnetic moment operator $O_{uG}$ is also tightly constrained, owing to its appearance in both the $q\bar{q}$ and $gg$ channels, i.e. it is sensitive to both Tevatron and LHC measurements. For the four-quark operators, the stronger bounds are typically on the $C^1_i$-type. This originates from the more pronounced effect on kinematic distributions that they have. The phenomenology of the $C^2_i$-type operators is SM-like, and their effect becomes only visible in the tails of distributions.
The much wider marginalised bounds on these two operators stems from the relative sign between their interference term and those of the other operators, which results in cancellations in the total cross-section that significantly widen the allowed ranges of $C_i$. With the exception of $C_t$, which strongly modifies the single top production cross-section, the individual bounds on the operator coefficients from single top production are typically weaker. This originates from the larger experimental uncertainties on single top production, that stem from the multitude of different backgrounds that contaminate this process, particularly top pair production. For the Tevatron datasets this is particularly telling: the few measurements that have been made, with no differential distributions, combined with the large error bars on the available data, mean that two of the three operators are not constrained at dimension-six[^5]. Still, as before, excellent agreement with the SM is observed.
In addition to single-top production, the operator $O_{uW}$ may be constrained by distributions relating to the kinematics of the top quark decay. The matrix element for hadronic top quark decay $t\to Wb \to b q q'$, for instance, is equivalent to that for $t$-channel single top production via crossing symmetry, so decay observables provide complementary information on this operator. We will discuss the bounds obtainable from decay observables in Section \[sec:decays\].
Associated production {#sec:assoc}
---------------------
In addition to top pair and single top production, first measurements have been reported [@Aad:2015uwa; @Aad:2015eua; @Khachatryan:2014ewa] of top pair production in association with a photon and with a $Z$ boson ($t\bar{t}\gamma$ and $t\bar{t}Z$)[^6]. The cross-section for these processes are considerably smaller, and statistical uncertainties currently dominate the quoted measurements. Still, they are of interest because they are sensitive to a new set of operators not previously accessible, corresponding to enhanced top-gauge couplings which are ubiquitous in simple $W'$ and $Z$ models, and which allow contact to be made with electroweak observables. The operator set for $t\bar{t}Z$, for instance, contains the 6 top pair operators in eq. (\[eqn:ttbarops\]), plus the following $$\begin{split}
{\mathcal}{L}_{D6} & \supset \frac{C_{uW}}{\Lambda^2} (\bar{q}\sigma^{\mu \nu} \tau^I u)\,\tilde \varphi \, W_{\mu\nu}^{I} + \frac{C_{uB}}{\Lambda^2} (\bar{q}\sigma^{\mu \nu} u)\,\tilde \varphi \,B_{\mu\nu}+ \frac{C^{(3)}_{\varphi q}}{\Lambda^2} i(\varphi^\dagger \overleftrightarrow{D}^I_\mu \varphi )(\bar{q}\gamma^\mu \tau^I q) \\
&+ \frac{C^{(1)}_{\varphi q}}{\Lambda^2} i(\varphi^\dagger \overleftrightarrow{D}_\mu \varphi )(\bar{q}\gamma^\mu q) + \frac{C_{\varphi u}}{\Lambda^2}(\varphi^\dagger i \overleftrightarrow{D}_\mu\varphi)(\bar{u}\gamma^\mu u) \,.
\end{split}
\label{eqn:ttzops}$$ There is therefore overlap between the operators contributing to associated production, and those contributing to both top pair and single top. In principle, one should include all observables in a global fit, fitting all coefficients simultaneously. However, the low number of individual $t\bar{t}V$ measurements, coupled with their relatively large uncertainties, means that they do not have much effect on such a fit. Instead, we choose to present individual constraints on the operators from associated production alone, comparing these with top pair and single top in what follows. For the former, we find that the constraints on the operators of eq. (\[eqn:ttzops\]) obtained from $t\bar{t}\gamma$ and $t\bar{t}Z$ measurements are much weaker than those obtained from top pair production, therefore we do not show them here. The constraints on the new operators of eq. are displayed in Figure \[fig:ttzconstraints\]. It is interesting to note that the constraints from associated production measurements are comparable with those from single top production, despite the relative paucity of the former.
![Individual 95% confidence intervals for the operators of \[eqn:ttzops\] from $t\bar{t}\gamma$ and $t\bar{t}Z$ production (green) and in the two cases where there is overlap, from single top measurements (blue). []{data-label="fig:ttzconstraints"}](ttz_op_constraints.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Decay observables {#sec:decays}
-----------------
This completes the list of independent dimension-six operators that affect top quark production cross-sections. However, dimension-six operators may also contribute (at interference level) to observables relating to top quark decay. Top quarks decay almost 100% of the time to a $W$ and $b$ quark. The fraction of these events which decay to $W$-bosons with a given helicity: left-handed, right-handed or zero-helicity, can be expressed in terms of helicity fractions, which for leading order with a finite $b$-quark mass are $$\begin{split}
F_0 &=\frac{ (1-y^2)^2- x^2(1+y^2)}{(1-y^2)^2+x^2(1-2x^2+y^2)} \\
F_L &= \frac{x^2(1-x^2+y^2)+\sqrt{\lambda}}{(1-y^2)^2+ x^2(1-2x^2 + y^2)} \\
F_R &= \frac{x^2(1-x^2+y^2) -\sqrt{\lambda}}{(1-y^2)^2+ x^2(1-2x^2 + y^2)}
\end{split}$$ where $x=M_W/m_t$, $y=m_b/m_t$ and $\lambda = 1 + x^4 + y^4 - 2x^2y^2 - 2x^2 - 2y^2 $. As noted in Ref. [@Zhang:2010dr], measurements of these fractions can be translated into bounds on the operator $O_{uW}$. (The operator $O^{(3)}_{\varphi q}$ cannot be accessed in this way, since its only effect is to rescale the $Wtb$ vertex $V^2_{tb} \to V_{tb} \left(V_{tb}+v^2C^{(3)}_{\varphi q}/\Lambda^2\right)$, therefore it has no effect on event kinematics.) The desirable feature of these quantities is that they are relatively stable against higher order corrections, so the associated scale uncertainties are small. The Standard Model NNLO estimates for these are: $\{F_0,F_L,F_R \} = \{0.687 \pm 0.005, 0.311
\pm 0.005, 0.0017 \pm 0.0001 \}$ [@Czarnecki:2010gb], i.e. the uncertainties are at the per mille level. It is interesting to ask whether the bound obtained on $O_{uW}$ in this way is stronger than that obtained from cross-section measurements. In Figure \[fig:helfrac\] we show the constraints obtained in each way. Although they are in excellent agreement with each other, cross-section information gives a slightly stronger bound, mainly due to the larger amount of data available, but also due to the large experimental uncertainties on $F_i$. Still, these measurements provide complementary information on the operator $O_{uW}$, and combining both results in a stronger constraint than either alone, as expected.
![95% bounds on the operator $O_{uW}$ obtained from data on top quark helicity fractions (blue) vs. single top production cross-sections (red), and both sets of measurements combined (purple). []{data-label="fig:helfrac"}](helfrac.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Charge asymmetries
------------------
Asymmetries in the production of top quark pairs have received a lot of attention in recent years, particularly due to an apparent discrepancy between the Standard Model prediction for the so-called ‘forward-backward’ asymmetry ${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}$ in top pair production $${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}= \frac{N(\Delta y > 0)-N(\Delta y < 0)}{N(\Delta y> 0) + N(\Delta y < 0)}$$ where $\Delta y = y_t - y_{\bar{t}}$, and a measurement by CDF [@Aaltonen:2011kc]. This discrepancy was most pronounced in the high invariant mass region, pointing to potential ${\ensuremath{\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}}\xspace}$-scale physics at play. However, recent work has cast doubts on its significance for two reasons: Firstly, an updated analysis with higher statistics [@Aaltonen:2012it] has slightly lowered the excess. Secondly, a full NNLO QCD calculation [@Czakon:2014xsa] of ${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}$ showed that, along with NLO QCD + electroweak calculations [@Hollik:2011ps; @Kuhn:2011ri; @Bernreuther:2012sx] the radiative corrections to ${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}$ are large. The current measurements are now consistent with the Standard Model within 2$\sigma$. Moreover, the [$\text{D${\slashed{0}}$}$]{}experiment reports [@Abazov:2014cca] a high-invariant mass measurement *lower* than the SM prediction. From a new physics perspective, it is difficult to accommodate all of this information in a simple, uncontrived model without tension.
![Results of a 1000 point parameter space scan over -10 TeV $^{-2} < C^{1,2}_{u,d}/\Lambda^2 < $ 10 $TeV ^{-2}$ overlaid with the most up to date measurements of ${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}$ and [$A_\mathrm{C}$]{}, showing clearly the correlation between them.[]{data-label="fig:afbvsac"}](afb_vs_ac.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Still, in an effective field theory approach, deviations from the Standard Model prediction of ${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}$ take a very simple form. A non-zero asymmetry arises from the difference of four-quark operators: $${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}= (C^1_u-C^2_u+C^1_d-C^2_d)\frac{3\hat{s}\beta}{4g_s^2\Lambda^2(3-\beta^2)},$$ where $\beta = \sqrt{1-s/4m_t^2}$ is the velocity of the $t\bar{t}$ system[^7]. Combining this inclusive measurement with differential measurements such as $d{\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}/dM_{t\bar{t}}$ allows simultaneous bounds to be extracted on all four of these operators. Therefore it is instructive to compare the bounds obtained on $C^{1,2}_{u,d}$ from charge asymmetries to those obtained from $t\bar{t}$ cross-sections. Again it is possible to (indirectly) investigate the complementarity between Tevatron and LHC constraints. Though the charge symmetric initial state of the LHC does not define a ‘forward-backward’ direction, a related charge asymmetry can be defined as: $$A_{C} = \frac{N(\Delta |y| > 0)-N(\Delta |y| < 0)}{N(\Delta |y|> 0) + N(\Delta |y| < 0)}$$ making use of the fact that tops tend to be produced at larger rapidities than antitops. This asymmetry is diluted with respect to ${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}$, however. The most up-to-date SM prediction is $A_C = 0.0123 \pm 0.005$ [@Bernreuther:2012sx] for $\sqrt{s} =$ 7 [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}. The experimental status of these measurements is illustrated in Figure \[fig:afbvsac\]. The inclusive measurements of ${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}$ are consistent with the SM expectation, as are those of [$A_\mathrm{C}$]{}. The latter, owing to large statistical errors, are also consistent with zero, however, so this result is not particularly conclusive. Since these are different measurements, it is also possible to modify one without significantly impacting the other. Clearly they are correlated, as evidenced in Figure \[fig:afbvsac\], where the most up to date measurements of ${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}$ and [$A_\mathrm{C}$]{}are shown along with the results of a 1000 point parameter space scan over the four-quark operators. This highlights the correlation between the two observables: non-resonant new physics which causes a large ${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}$ will also cause a large [$A_\mathrm{C}$]{}, provided it generates a dimension-six operator at low energies.
We have used both inclusive measurements of the charge asymmetries [$A_\mathrm{C}$]{}and ${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}$, and measurements as a function of the top pair invariant mass $M_{t\bar{t}}$ and rapidity difference $|y_{t\bar{t}}|$. In addition, ATLAS has published measurements of [$A_\mathrm{C}$]{}with a longitudinal ‘boost’ of the $t\bar{t}$ system: $\beta = (|p^z_t+p^z_{\bar{t}})|/(E_t+E_{\bar{t}}) > 0.6 $, which may enhance sensitivity to new physics contributions to [$A_\mathrm{C}$]{}, depending on the model [@AguilarSaavedra:2011cp].
Since ${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}= 0$ at leading-order in the SM, it is not possible to define a $K$-factor in the usual sense. Instead we take higher-order QCD effects into account by adding the NNLO QCD prediction to the dimension-six terms. In the case of [$A_\mathrm{C}$]{}, we normalise the small (but non-zero) LO QCD piece, to the NLO prediction, which has been calculated with a Monte Carlo and cross-checked with a dedicated NLO calculation [@Bernreuther:2012sx].
The above asymmetries have been included in the global fit results presented in Figure \[fig:constraints\]. However, it is also interesting to see what constraints are obtained on the operators from asymmetry data alone. To this end, the 95% confidence intervals on the coefficients of the operators $O^{1,2}_{u,d}$ from purely charge asymmetry data are shown in Figure \[fig:asymms\]. Unsurprisingly, the bounds are much weaker than for cross-section measurements, with the $O^2_i$-type operators unconstrained by LHC data alone. Despite the small discrepancy between the measured ${\ensuremath{A_\mathrm{FB}}\xspace}$ and its SM value, this does not translate into a non-zero Wilson coefficient; as before, all operators are zero within the 95% confidence intervals.
At 13 [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}, the asymmetry [$A_\mathrm{C}$]{}will be diluted even further, due to the increased dominance of the $gg\to t\bar{t}$ channel, for which $A_C = 0 $. It is therefore possible that charge asymmetry measurements (unlike cross-sections) will not further tighten the bounds on these operators during LHC Run II.
![Marginalised 95% confidence intervals on top pair four quark operators from charge asymmetries at the LHC and Tevatron.[]{data-label="fig:asymms"}](charge_asymm_constraints.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Contribution of individual datasets
-----------------------------------
As well as the constraints presented in Figure \[fig:constraints\], it is also instructive to examine the quality of fit for different datasets. We quantify this by calculating the $\chi^2$ per bin between the data and the global best fit point, as shown in Figure \[fig:pullfactors\].
![$\chi^2$ per bin between measurement and the interpolated best fit point, for measurements considered in this fit. Colours: Green: ATLAS 7 [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}, Magenta: ATLAS 8 [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}, Blue: CMS 7 [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}, Turquoise: CMS 8 [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}, Red: [$\text{D${\slashed{0}}$}$]{}, Orange: CDF, Purple: CMS 13 [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}.[]{data-label="fig:pullfactors"}](chi2_contribs.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
Overall, excellent agreement is seen across the board, with no measurement in obvious tension with any other. The largest single contributors to the $\chi^2$ come from the rapidity distributions in top pair production. It has been known for some time that these are quite poorly modelled with Monte Carlo generators, especially in the boosted regime. It is quite likely that this discrepancy stems from the QCD modelling of the event kinematics, rather than potential new physics. Moreover, in a fit with this many measurements, discrepancies of this magnitude are to be expected on purely statistical grounds.
At the level of total cross-sections, the vanishingly small contributions to the $\chi^2$ stem from two factors: the $\mathcal{O}(10\%)$ measurement uncertainties, which are even larger in hadronic channels, and the large scale uncertainties from the large kinematic range that is integrated over to obtain the total rate. Single top production measurements are also in good agreement with the SM. The associated production processes $tt\gamma$ and $ttZ$, along with the charge asymmetry measurements from the LHC, have a very small impact on the fit, owing to the large statistical uncertainties on the current measurements. For the former, this situation will improve in Run II, for the latter the problem will be worse. The forward-backward asymmetry measurements from CDF remain the most discrepant dataset used in the fit.
Constraining UV models {#sec:uvmodels}
======================
As an illustration of the wide-ranging applicability of EFT techniques, we conclude by matching our effective operator constraints to the low-energy regime of some specific UV models. These models serve purely illustrative purposes.
Axigluon searches
-----------------
Considering top pair production, one can imagine the four operators of eq. (\[eqn:4fs\]) as being generated by integrating out a heavy $s$-channel resonance which interferes with the QCD $q\bar{q}\to t\bar{t}$ amplitude. One particle that could generate such an interference is the so-called axigluon. These originate from models with an extended strong sector with gauge group $SU(3)_{c1}\times SU(3)_{c2}$ which is spontaneously broken to the diagonal subgroup $SU(3)_{c}$ of QCD. In the most minimal scenario, this breaking can be described by a non-linear sigma model $$\mathcal{L} = -\frac{1}{4}G_{1\mu\nu}G_{1}^{\mu\nu} -\frac{1}{4}G_{2\mu\nu}G_{2}^{\mu\nu} + \frac{f^2}{4}\text{Tr}D_\mu \Sigma D^\mu \Sigma^\dagger \hspace{10pt},\hspace{10pt} \Sigma=\exp\left(\frac{2i\pi^a t^a}{f}\right) \hspace{10pt},\hspace{10pt} a=1,...,8.$$ Here $\pi^a$ represent the Goldstone bosons which form the longitudinal degrees of freedom of the colorons, giving them mass, $t^a$ are the Gell-Mann matrices, and $f$ is the symmetry breaking scale. The nonlinear sigma fields transform in the bifundamental representation of $SU(3)_{c1}\times SU(3)_{c2}$: $$\Sigma \to U_L \Sigma U^\dagger_R \hspace{10pt},\hspace{10pt} U_L = \exp\left(\frac{i\pi^a\alpha_L^a }{f}\right) \hspace{10pt},\hspace{10pt} U_R = \exp\left(\frac{i\pi^a\alpha_R^a }{f}\right)$$ The physical fields are obtained by rotating the gauge fields $G_1$ and $G_2$ to the mass eigenstate basis $$\left(\begin{array}{c} G^a_{1\mu} \\ G^a_{2\mu} \end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{c c} \cos\theta_c & -\sin\theta_c \\ \sin\theta_c & \cos\theta_c \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c} G^a_\mu \\ C^a_\mu \end{array}\right)$$ where the mixing angle $\theta_c$ is defined by $$\sin\theta_c = \frac{g_{s1}}{\sqrt{g^2_{s1}+g^2_{s2}}}$$ The case of an axigluon corresponds to maximal mixing $\theta = \pi/4$, i.e. $g^2_{s1}=g^2_{s2}=g^2_s/2$. Taking the leading-order interference with the SM amplitude for $q\bar{q}\to t\bar{t}$, in the limit $s << M_A^2$, we find that the axigluon induces the dimension-six operators $$\frac{C^1_u}{\Lambda^2} = \frac{g^2_s}{M_A^2},\hspace{10pt}\hspace{10pt} \frac{C^1_d}{\Lambda^2} = \frac{5g^2_s}{4M_A^2},\hspace{10pt}\hspace{10pt} \frac{C^2_u}{\Lambda^2} = \frac{C^2_d}{\Lambda^2} = \frac{2 g^2_s}{M_A^2}$$ Substituting the marginalised constraints on the 4-quark operators, we find this translates into a lower bound on an axigluon mass. $M_A \gtrsim 1.4 $ [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}at the 95% confidence level. Since this mass range coincides with the overflow bin of figure \[fig:distributions\], this bound creates some tension with the validity of the EFT approach in the presence of resonances in the $t\bar t$ spectrum (for a general discussion see Ref. [@Englert:2014cva; @Brehmer:2015rna; @Isidori:2013cga]); at this stage in the LHC programme indirect searches are not sensitive enough to compete with dedicated searches.
$W'$ searches
-------------
Turning our attention to single top production, we consider the example of the operator $O^{(3)}_{qq}$ being generated by a heavy charged vector resonance ($W'$) which interferes with the SM amplitude for $s$-channel single top production: $u\bar{d}\to W\to t\bar{b}$. The most general Lagrangian for such a particle (allowing for left and right chiral couplings) is (see e.g. Ref. [@Boos:2006xe].) $$\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}V_{ij}g_{W'}\bar{q}_i\gamma_\mu(f^R_{ij}(1+\gamma^5)+f^L_{ij}(1-\gamma^5))W^\mu q_j + h.c.$$ We take the generic coupling $g_{W'} = g_{SM}$. Since we are considering the interference term only, which must have the same $(V-A)$ structure as the SM, we can set $f^R=0$. Considering the tree-level interference term for between the diagrams for $u\bar{d}\to W', W'\to t\bar{b}$, and taking the limit $s \ll M_W'^2$ (we also work in the narrow-width approximation $\Gamma_{W}, \Gamma_{W'} \ll M_W, M_{W'} $), we find $$\label{eq:wprime}
\frac{C^{3,1133}_{qq}}{\Lambda^2} = \frac{g^2}{4M^2_{W'}}$$ which, using our global constraint on $O_{t}$, translates into a bound $M_{W'} \gtrsim 1.2 $ [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}.
These bounds are consistent with, but much weaker than, constraints from direct searches for dijet resonances from ATLAS [@Aad:2011fq; @Aad:2014aqa] and CMS [@Khachatryan:2015sja], which report lower bounds of $\{M_A,M_{W'}\} > \{2.72,3.32\} $ [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}and $\{M_A,M_{W'}\} > \{2.2,3.6\} $ [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}respectively. It is unsurprising that these dedicated analyses obtain stronger limits, given the generality of this fit. Again this energy range is resolved in our fit thus in principle invalidating the EFT approach to obtain eq. . Nonetheless, these bounds provide an interesting comparison of our numerical results, whilst emphasising that for model-specific examples, direct searches for high-mass resonances provide stronger limits than general global fits.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we have performed an up-to-date global fit of top quark effective field theory to experimental data, including all constrainable operators at dimension six. For the operators, we use the ‘Warsaw basis’ of Ref. [@Grzadkowski:2010es], which has also been widely used in the context of Higgs and precision electroweak physics. We use data from the Tevatron and LHC experiments, including LHC Run II data, up to a centre of mass energy of 13 [$\text{T}\mspace{0.05mu}\text{e}\mspace{-1mu}\text{V}$]{}. Furthermore, we include fully inclusive cross-section measurements, as well as kinematic distributions involving both the production and decay of the top quark. Counting each bin independently, the total number of observables entering our fit is 227, with a total of 13 contributing operators. Constraining the coefficients of these operators is then a formidable computational task. To this end we use the parametrisation methods in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Professor</span> framework, first developed in the context of Monte Carlo generator tuning [@Buckley:2009bj], and discussed here in Section \[sec:fit\].
![95% confidence intervals for the dimension-six operators that we consider here, with all remaining operators set to zero (red) and marginalised over (blue). In cases where there are constraints on the same operator from different classes of measurement, the strongest limits are shown here. The lack of marginalised constraints for the final three operators is discussed in Section \[sec:assoc\].[]{data-label="fig:constraints"}](constraints.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
**Coefficient** **Individual constraint** **Marginalised constraint**
--------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- -----------------------------
${\ensuremath{C_{G}^{}}}v^2/\Lambda^2$ (—0.018, 0.027) (—0.097, 0.085)
${\ensuremath{C_{uG}^{33}}}v^2/\Lambda^2$ (—0.018, 0.039) (—0.079, 0.073)
${\ensuremath{C_{u}^{1}}}v^2/\Lambda^2$ (—0.103, 0.018) (—0.236, 0.188)
${\ensuremath{C_{u}^{2}}}v^2/\Lambda^2$ (—0.175, 0.036) (—0.424, 0.272)
${\ensuremath{C_{d}^{1}}}v^2/\Lambda^2$ (—0.067, 0.121) (—0.139, 0.151)
${\ensuremath{C_{d}^{2}}}v^2/\Lambda^2$ (—0.109, 0.085) (—0.508, 0.533)
${\ensuremath{C_{uW}^{33}}}v^2/\Lambda^2$ (—0.151, 0.151) (—0.242, 0.206)
${\ensuremath{C_{t}^{}}}v^2/\Lambda^2$ (—0.024, 0.036) (—0.036, 0.073)
${\ensuremath{C_{\varphi q}^{(3)}}}v^2/\Lambda^2$ (—0.157, 0.091) (—0.254, 0.121)
${\ensuremath{C_{uB}^{33}}}v^2/\Lambda^2$ (—0.430, 0.284) (—, —)
${\ensuremath{C_{\varphi u}^{}}}v^2/\Lambda^2$ (—0.593, 0.496) (—, —)
${\ensuremath{C_{\varphi q}^{(1)}}}v^2/\Lambda^2$ (—0.188, 0.188) (—, —)
: Numerical values of the individual and marginalised 95% confidence intervals on the operators presented here.[]{data-label="table:numbers"}
We perform a $\chi^2$ fit of theory to data, including appropriate correlation matrices where these have been provided by the experiments. We obtain bounds on the Wilson coefficients of various operators contributing to top quark production and decay, summarised in Figure \[fig:constraints\], in two cases: (i) when all other coefficients are set to zero; (ii) when all other operators coefficients are marginalised over. The numerical values of these constraints are also shown in Table \[table:numbers\].
Our stronger constraints are on operators involving the gluon, as expected given the dominance of gluon fusion in top pair production at the LHC (for which there is more precise data). Four fermion operators are constrained well in general, with weaker constraints coming from processes whose experimental uncertainties remain statistically dominated (e.g. $t\bar{t}V$ production). We have quantified the interplay between the Tevatron and LHC datasets, as well as that between different measurement types (e.g. top pair, single top).
Our results currently agree well with the SM only, which is perhaps to be expected given the lack of reported deviations in previous studies. However, the fact that this agreement is obtained, in a wide global fit, is itself testament to the consistency of different top quark measurements, with no obvious tension between overlapping datasets. There are a number of directions for further study. Firstly, we can improve the theory description in our fit, to include higher order QCD corrections in a more rigorous way, as well as moving away from parton level observables. Secondly, new data from LHC Run II is continuously appearing, and can be implemented in our fit as soon as it is available. The era of performing large global fits to widely different data in the top quark sector is now upon us, and our work on this area is ongoing.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Chris Pollard for useful discussions throughout this project. CDW thanks Andrea Knue for clarifying details of an ATLAS analysis. MR thanks Laure Berthier and Michael Trott for a helpful discussion, and Alexander Mitov for correspondence regarding NNLO top pair differential distributions. AB is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship. DJM, LM, MR and CDW are supported by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) under grant ST/L000446/1. JF is supported under STFC grant ST/K001205/1.
[^1]: Current collider measurements, however, cannot rule out the existence of light degrees of freedom, see e.g. Ref. [@King:2012tr].
[^2]: Given the simplicity of how it captures modifications to SM fermion couplings, this basis is well-suited to top EFT. For basis choices of interest in Higgs physics, see e.g. Refs. [@Gupta:2014rxa; @Giudice:2007fh; @Contino:2013kra; @Masso:2014xra; @Pomarol:2014dya], and Ref. [@Falkowski:2015wza] for a tool for translating between them.
[^3]: We have observed that excluding this operator actually tightens the bounds on the remaining ones, so choosing to keep it is the more conservative option.
[^4]: One may worry that the inclusion of the final ‘overflow’ bin in the invariant mass distributions may invalidate the EFT approach. We have performed the global fit without these data points, and found that they have little effect on our constraints. This is due to the large experimental uncertainties in this region, and the fact that these bins comprise less than 5% of the total degrees of freedom in our fit, so have little statistical pull.
[^5]: Our bounds on these two operators are of the same order, but wider, than a pre-LHC phenomenological study [@Cao:2007ea], owing to larger experimental errors than estimated there.
[^6]: Early measurements of top pair production in association with a $W$ has also been reported by ATLAS and CMS, but the experimental errors are too large to say anything meaningful about new physics therein; the measured cross-sections are still consistent with zero.
[^7]: Contributions to $A_{FB}$ also arise from the normalisation of $A_{FB}$ and the dimension-six squared term[@Bauer:2010iq; @AguilarSaavedra:2011vw; @Delaunay:2011gv], which we keep, as discussed in sections 3.3 and 4.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We develop Hida theory for Shimura varieties of type A without ordinary locus. In particular we show that the dimension of the space of ordinary forms is bounded independently of the weight and that there is a module of $\Lambda$-adic cuspidal ordinary forms which is of finite type over $\Lambda$, where $\Lambda$ is a twisted Iwasawa algebra.'
address:
- |
Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu-Paris Rive Gauche\
Université Paris Diderot\
Paris\
France
- 'Concordia University, Departments of Mathematics and Statistics, Montréal, Québec, Canada'
author:
- Riccardo Brasca
- Giovanni Rosso
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Hida theory over some unitary Shimura varieties without ordinary locus
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In the historical paper [@HidaENS], Hida firstly constructed $\m Z_p\llbracket T \rrbracket$-adic families of ordinary eigenforms. Since then a lot of work has been done in many directions, both relaxing the ordinary hypothesis and considering more general automorphic forms. The state-of-the-art result concerning families of ordinary forms is [@hida_control], where the author shows that one can do Hida theory for all algebraic groups whose associated Shimura variety has a non-empty ordinary locus. Over the years Hida theory has found a lot of spectacular applications in number theory, ranging from proving cases of Mazur–Tate–Teitelbaum conjecture [@GreenbergStevens] to modularity lifting theorems [@BLGGT]. It would be hence extremely useful to have Hida theory in the greatest generality as possible; the aim of this paper is to complete Hida’s construction in the case of Shimura varieties of type A under the mild assumption that $p$ is unramified in the Shimura datum.
Let us be more precise. In [@hida_control] Hida axiomatised his approach to the study of ordinary families of $p$-adic modular forms. His machinery requires a certain set of conditions to be verified, such as:
- the rank of the ordinary part of the space of weight $\kappa$ modular forms is bounded independently of $\kappa$;
- the existence of a Hasse invariant whose non-vanishing locus is the ordinary locus and which commutes with the $\U_p$ operators;
- a space of $p$-adic modular forms which contains as a dense subset all the classical modular forms, of all weights and all $p^n$-levels.
Of course he had in mind the standard notion of $p$-adic forms, *i.e.* forms defined over the ordinary locus, but in the axiomatic approach what one needs is just a huge space of $p$-adic modular forms where one can embed the classical forms. Usually one takes the space of functions on the Igusa tower, a space that parametrises trivializations of the relevant $p$-divisible group over the ordinary locus. Hida was able to show that all the assumptions of his theory are verified in this case and so he obtained the theory for general PEL type Shimura varieties with ordinary locus. In the paper at hand we want to generalise Hida theory to Shimura varieties of PEL type without ordinary locus using the same machinery.
The first step is to replace the ordinary locus with the more general $\mu$-ordinary locus, that is always dense in the (reduction modulo $p$ of the) Shimura variety. The first two conditions can be checked thanks to the work on (reduced) $\mu$-ordinary Hasse invariants [@WushiMH; @Valentinhasse]. What we still need is an analogue of the Igusa tower that let us define the space of $p$-adic modular forms. Of course in general the universal $\mu$-ordinary abelian scheme is not ordinary, but we have a good understanding of (the Dieudonné module of) his $p$-divisible group: it comes with a natural filtration whose graded pieces are generalised Lubin–Tate groups determined by the PEL data (more precisely by the signature at infinity of the unitary group). If the ordinary locus is not empty it is then equal to the $\mu$-ordinary locus and this graded pieces are actually the connected-multiplicative and the étale part of the $p$-divisible group. To define the usual Igusa tower, one looks at the automorphisms of the graded pieces that moreover respect the polarisation, so in practice one takes the automorphisms of the connected component of the universal ordinary $p$-divisible group. We do a similar thing: we take for the Igusa tower the automorphisms of the graded pieces, but *we ignore the polarisation* and [*we discard the étale part*]{} (as, being étale, its module of invariant differentials is zero). This choice has two main effects:
- our Igusa tower can be extended to a fixed toroidal compactification of the Shimura variety. Note that this would not be possible if we had taken into account the polarisation, as the universal semiabelian scheme is not polarised. We view this possibility of extending the Igusa tower to the compactification as one of the main reasons to justify our choice;
- the Igusa tower seems to be ‘too big’, in the sense that its Galois group has too many $p$-adic characters (because we want to take these characters as the weights of our modular forms and we know the number of components a weight must have from the complex theory).
To fix this issue, our idea is to consider only characters that are [*locally analytic*]{} in a suitable sense. Roughly speaking, it means that the action of the character on the Lie algebra of $\m C^\ast_p$ must have the same signature as the action on the Lie algebra of the Dieudonné module of the relevant graded pieces.
Let us be more explicit: we fix an unramified extension $\mc O$ of $\m Z_p$ and a type $(d,\mathfrak{f})$ in the sense [@Moonen]. The Dieudonné module $M$ of the $\mu$-ordinary Barsotti–Tate with $\mc O$-structure of type $(d,\mathfrak{f})$ is a free $\mc O \otimes_{\m Z_p} \mc O$-module of rank $h$ (where $h$ depends on the type). It comes with a sub-$\mc O$-module $\mr{Fil}^1$ that (and here is the big difference from the classical cases of Hida theory) is *not* a free $\mc O \otimes_{\m Z_p} \mc O$-module, unless $M$ is ordinary in the usual sense.
Suppose moreover that $h=1$ (this is what we call a generalised Lubin–Tate). Classically, a $p$-adic weight would be a character of $\mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont}}(\mc O^\ast, \m C^\ast_p)$. But, given the set of all $\sigma:\mc O \rightarrow \mc O_{\m C_p}$, the action of $\mc O$ on $\mr{Fil}^1$ is via a subset of these $\sigma$’s. Our $p$-adic weights are defined as continuous characters of $\mc O^\ast$ which are $\sigma$-analytic for the $\sigma$’s appearing in the action of $\mc O$ over $\mr{Fil}^1$. (See Subsection \[subsec: weight space\] for the precise definition.)
We can then show that in this way we get characters (and hence weights) with the expected number of components. Note that in this case our weight space $\mc W$ and its Iwasawa algebra $\Lambda$ will be a twisted version of the usual weight space and Iwasawa algebra.
Thanks to a variant of the Hodge–Tate map, we prove in Proposition \[prop:classicaltopadic\] that classical modular forms can be interpreted as functions on the Igusa tower, see Section \[sec:HodgeTate\] for more details. We then define $V^{\mr{cusp}}$, a subspace of the functions on the Igusa tower where classical cuspidal forms are dense, and we check that all the conditions we need hold, assuming that one has a reduced $\mu$-ordinary Hasse invariant. The main theorem, stating the existence of cuspidal Hida families and a control result, is the following:
Let $G$ be a unitary group satisfying Assumption \[ass: p-adic\]. We have constructed:
1. An ordinary projector $e_G=e_G^2$ on $V^{\mr{cusp}}$ such that the Pontryagin dual of its ordinary part $$V^{\mr{cusp},*,\mr{ord}}\colonequals \mr{Hom}_{\m Z_p}\left(V^{\mr{cusp},\mr{ord}},\m Q_p/\m Z_p\right)$$ (which is naturally a $\Lambda$-module) is finite free over $\Lambda^{\circ}$.
2. The $\Lambda$-module of cuspidal Hida families $\mc S \colonequals \mr{Hom}_{\Lambda}\left(V^{\mr{cusp},*,\mr{ord}},\Lambda\right)$, which is of finite type over $\Lambda$.
3. Given an algebraic weight $\kappa$ for $\Lambda$, let $\mc P_{\kappa}$ be the corresponding prime ideal of $\Lambda$. Then $$\mc S\otimes \Lambda/\mc P_{\kappa}\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}\varprojlim_m\varinjlim_l V^{\mr{cusp}, \mr{ord}}_{m,l}[\kappa],$$ and, if $\kappa$ is very regular, combining it with gives $${\mr S_{\kappa}(\mc H, K)}^{\mr{ord}} \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} \left(\mc S \otimes\Lambda /\mc P_{\kappa}\right)[1/p].$$ Here the maps are equivariant under the action of the unramified Hecke algebra away from $Np$ and the $\m U_p$-operators.
Assumption \[ass: p-adic\] is simply to ensure that $p$ ‘does not ramify’ in the Shimura datum.
A lot of people have recently been interested in the study of families of $p$-adic modular forms whenever the ordinary locus is empty. In [@EischenMantovan] Eischen and Mantovan develop and study extensively a theory of $p$-adic modular forms in this setting, using a slightly different Igusa tower. They also prove many results that we have not covered, and among these we quote the problem of density of classical modular forms in the space of $p$-adic modular forms, the construction of differential operators in the spirit of Serre’s $\theta$ operator, and the construction of explicit families of $p$-adic modular forms. In [@ValentinU21] Hernandez constructs an eigenvariety for $\mr U(2,1)$ over a quadratic imaginary fields where $p$ is inert and, using the results of [@Valentinfiltration], his method is very likely to generalise to all the cases considered in this paper.
We remark that there exist Shimura varieties of type D and PEL-type. In many case the ordinary locus is not empty and these cases have been dealt with in [@hida_control] but there are a few cases when the ordinary locus is empty. The situation in this case is even simpler then the one in our paper, as the $\mu$-ordinary $p$-divisible group is the product of a multiplicative part, an étale part, and a fixed generalised Lubin–Tate [@Moonen §3.2.3]. The same method of this paper easily generalises to this setting, but for sake of brevity and exposition we shall not treat it.
Our approach to $\mu$-ordinary $p$-divisible groups and, in general, a lot of our constructions are very ‘linear algebra-style’. This is done on purpose as we are very confident that the methods of the paper can be generalised to all Shimura variety with a flat and surjective map to the stack of $G$-Zip, such as Hodge type Shimura varieties (in whose context one has the work of Goldring–Koskivirta [@GoldringK1] and Zhang [@ZhangGzip]). This will be the subject of a future paper.
The plan of the paper is the following. In Section \[sec:Shimuradatum\] we fix some notations for Shimura varieties and Barsotti–Tate groups with $\mc O$-structure, in Section \[sec:Igusatower\] we define an Igusa tower $\mr{Ig}$ and compare classical forms with functions on $\mr{Ig}$. In Section \[sec:Heckeoperators\] we define two ordinary projectors: $e_{\mr{GL}}$, of representation theoretic flavor and which will be used to prove the control theorem, and $e_G$, of geometric nature and that will serve to control the rank of ordinary parts. In Section \[sec:Hidatheory\] we put everything together to construct the module of cuspidal Hida families. Finally, in the appendix, we construct reduced mod $p$ Hasse invariants, using a remark of Hernandez.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
It will be evident to the reader how much we owe to Haruzo Hida and his mathematics. We thank Vincent Pilloni for suggesting to one of us the problem and the idea for the Igusa tower and Valentin Hernandez for explaining us his constructions and for his feedback on the present paper. We also thank, for useful discussions, Wushi Goldring, Marc-Hubert Nicole, and Jacques Tilouine and all the participants of the reading group on Hida theory held in Paris 13 in 2013-14. Finally, we would to thank Giacomo Graziani and Toby Gee for pointing an error in a previous definition of our Iwasawa algebra.
Shimura datum and mu-ordinary locus {#sec:Shimuradatum}
===================================
In this section we introduce the Shimura varieties we will work with. These will be Shimura varieties of PEL type, associated with certain unitary groups.
PEL data {#subsec: PEL data}
--------
Let $F_0$ be a totally real number field and let $F$ be a totally imaginary quadratic extension of $F$ ([*i.e.*]{} a CM field). Let $d$ be $[F_0 : \Q]$ and let $\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_d$ be the various embeddings $F_0 \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}$. We choose once and for all a CM-type for $F$, [*i.e.*]{} we choose $\sigma_1,\ldots, \sigma_d$ embeddings $F \hookrightarrow \C$ such that $\sigma_{i|F_0} = \tau_i$. In particular, $\Hom(F,\C)= \set{\sigma_i, \bar \sigma_i}_i$, where $\bar \cdot$ is the complex conjugation.
Let $\m V \neq 0$ be an $\mc O_F$-lattice equipped with a nondegenerate bilinear pairing $$\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle \colon \m V \times \m V \to \Z.\\$$ We assume that $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ is symplectic with respect to $\mc O_F$, in the sense that it is alternating and moreover $$\langle \gamma x,y \rangle = \langle x, \overline\gamma y \rangle$$ for all $\gamma \in \mc O_F$ and $x,y \in \m V$. We set $V \colonequals \m V \otimes_{\Z} \Q$. Note that the existence of the pairing $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ forces $\dim_{\Q}(V)$ to be even.
\[rmk: basic situation\] Usually, the above data always arise from an Hermitian form as follows (if $F_0 = \Q$ this is always the case). Recall that a Hermitian form $$\Psi(\cdot, \cdot) \colon \m V \times \m V \to \mc O_F,$$ is an $\mc O_{F_0}$-bilinear form that is $\mc O_F$-linear in the first variable and such that $$\Psi(y, x) = \overline{\Psi(y, x)}.$$ Suppose we are given such a $\Psi$ that is nondegenerate. To obtain a pairing as above, we fix a totally negative element $\alpha \in \mc O_F$, so $\alpha$ is an algebraic integer such that $F=F_0(\sqrt{\alpha})$. Then, the $\mc O_{F_0}$-bilinear pairing $$\begin{gathered}
\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle \colon \m V \times \m V \to \Z\\
(x,y) \mapsto \Tr_{F/\Q} (\alpha\Psi(x,y))\end{gathered}$$ is nondegenerate and symplectic with respect to $\mc O_F$.
\[rmk: more general\] More generally one can start with a simple algebra $B$ over $\Q$, with center $F$ and a positive involution $^\ast \colon B \to B$ such that $[F:F_0] = 2$, where $F_0$ is the subfield of $F$ fixed by $^\ast$. This the so called Case (A) of [@pel]. (One need to use certain Morita equivalences in this case.) The above situation corresponds to $B=F$ and $\cdot^\ast = \overline{ \cdot }$.
Our choice of $\sigma_i$ gives an isomorphism $F \otimes_{F_0,\tau_i} \mathbb{R} \cong \C$ and, thanks to the symplectic pairing $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$, the $\mathbb{C}$-vector space $V \otimes_{F_0,\tau_i} \mathbb{R}$ inherits a skew Hermitian form. We denote with $(a_i,b_i)$ its signature. (If we are in the case of Remark \[rmk: basic situation\], these are the signatures of the Hermitian form $\Psi$.) Note that $a_i+b_i$ does not depend on $i$ and it is equal to $n\colonequals \frac{\dim_{\Q}(V)}{2d}$. Up to renaming the embeddings of $F_0$ into $\mathbb{R}$ we may (and we actually do) assume that $$a_1 \leq a_2 \leq \cdots \leq a_d \leq b_d \leq \cdots \leq b_2 \leq b_1.$$
Let $G$ be the algebraic group scheme over $\Z$ given by the symplectic similitudes of $\m V$, i.e for all ring $R$ we have, functorially on $R$, $$G(R) = \set{(g, \lambda) \in \GL(\m V \otimes_{\Z} R) \times R^\ast \mbox{ such that } \langle gx,gy \rangle = \lambda \langle x,y\rangle \mbox{ for all } x,y \in \m V}.$$ Note that $\lambda$ is uniquely determined by $g$, so we will usually drop it from the notation. Also, we have a morphism $$\begin{gathered}
\nu \colon G \to \mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}} \\
(g,\lambda) \mapsto \lambda.\end{gathered}$$ We have that $G_{\Q}$ is a connected reductive algebraic group and by construction there is an isomorphism $$G_{\mathbb{R}} \cong \mathrm{G}\left(\prod_{i=1}^d \U(a_i,b_i)_{\mathbb{R}} \right),$$ where $\U(a_i,b_i)_{\mathbb{R}}$ is the real unitary associated to the standard Hermitian form of signature $(a_i,b_i)$. Here the notation $\mathrm{G}(\cdot)$ means that the similitude factors for the various embeddings $F_0 \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ match.
We now fix a *polarisation* of $(\m V, \langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle)$, i.e. an $\mathbb{R}$-algebra homomorphism $$h \colon \C \to \End_{F \otimes_{\Q} \mathbb R}(V \otimes_{\Q} \mathbb{R})$$ such that, for all $z \in \C$ and all $x, y \in V \otimes_{\Q} \mathbb{R}$, we have:
- $\langle h(z)x,y, \rangle = \langle x, h(\overline{z}y)\rangle$;
- the pairing $(x,y) \mapsto \langle x,h(i)y \rangle$ is symmetric and positive definite.
This is the same as giving an homomorphism $\mathbb{S} \to G_{\mathbb{R}}$, where $\mathbb{S}$ is the Deligne torus, and it induces a complex structure on $V \otimes_{\Q} \mathbb{R}$. We then have a decomposition $$V \otimes_{\Q} \C \cong V_{\C,1} \oplus V_{\C,2},$$ where $h(z)$ acts on $V_{\C,1}$ via multiplication by $z$ and via multiplication by $\bar z$ on $V_{\C,2}$. There is an isomorphism of $F \otimes_{\Q} \mathbb{R} \cong \C^{d}$-modules $$V_{\C,1} \cong \prod_{i=1}^d \C^{a_i} \oplus \prod_{i=1}^d \overline \C^{b_i},$$ where $\C$ acts by multiplication on the first factor and by multiplication by the conjugate on the second factor. The reflex field $E$ is by definition the field of definition of the isomorphism class of the complex $F$-representation $V_{\C,1}$.
The p-adic setting {#subsec: p-adic sett}
------------------
We let $p \neq 2$ be a fixed prime number. We fix once and for all embeddings $\overline \Q \hookrightarrow \C$ and $i_p \colon\overline \Q \hookrightarrow \overline \Q_p$. We denote with $\mc P$ the corresponding prime ideal of $\mc O_E$ above $p$ and we write $E_{\mc P}$ for the $\mc P$-adic completion of $E$.
\[ass: p-adic\] From now on we assume that:
- $p$ is unramified in $F_0$ and we denote by $\pi_1, \ldots, \pi_k$ the primes of $\mc O_{F_0}$ above $p$;
- the restriction of $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ to $\m V_p$ gives a perfect pairing with values in $\Z_p$.
We write $d_i$ for the residue degree of $\pi_i$, so $d_1 + \cdots + d_k = d = [F_0 : \Q]$ and the completion of $\mc O_{F_0}$ at $\pi_i$ is isomorphic to $\Z_{p^{d_i}}$. In particular we have $$\mc O_{F_0,p} = \prod_{i=1}^k \Z_{p^{d_i}}.$$ Note that $\mc O_{F,p}$ depends on which primes above $p$ in $\mc O_{F_0}$ are inert in $\mc O_F$: if $\pi_i$ is split in $\mc O_F$ we will write $\pi_i = \pi_i^+ \pi_i^-$. Then we have $$\mc O_{F,p} = \prod_{\pi_i \text{ split}} \left ( \Z_{p^{d_i}} \times \Z_{p^{d_i}} \right ) \times \prod_{\pi_i \text{ inert}} \Z_{p^{2d_i}},$$ where the decomposition corresponding to split primes is obtained accordingly to $\pi_i = \pi_i^+ \pi_i^-$ and we have fixed an identification $\Z_{p^{d_i}} = \Hom_{\Z_p}(\Z_{p^{d_i}}, \Z_p)$.
Shimura varieties {#subsec: shim var}
-----------------
Let $\mc H \subset G(\mathbb{A}^p)$ be a compact open subgroup that we assume to be *sufficiently small*, fixed from now on. (To be precise we need $\mc H$ to be *neat* in the sense of [@lan Definition 1.4.1.8].) We are interested in the functor $$X \colon \mbox{ locally noetherian } \mc O_{E_{\mc P}}-\mbox{schemes} \to \mathbf{set}$$ that to $S$ associates the isomorphism classes of the following data:
1. an abelian scheme $A/S$ (of dimension $nd=\frac{\dim_{\Q}(V)}{2}$);
2. a polarisation $\lambda \colon A \to A^\vee$ of degree prime to $p$;
3. an action $\iota \colon \mc O_F \to \End_S(A)$ on $A/S$ such that $\lambda \circ \iota(\bar x) = \iota(x)^\vee \circ \lambda$ and $\det_{\Lie(A)}$ equals $\det_{V_{\C,1}}$ as polynomials with coefficients in $\mc O_S$;
4. a $\mc H$-level structure $\alpha$ in the sense of [@lan Definition 1.3.7.6].
We furthermore require the usual determinant condition of Kottwitz, see [@lan Definition 1.3.4.1]. In our particular case, this last condition can be formulated in a simple way: it is equivalent to assume that $\Lie(A)$ is isomorphic, Zariski locally on $S$, to the $\mc O_S \otimes_{\Z_p} \mc O_{F,p}$-module $$\mc O_{F,p} = \mc O_S \otimes_{\Z_p} \left( \prod_{\pi_i \text{ split}} \left( \Z_{p^{d_i}}^{a_i} \oplus \Z_{p^{d_i}}^{b_i} \right) \times \prod_{ \pi_i \text{ inert}} \Z_{p^{2d_i}}^{a_i+b_i} \right).$$ It is known (see for example [@lan Theorem 1.4.1.11 and Corollary 1.4.1.12]) that the functor $X$ is representable by a quasi-projective scheme over $\Sp(\mc O_{E_{\mc P}})$, denoted again by $X$. Thanks to the unramifiedness assumption, $X$ is smooth over $\Sp(\mc O_{E_{\mc P}})$. We have that $\dim(X) = \sum_{i=1}^d a_i b_i$. We now let $K$ be a finite extension of $\Q_p$, that we assume to be ‘sufficiently big’ (the meaning of this will change during the paper without any further comment). We base change $X$ to $\mc O_K$, using the same notation.
Shimura varieties of Iwahoric level {#subsec: Iw level}
-----------------------------------
Let $\mc A$ be the universal abelian scheme over $X$. Using the action of $\mc O_F$ on the $p$-divisible group associated to $\mc A$, we have a decomposition $$\mc A[p^\infty] = \prod_{ \pi_i \text{ split}} \left ( \mc A[(\pi_i^+)^\infty] \oplus \mc A[(\pi_i^-)^\infty] \right ) \times \prod_{\pi_i \text{ inert}} \mc A[\pi_i^\infty] ,$$ where $\mc A[(\pi_i^-)^\infty]$ is canonically identified with the Cartier dual of $\mc A[(\pi_i^+)^\infty]$. We have an action of $\Z_{p^{d_i}}$ on $\mc A[(\pi_i^+)^\infty]$ and on $\mc A[(\pi_i^-)^\infty]$, and are both Barsotti–Tate groups of height $d_i(a_i+b_i)= d_i \frac{\dim_{\Q}(V)}{2d}$. The first one has dimension $d_ia_i$ and the second one has dimension $d_ib_i$. If $\pi_i$ is inert we have an action of $\Z_{p^{2d_i}}$ on $\mc A[(\pi_i)^\infty]$, that is an autodual $p$-divisible group of dimension $d_i(a_i+b_i)$.
\[defi: Iw\] Let $X_{\Iw} \to \Sp(\mc O_K)$ be the functor $$X_{\Iw} \colon \mbox{ locally noetherian } \mc O_{K}-\mbox{schemes} \to \mathbf{set}$$ that to $S$ associates the isomorphism classes of the following data:
1. a point $(A, \lambda, \iota, \alpha) \in X(S)$;
2. for all $i$ such that $\pi_i$ is split, a filtration $$0 = H_{i,0} \subset H_{i,1} \subset \cdots \subset H_{i, a_i+b_i} = A[\pi_i^+],$$ where each $H_{i,j}$ is a finite and flat subgroup of $A[\pi_i^+]$, stable under the action of $\Z_{p^{d_i}}$ and of height $d_ij$;
3. for all $i$ such that $\pi_i$ is inert, a filtration $$0 = H_{i,0} \subset H_{i,1} \subset \cdots \subset H_{i, a_i+b_i} = A[\pi_i],$$ where $H_{i,j}$ is a finite and flat subgroup of $A[\pi_i]$, stable under the action of $\Z_{p^{2d_i}}$ and of height $2d_i j$.
This functor is representable by a scheme, denoted again $X_{\Iw}$ and there is a proper morphism $X_{\Iw} \to X$.
\[rmk: orth\] Let $(A, \lambda, \iota, \alpha, (H_{i,\bullet})_i)$ be a point of $X_{\Iw}$ and let $i$ be such that $\pi_i$ is split. Taking the orthogonal with respect to the perfect pairing given by Cartier duality between $A[\pi_i^+]$ and $A[\pi_i^-]$, we have that $H_{i,\bullet}$ induces an analogous filtration on $A[\pi_i^-]$, so the choice of working with $A[\pi_i^+]$ is harmless.
Compactifications
-----------------
We fix one and for all a smooth toroidal compactification $X^{\tor}$ of $X$. It comes with the universal semi-abelian scheme $\mc G \to X^{\tor}$ and admits a stratification $ \bigsqcup_W X^{\mr{tor}}_W$, where $W$ ranges among $\mc H$-equivalence classes of co-torsion-free sub-modules of $\m V$. We denote by $X^*$ the a minimal compactification and by $\pi$ the proper map $\pi: X^{\mr{tor}}\rightarrow X^*$.
We let $S$ be the $\mu$-ordinary locus consisting of points whose associated $p$-divisible group is $\mu$-ordinary in the sense of [@Moonen]. We write $S^*$ for the $\mu$-ordinary locus of $X^*$ and $S^{\mr{tor}}$ for the counter-image of $S^*$ inside $X^{\tor}$. We denote by $\mr{Ha}^{\mu}$ a Hasse invariant for $G$. It is a modular form modulo $p$ whose non-vanishing locus is the $\mu$-ordinary locus. We shall sketch in the next section the idea behind its construction.
For a variety $Y$ over $W(k)$, we denote by $Y_m\colonequals Y \times_{\mr{Spec}(W(k))} \mr{Spec}(W(k)/p^m)$ and by $Y_{\infty}$ the corresponding formal scheme.
We conclude with three examples of algebraic group $G$ (and hence of Shimura variety $X$) that in our opinion the reader should keep in mind.
\[esempio1\] We suppose $F_0 =\m Q$ and $F$ a quadratic imaginary field where $p$ is inert and that $G$ at infinity is $\mr {GU}(1,2)$.
\[esempio2\] Generalising the previous example, we suppose $F_0$ is a totally real field of degree $d$ and $F$ a CM where $p$ is inert, and that $G$ at infinity is $\mr G(\U(1,2d)\times \U(2,2d-1)\times \ldots \times \U(d,d+1))$.
\[esempio3\] We suppose $F_0$ is a totally real field of degree $2$ where $p$ is inert and $F$ a CM where $p$ splits, and that $G$ at infinity is $\mr G(\U(1,4)\times \U(2,3))$.
Dieudonné theory {#subsec: dieud}
----------------
In this section we recall the theory of $\mu$-ordinary $p$-divisible groups following [@Moonen; @Bijamu]. We fix an unramified extension $\m Q_{p^f}/\Q_p$ of degree $f$. We write $\mc O = \m Z_{p^f}$ for its valuation ring, $D$ for its Galois group and $\mr{Fr}$ for the Frobenius of $D$. Fix also a finite field $k$ such that $W(k)$, that will be our base ring, contains $\mc O$. We denote by $I$ the set of embeddings $\mc O \rightarrow W(k)$.
For a fixed integer $h$ we define $M$ to be a free $W(k)$-module of rank $fh$ with basis $(e_{\sigma,i})_{\sigma \in I,i=1,\ldots,h}$ and we also fix $\eps: I^h \rightarrow \set{0,1}$ (this is equivalent to the map $\mathfrak{f} :I \rightarrow \set{0,1,\dots,h}$ in [@Moonen]). We define a Frobenius operator $F$ and a Verschiebung $V$ on $M$ $$\begin{aligned}
F e_{\sigma,i}=p^{\eps(\sigma,i)}e_{\mr{Fr}\sigma,i} \;\:\;\: Ve_{\sigma,i}=p^{1-\eps(\sigma,i)}e_{\mr{Fr}^{-1}\sigma,i}.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly $FV=VF=p$. For all $i$, we let $\mc O$ act on $e_{\sigma,i}$ via the $\sigma$-embedding. Hence $M$ is a free $\mc O \otimes_{\Z_p}W(k)$-module of rank $h$. Via Dieudonné equivalence, this defines a Barsotti–Tate group with $\mc O$-action of ($\mc O$-)height $h$ that shall be denote by $\mr{BT}_{\eps}$.
Take $h=1$ and identify $I$ with $\set{1,\ldots,f}$; we will sometimes write $\eps$ by writing the the images of the elements $\set{1,\ldots,f}$. We shall write $\eps^{(i)}$ for the map $\eps^{(i)}$ such that $\eps^{(i)}(j)=1$ if $j \geq i+1 $ and $0$ otherwise. For example, we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\mr{BT}_{\eps^{(0)}} = \mr{BT}_{(1,1,\ldots,1)} = \mu_{p^{\infty}} \otimes_{\Z_p} \mc O; \\
\mr{BT}_{\eps^{(f-1)}} = \mr{BT}_{(0,\ldots,0,1)} = \mc{LT}_{\mc O}[p^{\infty}]; \\
\mr{BT}_{\eps^{(f)}} = \mr{BT}_{(0,\ldots,0)} = K/\mc O \;(\mbox{or }\Q_p/\Z_p \otimes_{\Z_p} \mc O).\end{gathered}$$ If $\mc D$ denotes Cartier duality for $p$-divisible groups, note that $\mc D(\mr{BT}_{\eps})=\mr{BT}_{1-\eps}$. In general, we shall denote by $\mc{LT}_i$ the BT with $\mc O$-structure $\mr{BT}_{\eps^{(i)}} $ and call it generalised Lubin–Tate. Note that a generalised Lubin–Tate is rigid, in the sense that there is a unique deformation in characteristic zero [@Moonen Corollary 2.1.5].
We write $\mr{Fil}^1(M)$ for the $\mc O$-module spanned by the $e_{\sigma,i}$ for which $F(e_{\sigma,i}) \equiv 0 \bmod p$. (Note that it is not a free $\mc O \otimes_{\Z_p} W(k)$-module!)
For simplicity, we suppose now that $p$ is inert in the totally real field $F_0$ and we write $\mc O$ for the $p$-adic completion of its ring of integers. We shall say that we are in case ([U]{}) if $p$ is inert also in $F$ and in case ([L]{}) if $p$ splits. Recall that we fixed a unitary group with signature at infinity $(a_i,b_i)$. We normalise the $a_i$’s and $b_i$’s so that $a_1 \leq a_2\leq \cdots \leq a_d \leq b_d \leq \ldots \leq b_1$; this induces an isomorphism of $I$ with $\set{1,\ldots,f}$ that it will be fixed for the rest of the section. We also write $\sigma_i$ for the embedding in $\mr{Hom}(\mc O_{F} \otimes \m Z_p, \C_p)$ corresponding to $a_i$ and $\bar \sigma_i$ for the one corresponding to $b_i$. We let $n=a_1+b_1=a_i+b_i$. For the rest of the subsection, let $\mc A^{\mu}$ be the $\mu$-ordinary abelian variety over $U$, a fixed open subset of the ordinary locus [*in characteristic*]{} $p$.
In case ([L]{}), let $p=\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$. We have $\m Q_{p^f}=F_{0,p}$, $f=d$ and, over $\overline{\m{F}}_p$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DecompL}
\mc A^{\mu}[p^{\infty}] \cong \mc A^{\mu}[{(\pi^{+})}^{\infty}] \times \mc A^{\mu}[{(\pi^{-})}^\infty] \cong \prod_{i=0}^f \mc{LT}_i^{a_{i+1}-a_i} \times \mc D\left(\prod_{i=0}^f \mc{LT}_i^{a_{i+1}-a_i} \right),\end{aligned}$$ after defining $a_0=0$ and $a_{f+1}=n$. We shall denote the corresponding BT by $\mr{BT}_G$ and its Dieudonné module by $M_G$. We have $\mr{dim}(A[{(\pi^{+})}^{\infty}])=\sum_{i=1}^f a_i$ and $\mr{dim}(A[{(\pi^{-})}^{\infty}])=\sum_{i=1}^f b_i$ (which is the dimension of $\mr{Fil}^1(M_G)$).
Similarly in case (U) we have $\m Q_{p^f}=F_p$, $2d=f$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DecompU}
\mc A^{\mu}[p^{\infty}] \cong \prod_{i=0}^f \mc{LT}_{i}^{a_{i+1}-a_i},\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $a_{j+d}\colonequals b_{d-j+1}$. (Note that $a_{j+(d-j)+1} - a_{j+1+(d-j-1)+1}=b_{j}-b_{j+1}=a_{j+1}-a_j$ if $2 \leq j \leq d-1$. This ensure that $\mc A[p^{\infty}]$ is self-dual under Cartier duality.) We shall again denote the corresponding BT by $\mr{BT}_G$ and its Dieudonné module by $M_G$. As before we have $\mr{dim}(\mc A^{\mu}[p^{\infty}])=dn$ (which is the dimension of $\mr{Fil}^1(M_G)$).
These explicit descriptions tell us immediately the condition for the ordinary locus to be non-empty in case (U): $a_1= \ldots=a_f$.
In both cases, we can identify $M_G$ with $\mr H^1_{\mr {dR}}(\mc A^{\mu})$ and also $\mr{Fil}^1(M_G)$ with $\mr{Fil}^1 \mr H^1_{\mr {dR}}(\mc A^{\mu})$.
In the Appendix \[Appendix\] we shall defined a refined Hasse invariant. In the case all the signatures are different, the invariants of the appendix coincide with the ones of [@WushiMH; @Valentinhasse] and it is no harm for the reader to think about them when considering the Hasse invariant, as we need our reduced Hasse invariants only in the proof of Theorem \[thm:boundedness\]. Their Hasse invariant is the product of the partial Hasse invariants $\mr{Ha}^{\mu,\sigma_i}$ defined as the determinant of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\bigwedge^{a_i} \mr{Fr}^{f}}{p^{c_i}} : \bigwedge^{a_i} \mr H^1_{\mr {dR}}(\mc A^{\mu})_{\sigma_i} / \mr{Fil}^1 (\bigwedge^{a_i} \mr H^1_{\mr {dR}}(\mc A^{\mu})_{\sigma_i})\rightarrow \bigwedge^{a_i} \mr H^1_{\mr {dR}}(\mc A^{\mu})_{\sigma_i}/\mr{Fil}^1(\bigwedge^{a_i} \mr H^1_{\mr {dR}}(\mc A^{\mu})_{\sigma_i}),\end{aligned}$$ where $c_i$ is an integer defined in the Appendix. This also shows that their Hasse invariant $\mr{Ha}^{\mu}$ is a modular form of parallel weight $p^f-1$ and that a power of it lifts to characteristic zero.
We quote from [@Moonen Proposition 2.1.9].
\[Prop:MoonenFil\] Let $X$ be a deformation of $\mr{BT}_G$ to a local Artinian $W(k)$-algebra. Then, étale locally on the $\mu$-ordinary locus, there is a unique filtration in BT with $\mc O$-structure $X_i$ of $X$ such that $X_i$ lifts the slope filtration of $\mr{BT}_G$ (which is defined only étale locally). Moreover, we have a filtration $\left\{ \mc A_i \right\}_{i=0}^{f+1}$ for $\mc A^{\mu}[p^{\infty}]$, where $\mc A_0 = 0$, $\mc A_{f+1} = \mc A^{\mu}[p^{\infty}]$, and $\mc A_1 =\mc A[p^{\infty}]^{\mr{mult}}$ ($\cong {(\mu_{p^{\infty}}\otimes \mc O)}^{a_1}$ in case (U) and $\cong {(\mu_{p^{\infty}}\otimes \mc O)}^{a_1} \times {(\mu_{p^{\infty}}\otimes \mc O)}^{b_1}$ in case (L)).
Modular forms and the Igusa tower {#sec:Igusatower}
=================================
Classical modular forms {#sec:classicalforms}
-----------------------
Consider the group $P=\prod_{i=1}^{d}\mr{GL}_{a_i}\times \mr{GL}_{b_i}$. Its complex points coincide with the automorphisms of ${(V_{\C,1} \oplus V_{\C,2})}^{\m C= \mr{Id}}$, where $\m C= \mr{Id}$ means holomorphic part. Consider the semi-abelian variety $\mc G$ over $X^{\mr{tor}}$ and let us denote by $e$ the unit section $e:X^{\mr{tor}} \rightarrow \mc G$. We have a locally free sheaf $\omega \colonequals e^\ast \Omega^1_{\mc G/X^{\mr{tor}}}$.
Recall we had fixed a CM type $(\sigma_i,\bar \sigma_i)_{i=1}^d$ for $(F_0,F)$; over $F$ we have a decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\omega \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^d \omega_{\sigma_i} \oplus \omega_{\bar \sigma_i} \end{aligned}$$ and we define $\mc E = \mc E^+ \oplus \mc E^-$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\mc E^+ \cong & \bigoplus_{i} \isom(\mc O^{a_i}_{X^{\tor}},\omega_{\sigma}),\\
\mc E^- \cong & \bigoplus_{i} \isom(\mc O^{b_i}_{X^{\tor}},\omega_{\bar \sigma_i}).\end{aligned}$$ We have that $\xi \colon \mc E \to X^{\tor}$ is an (algebraic) $P$-torsor.
Let $\kappa=(k_{\sigma_i, 1}, \ldots, k_{\sigma_i, {a_i}},k_{\bar \sigma_i, 1}, \ldots, k_{\bar \sigma_i, {b_i}})_{i}$ be an algebraic weight. We say that $\kappa$ is:
- *dominant* if $k_{\sigma_i, 1} \geq \ldots \geq k_{\sigma_i, {a_i}} \geq k_{\bar \sigma_i, 1}\geq \ldots \geq k_{\bar \sigma_i, {b_i}}$ for all $i$;
- *regular* if $k_{\sigma_i, 1} > \ldots > k_{\sigma_i, {a_i}} > k_{\bar \sigma_i, 1} > \ldots >k_{\bar \sigma_i, {b_i}}$ for all $i$;
- *big enough* if $\kappa$ is dominant and $k_{\bar \sigma_i, {b_i}}>C$ for all $i$, with $C$ fixed, depending only on the Shimura datum. We shall write $\kappa \gg 0$;
- *very regular* if $\kappa$ is big enough and $\kappa(w\alpha_p w \alpha_p^{-1}) \in p \m Z$ for all $i$, where $\alpha_{p}=(\alpha_{p,i})_i$ and $\alpha_{p,i}$ is the diagonal matrix with $1,p,\ldots,p^{a_i-1},1,p,\ldots,p^{b_i-1}$ on the diagonal. Here $w$ ranges over the elements in the Weyl group of $\prod_i \mr{GL}_{a_i}\times \mr{GL}_{b_i}$.
The sheaf of weight $\kappa$ automorphic forms is then $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^k= {\xi_{\ast} \mc O_{\mc E}}^{( \prod_i N_{a_i} \times N_{b_i})}[\kappa],\end{aligned}$$ being $ \prod_i N_{a_i} \times N_{b_i}$ the algebraic group of upper unipotent matrices in $P$. Locally for the Zariski topology, this sheaf is isomorphic to $R[\kappa]$, the algebraic representation of $P$ of highest weight $\kappa$.
For any $\mc O_K$-algebra $R$ we define the space of weight $k$ modular forms as $$\begin{aligned}
\M_k(\mc H,R) \colonequals \Homol^0({X^*}_{/R},\pi_\ast\omega^\kappa)=\Homol^0({X^{\tor}}_{/R},\omega^\kappa)\end{aligned}$$ and the space of cusp forms $$\begin{aligned}
\mr S_k(\mc H,R) \colonequals \Homol^0({X^*}_{/R},\pi_\ast(\omega^\kappa(-D)))=\Homol^0({X^{\tor}}_{/R},\omega^\kappa(-D)),\end{aligned}$$ where $D$ denotes the boundary of $X^{\tor}$.
The Igusa tower
---------------
Recall that $S$ is the $\mu$-ordinary locus of our Shimura variety. Thanks to Proposition \[Prop:MoonenFil\] we can define over $S$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mr{Gr}^{\bullet}(\mc A^{\mu} [p^{\infty}])= \prod_{i=1}^{f+1} \mc A_i/\mc A_{i-1}, \;\;\; \mr{Gr}^{\bullet}(\mc A^{\mu}[p^{\infty}]^{\circ})= \prod_{i=1}^{f} \mc A_i/\mc A_{i-1}.\end{aligned}$$ The interest in removing the étale part lies in the fact that the connected part of $\mc A^{\mu}$ can be extended naturally to the whole $S^{\mr{tor}}$. Indeed, let $W$ be a cusp label for a component of the boundary of the toroidal compactification of rank $r$ (hence $r \leq a_1$). Over $X^{\mr{tor}}_W$ we have the semi-abelian scheme $$\begin{aligned}
0 \rightarrow \m G_m\otimes \mc O \otimes W \rightarrow \mc G \times_{X^{\mr{tor}}} X^{\mr{tor}}_W \rightarrow \mc A_W \rightarrow 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mc A_W$ is the universal abelian variety associated with the Shimura datum for $W$. If we restrict to the ordinary locus and take the $p^l$-torsion we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
0 \rightarrow {(\mu_{p^l} \otimes \mc O)}^r\rightarrow \mc G \times_{X^{\mr{tor}}} X^{\mr{tor}}_W[p^l]\rightarrow \mc A^{\mu}_W[p^l] \rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[eqn:DecompL\]) or (\[eqn:DecompU\]) we see that the difference between $A^{\mu}_W[p^l]$ and $A^{\mu}[p^l]$ is given by $r$ copies of $\mu_{p^l} \otimes \mc O$ and $\m Z/p^l \m Z \otimes \mc O$. Hence, the $\mr{Gr}^{\bullet}(\mc A^{\mu,\circ})$ and $\mr{Gr}^{\bullet}(\mc G^{\mu,\circ})$ are the same, or better the first extends to the second.
Hence, we can define $$\begin{aligned}
\mr{Ig}_{m,l} \colonequals & \mr{Isom}_{\mc O_F \otimes \m Z_p -\mr{BT}, S^{\mr{tor}}_m}(\mr{Gr}^{\bullet}( \mc{G}_m^{\mu,\circ}[p^{l}]), \mr{BT}_{G,m}^{\circ}[p^l]),\\
\mr{Ig} \colonequals & \varinjlim_m\varprojlim_l \mr{Ig}_{m,l}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that we require the isomorphisms to respect the $+$ and $-$ parts in case (L) but do not require them to respect the polarisation condition (as $\mc G$ is no longer polarised).
The formal scheme $\mr{Ig}$ is a pro-étale Galois cover of $S^{\mr{tor}}_{\infty}$ of Galois group $\prod_{i=0}^{f-1} \mr{GL}_{a_{i+1}-a_{i}}(\mc O)$ in case (U) and $\prod_{i=0}^{f-1} \mr{GL}_{a_{i+1}-a_{i}}(\mc O) \times \prod_{i=1}^{f}\mr{GL}_{b_{i}-b_{i+1}}(\mc O)$ in case (L).
The Galois group that appears as automorphisms of the Igusa tower is the group of automorphisms of the (connected part of the) $\mu$-ordinary BT. We denote by $N_{\mr{Ig}}$ the upper unipotent part of $\mr{Gal}(\mr{Ig},S^{\mr{tor}})$ and by $T_{\mr{Ig}}$ the corresponding torus. We have that $T_{\mr{Ig}}$ is isomorphic to ${(\mc O^\ast)}^{a_f}$ in case (U) and ${(\mc O^\ast)}^{a_f} \times {(\mc O^\ast)}^{b_f}$ in case (L).
We can also push-forward $\mr{Ig}$ to the minimal compactification and we shall denote it by $\mr{Ig}^*$. We shall write $\mc I^0$ and $\mc I^{*,0}$ for the sheaves of ideal of the boundary of the two Igusa tower. Note that $\pi_* \mc O_{\mr{Ig}}= \mc O_{\mr{Ig}^*}$ and $\pi_* \mc I^0 = \mc I^{*,0}$ for the same reasoning as [@lan Theorem 7.2.4.1]. (See also [@lan_ram Theorem 6.2.2.1].)
The attentive reader will have noticed that this group has too many characters. Taking $G$ as in Example \[esempio1\] with $p$ inert in $F$, our Igusa tower has Galois group isomorphic to $\mc O^\ast \times \mc O^\ast$. The usual Hida theory would take for the weight space $\mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont},\m Z_p}(\mc O^\ast \times \mc O^\ast, \m C_p^\ast)$ while the classical weights are only three. Inspired by [@shimura], we define the weight space $\mc W$ to be $\mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont}}(\mc O^\ast,\m C_p^\ast)\times \mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont},\mc O}(\mc O^\ast,\m C_p^\ast)$ where $\mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont},\mc O}$ means that we consider continuous characters such that the induced morphism between Lie algebras is $\mc O$-linear. The reason is that the $\mr{Fil}^1$ of the Dieudonné module of $\mu_{p^{\infty}}$ is a two dimensional module (over $\mc O$) where $\mc O$ acts both via $\sigma: \mc O \rightarrow \mc O $ and $\bar \sigma: \mc O \rightarrow \mc O $, while on the $\mr{Fil}^1$ of the Dieudonné module of $\mc {LT}_{\mc O}$ the action of $\mc O$ is only via $\sigma$. Every generalised $ \mc {LT}_i$ will hence contribute to the weight space only according to the character of $\mathcal{O}$ acting on its $\mr{Fil}^1$. Following this idea we now introduce our weight space.
The weight space {#subsec: weight space}
----------------
Our weight space will parametrise characters that are ‘partially locally $\mc O$-analytic’, in the sense that we want to control the induced morphism between Lie algebras. Let us be more precise.
Let $A$ be a $K$-affinoid algebra and let $\chi \in \mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont}}(\mc O^\ast,A^\ast)$ be a continuous character. We have an induced morphism $d \chi \colon \Lie(\mc O^\ast) \to \Lie (A^\ast)$. This extends to a morphism, denoted with the same symbol, $$d \chi \colon \Lie(\mc O^\ast) \otimes_{\Z_p} \mc O \to \Lie (A^\ast).$$ The Lie algebra of $\mc O^\ast$ and of $A^\ast$ can be naturally identified with $\mc O$ and $A$, respectively. Moreover we can identify $\Lie(\mc O^\ast) \otimes_{\Z_p} \mc O = \mc O \otimes_{\Z_p} \mc O$ with $\prod \mc O$, where the product is over the embeddings of $\mc O$ in $\m C_p$. In practice we get a morphism $$d \chi \colon \prod_{\mr{Hom}(\mc O,\m C_p)} \mc O \to A.$$
\[defi: J analytic\] Let $J$ be a subset of $\mr{Hom}(\mc O,\m C_p)$ and let $f \colon \Lie(\mc O^\ast) \to \Lie(A^\ast)$ be a $\Z_p$-linear morphism. We say that $f$ is *$J$-linear* if the induced morphism $\mc O \otimes_{\Z_p} \mc O \to A$ factors through a map $$\prod_{J} \mc O \to A.$$ We will write $\Hom_J(\Lie(\mc O^\ast), \Lie(A^\ast))$ for the set of $J$-linear morphism. Following [@deieso Définition 4.1], we say that $\chi \in \mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont}}(\mc O^\ast,A^\ast)$ is *locally $J$-analytic* if $d \chi$ is $J$-linear. Similarly, as in [*loc. cit.*]{}, we have the more general notion of a locally $J$-analytic function on $\mc O$.
Let $i$ be an integer between $0$ and $f$. We define $J(\mc{LT}_i)$ to be the set of $\sigma_j$ for $j \geq 1+i$ and $J(\mc D(\mc{LT}_i))$ to be the set of $\sigma_j$ for $j \leq i$. We also set $$\mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont},\mc{LT}_i}(\mc O^\ast,A^\ast) \colonequals \set{\chi \in \mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont}}(\mc O^\ast,A^\ast) \mbox{ such that } \chi \mbox{ is } J(\mc{LT}_i)-\mbox{analytic}}.$$ The definition of $\mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont},\mc D(\mc{LT}_i)}(\mc O^\ast,A^\ast)$ is analogous. We call $\mc W_{\mc{LT}_i}$ the functor $$A \mapsto \mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont},\mc{LT}_i}(\mc O^\ast,A^\ast).$$ By definition we have that $\mc W_{\mc{LT}_i}(A) \subseteq \mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont}}(\mc O^\ast,A^\ast)$ and $\mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont}}(\mc O^\ast,\cdot)$ is representable by the disjoint union of $p^f-1$ open unit disks of dimension $f$ (via $\mc O^\ast \cong \mu_{p^f-1} \times \mc O \cong \mu_{p^f-1} \times \Z_p^f$). Letting $\mathbf{D}_f$ be such a disk, by definition the diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}
\mc W_{\mc{LT}_i}(A) \arrow[hook]{r} \arrow{d}{d} & \coprod \mathbf{D}_f(A) \arrow{d}{d} \\
\mr{Hom}_{J(\mc{LT}_i)}(\Lie(\mc O^\ast), \Lie(A^\ast)) \arrow[hook]{r} & \mr{Hom}(\Lie(\mc O^\ast), \Lie(A^\ast))
\end{tikzcd}$$ is cartesian. We can follow word by word the approach of [@fourier Sections 1 and 2] to show that $\mc W_{\mc{LT}_i}$ is representable by a closed analytic subvariety, denoted again $\mc W_{\mc{LT}_i}$, of $\coprod \mathbf{D}_f$. Similarly, we have the closed subvariety $\mc W_{\mc D(\mc{LT}_i)}$
\[prop: descr W\] We have that $\mc W_{\mc{LT}_0} = \coprod \mathbf{D}_f(A)$. In general, the base change to $\m C_p$ of $\mc W_{\mc{LT}_i}$ is isomorphic to the disjoint union of $p^f-1$ copies of an $(f-i)$-dimensional open unit disk. Similarly, $\mc W_{\mc D(\mc{LT}_f)} = \coprod \mathbf{D}_f(A)$ and the base change to $\m C_p$ of $\mc W_{\mc D(\mc{LT}_i)}$ is isomorphic to the disjoint union of $p^f-1$ copies of an $i$-dimensional open unit disk.
The statement for $\mc W_{\mc{LT}_0}$ is obvious. For the general case we consider the Lubin-Tate group $$\mc G \colonequals \prod_{j \geq i + 1} \BT_{(0,\ldots,0,1,0,\ldots,0)},$$ where the $1$ is in the $j$-position. (Note that this is *not* $\mc{LT}_i$ but the first filtered piece of the Dieudonné module of the two are isomorphic as $\mc O \otimes_{\m Z_p} \mc O$-modules.) Using $\mathcal G$, the proof is exactly the same as in [@fourier Section 3] (using $\mc O^\ast \cong \mu_{p^f-1} \times \mc O$). The proof for $\mc W_{\mc D(\mc{LT}_i)}$ is similar.
\[rmk: not is fin ext\] If $i= f- 1$ then, by [@fourier Section 3], we know that $\mc W_{\mc{LT}_i}$ is *not* isomorphic to a open unit disk, even after base change to any finite extension of $K$. We conjecture that the same hold for any $i \neq 0, f$.
We now move on to define our Iwasawa algebra.
\[defi: Lambda\] Let us denote by $\mc W^{\circ}_{\mc{LT}_i}$ the connected component of $\mc W_{\mc{LT}_i}$ containing the trivial character. We set $$\Lambda^\circ_{\mc{LT}_i} \colonequals \mc O_{\mc W^\circ_{\mc{LT}_i}}(\mc W^\circ_{\mc{LT}_i})^{\leq 1} \mbox{ and } \Lambda_{\mc{LT}_i} \colonequals \mc O_{\mc W_{\mc{LT}_i}}(\mc W_{\mc{LT}_i})^{\leq 1},$$ where $\mc O(\cdot)^{\leq 1}$ means the ring of analytic functions bounded by $1$. The definition of $\Lambda^\circ_{\mc{D}(\mc{LT}_i)}$ and $\Lambda_{\mc{D}(\mc{LT}_i)}$ is the same.
\[rmk: Lambda complicated\] The ring-theoretic properties of $\Lambda_{\mc{LT}_i}$ are quite mysterious, for example it does not satisfy Weierstraß preparation theorem (see the proof of [@fourier Lemma 3.9], where the authors construct an element of $\Lambda_{\mc{LT}_{f-1}}$ that has infinitely many zeros) and we do not know if it is noetherian. Moreover, we ignore whether it is an admissible ring, so we can not take the generic fiber of $\Spf(\Lambda_{\mc{LT}_i})$.
Given a point $x \in \mc W_{\mc{LT}_i}$, we denote by $P_x$ the prime ideal of $\Lambda_{\mc{LT}_i}$ of functions vanishing at $x$ and similarly for $\Lambda_{\mc{D}(\mc{LT}_i)}$.
\[prop: properties of Lambda\] We have the following:
1. The ring $\mc O_{\mc W^\circ_{\mc{LT}_i}}(\mc W^\circ_{\mc{LT}_i})$ is isomorphic to the continuous dual of the locally convex vector space of locally $J(\mc{LT}_i)$-analytic functions $C^{\mc{LT}_i-\mathrm{an}}(\mc O, K)$.
2. The natural restriction morphism $$\mc O_K \llbracket X_1, \ldots, X_f \rrbracket = \mc O_{\mathbf{D}_f}(\mathbf{D}_f)^{\leq 1} \hookrightarrow \Lambda_{\mc{LT}_i}^\circ$$ is injective.
3. The set of prime ideal $P_x$ for the points $x: z \mapsto \prod_{\sigma \in J(\mc{LT}_i)} \sigma(z)^{k_{\sigma}}$ with $k_{\sigma} \gg 0$ is Zariski dense.
The same is true for $\mc{D}(\mc{LT}_i)$ instead of $\mc{LT}_i$.
1. One can find explicit equations for $\mc W^{\circ}_{\mc{LT}_i}$ as in [@fourier Corollary 1.5] or [@BSX Remark 1.14]; the statement is then a consequence of Amice’s transform as in [@fourier Theorem 2.3]
2. The proof for bounded functions is exactly the same as [@BSX Lemma 1.15] using $C^{\mc{LT}_i-\mathrm{an}}(\mc O, K)$ in place of $C^{\mathrm{an}}(\mc O, K)$. Then one notices that $1 \geq |f|_{{\mathbf{D}_f}} \geq |f|_{\mc W^{\circ}_{\mc{LT}_i}}$ for all $f \in \mc O_{\mc W^\circ_{\mc{LT}_i}}(\mc W^\circ_{\mc{LT}_i})$.
3. After the (flat) extension to $\mc O_{\C_p}$, we have the isomorphism $\Lambda^{\circ}_{\mc{LT}_i} \ctens_{\mc O_K} \mc O_{\C_p} \cong \mc O_{\C_p} \llbracket T_1, \ldots, T_{f-i}\rrbracket$. Let $f$ in $\Lambda_{\mc{LT}_i}^\circ$ be an element which vanishes on all $P_x$ as in the statement of the proposition. Viewing $f$ as an element of $\mc O_{\C_p} \llbracket T_1, \ldots, T_{f-i}\rrbracket$, the evaluation at a point $x$ corresponds to $T_i \mapsto t_{i,x}$ for some $t_{i,x} \in \C_p$. By [@BSX Proposition 1.20], the norm of $(t_{i,x})_i$ as a point of $\mathbf{D}_{f-i, \C_p} = \Spf(\mc O_{\C_p} \llbracket T_1, \ldots, T_{f-i}\rrbracket)^{\rig}$ is determined by the norm of the corresponding point $x=(x_1, \ldots x_f) \in \mathbf{D}_{f, \C_p}$. In particular, infinitely many of the points $x \in \mathbf{D}_{f-i, \C_p}$ considered in the proposition are in a fixed closed ball of radius strictly smaller than $1$. Iterating Strassman’s Theorem, [@Robert Theorem, §6.2.1], we see that an element of $\mc O_{\C_p} \llbracket T_1, \ldots, T_{f-i}\rrbracket$ vanishing on all these points is $0$.
Everything we said above for characters of $\mc O^\ast$ generalises immediately to characters of $(\mc O^\ast)^n$, where $n \geq 0$ is any integer. We obtain in this way the spaces $\mc W_{\mc{LT}_i^n}^\circ$ and $\mc W_{\mc{LT}_i^n}$ and the rings $\Lambda_{\mc{LT}_i^n}^\circ$ and $\Lambda_{\mc{LT}_i^n}$. Similarly for $\mc D(\mc{LT}_i^n)$. We are now ready to define the weight space we are interested in.
\[def:weights\] In case (L) then we define the weight space $\mc W=\mc W_G$ to be the rigid space given by $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{i=0}^{f-1} \mc W_{\mc{LT}_i^{a_{i+1}-a_i}} \times \prod_{i=1}^{f}\mc W_{\mc D(\mc{LT}_i^{b_i-b_{i+1}})},\end{aligned}$$ under the convention that $b_{f+1}=0$.
In case (U) then we define the weight space $\mc W=\mc W_G$ to be the rigid space given by $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{i=0}^{f-1} \mc W_{\mc{LT}_i^{a_{i+1}-a_i}}.\end{aligned}$$
\[rmq: no char et\] Note that $J(\mc{LT}_f)=\emptyset$ so $\mr{Hom}_{\mr{cont},\mc{LT}_f}(\mc O^\ast,\m C_p^\ast)=1$, the constant character. This gives another reason to discard the étale part in our Igusa tower: not only it has no $\mr{Fil}^1$, [*i.e.*]{} no non-zero differentials and in particular no non-zero modular forms, but also the corresponding weight space is trivial.
The following lemma tells us the our weight space has the expected dimension.
\[lemma: dim weight space\] We have that $\mc W$ is equidimensional of dimension $nd$.
We can base change $\mc W$ to $\m C_p$ and use Proposition \[prop: descr W\]. In case (L) we get $$\begin{gathered}
\dim(\mc W) = \sum_{i=0}^{f-1} (f-i)(a_{i+1}-a_{i}) + \sum_{i=1}^f i(b_{i}-b_{i+1}) = \\
\sum_{i=0}^{f-1} (f-i)(a_{i+1}-a_{i}) + \sum_{i=1}^{f} i(a_{i+1}-a_{i}) = f \sum_{i=0}^f (a_{i+1}-a_{i}) = f(a_{f+1} -a_0)= fn =nd. \end{gathered}$$ In case (U) we get $$\begin{gathered}
\dim(\mc W) = \sum_{i=0}^{f-1} (f-i)(a_{i+1}-a_{i})= f a_1 + (f-1)a_2 -(f-1)a_1 +\cdots + a_f -a_{f-1} \\ =
a_1 +a_2 + \ldots + a_{f-1} +a_{f}= n(f/2)=nd. \end{gathered}$$
In particular, these weights are the character of the intersection of $\mr{Gal}(\mr{Ig}/S^{\mr{tor}})$ with the $\mc O$-points of the parabolic $P$ of [@Moonen §1.1.2] (which is also the parabolic $P$ of Section \[sec:classicalforms\]). Explicitly, it consists of $\mc O$-linear maps $M_G \rightarrow M_G$ which preserve both the decomposition of $\mr{BT}_G$ into product of generalised Lubin–Tate groups and the $\mc O$-module $\mr{Fil}^{1}(M_G)$.
For the reader who are unhappy about our weight space, we offer an alternative definition of the Igusa tower, more in the spirit of [@EischenMantovan; @Valentinthese] but that can still be extended to the boundary. Consider the filtration of the $p$-torsion of the universal $\mu$-ordinary abelian variety over $S_m$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
0 \subset \mc A[p^{\infty}]^{\mr{mult}} \subset \mc A[p^{\infty}]^{\circ} \subset \mc A[p^{\infty}],\end{aligned}$$ where $\mc A^{\mr{mult}}$ resp. $\mc A^{\circ} $ denotes the multiplicative resp. connected part. The $p$-divisible group $\mc A[p^{\infty}]^{\circ}/ \mc A[p^{\infty}]^{\mr{mult}}$ is naturally polarised. One could then define $\mr{Ig}_{m,l}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mr{Isom}_{\mc O-\mr{BT}}(\mc A[p^{l}]^{\mr{mult}}, \mc O \otimes \mu_{p^{l}}) \times \mr{Isom}_{\mc O-\mr{pol}-\mr{BT}}\left(\frac{\mc A[p^{l}]^{\circ}}{ \mc A[p^{l}]^{\mr{mult}}}, \mr{BT}^{*}[p^l]\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mr{BT}^{*}$ is the Barsotti–Tate with $\mc O$-structure isomorphic to $\mc A[p^{\infty}]^{\circ}/ \mc A[p^{\infty}]^{\mr{mult}}$. These $\mr{Ig}_{m,l}$ extend to $S_m^{\mr{tor}}$.
\[def:Lambda\] In case (L) we define our Iwasawa algebra as $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda \colonequals & \mathop{\widehat{\bigotimes}}\limits_{i=0}^{f-1} \Lambda_{\mc{LT}_i^{a_{i+1}-a_i}} \ctens_{\mc O_K} \mathop{\widehat{\bigotimes}}\limits_{i=1}^{f}\Lambda_{\mc D(\mc{LT}_i^{b_i-b_{i+1}})},\\
\Lambda^\circ \colonequals & \mathop{\widehat{\bigotimes}}\limits_{i=0}^{f-1} \Lambda^\circ_{\mc{LT}_i^{a_{i+1}-a_i}} \ctens_{\mc O_K} \mathop{\widehat{\bigotimes}}\limits_{i=1}^{f}\Lambda^\circ_{\mc D(\mc{LT}_i^{b_i-b_{i+1}})},\end{aligned}$$ under the convention that $b_{f+1}=0$.
In case (U) then we define our Iwasawa algebra as $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda \colonequals \mathop{\widehat{\bigotimes}}\limits_{i=0}^{f-1} \Lambda_{\mc{LT}_i^{a_{i+1}-a_i}}, & \mbox{ and } \Lambda^\circ \colonequals \mathop{\widehat{\bigotimes}}\limits_{i=0}^{f-1} \Lambda^\circ_{\mc{LT}_i^{a_{i+1}-a_i}}.\end{aligned}$$
The Hodge–Tate map {#sec:HodgeTate}
------------------
We define ($p$-divisible) $p$-adic modular forms as elements of $\tilde V$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{V} & \colonequals (\varinjlim_m\varinjlim_l V_{m,l})^{N_{\mr{Ig}}}, \\
V_{m,l} & \colonequals \mr H^0(S^{\mr{tor}}_m,\mc O_{\mr{Ig}_{m,l}}) = \mr H^0(S^{*}_m,\mc O_{\mr{Ig^*}_{m,l}}).\end{aligned}$$ Here $N_{\mr{Ig}}$ is the unipotent part of $\mr{Gal}(\mr{Ig},S^{\mr{tor}})$. We have that $T_{\mr{Ig}}$ acts naturally on $\tilde V$. We want to interpret classical modular forms as $p$-adic modular forms.
Let $U$ be an open subset of the $\mu$-ordinary locus. Over $U$, given a trivialisation $\gamma\colon \mc {A}^{\mu}[p^{\infty}]^{\circ} \cong_U BT_G^{\circ}$ we can define a trivialisation of $\omega$. The filtration of Proposition \[Prop:MoonenFil\] gives a sequence of quotients $\left\{ \omega_{\mc A_i} \twoheadrightarrow \omega_{\mc A_{i-1}} \right\}$. Over $S$ these sheaves are locally free, hence the quotients all split and the splitting can be moreover chosen to be $\mc O$-equivariant. It can be extended to the toroidal compactification as $\mc A_{W,i} / \mc A_{W,0}$ are independent of $W$. Hence over the $\mu$-ordinary locus we have an isomorphism $$\omega = \bigoplus_{i=1}^f \omega_{\mc A_{i}/\mc A_{i-1}}.$$ Recall that $\mc A_{i+1}/\mc A_{i} \cong \mc{LT}_{i-1}^{a_i-a_{i-1}}$. As explained above in Subsection \[subsec: dieud\], we have fixed a basis $(e_{\sigma,i})$ of the Dieudonné module of $\mc{LT}_{i-1}^{a_i-a_{i-1}}$. This gives a basis $(e_{\sigma,j})$ of $\omega_{ \mc{LT}_i^{a_i-a_{i-1}}}$. In particular $\left\{\gamma^{*}(e_{\sigma,j})\right\}$ is a basis for $\omega_{S^{\mr{tor}_{\infty}}}$. Recall the $P=\prod_{i=1}^d \mr{GL}_{a_{i}}\times \mr{GL}_{b_i}$-torsor $\mc E$. Summing up, we have a map $$\begin{aligned}
\mr{HT}: \mr{Ig} \rightarrow \mc E \times S^{\tor}_{\infty}\end{aligned}$$ sending $(\mc A^{\mu}_x,\gamma)$ to $(\left\{\gamma^{*}(e_{\sigma,j})\right\},\mc A^{\mu}_x)$.
\[defi: HT\] Given a classical modular form $f$, viewed as a function on $\mc E$, we obtain, by restriction and composition with $\HT$, the function $\HT^\ast(f)$ on $\mr{Ig}$. Since by definition $f$ is invariant under the action of $\prod_i N_{a_i} \times N_{b_i}$, we have that $\HT^\ast(f)$ is invariant under the action of $N_{\mr{Ig}}$, *i.e.* we have $$\HT^\ast(f) \in \tilde V.$$
The name Hodge–Tate could seem a bit out of turn: the map in [@PilHida; @hida_control] which compares classical and $p$-adic forms is induced by the Hodge–Tate map $\mc A^{\vee} \rightarrow \omega_{\mc A}$. In particular, the $\mr{HT}$ maps in [*loc. cit.*]{} would be ours composed with an involution.
We can describe the HT map more precisely: locally it sends $\mr{Gal}(\mr{Ig}/S^{\mr{tor}})$ into $\prod_{i=1}^d \mr{GL}_{a_{i}}\times \mr{GL}_{b_i}(\mc O)$ and we can write down explicitly this map. In case (U), remember that $f=2d$ and that we have written $a_{j+d}$ for $b_{d-j+1}$. Let $(\gamma_i)_{i=0,\ldots, f-1}$ be an element of $\prod_{i=0}^{f-1} \mr{GL}_{a_{i}-a_{i-1}}(\mc O)$. We have explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
\mr{HT}({(\gamma_i)}_{i=0,\ldots, f-1})= \prod_{j=1}^d \left([\sigma_{j}(\gamma_i)]_{i=0}^{j-1},[\sigma_{f+1-j}(\gamma_i)]_{i=0}^{f-j}\right), \end{aligned}$$ where $[\sigma_{j}(\gamma_i)]_{i=0}^{j-1}=[\sigma_{j}(\gamma_0),\dots,\sigma_{j}(\gamma_{j-1})]$ is an element of $\prod_{i=0}^{j-1} \mr{GL}_{a_{i+1}-a_{i}}(\mc O)$ embedded diagonally into $\mr{GL}_{a_{j}}(\mc O)$.
In case (L) the description is similar; let $ \gamma^+=(\gamma^+_i)_{i=0,\ldots, f-1}$ and $\gamma^-=(\gamma^-_i)_{i=1,\ldots, f}$ be an element of $\prod_{i=0}^{f-1} \mr{GL}_{a_{i}-a_{i-1}}(\mc O) \times \prod_{i=1}^{f} \mr{GL}_{b_{i}-b_{i+1}}(\mc O)$. We have explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
\mr{HT}(\gamma^+,\gamma^-)= \prod_{j=1}^d \left([\sigma_{j}(\gamma^+_i)]_{i=0}^{j-1},[\bar{\sigma}_{j}(\gamma^-_i)]_{i=j}^{f}\right).\end{aligned}$$
When $G$ is as in Example \[esempio2\] with $f=4$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \mr{HT}(\gamma_0,\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3)= \\
& = \left(
\left(\sigma_1(\gamma_0), \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\sigma_4(\gamma_0)& & & \\
& \sigma_4(\gamma_1) & & \\
& & \sigma_4(\gamma_2) & \\
& & & \sigma_4(\gamma_3)
\end{array}\right) \right) \right.,\\
&
\left. \left( \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_2(\gamma_0)& \\
& \sigma_2(\gamma_1)
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\sigma_3(\gamma_0)& & \\
& \sigma_3(\gamma_1) & \\
& & \sigma_3(\gamma_2)
\end{array}\right) \right) \right) \end{aligned}$$
This embedding defines a map from set the algebraic weights of the parabolic $P$ of Section \[sec:classicalforms\] to our $p$-adic weight space.
Note that, without loss of generality, we can assume $\sigma_4=\mr{Id}$. (This goes back to the choice of two fixed embeddings of $\overline{\m Q}$ in $\m C$ and $\m C_p$). We hope that this also clarifies our choice of the weights in $\mc W$.
We define by $\mr{Iw}$ the Iwahori subgroup of $G$ defined as the counter image of the Borel of $G({\mc O/p})$ (which is quasi-split as every algebraic group over a finite field) and by $\G_1(p)$ the counter image of the corresponding unipotent. More generally, we denote by $\G_0(p^l)$ (resp. $\G_1(p^l)$) the subgroup of $G(\m Z_p)$ whose elements, seen inside $G(\mc O_F)$ (which is $\cong \prod_{i=1}^{f/2} \mr{GL}_n(\mc O_F) \times \mr{GL}_n (\mc O_F)$ in case (U) and $\cong \prod_{i=1}^{f} \mr{GL}_n(\mc O_F) \times \mr{GL}_n(\mc O_F)$ in case (L)) reduce modulo $p^l$ to a matrix in the Borel (resp. unipotent) subgroup of $P(\mc O_F/p^l)$.
Denote by $\mr M_{\kappa}\left(\mc H \cap\Gamma_1(p^l),\varepsilon,\mc O_K\right)$ the space of classical modular forms, defined over $\mc O_K$ (where $K$ is our coefficient field), of weight $\kappa$, level $\mc H \times \Gamma_1(p^l)$ and transforming under the finite order character $\varepsilon$ of $\G_0(p^l)/\G_1(p^l)$. We conclude with the following proposition:
\[prop:classicaltopadic\] We have a map $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:classicaltopadic}
\mr M_{\kappa}\left(\mc H \cap\Gamma_1(p^l),\varepsilon,\mc O_K\right)\otimes \mc O_K/p^m \rightarrow V_{m,l}^{N_{\mr{Ig}}}.\end{aligned}$$
The Hodge–Tate map gives a natural map $$\begin{aligned}
\mr M_{\kappa}\left(\mc H \cap\Gamma_1(p^l),\varepsilon,\mc O_K \right)\otimes \mc O_K/p^m \rightarrow \mr H^0(\mr{Ig}_{m,l},\omega^{\kappa})\end{aligned}$$ given by restriction to the $\mc O/ p^m$-points to the subgroup described above. Note that we have a linear map $l_{\mr{can}}:R[
\kappa] \rightarrow \m A^1$ which consists to evaluation at $1$. This gives $$\begin{aligned}
l_{\mr{can}}: \mr H^0(\mr{Ig}_{m,l},\omega^{\kappa}) \rightarrow \mr H^0(\mr{Ig}_{m,l},\mc O_{\mr{Ig}_{m,l}})= V_{m,l}.\end{aligned}$$ By the definition of $\G_1(p^l)$ the image is invariant under the $N_{\mr{Ig}}$.
Hecke operators {#sec:Heckeoperators}
===============
As in [@hida_control], we introduce two types of $\mathbb{U}_p$’s operators. Some representation-theoretic operators on the Igusa tower that shall be used to define an ordinary projector $e_{\mr{GL}}$, and some geometric operators coming from the Shimura variety of Iwahori level for the projector $e_G$. We shall compare these two operators at the end of the section.
Hecke operators on the Igusa tower
----------------------------------
We define $\mr{GL}$-type Hecke operators following [@hida_control §2.6]. Let $\mr{GL}_m$ be the usual algebraic group, $B_m$ the Borel of upper-triangular matrices, $T_m$ its maximal torus and $U_m$ the unipotent part. For $j=1,\dots, m$ we let $\alpha_j$ be the diagonal matrix $[1,\dots,1,p,\ldots p]$ with $j$ $p$’s and we let $t_j$ be the double coset $U_m(\m Z_p) \alpha_j U_m(\m Z_p)$. We can write as usual $t_j = \bigsqcup U_m(\m Z_p) u $, where $u$ varies in a set of representatives of the quotient $t_j/U_m(\Z_p)$. If $f $ is a function on $\mr{GL}_m(\mc O/ p^l \mc O)$ invariant by the action of $B_m(\mc O/ p^l \mc O)$, we let $t_j$ acts on $f$ via the formula $$\begin{aligned}
f \vert t_j (\gamma) = \sum_u f(u.\gamma). \end{aligned}$$ where $u.\gamma$ is defined as $\gamma^{-1} u^{-1} \gamma$ and the sum is independent of the choice of the set of representatives. If $f$ is invariant only by $U_m(\mc O/ p^l \mc O)$ but is in the $\kappa$-eigenspace, for $\kappa$ a character of $T_m(\mc O/ p^l \mc O)$, then $f \vert t_j $ is also well-defined and belongs to the same eigenspace for $T_m(\mc O/ p^l \mc O)$. We define $\mb t_m \colonequals \prod_{j=1}^m t_j$. Note that $\prod_{j=1}^m \alpha_i$ contracts $U_m(\mc O)$ into $\mr{Id}_m$. Let $A$ be a $p$-adically complete flat $\Z_p$-algebra, and let $K \colonequals A[1/p]$. We define $R_A[\kappa]$ (resp. $F_K[\kappa]$) as the algebraic (resp. topological, in the sense of [@PilHida §3.1.2]) representation of $\mr{Res}^{\mc O}_{\m Z_p}\mr{GL}_m$ (resp. of $\mr{GL}_m(\mc O)$) of highest weight $\kappa$ for $\mr{Res}^{\mc O}_{\m Z_p} T$ (resp. $T_m(\mc O)$). If $\kappa$ is regular (resp. very regular) then $\mb t^{n!}_m$ converges to an operator $e_m$. The image $e_m(R_A[\kappa])$ (resp. $e_m(F_K[\kappa])$) is isomorphic, via the projection $l_{\mr{can}}$, to the line generated by the highest weight vector (see [@PilHida Proposition 3.2, Proposition 3.3]).
We are ready to define the ordinary projector $e_{\mr{GL}}$.
\[defi: ord proj\] In case (U) we define $$\begin{aligned}
\mb t_{\mr{GL}} \colonequals \prod_{i=0}^{f-1} \mb t_{a_{i+1}-a_i}.\end{aligned}$$ and in case (L) we define $$\begin{aligned}
\mb t_{\mr{GL}} \colonequals \prod_{i=0}^{f-1} \mb t_{a_{i+1}-a_i} \times \prod_{i=1}^f \mb t_{b_{i}-b_{i+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the Igusa tower is a cover of $S_\infty^{\tor}$ with group $\prod_{i=0}^{f-1} \mr{GL}_{a_{i+1}-a_{i}}(\mc O)$ in case (U) and $\prod_{i=0}^{f-1} \mr{GL}_{a_{i+1}-a_{i}}(\mc O) \times \prod_{i=1}^{f}\mr{GL}_{b_{i}-b_{i+1}}(\mc O)$ in case (L), we obtain an operator $$\begin{gathered}
\mb t_{\mr{GL}} \colon \tilde{V} \to \tilde{V} \\
f(x,\gamma) \mapsto f(x, \mb t_{\mr{GL}}(\gamma)).\end{gathered}$$ Here $x$ corresponds to a point of $S_\infty^{\tor}$ and $\gamma$ is a trivialisation as in the definition of the Igusa tower.
We have that $\mb t_{\mr{GL}}$ preserves $\tilde{V}[\kappa]$, for $\kappa$ a character of $T_{\mr{Ig}}$. Moreover, with the same reasoning as [@hida_control page 20], we see that it sends $V_{m,l+1}[\kappa]$ into $V_{m,l}[\kappa]$. In case (U), whenever it is well-defined (it is necessary to know that the module spanned by $\mb t^{n}_{\mr{GL}}(f)$ is of finite rank for all $f \in V_{m,l}$), we define $$e_{\mr{GL}}\colonequals \lim_{n_0,\ldots,n_{f-1}} \mb \prod_{i=0}^{f-1} \mb t^{n_i!}_{a_{i+1}-a_i}.$$ Similarly for case (L).
Hecke operators on the Shimura variety
--------------------------------------
In this section only we will work over the rigid fiber of our varieties, without changing the notation. We recall the definition of the correspondences $C_i$ used to define the $\mr U_{p,i}$ operators from [@Bijamu §2.3]. He defines correspondences over (the rigid fiber of) $X_{\mr{Iw}}$.
In case (L), let $ 1 \leq i \leq n-1$. The correspondence $C_i$ parametrises points $(A, \lambda, \iota, \alpha, (H_{i,\bullet})_i)$ of $X_{\mr{Iw}}$ with in addition an $\mc O$-stable subgroup $L = L^+ \oplus L^- $ for which $H_i \oplus L^+ = A[\pi^+]$. By Remark \[rmk: orth\] it is enough to specify $L^+$. We have two projections $p_1,p_2:C_i \rightarrow X_{\mr{Iw}}$ corresponding to forgetting $L$ and taking the quotient by $L$. The universal isogeny $\mc A \rightarrow \mc A/L$ induces an isomorphism $p^{*}(\kappa):p_2^* \omega^{\kappa} \rightarrow p_2^*\omega^{\kappa}$. One defines $\tilde{\mr{U}}_{p,i}$ as the composition $$\begin{aligned}
\mr H^0(X_{\mr{Iw}},\omega^{\kappa}) \rightarrow \mr H^0(C_i,p_2^*\omega^{\kappa}) \stackrel{p^*(\kappa)}{\longrightarrow} \mr H^0(C_i,p_1^*\omega^{\kappa})\stackrel{\mr{Tr}(p_1)}{\longrightarrow} \mr H^0(X_{\mr{Iw}},\omega^{\kappa}).\end{aligned}$$ Define moreover: $$\begin{aligned}
N_i = & \sum_{j} \mr{max}(a_{j}-i,0) \kappa_{\sigma_j,a_j} + \mr{max}(j-a_{j},0)\kappa_{\bar \sigma_j,b_j},\\
n_i = & \sum_{j} \mr{min}(a_{j},j) \mr{min}(n-i,b_j).\end{aligned}$$ The number $N_i$ comes from $p^*(\kappa)$ while $n_i$ is an inseparability degree.
\[def:U\_p\] We define $\mr U_{p,i}\colonequals p^{-N_i-n_i}\tilde{\mr{U}}_{p,i}$; it is well defined over $\mc O_K$ (see Remark \[rmk:welldefined\]).
In case (U) let $ 1 \leq i \leq n/2 $. If $i < n/2$ the correspondence $C_i$ parametrises points $(A, \lambda, \iota, \alpha, (H_{i,\bullet})_i)$ of $X_{\mr{Iw}}$ with in addition an $\mc O$-stable subgroup $L$ of $\mc A[p^2]$ such that $H_i \oplus L[p] = A[p]= {H_i}^{ \perp} \oplus pL $. If $i=n/2$ one considers $L$ such that $H_i \oplus L = A[p]$.
Define: $$\begin{aligned}
N_i = & \sum_{j} \mr{max}(a_{j}-i,0) \kappa_{\sigma_j,a_j} + \mr{max}(b_j-i,b_j-a_j)\kappa_{\bar \sigma_j,b_j} {\mbox{ if }i < n/2 },\\
n_i = & n \sum_{j} \mr{min}(a_{j},i) {\mbox{ if }i < n/2 },\\
N_i = & \sum_{j} \frac{b_j-a_j}{2}\kappa_{\bar \sigma_j,b_j} {\mbox{ if }i = n/2 },\\
n_i = & \frac{n}{2}\sum_{j}a_j {\mbox{ if }i = n/2 }.\end{aligned}$$
The definitions of $\tilde{\mr U}_{p,i}$ and ${\mr U}_{p,i}$ are as before.
A comparison {#sec:comparison}
------------
We now want to extend the action of the operators $\mr U_{p,i}$ to the Igusa tower. The idea is that the filtration defined by Proposition \[Prop:MoonenFil\] will give a section to $X_{\mr{Iw}}$.
The first thing to do is to interpret these operators from a linear algebra perspective. Let $k = \overline{\m F}_p$. We can identify the Dieudonné module of $\mc A^{\mu}_{/k}$ with the Tate module of $\mc A^{\mu}_{/\mr{Frac}(W(k))}$. We recall that the Tate module has rank $2dn$ over $\m Z_p$, and that $f=d$ in case (L) and $f=2d$ in case (U).
The Hecke operators in case (L) are the same as the ones of [@hida_control §6.5]. We let $\langle\overline{x}_1,\ldots,\overline{x}_{n} \rangle$ be an $\mc O$-basis for $\mc A^{\mu}_{/\mr{Frac}(W(k))}[\pi^+]$ and $\langle \overline{x}_{n+1},\ldots,\overline{x}_{2n} \rangle$ be an $\mc O$-basis for $\mc A^{\mu}_{/\mr{Frac}(W(k))}[\pi^-]$. We say that the basis is adapted to $L_i$ if $L_i$ can be written as $$L_i = \langle \overline{x}_{i+1},\ldots,\overline{x}_{n}, \overline{x}_{2n-i},\ldots,\overline{x}_{2n}\rangle.$$ The $\mr U_{p,i}$ operator can be interpreted as the double quotient operator $\mr{Iw}\beta_i \mr{Iw}$. Let us describe the corresponding matrix $\beta_i$: if $i>a_j$ the $j$-th component of $\beta_i$ is $\left( [p,\ldots,p],[1,\ldots,1,p,\dots, p]\right)$ where $p$ appears $a_j$ times in the first matrix and $i-a_j$ times in the second; if $a_j \geq i$ then it is $\left( [1,\ldots, 1,p,\ldots,p],[1,\ldots,1]\right)$ where $p$ appears $i$ times. The number $n_i$ defined before coincides with the index defined by Hida, that he calculates explicitly in [@hida_control (6.12)].
In case (U), fix a basis $\langle x_1,\ldots,x_{n} \rangle$ of the Tate module as $\mc O$-module adapted to $L_i$, and let $\langle \overline{x}_1,\ldots,\overline{x}_{n} \rangle$ be the corresponding basis for $\mc A^{\mu}_{/\mr{Frac}(W(k))}[p^2]$. This means that $L_i \subset \mc A^{\mu}_{/\mr{Frac}(W(k))}[p^2]$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle p\overline{x}_{i+1},\dots, p\overline{x}_{n-i}, \overline{x}_{n-i+1},\ldots, \overline{x}_{n} \rangle\end{aligned}$$ if $i < n/2$. If $i=n/2$ then $L = \langle p\overline{x}_{n/2},\dots, p\overline{x}_{n} \rangle \subset \mc A^{\mu}_{/\mr{Frac}(W(k))}[p]$. We can define for each $L_i$ an adelic matrix $\beta_i $. If $i < n/2$ and $a_j \geq i$ then $$\beta_i=[1,\ldots,1,p,\dots, p, p^2,\ldots,p^2]$$ with $i$ $1$’s and $p^2$’s, and $n-2i$ $p$’s. At places where $ i >a_j$ we have $$\beta_i = [1,\ldots,1,p,\dots, p, p^2,\ldots,p^2]$$ where $1$ appears $a_j$ times and $p$ appears $n-2a_j = b_j -a_j$ times. If $i=n/2$ then $\beta_i = [1,\ldots,1,p,\ldots,p]$ with $n/2$ $1$’s and $p$’s.
Note that the number $n_i$ is the sum over all places of $F_0$ of the numbers defined in [@hida_control (6.10)]. This is not really clear at first sight so let’s calculate them. Suppose $i \neq n/2$. Build a $a_j \times b_j$ table and put a $+1$ in the rows from $i+1$ to $a_j$ (accounts for the multiplication by $\beta_i$), then add a $-2$ in the columns from $b_j-i+1$ till $b_j$ and a $-1$ in the column from $b_j-(a_j+b_j -2i+i)=i-a_j$ till $b_j-i-1$ (these account for the multiplication by $\beta_i^{-1}$).
If $a_j \leq i$ then there are no $+1$, $-1$ appears $a_j(b_j -i-1-(i-a_j-1)))=a_j(n-2i)$ times and $-2$ appears $a_j(b_j-(b_j-i+1-1))= a_j i$ times. Sum up the opposite to get $a_j(n-2i) + 2a_j i= na_j$. Similar if $a_j >i$ or $i=n/2$.
Concerning the explanation for $N_i$, note that the matrix $\beta_i$ is sent diagonally into $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:GoverO}
G(\mc O \otimes_{\m Z_p} \mc O ) \cong \prod_{j=1}^d ( \mr{GL}_{a_j}\times \mr{GL}_{b_j}) \times (\mr{GL}_{b_j} \times \mr{GL}_{a_j}) (\mc O)\end{aligned}$$ and only the first factors of the two couples contribute (because they are the ones appearing in $P$). (So, for example in case (U), to justify the appearance of $\mr{max}(b_j-i,b_j -a_j)$, note that it is $b_j -i=(a_j-i)+(b_j-a_j)$ if $a_j \geq i$ and otherwise it is $b_j -a_j$, which is exactly the number of times that $p$ appears in the two upper blocks $( \mr{GL}_{a_j}\times 1_{b_j}) \times (\mr{GL}_{b_j} \times 1_{a_j}) $.)
In both case, one can define an operator $\mb T_{i}$ on $V_{m,l}[\kappa]$, similarly to [@hida_control page 36]. For each point $(\mc A_x,\gamma)$ where $\mc A_x$ is the $\mu$-ordinary abelian variety corresponding to $x$ in $S_m$ and $\gamma$ a class in $\mr{Gal}(\mr{Ig}_{m,l}/S^{\mr{tor}}_m)/N_{\mr{Ig}}(\mc O/p^l \mc)$ and for each isogeny $\xi: \mc A_x \rightarrow \mc A_x/L_x$ one defines a point $(\mc A_x/L_x,\gamma_{L_x})$ in $\mr{Ig}_{m,l}$.
\[def:T\_i\] We define the geometric operator $\mb T_i$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mb T_{i} f (x,\gamma)= p^{-n_i}\sum_{ L_x \in p_2p_1^{-1}(x) } f(\mc A_x/L_x,\gamma_{L_x}).\end{aligned}$$
\[rmk:welldefined\] Note that this expression is well defined as the naïve operators are divisible by $n_i$ by [@hida_control Lemma 6.6].
We define $\mb T \colonequals \prod_{i=1}^{n/2} \mb T_{i}$. Assuming it converges, we can hence define $e_G=\lim_n \mb T^{n!}$. From the matrix description and the decomposition in it is clear that the projector $e_{\mr{GL}}$ is contained in $e_G$. It is clear that we have the relation $ \mb T_i = \mr U_{p,i}$ (after composition with ) hence the operators of the previous section are well defined.
To conclude, we make the following observation.
\[lemma:commute\] Let $\mc A^{\mu}$ be the $\mu$-ordinary universal abelian variety over $\overline{\m F}_p$. For every $L_i$ we have $\mr{Ha}^{\mu}(\mc A^{\mu}) = \mr{Ha}^{\mu}(\mc A^{\mu}/L_i) $. In particular $$\mr U_{p,i}(\mr{Ha}^{\mu}f)=\mr{Ha}^{\mu} \mr U_{p,i}(f)$$ and moreover we can normalise $\mr{Ha}^{\mu}$ so that $\mr{Ha}^{\mu} \equiv 1$ on $S^{\mr{tor}}$.
Using the Dieudonné functor, we see that the quotient $\mc A^{\mu} \rightarrow \mc A^{\mu}/L_i $ corresponds in case (U) to the sub-lattice $$M'\colonequals \langle x_1,\ldots, x_i, px_{i+1},\ldots, px_{n-i}, p^2 x_{n-i+1},\dots, p^2 x_{n} \rangle$$ of $M\colonequals \langle x_1,\ldots,x_{n} \rangle$. By the definition of the Hasse invariant, we are calculating the determinant of ${\bigwedge^{a_i} \mr{Fr}^{f}}$, suitably normalised. Moreover the filtration on $M'$ is induced by the one of $M$, hence the determinant is the same. This tells us also that $\mr{Ha}^{\mu} $ is constant on $S^{\mr{tor}}$. The same holds for case (L).
Hecke operators at p without level at p
---------------------------------------
Let $X$ be the compact Shimura variety of level $\mc H$. Let $\beta_i$ the matrix associated with $\mr U_{p,i}$ in the previous section.
We define the Hecke operator $\mr T_{p,i}$ on $\mr M_{\kappa}(\mc H, R)$ using the double quotient $[G(\m Z_p) \beta_i G(\m Z_p) ]$.
We are interested in this opersator as if $\kappa \gg 0$ then we have, by the same argument of [@hida_smf pp. 467-468], that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:TpUp}
\mr T_{p,i} \equiv \mr{U}_{p,i} \bmod p .\end{aligned}$$
Prime-to-p Hecke operators
--------------------------
We define now the Hecke algebra. Let $N$ be a prime-to-$p$ integer containing all prime numbers which are norms of prime ramified in $F$ or for which $G$ is not quasi-split and let $\mathfrak{l}$ be a prime ideal of $F_0$ above $l \nmid pN$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\m T_{G,\mathfrak{l}} = \Z_p[ G(\mc O_{F_{0,\mathfrak{l}}}) \setminus G(F_{0,\mathfrak{l}})/G(\mc O_{F_{0,\mathfrak{l}}}) ].\end{aligned}$$ If $\mathfrak{l}$ is split in $F$, then $G(F_{0,\mathfrak{l}})\cong \GL_{a+b}(F_{0,\mathfrak{l}})\times \m G_m(\Q_l) $ and $\m T_{G,\mathfrak{l}}$ is generated by the same matrices. If $\mathfrak{l}$ is inert, $G(F_{0,\mathfrak{l}})$ is contained in $\GL_{a+b}(F_{\mathfrak{l}})$ and generated by the same diagonal matrices.
The abstract Hecke algebra of prime-to-$Np$ level is then $$\begin{aligned}
\m T_G^{(Np)} = {\bigotimes_{\mathfrak{l} \nmid Np}}\!\!' \, \m T_{G,\mathfrak{l}}.\end{aligned}$$ It acts naturally on the space of $p$-adic modular forms.
Hida theory {#sec:Hidatheory}
===========
In this section we do not suppose that $p$ is inert in $F_0$. The $p$-torsion of $\mc A^{\mu}$ decompose accordingly to the decomposition of $p$ in $F_0$, and for each $\pi_i$ dividing $p$ we can define an Igusa tower $\mr{Ig}_{\pi_i}$, a weight space $\mc W_{\pi_i}$ etc. as in Section \[sec:Igusatower\], and we denote by $$\mr{Ig}= \mr{Ig}_{\pi_1} \times_{S^{\mr{tor}}} \mr{Ig}_{\pi_2} \times \cdots \times_{S^{\mr{tor}}}\mr{Ig}_{\pi_k},$$ and the same for $\mc W^\circ$, $\mc W$, $\Lambda^{\circ}$, and $\Lambda$. We denote by $L$ the Galois group of $\mr{Ig} \rightarrow S_{\infty}^{\mr{tor}}$.
We also have the two projectors $e_{G,\pi_i}$ and $e_{\mr{GL},\pi_i}$. We set $$\begin{aligned}
e_{G}=\prod_{\pi_i \mid p \text{ in }F_0}e_{G,\pi_i}, \;\;\;\; e_{\mr{GL}}=\prod_{\pi_i \mid p \text{ in }F_0} e_{\mr{GL},\pi_i}.\end{aligned}$$ We are almost ready to develop Hida theory but first we need some propositions. Recall that $D$ is the divisor of $X^{\mr{tor}} \setminus X$ and $\pi: X^{\mr{tor}} \rightarrow X^* $.
\[prop:sesmodp\] We have a short exact sequence: $$\begin{aligned}
0 \rightarrow \mr H^0(S^*, \pi_*(\omega^{\kappa}(-D))) \stackrel{\times p^m}{\rightarrow} \mr H^0(S^*, \pi_*(\omega^{\kappa}(-D)) \rightarrow \mr H^0 (S^*_m,\pi_*(\omega^{\kappa}(-D))) \rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ If $t \in \mathbb{N}$ is big enough, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\mr H^0(X^*,\pi_*\omega^{\kappa+t(1,\ldots,1)}(-D)) \rightarrow \mr H^0(X_1^*,\pi_*\omega^{\kappa+t(1,\ldots,1)}(-D)).\end{aligned}$$
We first check that we have a short exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow \pi_*(\omega^{\kappa}(-D)) \stackrel{\times p^m}{\rightarrow} \pi_*(\omega^{\kappa}(-D)\otimes \mc O_K/ p^m \rightarrow 0.$$ We use the $q$-expansion as described in [@BrasRos Proposition 1.3] at a point $x \in X^*$: $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{h} {\Homol^0(\mc Z,\mc L(h)\otimes \omega^k(-D))}^{\G(h)},\end{aligned}$$ where $h$ runs over the element of maximal rank in the abelian part of the unipotent for $G$, $\mc Z$ is isogenous to a power of a universal abelian variety whose dimension depends on $x$ and $\G(h)$ is the stabiliser of $h$ inside $\mc H$. As we have chosen a neat level for $X$ and $h$ has maximal rank, then all stabilisers $\G(h)$ are trivial. We are left to use the exact sequence of sheaves $$\begin{aligned}
0 \rightarrow \mc L(h)\otimes \omega^k(-D) \stackrel{\times p^m}{\rightarrow} \mr \mc L(h)\otimes \omega^k(-D) \rightarrow \mc L(h)\otimes \omega^k(-D)_m \rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ Using Mumford vanishing theorem [@Mumford §III.16] for the $\mr H^1$ of $\mc L(h)$ (remember that $h$ has maximal rank) we can conclude.
For the first part, we use the fact that $R^1\pi_* \mc O_{X^{\mr{tor}}(-D)}=0$ and that $S^*$ is affine. For the second part, we need to check that $H^1(X_1^*,\pi_*\omega^{\kappa}(-D))$ vanishes. We can write $$\pi_*\omega^{\kappa+t(1,\ldots,1)}(-D) \cong \pi_*(\omega^{\kappa}(-D)) \otimes {\omega^\star}^{\otimes t},$$ where $\omega^\star$ is the ample line bundle $\mc O(1)$ on the minimal compactification [@lan Theorem 7.2.4.1 (2)]. If $t$ is big enough by Serre’s vanishing theorem we get $$\mr H^1(X_1^*,\pi_*\omega^{\kappa+t(1,\ldots,1)}(-D))=0.$$
The proposition can fail whenever one consider non-cuspidal forms. This is because there are some restrictive conditions on the weight to have non-cuspidal forms [@BrasRos Theorem 1.12] in characteristic zero, while the same is not true modulo $p$ (imagine a weight which is not parallel but it becomes modulo $p$). Nevertheless, one can hope to develop Hida theory after restricting to weights for which there is no [*a priori*]{} obstruction to the existence of Eisenstein series. The interested reader is referred to [@LiuRos] where this strategy has been exploited to construct non-cuspidal Hida families of Siegel modular forms.
\[prop:zerooutside\] If $\kappa$ is big enough (meaning $\kappa_{\sigma_j,b_j} >C$ and $\kappa_{\sigma_j,a_j} >C$ for all and $C$ depending only on the Shimura datum), then for all $f \in \mr H^0(X^{\mr{tor}},\omega^{\kappa})$ we have $$\mr \prod_i \mr U_{p,i} f (x) \equiv 0 \bmod p$$ for all $x \in X^{\mr{tor}} \setminus S$.
We mimic the proof for the Siegel case, as given in [@PilHida Proposition A.5]. Suppose not all the $a_j$’s are equal (otherwise we have a non-empty ordinary locus). Let $\mr{NP}$ be the $\mu$-ordinary Newton polygon and $\mr{NP}_j$ the Newton polygon which is above $N$ only at the point from $a_j$ to $a_{j'}$ (where $a_j =\cdots = a_{j'}$) (like in [@Valentinhasse Figure 7], but we admit that more consecutive slopes could be the same).
Let $\mc N_j$ be the corresponding Newton stratum in the open Shimura variety and $x$ any point in it. The corresponding $p$-divisible group $\mc A_x[p^{\infty}]$ admits a filtration $\left\{\mc A_l\right\} $ for $l=0,\ldots,j-1,j'+1,f+1$.
As the Newton polygon $\mr{NP}_j$ is above $\mr{NP}$, the slopes on $H\colonequals \mc A_{j'+1}/\mc A_{j-1}$ are bigger then the ones of the $j'+1$ filtered piece of $\mc A^{\mu}$. We need to understand (a bit) what is the matrix $M$ of first filtered piece of the Dieudonné module of $\mc A_x / L$ w.r.t the first filtration of the Dieudonné module of $\mc A_x$, for a subgroup that appear in the correspondence $C_{i}$ for a certain $i$ such that $L \cap H \neq 0$. In this case the matrix $M$ is gonna differ, at places $\sigma_k$ with $j \leq k \leq j' $ from the $k$-th component of $ \beta_i$, the matrix defined in Section \[sec:comparison\] at least in one entry, where a $1$ is substituted by a $p^{\eps}$, with $0 <\eps <1$ (this number is related to the $\sigma_k$ degree of $H$, in the sense of Fargues [@fargues_can]).
A similar calculation to the one that led to the choice of the number $N_i$ in [@Bijamu Definition 2.4, 2.9] tells us that the image of the map $p^*(\kappa)$ is gonna be contained inside $p^{M_i(x)} e^*\Omega^1{\mc A_x/ L/W(k)}$ where $$\begin{aligned}
M_i(x) = N_i + n_i + \sum_k \eps_k \kappa_{\sigma_k, a_k},\end{aligned}$$ with at least one $\eps_k >0$. If $\kappa_{\sigma_k, a_k} > 1/\eps_k$ then $M_i -N_i -n_i \geq 1$, [*i.e.*]{} $p \mid \mr U_{p,i}f (x)$. As the reunion of $\mc N_j$ over the $j's$ is dense in $X \setminus S$ [@hamacher Theorem 1.1] we can conclude.
We conclude with the following very important theorem.
\[thm:boundedness\] We have that $$\dim_{\mc O_K/p}({\mr H^0(X^{\mr{tor}}_1,\omega^{\kappa}(-D))}^{\mr{ord}}) \mbox{ and } \rk_{\mc O_K}({\mr H^0(X^{\mr{tor}},\omega^{\kappa}(-D))}^{\mr{ord}})$$ are bounded independently of $\kappa$.
First note that if $f$ is ordinary then $\mr{Ha}^{\mu}f$ is ordinary too by Lemma \[lemma:commute\]. If the weight is big enough then by Proposition \[prop:zerooutside\] $\mr U_p f$ vanishes outside the ordinary locus, and so does $f$; thank to Theorem \[teo:appendix\] we can choose $\mr{Ha}^{\mu}$ so that it has simple zeros and hence we can divide $f$ by $\mr{Ha}^{\mu}$. Multiplication by powers of the Hasse invariant induces $$\begin{aligned}
{\mr H^0(X^{\mr{tor}}_1,\omega_1^{\kappa})}^{\mr{ord}} \stackrel{\cong}{\rightarrow} {\mr H^0(X^{\mr{tor}}_1,\omega_1^{\kappa'})}^{\mr{ord}}.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that the space of ordinary modular forms modulo $p$ is bounded independently of $\kappa$. Moreover, as $\kappa$ is such that the congruence \[eq:TpUp\] holds, then we can write (where the reunion ranges over a finite number of possible different reduced Hasse invariants): $$\begin{aligned}
{\mr H^0(S^{\mr{tor}}_1,\omega^{\kappa}(-D))}^{\mr{ord}} & \stackrel{\cong}{\rightarrow} {\left( \bigcup_{r} \frac{\mr H^0(X^{\mr{tor}}_1,\omega^{\kappa'+r w(\mr{Ha}^{\mu})}(-D))}{{\mr{Ha}^{\mu}}^r } \right)}^{\mr{ord}} \\
& \stackrel{\cong}{\rightarrow} {\mr H^0(X^{\mr{tor}}_1,\omega_1^{\kappa}(-D))}^{\mr{ord}}. \end{aligned}$$ If $\kappa$ is not big enough, we can use multiplication by a Hasse invariant of parallel weight (such as the one of [@WushiMH]) to inject the forms of weight $\kappa$ into the ones of weight $\kappa'$, with $\kappa'$ big enough. Hence we have the first statement of the theorem.
Using the surjectivity of the reduction modulo $p$ for $p$-adic cusp forms given by Proposition \[prop:sesmodp\], one sees that the the statement of the theorem holds for ${\mr H^0(X^{\mr{tor}},\omega^{\kappa}(-D))}^{\mr{ord}} $ too.
Note that this is the only point where we need that the Hasse invariant has simple zeroes.
We now define a space of $p$-adic modular forms we can control: $$\begin{aligned}
V^{\mr{cusp}} \colonequals \tilde{V}^{\mr{cusp}} \otimes_{\mc O\llbracket T_{\mr{Ig}} \rrbracket} \Lambda,\end{aligned}$$ for $\tilde{V}^{\mr{cusp}}$ the subset of cuspidal sections of $\tilde{V}$ and $T_{\mr{Ig}}$ the torus of the Galois group for Igusa tower.
The ordinary projector $e_{\mr{GL}}$ and $e_G$ are well-defined on $V^{\mr{cusp}}$.
The only thing to check is that for every element $f$ of $V^{\mr{cusp}}$ the span of $\mb T^n_i f$ is of finite rank. But by definition $f$ is the reduction modulo $p^m$ of a classical forms of weight $\kappa$ and level $\G_1(p^l)$ for which this is clear. This show that $e_G$ converges and the same is true for $e_{\mr{GL}}$ (because it is contained in $e_G$).
We say that a character $\kappa \in \mc W$ is algebraic if it comes via the Hodge–Tate map of Section \[sec:HodgeTate\] from an algebraic weight for classical modular forms as in Section \[sec:classicalforms\]. Similarly we say that $\kappa$ is dominant (resp. regular, big enough, very regular) if the corresponding classical weight is dominant (resp. regular, big enough, very regular).
We can now apply Hida machinery and we get the main theorem.
\[thm:main\] We have constructed:
1. An ordinary projector $e_G=e_G^2$ on $V^{\mr{cusp}}$ such that the Pontryagin dual of its ordinary part $$V^{\mr{cusp},*,\mr{ord}}\colonequals \mr{Hom}_{\m Z_p}\left(V^{\mr{cusp},\mr{ord}},\m Q_p/\m Z_p\right)$$ (which is naturally a $\Lambda$-module) is finite free over $\Lambda^{\circ}$.
2. The $\Lambda$-module of Hida families $\mc S \colonequals \mr{Hom}_{\Lambda}\left(V^{\mr{cusp},*,\mr{ord}},\Lambda\right)$, which is of finite type over $\Lambda$.
3. Given an algebraic weight $\kappa$, let $\mc P_{\kappa}$ be the corresponding prime ideal of $\Lambda$. Then $$\mc S\otimes \Lambda/\mc P_{\kappa}\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}\varprojlim_m\varinjlim_l V^{\mr{cusp}, \mr{ord}}_{m,l}[\tau],$$ and, if $\kappa$ is very regular, combining it with gives $${\mr S_{\kappa}(\mc H, K)}^{\mr{ord}} \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} \left(\mc S \otimes\Lambda /\mc P_{\kappa}\right)[1/p].$$ Here the maps are equivariant under the action of the unramified Hecke algebra away from $Np$ and the $\m U_p$-operators.
We need to check that all the hypotheses of [@hida_control] are satisfied. (Hyp1) is verified by Proposition \[prop:sesmodp\] and (Hyp2) is satisfied as the points $P_{\kappa}$ for $\kappa$ very regular are dense, as seen in Proposition \[prop: properties of Lambda\]; hence we can define the projectors $e_G$ and $e_{\mr{GL}}$. Moreover (C) holds by Lemma \[lemma:commute\] and as already seen this implies that (F) holds (see Theorem \[thm:boundedness\]).
We show that the last map is an isomorphism, [*i.e.*]{} the control theorem. We have the diagram $$\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrix{
R[\kappa] \ar[r]\ar^{l_{\mr{can}}}[d] & F[\kappa]\ar[d]^{l_{\mr{can}}}\\
{{W(k)}}[\kappa] \ar[r]& {{W(k)}}[\kappa] ,
}$$ where $R[\kappa]$ is the algebraic representation corresponding to $\omega^{\kappa}$, $F[\kappa]$ is the topological representation obtained restricting $R[\kappa]$ to $\mr{Gal}(\mr{Ig}/S^{\mr{tor}})$, and ${{W(k)}}[\kappa]$ is a one dimensional module where $T_{\mr{Ig}}$ acts via $\kappa$. Now, as already said [@PilHida Proposition 3.3], whenever $\kappa$ is very regular the projector $e_{\mr{GL}}$ makes the map $l_{\mr{can}}$ into an isomorphism, and the same on the left (in which case it is enough for the weight to be dominant). This tells us that a function on $\mr{Ig}$ of weight $\kappa$ descends to a section of $\omega^{
\kappa}$ on $S^{\mr{tor}}_{\infty}$ whenever $\kappa$ is very regular. As very regular implies big enough then congruence \[eq:TpUp\] holds and and we can write, as in Thereom \[thm:boundedness\], $$\begin{aligned}
{\mr H^0(S^{\mr{tor}}_{\infty},\omega^{\kappa}(-D))}^{\mr{ord}} & \stackrel{\cong}{\rightarrow} { \left( \bigcup_{r} \frac{\mr H^0(X^{\mr{tor}},\omega^{\kappa'+r w(\mr{Ha}^{\mu})}(-D))}{{\mr{Ha}^{\mu}}^r } \right)}^{\mr{ord}} \\
& \stackrel{\cong}{\rightarrow} {\mr H^0(X^{\mr{tor}},\omega^{\kappa}(-D))}^{\mr{ord}}\end{aligned}$$ and we are done.
We are left to show that $\mc S$ is free over $\Lambda^{\circ}$. We proceed as in the proof of [@PilHida Théorème 7.1]. Choose a point $\kappa$ and let $e_1,\ldots,e_l$ elements of $\mc S_{\chi} \colonequals \mc S \otimes_{\Lambda,\chi} \Lambda^{\circ}$ (for $\chi$ a finite order character of $T_{\mr{Ig}}$) which reduce to a basis of ${\mr S_{\kappa}(\mc H, \mc O)}^{\mr{ord}}$. We want to show that $$\delta: \bigoplus \Lambda^{\circ} e_i \rightarrow \mc S_{\chi}$$ is an isomorphism. For $\kappa, \kappa'$ very regular, we have just seen that $${\mr S_{\kappa}(\mc H, \mc O_K)}^{\mr{ord}} \cong {\mr S_{\kappa'}(\mc H, \mc O_K)}^{\mr{ord}}$$ and moreover by the proof of Theorem \[thm:boundedness\] $${\mr S_{\kappa}(\mc H, \mc O_K/p)}^{\mr{ord}} = {\mr S_{\kappa'}(\mc H, \mc O_K/p)}^{\mr{ord}}.$$ Hence the kernel and cokernel of $\delta$ vanish modulo $P_{\kappa}$ for all such $\kappa$. By Zariski density, they must be $0$.
A priori, the same results hold if one use $\mc O_K \llbracket T_{\rm{Ig}} \rrbracket$ and $\mc O_K \llbracket x_1,\ldots,x_{N} \rrbracket$ (for $N$ the $\Z_p$-rank of $T_{\rm{Ig}}$) in place of $\Lambda $ and $\Lambda^{\circ}$, as the points $P_{\kappa}$ of part (3) of the theorem are Zariski dense. Still, we find more interesting to have modules over $\Lambda$, as we feel that this ring is adapted to the classical weights. Moreover $\Lambda$ (or better the space $\mc W_{\mc LT_{f-1}}$) is used in $p$-adic Hodge theory for $\Z_{p^f}$, see [@BSX].
Reduced mu-ordinary Hasse invariants {#Appendix}
====================================
In [@Valentinhasse Proposition 9.17] Hernandez shows that in certain cases (namely, when the ordinary locus is not empty or when the $a_i$ are all distinct) his Hasse invariants are reduced. This is not always the case as in Remark 9.23 of [*loc. cit.*]{} he gives examples when they are not reduced. Let us recall the example: suppose that there is only one prime above $p$ in $F$ and suppose that $a_j=a_{j+1}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mr{Fr}^{1}: M_{\sigma_j} \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} M_{\sigma_{j+1}}, \\
\mr{Fr}^{f-1}: M_{\sigma_{j+1}} \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} M_{\sigma_j}.\end{aligned}$$ If we denote by $\xi$ (resp. $\eta$) the determinant of $\bigwedge^{a_j}\mr{Fr}^{\alpha}/p^{c_j}$ (resp. $\bigwedge^{a_j}\mr{Fr}^{f-\alpha}/p^{c_j}$) modulo $\mr{Fil}^1$, then $$\mr{Ha}^{\mu,\sigma_j}= \xi \otimes \eta^{p}, \;\;\;\; \mr{Ha}^{\mu,\sigma_{j+1}} =\eta \otimes \xi^{p^{f-1}}.$$
The idea is to consider separately $\xi$ and $\eta$ (or more of such if more consecutive $a_j$’s are equal) to have partial Hasse invariants [*à la*]{} Goren [@Goren].
We suppose for an instant that $p$ is inert in $F_0$ and let $\mc O$ be $F_p$ in case (U) and $F_{0,p}$ in case (L). We denote by $f$ the degree of $\mc O$. If we are in case (U), recall that we defined $a_{f/2 + i}=b_{f/2+1 -i}$.
For all $1\leq j \leq f$, let $\alpha \geq 0 $ be such that $a_j=\ldots=a_{j+\alpha}$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\mr{Ha}^{\mu,\sigma_{j+\beta}} \colonequals & \frac{\bigwedge^{d_j} \mr{Fr}}{p^{c_{\beta}}} : \frac{\bigwedge^{d_j} M_{\sigma_{j+\beta}}}{\mr{Fil}^1 (\bigwedge^{d_j} M_{\sigma_{j+\beta}})}
\rightarrow \frac{\bigwedge^{d_j} M_{\sigma_{j+\beta+1}}}{\mr{Fil}^1(\bigwedge^{d_j} M_{\sigma_{j+\beta+1}} )} \mbox{ for } 0\leq \beta \leq \alpha-1;\\
\mr{Ha}^{\mu,\sigma_{j+\alpha}}\colonequals & \frac{\bigwedge^{d_j} \mr{Fr}^{f-\alpha}}{p^{c_{\beta}}} : \frac{\bigwedge^{d_j} M_{\sigma_{j+\alpha}}}{\mr{Fil}^1 (\bigwedge^{d_j} M_{\sigma_{j+\alpha}})}
\rightarrow \frac{\bigwedge^{d_j} M_{\sigma_{j}}}{\mr{Fil}^1(\bigwedge^{d_j} M_{\sigma_{j}} )}\end{aligned}$$ for $d_j = \mr{dim} (\mr H^1_{\mr {dR}}(\mc A^{\mu})_{\sigma_{j}} / \mr{Fil}^1 (\mr H^1_{\mr {dR}}(\mc A^{\mu})_{\sigma_{j}})) = n - a_j$ and $c_j = \sum_{k=1}^{j-1} k (a_{k+1}-a_k)$.
Note that $M$ is isomorphic to its Cartier dual, hence we get $M \cong {\mc D (M)}^{\mr{Fr}^{f/2}}$ (meaning the underling $\mc O$-module is the same but the action of $\sigma$ on one side corresponds to the action of $\bar{\sigma}$ on the other).
Because of this we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\bigwedge^{d_j} M_{\sigma_{j+\beta}}}{\mr{Fil}^1 (\bigwedge^{d_j} M_{\sigma_{j+\beta}})} & \cong \frac{\bigwedge^{d_j} \mc D(M)^{\mr{Fr}^{f/2}}_{\sigma_{j+\beta}}}{\mr{Fil}^1 (\bigwedge^{d_j} M_{\sigma_{j+\beta}})} \\
& \cong \frac{\bigwedge^{d_j} \mc D(M)_{\sigma_{f -(j+\beta)+1}}}{\mr{Fil}^1 (\bigwedge^{d_j} M_{\sigma_{f -(j+\beta)+1}})} \end{aligned}$$ and also $$\mr{Fil}^1 M_{\sigma_{i}} \cong M_{\sigma_{f-i+1}}/\mr{Fil}^1 M_{\sigma_{f-i+1}}$$ This implies $\mr{Ha}^{\mu,\sigma_{j+\beta}} = \mr{Ha}^{\mu,\bar{\sigma}_{j+\beta}} $.
In case (L) instead we split $M=M^+\oplus M^-$ and we repeat the same definitions with $M^+$ in place of $M$, [*i.e.*]{} we consider only the Dieudonné module of $\mc A^{\mu}[(\pi^+)^{\infty}]$.
For all primes $\pi_i$ we define $\mr{Ha}_{\pi_i}^{\mu}= \prod_{i=1}^{d}\mr{Ha}^{\mu,\sigma_{i}}$ and in general $$\mr{Ha}^{\mu}\colonequals \prod_{i=1}^k \mr{Ha}^{\mu}_{\pi_i}.$$
\[teo:appendix\] The divisor $V(\mr{Ha}^{\mu})$ in $S_1^{*}$ is reduced.
It is enough to show that the same holds for $S_1$. Moreover, as everything splits according to the action of $\mc O_F \otimes \m Z_p$, it is not harmful to work with a BT-with $\mc O$-structure, for $\mc O$ any of $\mc O_{F,\pi_i}$ (if $\pi_i$ is inert in $F/F_0$) or $\mc O_{F_0,\pi_i}$ (if $\pi_i$ splits).
As in Proposition \[prop:zerooutside\] we consider a Newton stratum $\mc N_j$ of abelian varieties whose Newton polygon $\mr{NP}_j$ coincides with the $\mu$-ordinary Newton polygon $\mr{NP}$ except at the breaking point $a_j$ (and the dual point $b_j$). First of all notice that if $a_i \neq a_j$ then $\mr{Ha}^{\mu,\sigma_{i}}$ doesn’t distinguish between $\mr{NP}_j$ and $\mr{NP}$. So we have to analyse only $\mr{Ha}^{\mu,\sigma_{i}}$ for $j \leq i \leq j+\alpha$ with $\alpha \geq 0$ and $a_j=\ldots=a_{j+\alpha}$. Only for this theorem, we let $H\colonequals\mc A_{j+\alpha+1}/\mc A_{j-1}$, for $\set{\mc A_k}$ the filtration for the $p$-torsion of the universal abelian variety over $\mc N_j$. It is a BT with $\mc O$-structure of $\mc O$-height $2$. We follow very closely the proof of [@Valentinhasse Proposition 9.17]: we need to study the matrices of the Frobenius on the Dieudonné module $M_H$ of $H$. We let $\set{ e_{1,i},e_{2,i}}_{i=1,\ldots,f}$ be a basis of $M_{H}$ such that $\mc O$ acts via $\sigma_i$ on $\set{ e_{1,i},e_{2,i}}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\mr{rk}_{\mc O} \mr{Fil}^{1}M_{H,\sigma_i} = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
0 & \mbox{ if } i < j\\
1 & \mbox{ if } j \leq i \leq j+\alpha\\
2 & \mbox{ if } i > j+\alpha
\end{array} \right. .\end{aligned}$$
By our choice of $\mr{NP}_j$ we know that the two slopes of $\mr{Fr}^f$ on $\set{ e_{1,i},e_{2,i}}$ (seen as a $\mr{Fr}^f$ crystal of rank two) are the same and that the dimension of $H$ is $\alpha+1$. The Dieudonné–Manin classification of Dieudonné modules tells us that $H$ is isogenous over ${\m Q}^{\mr{ur}}_p $ to $$\begin{aligned}
M_{2,s} = {\m Q}^{\mr{ur}}_p[\Phi]/(\Phi^2 - p^{s}),\end{aligned}$$ if $s=2(f-j-\alpha)+\alpha+1$ is odd, and $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1,s/2} \oplus M_{1,s/2} = {\m Q}^{\mr{ur}}_p[\Phi]/(\Phi - p^{s/2})\oplus {\m Q}^{\mr{ur}}_p[\Phi]/(\Phi - p^{s/2}) ,\end{aligned}$$ if $s$ is even. Here $\Phi$ is $\mr{Fr}^f$.
We are interested in the matrix of the isogeny $\mr{Fr}: M_{\sigma_j} \rightarrow M_{\sigma_{j+1}}$. It can only be $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & p \\
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right)$ otherwise the slopes would be distinct.
We know that the deformation space of $H$ has dimension $\alpha+1$ [@Moonen §2.1.4] and thanks to [@Moonen Proposition 2.1.8] the matrix of $\mr{Fr}$ on the the universal BT group with $\mc O$-structure of type as $H$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
X_1 & p \\
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right) \end{aligned}$$ and, similarly, for all $ \beta \leq \alpha-1 $ the universal matrix for $\mr{Fr}: M_{\sigma_j+\beta} \rightarrow M_{\sigma_{j+\beta+1}}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
X_{\beta+1}& p \\
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ In particular if $\beta \neq \alpha$ we have
$$\begin{gathered}
\mr{Fr} \colon M_{H,\sigma_{j+\beta}}/\mr{Fil}^{1}(M_{H,\sigma_{j+\beta}}) \to M_{H,\sigma_{j+\beta+1}}/\mr{Fil}^{1}(M_{H,\sigma_{j+\beta+1}}) \\
e_{1,j+\beta} \mapsto (X_{\beta+1}e_{1,j+\beta+1} + e_{2,j+\beta+1})/e_{2,j+\beta+1} = X_{\beta+1}e_{1,j+\beta+1}\end{gathered}$$
So these $\mr{Ha}^{\mu,\sigma_{j+\beta}}$ are non-zero on the tangent space at a point in $\mc N_j$, and their images are all independent. For $\mr{Ha}^{\mu,\sigma_{j+\alpha}}$ a similar calculation (here we have to take a power of $\mr{Fr}$ and divide by a power of $p$, and note that the remaining $M_{H,\sigma_i}$ do not contribute to the tangent space as they are “rigid”) gives that on the tangent space $\mr{Ha}^{\mu,\sigma_{j+\alpha}}$ is $X_{\alpha+1}$. In particular the product is a non-zero linear form on the tangent space.
Note that Lemma \[lemma:commute\] is not affected if one uses this new Hasse invariant as the quotient of the lattice of $\mc A$ by the one of $\mc A /L_i$ is free over $\mc O/p \otimes_{\m F_p}\mc O/p$.
The Hasse invariant just defined is a product of modular forms of non-parallel weight $(0,\ldots,-1,p,0,\dots)$ or $ (0,\ldots,p^{f-\alpha}, 0,\ldots, 0, -1, 0,\ldots)$ and it is non-cuspidal modulo $p$ so in general one can not expect to lift (not even a power of it) to characteristic zero.
[^1]: RB was partially supported by the ANR PerCoLaTor: ANR-14-CE25-0002-01.
[^2]: Most of this work has been carried out while GR was Herchel Smith Postdoctoral Fellow at Cambridge University and Supernumerary Fellow at Pembroke College.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We suggest that the dark matter model based on Bose Einstein condensate or scalar field can resolve the apparently contradictory behaviors of dark matter in the Abell 520 and the Bullet cluster. During a collision of two galaxies in the cluster, if initial kinetic energy of the galaxies is large enough, two dark matter halos pass each other in a soliton-like way as observed in the Bullet cluster. If not, the halos merge due to the tiny repulsive interaction among dark matter particles as observed in the Abell 520. This idea can also explain the origin of the dark galaxy and the galaxy without dark matter.'
author:
- 'Jae-Weon Lee'
- Sooil Lim
- Dale Choi
title: BEC dark matter can explain collisions of galaxy clusters
---
Dark matter (DM) constituting about 24 percent of the mass of the universe is one of the big puzzles in modern physics and cosmology [@DMreview; @dark] . According to numerical simulations, while the cold dark matter (CDM) with the cosmological constant model (i.e., $\Lambda$CDM) is remarkably successful in explaining the formation of the structure larger than galaxies, it seems to encounter problems on the scale of galaxy or sub-galactic structure. $\Lambda$CDM model usually predict the cusped central density and too many sub-halos, and too small angular momentum of the galaxies, which are, arguably, in contradiction with observations [@navarro-1996-462; @deblok-2002; @crisis]. On the other hand the models based on Bose Einstein condensate (BEC) DM or scalar field dark matter (SFDM) of ultra-light scalar particles well explain the observed rotation curves of galaxies [@PhysRevD.68.023511; @Boehmer:2007um] and solve the above problems of CDM models [@corePeebles; @Riotto:2000kh; @PhysRevD.62.103517; @0264-9381-17-13-101; @PhysRevD.63.063506].
The mystery deepened further after recent observations of massive intergalactic collisions in two clusters of galaxy; the bullet cluster (1E0657-56) [@bullet] and the Abell 520 [@abell520]. Galaxy clusters are composed of three main components behaving differently during collision; galaxies composed of stars, hot gas between the galaxies, and DM [@cluster]. According to the prevailing theories, DM composed of very weakly interacting particles moves only under the influence of gravity and is presumed to be collisionless. Since the stars are sparse, they can be also treated as effectively collisionless particles. Thus, when two clusters of galaxy collide, we expect stars and dark matter to move together even during a violent collision, while intergalactic gases self-interact electromagnetically and lag behind the other matters at the collision center. The distribution of DM can be inferred by optical telescopes using the gravitational lensing effect, while that of the hot gases by X-ray telescopes like Chandra. The observation of the Bullet cluster [@bullet] using these telescopes seems to be consistent with this expectation, and to support the collisionless CDM theory. On the contrary, in the Abell 520, galaxies (stars) were stripped away from the central dense core of the cluster, where gases and DM are left. This indicates DM as well as gases is collisional, which is puzzling. The collision separating DM from visible matter is also recently observed [@ring] in the ring-like structure in the galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 [@Jee:2007nx]. It is very hard to explain the contradictive behaviors of DM in these clusters in the context of the standard CDM model or even with the modified gravity theories.
In this paper, we suggest that this contradiction can be also readily resolved in BEC/SFDM model. Furthermore, our theory can explain the origin of the dark galaxy and the galaxy without dark matter.
First, let us briefly review BEC/SFDM model. In 1992, to explain the observed galactic rotation curves, Sin [@sin1; @sin2] suggested that galactic halos are astronomical objects in BEC of ultra light DM particles such as pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson (PNGB) which have Compton wavelength $\lambda_{comp} = {h}/{mc} \sim 10~pc$, i.e. $m \simeq 10^{-24} eV$. In this model the halos are like gigantic atoms where cold boson DM particles are condensated in a single macroscopic wave function and the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle provides a force against self-gravitational collapse. In the same year one of the author (Lee) and Koh [@kps; @myhalo] generalized Sin’s BEC model by considering a repulsive self-interaction among DM particles, in the context of field theory and the general relativity. (See [@myreview] for a review.) In this model a BEC DM halo is a giant boson star (boson halo [@review; @review2]) surrounding a visible matter of galaxy and is described by a coherent complex scalar field $\phi$ having a typical action \[action\] S= d\^4x\[ - \^\*\_[;]{}\_[;]{} -U()\] with a repulsive potential $U(\phi)=\frac{m^2}{2}|\phi|^2+\frac{\lambda}{4}|\phi|^4$. It was found that [@myhalo] there are constraints $\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}(\frac{M_P}{m})^2\st{>}{\sim} 10^{50}$, and $10^{-24}~eV\st{<}{\sim} m \st{<}{\sim}10^3~eV$, where $M_P$ is the Planck mass. We will call two models as BEC/SFDM model [@guzman:024023].
In this model, for $\lambda=0$, the formation of DM structures smaller than the Compton wavelength is suppressed by the uncertainty principle and this property could alleviate the aforementioned problems of the $\Lambda$CDM model. For $\lambda\neq0$ the minimum scale becomes $\Lambda^{1/2}/m$, where a dimensionless coupling term $\Lambda= \lambda M_P^2/4\pi m^2$ is very large even for very small $\lambda$ due to the smallness of $m$ relative to $M_P$. Thus, the self-interaction effect is non-negligible, if $\lambda\neq0$. Despite of their tiny mass, BEC DM particles act as CDM particles [@Matos:2003pe] for the cosmological structure formation, because their velocity dispersion is very small. Thus, BEC/SFDM is an ideal alternative to the standard CDM playing a role of CDM at the scale larger than a galaxy, and at the same time suppressing sub-galactic structures. Later similar ideas were rediscovered by many authors [@Schunck:1998nq; @PhysRevLett.84.3037; @PhysRevD.64.123528; @PhysRevD.65.083514; @repulsive; @Fuzzy; @corePeebles; @Nontopological; @PhysRevD.62.103517; @Alcubierre:2001ea; @Fuchs:2004xe; @Matos:2001ps; @0264-9381-18-17-101; @PhysRevD.63.125016; @Julien; @moffat-2006]. (See [@DMmodels] for a review.)
Now, we investigate in detail the idea that the repulsive self-interaction between BEC DM particles separate stars from DM during the collision between galaxies or cluster of galaxies. To do this we need equations describing the motion of DM halos.
![(Color online) Schematic diagram representing axisymmetric collision of two galaxies. The black curves represent the distribution of BEC DM in galactic halos and the red dotted lines that of stars of the galaxies. If the initial kinetic energy is high enough, DM and the stars in each galaxy move together after the collision like solitons. This could be what happened to galaxies in the Bullet cluster.[]{data-label="fig:figure1"}](g0.eps)
![(Color online) The same diagram in Fig. 1 with smaller initial kinetic energy. In this case the repulsion between DM particles plays a significant role. Two DM halos merge to form a larger DM halo, which can be identified as a dark galaxy, while stars keep going outward and could form galaxies without DM later. This could be what happened to galaxies in the Abell 520.[]{data-label="fig:figure2"}](g1.eps)
With a spherical symmetric metric $ ds^2=-B(r)dt^2+A(r)dr^2+r^2 d\Omega_3$ the equation of motion for the scalar field becomes [@colpi] ”+\[+-\]’ +A\[(-1)-\^3\]=0, \[eqs\] where $x=mr, \Omega=\frac{\omega}{m}$ and $
\phi(x,t)=(4\pi G)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \sigma(r)
e^{-i\omega t}$. Since the collision velocity is non-relativistic ($v\sim 10^{-3} c$) we can use a Newtonian approximation, in which Einstein equation for this system reduces to \[poisson\] \^2 V = 4GT\_[00]{}, where the energy momentum tensor is T\_ = ( [\_\^\* \_+ \_\_\^\* ]{} ) - g\_ ( [\^\^\* \_+ U()]{} ) and $V$ is the Newtonian gravitational potential. The Newtonian limit of Eq. (\[eqs\]) and the dimensionless form of Eq. (\[poisson\]) can be simply written as {
[l]{} \_ \^2 V = \^2 +\
\^2 = 2V\
. .\
\[all\] For $\Lambda=0$ these equations are equivalent to the non-linear Schröedinger equation of Sin’s model [@newt1].
Since galaxy clusters are composed of about $50\sim 1000$ individual galaxies each surrounded by galactic DM halos, we can treat the collision of galaxy clusters as massive collisions of individual galaxies and expect our analysis below on the collision of two galaxies can be applied to the collision of clusters too. Since DM is the major component of a galaxy, one can assume that the collision dynamics of two galaxies is mainly governed by that of DM, and baryonic matter (stars and gases) plays a passive role during the collision.
Choi and others [@choi1; @choi2; @collision3; @collision1] numerically studied the head-on collision of the boson stars described by Eq. (\[all\]). It was shown that there are two regimes with very different dynamical properties: solitonic and merging regimes. If two colliding boson stars (galactic DM halos in our theory) have large enough kinetic energy, then the halos pass each other like solitons during the collision. We argue that this is just what happened to galactic DM halos in the Bullet cluster. In this case the total energy $E$ which is composed of kinetic energy $K$, the gravitational potential energy $W$ and the repulsion energy $I$ between DM particles (determined by the term $\lambda |\phi|^4$) should be positive, i.e., $E=K+W+I>0$ [@choi2; @collision3; @collision1]. In other words, initial relative velocity of colliding galaxies should be large enough to overcome the self-gravitational attraction and repulsion force between DM particles. Fig. 1. shows the schematic diagram representing collision of two galaxies. (We ignored the hot intergalactic gases which mainly exist between the galaxies. This does not change our conclusion significantly.) If the initial kinetic energy is large enough, DM and the stars in each galaxy move together even after the collision like solitons. This could be what happened to galaxies in the Bullet cluster.
On the contrary, if the kinetic energy is small so that $E=K+W+I<0$, they merge to form a single large DM halos as shown in Fig. 2. This could be what happened to DM halos in the Abell 520. Since our model treat galactic DM halos as boson stars, two different regimes of the boson star collision explain the observed contradictive behaviors of DM in two clusters. The DM halos in the Abell 520 did not have an enough velocity and was even slowed by the repulsion, while the stars, having the same initial velocity, managed to escape the potential well because they are collisionless. This situation can happen only when the collision velocity is within an appropriate range. We expect usually the collision velocity of other colliding clusters or galaxies is too slow or fast to separate efficiently stars from DM halos. This explain why stars usually trace DM. The large DM halo left at the center can be identified as a dark galaxy [@darkgalaxy] like VIRGOHI21, while two star groups going outward could form two independent galaxies without DM later [@galaxywodm], arguably, like M94 (NGC 4736) [@galaxywodm]. The origin of these galaxies was a mystery so far. Thus, our theory explain not only the mystery of galaxy clusters but also the origin of the dark galaxy and the galaxy without DM. This scenario also implies that there are many dark galaxies at the center of the Abell 520 and galaxies without or very small DM at outermost region of the cluster.
For the scenario to be plausible the initial collision velocity of galaxies in the Bullet cluster should be much larger than that of the Abell 520. Interestingly, according to the observations [@bullet; @abell520], the Abell 520 actually had much small collision velocity than the Bullet cluster. The estimated collision velocity of the clusters inferred from the X-ray temperature of the gases are about $4700 km/s$ and $1000 km/s$ for the Bullet cluster and the Abell 520, respectively. This observational data support our theory.
Our theory provides a possibility of determining the mass $m$ and self-coupling $\lambda$ of DM particles using the data from the collision of galaxy clusters. Recently, it is also suggested that the observed size evolution of very massive galaxies and the early compact galaxies can be also well explained in BEC/SFDM model [@Lee:2008ux]. In conclusion, since BEC/SFDM model have passed many tests and explain many mysteries of galaxies and galaxy clusters which seems to be hardly possible in other DM theories, this model can be a promising alternative to the usual CDM model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
=================
5.4mm
[10]{}
J. R. Ellis, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. [**A361**]{}, 2607 (2003).
W. H. Press, B. S. Ryden, and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1084 (1990).
J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. [**462**]{}, 563 (1996).
W. J. G. [de Blok]{}, A. Bosma, and S. S. McGaugh, astro-ph/0212102 (2002).
A. Tasitsiomi, International Journal of Modern Physics D [**12**]{}, 1157 (2003).
A. Arbey, J. Lesgourgues, and P. Salati, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 023511 (2003).
C. G. Boehmer and T. Harko, JCAP [**0706**]{}, 025 (2007).
P. Peebles, Astrophys. J. [**534**]{}, L127 (2000).
A. Riotto and I. Tkachev, Phys. Lett. [**B484**]{}, 177 (2000).
V. Sahni and L. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 103517 (2000).
T. Matos and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Class. Quant. Grav. [**17**]{}, L75 (2000).
T. Matos and L. Arturo Ureña López, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 063506 (2001).
D. Clowe [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**648**]{}, L109 (2006).
A. [Mahdavi]{} [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**668**]{}, 806 (2007).
A. V. Maxim Markevitch, Physics Reports [**443**]{}, 1 (2007).
B. Qin, H.-Y. Shan, and A. Tilquin, The Astrophysical Journal Letters [ **679**]{}, L81 (2008).
M. J. Jee [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**661**]{}, 728 (2007).
S.-J. Sin, Phys. Rev. [**D50**]{}, 3650 (1994).
S. U. Ji and S. J. Sin, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 3655 (1994).
J.-W. Lee and I.-G. Koh, [*Galactic halo as a soliton star* ]{},Abstracts, bulletin of the Korean Physical Society, 10 (2) (1992).
J.-W. Lee and I.-G. Koh, Phys. Rev. [**D53**]{}, 2236 (1996).
J.-W. Lee, arxiv:0801.1442 (2008).
P. Jetzer, Phys. Rep. [**220**]{}, 163 (1992).
T. D. [Lee]{} and Y. [Pang]{}, Phys. Rep. [**221**]{}, 251 (1992).
F. S. Guzman and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Physical Review D [**68**]{}, 024023 (2003).
T. Matos and D. Nunez, astro-ph/0303455 (2003).
F. E. Schunck, astro-ph/9802258 (1998).
U. Nucamendi, M. Salgado, and D. Sudarsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 3037 (2000).
A. Arbey, J. Lesgourgues, and P. Salati, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 123528 (2001).
A. Arbey, J. Lesgourgues, and P. Salati, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 083514 (2002).
J. Goodman, New Astronomy Reviews [**5**]{}, 103 (2000).
W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1158 (2000).
E. W. Mielke and F. E. Schunck, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 023503 (2002).
M. Alcubierre [*et al.*]{}, Class. Quant. Grav. [**19**]{}, 5017 (2002).
B. Fuchs and E. W. Mielke, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**350**]{}, 707 (2004).
T. Matos, F. S. Guzman, L. A. Urena-Lopez, and D. Nunez, (2001).
M. P. Silverman and R. L. Mallett, Classical and Quantum Gravity [**18**]{}, L103 (2001).
U. Nucamendi, M. Salgado, and D. Sudarsky, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 125016 (2001).
A. A. Julien Lesgourgues and P. Salati, New Astronomy Reviews [**46**]{}, 791 (2002).
J. W. Moffat, astro-ph/0602607 (2006).
J. P. Ostriker and P. Steinhardt, Science [**300**]{}, 1909 (2003).
M. Colpi, S. L. Shapiro, and I. Wasserman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 2485 (1986).
E. Seidel and W.-M. Suen, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{}, 384 (1990).
D.-I. Choi, Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{}, 063609 (2002).
D. Choi [*et al.*]{}, unpublished preprint http://laplace.physics.ubc.ca/Group/Papers/choi-etal-prd-05/choi-etal-prd-05.pdf (2005).
C. Palenzuela, I. Olabarrieta, L. Lehner, and S. Liebling, Phys. Rev. [ **D75**]{}, 064005 (2007).
A. Bernal and F. S. Guzmán, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 103002 (2006).
K. Bekki, B. S. Koribalski, and V. A. Kilborn, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters [**363**]{}, L21 (2005).
L. Bratek, J. Jalocha, and M. Kutschera, (2006).
J.-W. Lee, arxiv:0805.2877 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Masoud Badiei Khuzani, Na Li [^1]'
title: '[[Stochastic Primal-Dual Method on Riemannian Manifolds with Bounded Sectional Curvature]{}]{} '
---
[mybib1.bib]{} @article[bonnabel2013stochastic, title=[Stochastic gradient descent on Riemannian manifolds]{}, author=[Bonnabel, Silvere]{}, journal=[IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control]{}, volume=[58]{}, number=[9]{}, pages=[2217–2229]{}, year=[2013]{}, publisher=[IEEE]{} ]{}
[^1]: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This paper is devoted to the distributed complexity of finding an approximation of the maximum cut ([MaxCut]{}) in graphs. A classical algorithm consists in letting each vertex choose its side of the cut uniformly at random. This does not require any communication and achieves an approximation ratio of at least $\tfrac12$ in expectation. When the graph is $d$-regular and triangle-free, a slightly better approximation ratio can be achieved with a randomized algorithm running in a single round. Here, we investigate the round complexity of *deterministic* distributed algorithms for [MaxCut]{} in regular graphs. We first prove that if $G$ is $d$-regular, with $d$ even and fixed, no deterministic algorithm running in a constant number of rounds can achieve a constant approximation ratio. We then give a simple one-round deterministic algorithm achieving an approximation ratio of $\tfrac1{d}$ for $d$-regular graphs when $d$ is odd. We show that this is best possible in several ways, and in particular no deterministic algorithm with approximation ratio $\tfrac1{d}+\epsilon$ (with $\epsilon>0$) can run in a constant number of rounds. We also prove results of a similar flavour for the [MaxDiCut]{} problem in regular oriented graphs, where we want to maximize the number of arcs oriented from the left part to the right part of the cut.
**Keywords.** Maximum Cut, Approximation algorithm, Distributed algorithm, Regular graphs.
address:
- 'School of Computer and Communication Sciences, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland'
- 'Laboratoire G-SCOP (CNRS, Univ. Grenoble Alpes), Grenoble, France'
author:
- Étienne Bamas
- Louis Esperet
title: |
Local approximation of the Maximum Cut\
in regular graphs
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Although the maximum cut problem ([MaxCut]{}) is fundamental in combinatorial optimization, it has not been intensively studied from the perspective of distributed algorithms. The folklore algorithm consisting in choosing uniformly at random one side of the cut for each vertex of a graph $G$ can however be seen as a distributed randomized algorithm with no rounds of communication. By the linearity of expectation, this algorithm gives a cut (a bipartition of the vertex set) of size at least $m/2$ in expectation, where $m$ is the number of edges of $G$. Here, by the *size* of the cut, we mean the number of edges connecting the two parts of the bipartiton. Since every cut in $G$ contains at most $m$ edges, this algorithm has *approximation ratio* at least $\tfrac12$ in expectation, which means that the size of the cut given by the algorithm is at least $\tfrac12$ of the size of the maximum cut in expectation.
A natural question is whether a better approximation ratio can be obtained if more rounds of communications are allowed. This question was answered positively by Shearer [@S92] in the case of triangle-free $d$-regular graphs. A *$d$-regular* graph is a graph in which every vertex has degree $d$. In the case of triangle-free $d$-regular graphs, Shearer gave a simple randomized algorithm finding a cut of size at least $ m\cdot (\frac{1}{2}+\frac{0.177}{\sqrt{d}})$ in expectation, and thus achieving an approximation ratio of $(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{0.177}{\sqrt{d}})$ in expectation. Shearer’s algorithm uses a single round of communication, messages consisting of a single bit, and at most 3 random bits per vertex. This was recently improved by Hirvonen, Rybicki, Schmid and Suomela [@H17], who obtained a simpler algorithm finding a cut of size at least $m\cdot\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{0.28125}{\sqrt{d}} \right)$ in expectation. Their algorithm uses a single round of communication, messages consisting of a single bit, and a single random bit per vertex.
The case where $d$ is small and the *girth* (length of a shortest cycle) is large has also been considered: for 3-regular graphs, Kardoš, Král’ and Volec [@K12] showed that when the girth is at least 637789, there exists a randomized distributed algorithm that outputs a cut of average size at least $0.88672m$ in at most 318894 rounds (the important value here is the size of the cut). This was improved by Lyons [@L17], who proved a lower bound of $0.89m$ for cubic graphs of girth at least 655. The best known lower bound for cubic graphs of large girth, $0.90m$, was proved by Gamarnik and Li [@GL18], using a result of Csóka, Gerencsér, Harangi, and Virág [@CGHV15]. The bound of Lyons [@L17] holds for any $d$-regular graphs of large enough (but constant) girth: such graphs have a cut of size at least $ m\cdot (\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2}{\pi\sqrt{d}})\approx m\cdot (\frac{1}{2}+\frac{0.637}{\sqrt{d}})$. On the other hand, Dembo, Montanari and Sen [@DMS17] showed that in random $d$-regular graphs, the maximum cut has size $m\cdot (\frac{1}{2}+\frac{0.763+o(1)}{\sqrt{d}})+o(m)$ with high probability, proving a conjecture of [@GL18]. The existence of this constant $\approx 0.763$ is also connected to a conjecture of Hatami, Lovász and Szegedy [@HLS14] on limits of sparse graphs (see also the conclusion of [@RV17] where the conjecture is strongly disproved for maximum independent sets, improving on an earlier result of [@GS14]).
All the results mentioned above (except the result of Gamarnik and Li [@GL18])[^2] can be translated into algorithms working in the model in a constant number of rounds. In this model, each node of the graph corresponds to a processor with infinite computational power and has a unique ID (each ID is an integer between 1 and $\text{poly}(n)$, where $n$ denotes the number of vertices in the graph). Nodes can communicate with their neighbors in the graph in synchronous rounds until each node outputs 0 or 1, corresponding to its side in the cut. In the model, each message sent by a node to a neighbor has size $O(\log n)$, while in some of the algorithms above, the messages have size at most 1. Let us call $\textsf{CONGEST}(B)$ the variant of the model in which messages are restricted to have size at most $B$ (instead of $O(\log n)$), and let us say that an algorithm is *local* in a model if it runs in a constant number of rounds in this model. In particular the results of [@H17; @K12; @S92] mentioned above can be translated into local algorithms in the model, while the results of [@CGHV15; @L17] can be translated into local algorithms in the model.
Note that some of our lower bounds are also valid in the less restricted model where the size of each message is not limited. In the following, we will make it clear if this applies. On the other hand, all our algorithms can be implemented in the model (anonymous network with port numbering and orientations), whose assumptions are significantly weaker than the model (see [@GHS13] for some results on local algorithms in and ).
We now review recent results on distributed approximation of [MaxCut]{}. On the deterministic side, Censor-Hillel, Levy, and Shachnai [@K17] designed a deterministic $\frac{1}{2}$-approximation that runs in $\tilde{O}\left(\Delta+\log^* n \right)$ rounds in the model on any graph of maximum degree at most $\Delta$. More recently, Kawarabayashi and Schwartzman [@S17] improved the complexity for constant factor approximation by providing a deterministic $\left(\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon\right)$-approximation that runs in $O(\log^* n)$ rounds (for any $\epsilon>0$), in the model. However, no deterministic *local* approximation for [MaxCut]{} (i.e. running in a constant number of rounds) in the model is known.
There is a similar gap between randomized and deterministic approximations for the maximum directed cut problem. Censor-Hillel, Levy, and Shachnai [@K17] provided a deterministic algorithm running in $O(\Delta+\log^* n)$ rounds that guarantees a $\frac{1}{3}$-approximation as well as a randomized $\frac{1}{2}$-approximation with the same round complexity. The round complexities were improved by Kawarabayashi and Schwartzman [@S17] who provided a deterministic $\left(\frac{1}{3}-\epsilon\right)$-approximation running in $O(\log^* n)$ rounds as well as a randomized $\left(\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon \right)$-approximation in $O(\epsilon^{-1})$ rounds. All these results are stated in the model. Similarly, no deterministic local algorithm is known to achieve a constant factor approximation for this problem.
Our results
-----------
Our work focuses on bridging the gap between extremely efficient randomized local algorithms and slower deterministic algorithms for [MaxCut]{}. It should be noted that there are generic tools to derandomize distributed algorithms (see [@CKP16; @GHK17] for recent results in this direction) but existing techniques mainly apply to *locally checkable* problems (problem for which a solution can be checked locally), which is not the case for (approximations of) [MaxCut]{}.
In Section \[sec\_up\] we show that any deterministic algorithm that guarantees a constant factor approximation for [MaxCut]{} on the class of bipartite *d-regular* graphs when $d$ is a (constant) even integer requires $\Omega(\log^*n)$ rounds, which matches the complexity of the algorithm of Kawarabayashi and Schwartzman [@S17] mentioned above. When $d$ is odd, we show that one cannot achieve an approximation ratio better than $\frac{1}{d}$ in a constant number of rounds. Our proofs use an elementary graph construction and then apply Ramsey’s theorem [@F30]. Both of these arguments are not new in distributed algorithms: our construction is inspired by Linial’s seminal paper [@L92] that provides a lower bound on the round complexity of coloring cycles and by a more recent paper by [Å]{}strand, Polishchuk, Rybicki, Suomela, and Uitto [@A10] which applies Ramsey’s theorem in a similar setting to prove that there is no deterministic and local constant factor approximation for the maximum matching problem. Note that similar arguments were also used by Czygrinow, Hanckowiak, and Wawrzyniak [@CHW08] to prove lower bounds for the approximation of maximum independent sets in cycles. Our results hold for any $d$-regular graph ($d$ is not necessarily equal to 2), so some additional work needs to be done compared to the simple case of cycles.
In Section \[sec:low\], we show that this barrier of $\frac{1}{d}$ when $d$ is odd is sharp: we first remark that a result of Naor and Stockmeyer [@N93] on weak 2-coloring of graphs directly gives a deterministic local algorithm that guarantees a $\frac{1}{d}$-approximation. We then provide a much simpler and faster deterministic local algorithm achieving the same approximation ratio. It runs in a single round with messages of size $O(\log n)$ and we show that this cannot be improved.
For the Maximum Directed Cut problem in $d$-regular graphs, we prove that a similar situation occurs. If $d$ is even, a constant factor approximation cannot be achieved in $o(\log^* n)$ rounds, and if $d$ is odd, no $(\tfrac2{d}+\epsilon)$-approximation can be achieved in $o(\log^* n)$ rounds (for any $\epsilon>0$). On the other hand, if $d$ is odd, a $(\tfrac{2}{d+1/d})$-factor approximation can be achieved in 0 rounds, and a $(\tfrac{2}{d+1/d-3/d^2+O(d^{-3})})$-factor approximation can be achieved in 2 rounds. Note that there is a small gap between the lower bounds and the upper bound of $\tfrac{2}{d}$, and we explain some obstacles towards closing the gap.
Our results imply that while finding a constant factor approximation for the (directed) maximum cut problem in regular graphs of even degree does not require any communication for randomized distributed algorithm (i.e. it can be solved in 0 rounds), for deterministic algorithms an unbounded number of rounds is needed in this case. Note that this separation is not possible for locally checkable problems (see Theorem 3 in [@CKP16]). The (perhaps) surprising aspect is that in the case of regular graphs of *odd* degree, the problem can be solved by a *deterministic* algorithm without communication (if some orientation is given).
Note that another example of a non locally checkable problem with such a separation between the randomized and deterministic complexities was given in [@GHK17]. Their problem consists in marking $(1+o(1))\sqrt{n}$ vertices of an $n$-cycle; the randomized version can also be solved in 0 rounds, while the deterministic version needs $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$ rounds.
Definitions
-----------
A *cut* in a graph $G$ is a bipartition $(A,B)$ of its vertex set $V(G)$. We usually refer to $A$ and $B$ as the left side and the right side of the cut, respectively. The *size* of a cut $(A,B)$ is the number of edges with one end in $A$ and the other in $B$. The [MaxCut]{} problem in a graph $G$ consists in finding a cut in $G$ whose size is maximum.
Given an oriented graph $G$, a *directed cut* is again a bipartition $(A,B)$ of the vertex set of $G$, and the size of the directed cut $(A,B)$ is the number of arcs with their tail in $A$ and their head in $B$. The [MaxDiCut]{} problem in an oriented graph $G$ consists in finding a directed cut in $G$ whose size is maximum.
Our results in this paper mainly concern $d$-regular graph, i.e. graphs in which each vertex has degree $d$. When we refer to an oriented $d$-regular graph $G$, we mean that the underlying unoriented graph is $d$-regular (the out-degrees can be arbitrary).
For an integer $k{\geqslant}1$, the *tower function* ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{twr}}}_k$ is the function defined as ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{twr}}}_1(x)=x$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{twr}}}_{k}(x)=2^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{twr}}}_{k-1}(x)}$ for $k{\geqslant}2$. The *iterated logarithm* of an integer $n$, denoted by $\log^*n$ is defined as 0 if $n{\leqslant}1$, and as $1+\log^*(\log n)$ otherwise (here and everywhere else in the paper, $\log$ denotes the base 2 logarithm). The following can be easily derived by induction on $k$.
\[tower\_claim\] For any $k,n{\geqslant}1$: $$\log^* ({\ensuremath{\mathrm{twr}}}_{k}(n))= k-1+\log^*(n)$$
Deterministic constant factor approximation in regular graphs {#sec_up}
=============================================================
As mentioned in the introduction of this paper, Kawarabayashi and Schwartzman [@S17] provided a deterministic approximation algorithm running in $O(\log^* n)$ rounds for both problems studied here. In this section, we show using simple arguments based on bounds on Ramsey numbers that their bound is best possible.
Let $[N]=\left\lbrace 1,\ldots ,N \right\rbrace$. The *$q$-color Ramsey number* $r_k(n;q)$ is the minimum $N$ such that in any $q$-coloring of the $k$-element subsets of $[N]$, there is an $n$-element subset $S$ of $[N]$ such that all $k$-element subsets of $S$ have the same color (see [@Ramsey17] for a recent survey on Ramsey numbers).
\[thm:ramsey\] There exists $c>0$ such that for any positive integers $q$, $k$, and $n$, we have $r_k(n;q) {\leqslant}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{twr}}}_k(c\cdot n \cdot q \log q)$.
We will also need two simple constructions of $d$-regular bipartite graphs.
First we assume that $d$ is even. We consider a cycle $C$ of size $n{\geqslant}2d$, with $n$ even, and then add an edge between each pair of vertices that are at distance exactly $i$ in $C$ for every $i\in \left\lbrace 3,5,7, \ldots , d-1\right\rbrace$. This graph, which we denote by $C_n^d$, is certainly bipartite (the bipartition corresponds to the vertices at even distance from some arbitrary vertex in $C$, and the vertices at odd distance from this vertex). See figure \[cycle\] for an example of this graph. By a slight abuse of notation, we say that two (or more) vertices of $C_n^d$ are *consecutive* if they are consecutive in $C$. Similarly, when we refer to the *clockwise order* around $C_n^d$, we indeed refer to the clockwise order around $C$.
Assume now that $d$ is odd. We take two disjoint copies of $C_n^{d-1}$ and assume that the vertices of the cycle $C$ in the first copy are $u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_n$, in clockwise order, and the vertices of the cycle $C$ in the second copy are $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_n$ in clockwise order. We then connect $u_i$ and $v_i$ by an edge, for any $1{\leqslant}i {\leqslant}n$ (and we say it what follows that $u_i$ and $v_i$ are *matched*). This graph, which we denote by $D_{2n}^d$, is clearly bipartite and $d$-regular, see Figure \[cycle\_odd\] for an example.
![$D_{24}^{5}$[]{data-label="cycle_odd"}](Cycle.pdf)
![$D_{24}^{5}$[]{data-label="cycle_odd"}](Cycle_odd.pdf)
We are now ready to state the main result of this section.
\[thm:lb\] Let $d{\geqslant}2$ be a fixed integer.
- If $d$ is even, then any deterministic algorithm in the model that guarantees a constant factor approximation for [MaxCut]{} on the class of bipartite $d$-regular $n$-vertex graphs runs in $\Omega(\log^*n)$ rounds.
- If $d$ is odd, then for any $\epsilon>0$, any deterministic $\left(\frac{1}{d}+\epsilon \right)$-approximation algorithm in the model for [MaxCut]{} on the class of bipartite $d$-regular $n$-vertex graphs runs in $\Omega(\log^*n)$ rounds.
Note that since the model is less restrictive than the model, this theorem is also valid in the model.
We prove the two cases of the theorem separately starting with $d$ even:
Let $d$ be an even integer and assume that there exists a local deterministic algorithm `A` running in $T$ rounds and guaranteeing a $\frac{1}{a}$-approximation for some fixed $a{\geqslant}1$, with $T$ to be defined later. Note that since `A` runs in $T$ rounds, the output of a vertex $v$ in $C_n^d$ only depends on the IDs of the vertices at distance at most $T$ from $v$ in $C_n^d$, and thus at distance at most $(d-1)T$ of $v$ in $C$ (more precisely, since the subgraph induced by each ball of a given radius is the same, the output of a vertex only depends on the sequence of the IDs of its neighbors at distance $(d-1)T$ in $C$, in clockwise order).
Consider a subset $U=\{u_1,\ldots,u_\ell\}$ of $[n]$, with $u_1<\ldots <u_\ell$, and assume that $\ell$ consecutive vertices of $C_n^d$ (in clockwise order) have IDs $u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_\ell$, in this order. In what follows, we identify each vertex of $C_n^d$ with its ID. We now set $r=2(d-1)T+1$, and start by proving the following claim (recall that $1/a$ is the approximation ratio of `A`):
If $\ell{\geqslant}4adT$, at least $\frac{\ell d}{2}\left( 1-\frac{1}{2a}\right)$ edges of $C_n^d$ have both endpoints in $\tilde{U}=\left\lbrace u_{(r-1)/2+1}, \ldots, u_{\ell-(r-1)/2}\right\rbrace$. \[claim1\]
Count the edges by the length of the jump they make around the cycle $C$. For a jump of size $k$, there are more than $\ell-(r-1)-2k$ such edges. Summing for $k$ odd from $1$ to $d-1$ we obtain at least $$\frac{\ell d}{2}-\frac{d(r-1)}{2}-\frac{d^2}{2}$$ edges that have both endpoints in $\tilde{U}$. When $\ell{\geqslant}4adT{\geqslant}2a(r-1-d)$, this is at least $\frac{\ell d}{2}\left( 1-\frac{1}{2a}\right)$, which proves the claim.
Consider some $r$-element subset $S=\{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_r\}$ of $[n]$, with $a_1<a_2<\cdots <a_r$. We assign the IDs $a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_r$ (in this order) to $r$ consecutive vertices of $C_n^d$, in clockwise order, and look at the output of the vertex with ID $a_{(r+1)/2}$ (call it $v$) given by the algorithm `A`. Note that this output only depends on $\left(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_r\right)$. If $v$ joins the left side of the cut (according to `A`), we color the set $S$ with color 0 and otherwise with color 1.
Consider again a subset $U=\{u_1,\ldots,u_\ell\}$ of $[n]$, with $u_1<\ldots <u_\ell$, and assume that $\ell$ consecutive vertices of $C_n^d$ (in clockwise order) have IDs $u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_\ell$. It follows from the definition of $\tilde{U}$ that if $v\in \tilde{U}$, all the vertices at distance at most $T$ from $v$ in $C_n^d$ are in $U$. This implies that if all $r$-elements subsets of $U$ are assigned the same color in the coloring defined above, all the vertices of $\tilde{U}$ choose the same side of the cut.
We can now apply Theorem \[thm:ramsey\] with $r$ as defined above and $\ell=\lceil 4adT\rceil$ satisfying the condition of Claim \[claim1\]. Let $N=r_r(\ell;2) {\leqslant}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{twr}}}_r(c \ell)$ be given by Theorem \[thm:ramsey\]. We now let $n$ be the smallest even integer which is greater than $2aN$ and consider $C_n^d$. Observe that by Claim \[tower\_claim\], $\log^* n=O(\log^* N)=O(r+\log^*(c \ell))=O(dT+\log^*(dT))=O(dT)$. Since $d$ is a fixed constant, it follows that we have $T=\Omega(\log^*n)$, as desired.
By Theorem \[thm:ramsey\], there is an $\ell$-element subset $U_1$ of $[n]$ such that all $r$-elements subsets of $U_1$ have the same color. As long as there are more than $N$ remaining labels, we repeatedly apply Theorem \[thm:ramsey\] and thus find disjoint $\ell$-element subsets $U_1,U_2,\ldots ,U_k$ of $[n]$, with the same property (for each $U_i$, all $r$-elements subsets of $U_i$ have the same color), until $[n]-\bigcup_{i=1}^k U_i$ contains fewer than $N$ elements. We write each set $U_i$ as $\left\lbrace u_1^i,\ldots ,u_\ell^i\right\rbrace$, with $u_1^i<\cdots <u_\ell^i$.
Finally, we assign these IDs to consecutive vertices in clockwise order around $C_n^d$: $$u_1^1,\ldots ,u_\ell^1, u_1^2, \ldots ,u^2_\ell,\ldots,u_1^k, \ldots, u_\ell^k$$
By Claim \[claim1\], the subgraph induced by each $\tilde{U_i}$ contains at least $\frac{md}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{2a} \right)$ edges for all $1{\leqslant}i {\leqslant}k$, and it follows from Theorem \[thm:ramsey\] and our coloring of the $r$-elements sets that for each $1{\leqslant}i {\leqslant}k$, all vertices in $\tilde{U_i}$ choose the same side of the cut.
Since $k {\geqslant}\frac{n-N}{\ell}$, by running algorithm `A` on this particular labelling of $C_n^d$, at least $$\frac{n-N}{\ell}\frac{\ell d}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{2a}\right) = \left(1-\frac{1}{2a}\right)\frac{d}{2} \left( n-N\right)>\frac{nd}{2} \left(1-\frac{1}{2a}\right)^2>\frac{nd}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{a} \right)$$ edges are not in the cut (the last inequality uses the fact that $1/a {\leqslant}1$). Thus, there are strictly less than $\frac{nd}{2a}$ edges in the cut. Since $C_n^d$ is bipartite and $d$-regular, the optimal cut contains $\frac{nd}{2}$ edges (i.e. all the edges are in the cut). This proves that `A` cannot be a $\frac{1}{a}$-approximation, yielding a contradiction.
Assume now that $d$ is odd and that an algorithm `B` achieves a $\left(\frac{1}{d}+\epsilon \right)$-approximation for some $\epsilon>0$ in $T$ rounds. We proceed as before except that instead of considering vertices one by one, we consider pairs of vertices $u_i,v_i$ that are matched in the construction of $D_{2n}^d$, the graph that will be used here. Similarly as before, a matched pair $(u_i,v_i)$ cannot see more than $T(d-1)$ labels away. Set $r=4T(d-1)+4$, and consider $r/2$ consecutive vertices (in clockwise order) $u_1,\ldots,u_{r/2}$ on the outer cycle of $D_{2n}^d$. For each $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}r/2$, let $v_i$ be the neighbor of $u_i$ on the inner cycle. This implies that $v_1,\ldots,v_{r/2}$ are consecutive (in clockwise order) on the inner cycle.
Fix an arbitrary $r$-element subset $\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}$, with $a_1<a_2<\ldots<a_r$. For each $1{\leqslant}i {\leqslant}r/2$ assign the ID $a_i$ to $u_i$ and the ID $a_{r/2+i}$ to $v_i$. Since the sides of the cut chosen by $u_{r/4}$ and its neighbor $v_{r/4}$ are entirely determined by the set $\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}$, we can color each set $\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}$ with the pair $(x,y)\in \{ 0,1\}^2$ such that $u_{r/4}$ chooses side $x$ and $v_{r/4}$ chooses side $y$ (again we associate the left side of the cut with 0, and the right side of the cut with 1).
By exactly the same argument as in Claim \[claim1\], we can take $\ell$ even and large enough so that at least $\frac{\ell (d-1)}{2}\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)$ edges are not in the cut in both copies of $C_n^{d-1}$, for any fixed $\alpha$. By Theorem \[thm:ramsey\] (with $q=4$), there is an integer $N=r_r(2 \ell;2)$ such that for all $n{\geqslant}N$, there is a $2 \ell$-element subset $U_1=\{a_1,\ldots, a_{2 \ell}\}$ of $[2n]$ with $a_1<\cdots<a_{2 \ell}$ such that all $r$-element subsets $X$ of $U_1$ have the same color. We take $n>\frac{N}{\alpha}$ even and repeatedly apply Theorem \[thm:ramsey\] as before, obtaining $2 \ell$-element subsets $U_1,U_2,\ldots,U_k$. We then assign the elements of each $U_i$ to consecutive vertices in clockwise order in $D^d_{2n}$ (the $\ell$ smaller elements of $U_i$ are assigned to the vertices of the outer cycle, and the $\ell$ larger elements are assigned to their corresponding neighbors in the inner cycle). As before, the fact that all $r$-elements subsets of $U_i$ have the same color implies that on the portion of $D^d_{2n}$ corresponding to $U_i$, all the vertices of the outer cycle (except at the boundary) choose the same side $x$ of the cut, and all the vertices of the inner cycle (except at the boundary) choose the same side $y$ of the cut (but $x$ and $y$ might be different).
This ensures that on each copy of $C_n^{d-1}$, at least $$\frac{2n-N}{2 \ell}\frac{m(d-1)}{2}\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2} \right) > \frac{n(d-1)}{2}\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)- \frac{n(d-1)}{2}\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)\frac{\alpha}{2}>\frac{n(d-1)}{2}\left(1-\alpha \right)$$ edges are not in the cut after running algorithm `B`. It follows that in $D_{2n}^d$, at least $n(d-1)(1-\alpha)$ edges are not in the cut. Since $D_{2n}^d$ is bipartite and contains exactly $nd$ edges, this shows there are less than $n+n(d-1)\alpha$ edges in the cut, which is a $(\frac{1}{d}+(d-1)\alpha)$-fraction. Setting $\alpha=\frac{\epsilon}{d-1}$, this fraction is less than $\frac{1}{d}+\epsilon$, which is a contradiction.
A direct consequence of our theorem is the following corollary that matches the round complexity obtained by Kawarabayashi and Schwartzman [@S17]:
Deterministic constant factor approximation on general graphs for [MaxCut]{} in the model requires $\Omega(\log^* n)$ rounds.
Directed cut
------------
In this section, we consider the similar problem [MaxDiCut]{} where edges are oriented and we only count the edges going from the left side of the cut to the right side. We can prove similar bounds on the quality of the solution one can hope to achieve by simply orienting our lower bound graphs $C^d_n$ and $D^d_{2n}$: we will define $\overrightarrow{C^d_n}$ as the same graph as $C^d_n$ where we orient all the edges in clockwise order. Similarly, $\overrightarrow{D^d_{2n}}$ is obtained from $D^d_{2n}$ by orienting all the edges in clockwise order on both the inner and outer cycle, and all the edges in the remaining perfect matching from the outer cycle to the inner cycle. We can again apply Ramsey’s theorem as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:lb\] to obtain the following result :
Let $d>0$ be a fixed integer.
- If $d$ is even, any deterministic algorithm that guarantees a constant factor approximation for [MaxDiCut]{} on the class of $d$-regular bipartite $n$-vertex oriented graphs requires $\Omega(\log^*n)$ rounds in the model.
- If $d$ is odd, then for any $\epsilon>0$, any deterministic $\left(\frac{2}{d}+\epsilon \right)$-approximation of [MaxDiCut]{} on the class of $d$-regular bipartite $n$-vertex oriented graphs requires $\Omega(\log^*n)$ rounds in the model.
\[thm:oriented\]
We note a slight difference with Theorem \[thm:lb\] in the case where $d$ is odd. In Theorem \[thm:oriented\] the approximation ratio is only bounded by $\frac{2}{d}$, instead $\frac{1}{d}$. This happens because with our definition of $\overrightarrow{D^d_{2n}}$, one can check that the optimal directed cut is of size $\frac{nd}{4}=\frac{m}{2}$ instead of $m$ in the undirected case.
Matching the approximation ratio when $d$ is odd {#sec:low}
================================================
Weak-coloring
-------------
In a landmark paper, Naor and Stockmeyer [@N93] addressed the issue of what can or cannot be computed locally. In particular, they proved one result that is relevant in our case.
A *weak coloring* of a graph is a coloring of its vertices such that each vertex has at least one neighbor with a different color. Observe that a weak coloring using only $2$ colors is a $\frac{1}{d}$-approximation of the [MaxCut]{} problem when the graph is $d$-regular. Let $O_d$ be the class of graphs of maximum degree $d$ where the degree of every vertex is odd. Naor and Stockmeyer proved the following theorem.
There is a constant $b$ such that, for every $d$, there is a deterministic algorithm with round complexity $\log^* d + b$ in the model that solves the weak $2$-coloring problem in the class $O_d$.
As discussed above, this result directly implies that one can produce a local deterministic $\frac{1}{d}$-approximation of the [MaxCut]{} problem on $d$-regular graphs. However, the result given here is much stronger than what we are looking for as in this case *every* vertex has at least one incident edge in the cut. A natural question is whether a faster algorithm (of round complexity that does not depend on $d$) exists for the [MaxCut]{} problem on $d$-regular graphs with $d$ odd. In the next section, we prove that such an algorithm exists.
A simpler and faster algorithm
------------------------------
Consider the following algorithm: every vertex $v$ collects the list of of its neighbors, then $v$ chooses its side of the cut depending on whether the median value of this list is higher or lower than its own . We call this algorithm the *median algorithm*. It runs in a single round and we prove the following theorem:
\[thm:median1\] When the input is a $d$-regular graph on $n$ vertices, with $d$ odd, the median algorithm finds in 1 round a $\frac{1}{d}$-approximation for the [MaxCut]{} problem in the model.
We will actually give two different proofs of this result (i.e. Theorem \[thm:median1\] will be a direct consequence of Theorem \[thm:median2\], which we proved next, but also of Theorem \[thm:mediand\], which will be proved in Section \[sec:oricut\]).
\[thm:median2\] When the input is a $d$-regular graph on $n$ vertices, with $d$ odd, the median algorithm outputs in 1 round (in the model) a cut of size at least $\tfrac{n}2+\tfrac{(d-1)(d+1)}4$.
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a $d$-regular graph. In the proof, we say that a vertex is colored $0$ or $1$ by the median algorithm if it is assigned to the left side or the right side of the cut (respectively). We define the boundary of a subgraph of $G$ as the set of edges of $G$ that have exactly one endpoint in this subgraph. For every subset $A\subset V$ we denote by $G[A]$ the subgraph induced by $A$ and $\partial A$ the boundary of $G[A]$.
We now orient each edge of $G$ from the vertex of lower to the vertex of higher ID: it can be observed that the median algorithm assigns color $0$ to vertices that have more outgoing edges than ingoing edges and side $1$ when it is the opposite. We also note that this orientation is acyclic, which is the key property that will be used in this proof.
A *monochromatic component* is a connected component of the subgraph of $G$ induced by one of two sides of the cut. We now prove the following two simple claims.
After running the median algorithm, any subset $A$ of a monochromatic component contains a vertex with at most $\frac{d-1}{2}$ neighbors in $A$. \[claim\_1\]
Assume for the sake of contradiction that any vertex of $A$ has at least $\tfrac{d+1}2$ neighbors in $A$. Since the orientation of $G[A]$ is acyclic, there must be a sink and a source. It follows that one has outdegree at least $\tfrac{d+1}2$, and the other has indegree at least $\tfrac{d+1}2$. By definition of the median algorithm, the source and the sink must be on different sides of the cut, which contradicts the fact that $A$ is monochromatic. This concludes the proof of Claim \[claim\_1\].
After running the median algorithm, for every monochromatic component $A$ of size $k$, $\partial A$ contains at least $k+\tfrac{(d-1)(d+1)}4$ edges if $k{\geqslant}\tfrac{d+1}2$, and at least $\tfrac{d+1}2 \cdot k$ edges otherwise. \[claim\_2\]
Let $A$ be a monochromatic component of $V$ of size $k$. Following Claim \[claim\_1\], one can order the vertices $v_1,\ldots, v_k$ of $A$ such that for all $1{\leqslant}i {\leqslant}k$, $v_i$ has at most $\frac{d-1}{2}$ neighbors in $\left\lbrace v_{i+1},\ldots,v_k \right\rbrace$. If $k{\geqslant}\tfrac{d+1}2$, it follows that there are at most $\frac{d-1}{2}\cdot k-\tfrac{(d-1)(d+1)}8$ edges in $G[A]$. But $G$ is $d$-regular, therefore we have in this case: $$|\partial A| + 2\left(\tfrac{d-1}{2}\cdot k -\tfrac{(d-1)(d+1)}8\right){\geqslant}d\cdot k$$ which implies $|\partial A| {\geqslant}k+\tfrac{(d-1)(d+1)}4$.
If $k{\leqslant}\tfrac{d+1}2$, $G[A]$ contains at most ${k \choose 2}{\leqslant}k \cdot \tfrac{d-1}4$ edges, and a similar computation shows that $|\partial A| {\geqslant}k(d-\tfrac{d-1}2){\geqslant}k\cdot \tfrac{d+
1}2$. This concludes the proof of Claim \[claim\_2\].
Finally, let $X$ be the larger side of the cut output by the median algorithm, i.e. $|X|{\geqslant}\tfrac{n}2$. Observe that the boundary $\partial X$ is the union of the boundaries of the connected components of $G[X]$ (since there are no edges between two such components). If at least one of these components has size at least $\tfrac{d+1}2$, then it follows from Claim \[claim\_2\] that $|\partial X|{\geqslant}\tfrac{n}2+\tfrac{(d-1)(d+1)}4$, as desired. Otherwise all connected components of $G[X]$ have size at most $\tfrac{d-1}2$, and it follows from Claim \[claim\_2\] that $|\partial X|{\geqslant}\tfrac{n}2 \cdot \tfrac{d+1}2=\tfrac{n}2+\tfrac{d-1}2\cdot \tfrac{n}2{\geqslant}\tfrac{n}2+\tfrac{(d-1)(d+1)}4$, since $n{\geqslant}d+1$ (recall that $G$ is $d$-regular, and thus contains at least $d+1$ vertices). This concludes the proof of Theorem \[thm:median2\].
Since a $d$-regular graph has $\tfrac{dn}2$ edges, we conclude that the median algorithm gives a $\tfrac1d$-approximation for the maximum cut when $d$ is odd, which proves Theorem \[thm:median1\].
Figure \[fig:ex\] gives an example of labelling of $D_{2n}^d$ for which the median algorithm gives a cut of size $\frac{n}{2} + (d-2)^2 + 1$. This shows that our analysis of the median algorithm in Theorem \[thm:median1\] is close to being best possible.
![Extremal labelling of $D_{24}^5$ for the *median* algorithm[]{data-label="fig:ex"}](Cycle_odd_labeled.pdf)
Another interesting aspect of Theorem \[thm:median2\] is that it shows that in (the second item of) Theorem \[thm:lb\], it is crucial that $d$ is a fixed constant (independent of $n$). Indeed, if $d=\Omega(\sqrt{n})$, then $\tfrac{n}2+\tfrac{(d-1)(d+1)}4{\geqslant}(1+\Omega(1))\tfrac{n}2$ and thus the median algorithm achieves a $\tfrac{1+\epsilon}{d}$-approximation, for some $\epsilon>0$. This is impossible when $d$ is a constant, as shown by Theorem \[thm:lb\].
The median algorithm is based on finding an (acyclic) orientation of the input graph. Here, we do it by simply orienting the edges from the end with lower ID to the end with higher ID. This costs a single round of communication, with messages of size $\log n$ (since vertices have to send their ID to their neighbors). It follows that in the more restricted $\textsf{CONGEST}(b)$ model, where messages have size at most $b$, our algorithm takes $\tfrac{\log n}b$ rounds (here and in the remainder, we omit floors and ceilings whenever they are not necessary in the discussion). In particular, if only messages of size 1 are allowed, our algorithm takes $\log n$ rounds.
A natural question is whether this can be improved. We now argue that it cannot be improved in general if the algorithm is based on some orientation in the graph. Consider the case where $G$ contains an isolated edge $uv$ (two adjacent vertices $u,v$ of degree 1 in $G$) and we want to construct some orientation of $G$ (and in particular of the edge $uv$) in the $\textsf{CONGEST}(1)$ model (that is with messages of size 1). It seems that the argument below is not original, but we have not been able to find a written source.
Observe that at each round of communication, the message sent by each of $u,v$ only depends on its ID and the bits received from its neighbor at previous steps. At the first round, at least half of the IDs (call this set $S_1$) would send the same bit, say $b_1$, to their neighbor. At the next round, at least half of the IDs of $S_1$, upon receiving $b_1$, would sent the same bit to their neighbor, say $b_2$. We continue this process by constructing sets $S_i$ and bits $b_i$ for any $1{\leqslant}i < \log n$ as above (except that for the final round, we define $b_i$ as the bit output by the vertices, instead of the bit sent to the neighbor). If we use less than $\log n$ rounds of communication, we can find two distinct IDs in the last set $S_i$ such that if we assign these IDs to $u$ and $v$, these two vertices will output the same bit $b_i$, and therefore they will not be able to deterministically agree on an orientation of the edge $uv$. Actually the result holds even if randomization is allowed and we want $u$ and $v$ to agree on some orientation of the edge $uv $ with high probability.
This remark leads us to a similar result for approximating [MaxCut]{} in regular graphs. We prove the following:
\[thm:congest1\] Let $D^d=\left\lbrace D_{2n}^d, n>0 \right\rbrace$ for $d$ odd. Any deterministic constant factor approximation of [MaxCut]{} on the class $D^d$ requires at least $(1-o(1))\log n$ rounds in the $\textsf{CONGEST}(1)$ model.
Assume that an algorithm `A` achieves a $\frac{1}{a}$-approximation ($a>0$) on the class of $d$-regular graphs in at most $(1-\alpha) \log n$ rounds (with $\alpha>0$).
Assume first that we have a bipartite $d$-regular with $m$ edges and consisting of $\ell=n^{1-\alpha}$ connected components of size $k=n^\alpha$, labelled $C_1,C_2,\ldots, C_\ell$, and in which each vertex has the same “view” at distance $\log n$ (i.e. the balls of radius $\log n$ centered in each of the vertices are isomorphic). We argue, in the same way as above, that we can choose $\tfrac{n}{2^{(1-\alpha)\log n}}=n^{\alpha}=k$ labels such that during $(1-\alpha)\log n$ rounds, every vertex in $C_1$ outputs the same bit. More precisely, for each round $1{\leqslant}i {\leqslant}(1-\alpha)\log n$, each vertex of $C_1$ outputs the same bit $b_i$. We proceed similarly for $C_2,\ldots,C_{\ell'}$ with $\ell'=\ell(1-\tfrac1{2a})$: this is possible since before labelling $C_{i}$ ($i{\leqslant}\ell'$) there are at least $n-k\ell'=\frac{n}{2a}=\Omega(n)$ available labels.
Hence, we give a labelling of $C_1,\ldots,C_{\ell'}$ such that during $(1-\alpha)\log n$ rounds (and in particular, at the end of the algorithm), all the vertices in each given connected component output the same bit. In particular no edge of $C_1,\ldots,C_{\ell'}$ appears in the cut, which implies that at most $\frac{m}{2a}$ edges appear in the cut. Since every component is bipartite, the maximum cut contains $m$ edges, which contradicts the hypothesis that `A` achieves a $\frac{1}{a}$-approximation.
We then show that this proof can be adapted to the case of $C_n^d$ or $D_{2n}^d$ (depending on the parity of $d$). Partition the graph into sets of vertices that appear consecutively in the clockwise order around the cycle(s): $C_1,\ldots,C_\ell$ (each of size $n^\alpha$). As before, we can label $C_1,\ldots,C_{\ell'}$ such that during $(1-\alpha)\log n$ rounds, the output bit of every vertex of $C_i$ is the same (for every $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}\ell'$). When `A` runs on the graph, a small perturbation of the output bit may appear on the boundary of each $C_i$, therefore the output bit of vertices near the boundary is not guaranteed to be the same anymore. However, this does not hurt us since we run the algorithm for $O(\log n)$ rounds therefore the perturbation can reach at most $d\log n$ vertices in every $C_i$. Therefore, in each $C_i$ at least $n^\alpha-O(\log n)$ vertices have the same output during $(1-\alpha)\log n$ rounds (and in particular, the same output at the end of the algorithm). This implies there are at least $\ell'(n^{\alpha}-O(\log n)) = n(1-\tfrac1{2a}) - o(n)$ vertices that have the same output as their neighbors at the end of the algorithm. It follows that the cut output by the algorithm has size at most $\tfrac{m}{2a}+o(m)$, while the maximum cut has size $m$, which contradicts the definition our initial assumption that that `A` achieves a $\frac{1}{a}$-approximation.
Note that the randomized, high probability version of Theorem \[thm:congest1\] does not hold. More precisely, we can show that the trivial randomized $\frac{1}{2}$-approximation indeed produces a constant factor approximation with high probability on the class of regular graphs in the $\textsf{CONGEST}(0)$ model. This is certainly a classic result but we have not been able to find it in the literature.
For any $\epsilon>0$, the folklore algorithm produces a $\frac{1-\epsilon}{2}$-approximation with high probability on the class of $n$-vertex graphs with degrees bounded by a constant, and $m=\Omega(n)=\Omega(1/\epsilon^2)$ edges (and in particular in the class of $d$-regular graphs of sufficiently large size).
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph of maximum degree $d$ containing $m$ edges. By Vizing’s Theorem, $G$ has a $(d+1)$-edge-coloring, i.e. a partition of its edge-set into $d+1$ matchings $M_1,\ldots,M_{d+1}$. Assume that $|M_1|{\geqslant}\cdots {\geqslant}|M_{d+1}|$, and discard all the matchings $M_i$ such that $|M_i|{\leqslant}\epsilon' m/d$, for some $\epsilon'>0$ whose value will be fixed later in the proof. Note that the remaining matchings $M_1,\ldots,M_k$ satisfy $|\bigcup_{i=1}^kM_i|{\geqslant}(1-\epsilon')m$. Recall that the folklore algorithm assigns each vertex to one of the two sides of the cut, uniformly at random. Note that for each matching $M_i$, and for any two edges $e,f\in M_i$, the events that $e$ and $f$ are in the cut are independent.
We now recall the following Chernoff bound (see e.g. Chapter 5 in [@MR02]): For any $0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}np$, ${\,\mathbb{P}}(|\mbox{BIN}(n,p)-np|> t){\leqslant}2\exp(-t^2/3np)$, where $\mbox{BIN}(n,p)$ denotes the binomial distribution with parameters $n$ and $p$. Thus, for each $1{\leqslant}i {\leqslant}k$, it follows that with probability at least $1-n^{-2}$, at least $\tfrac12\,|M_i|-c\sqrt{|M_i|}$ edges of $M_i$ are in the cut output by the algorithm, for some absolute constant $c>0$. Using the Union bound, with probability at least $1-1/n$ the cut output by the algorithm contains at least $$\sum_{i=1}^k (\tfrac12\,|M_i|-c\sqrt{|M_i|}){\geqslant}\tfrac{m}2 (1-\epsilon') -c\cdot \sqrt{k} \cdot\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^k|M_i|}{\geqslant}\tfrac{m}2 (1-\epsilon')-c\cdot d\cdot \sqrt{m}=\tfrac{m}2 (1-\epsilon'-\tfrac{2cd}{\sqrt{m}})$$ edges. Setting $\epsilon'=\epsilon-\tfrac{2cd}{\sqrt{m}}$ yields the desired result (recall that $m=\Omega(1/\epsilon^2)$ and thus such an $\epsilon'>0$ exists).
Directed cuts {#sec:oricut}
-------------
Given a bipartition $(V_1,V_2)$ of an oriented graph $G$, the set of arcs oriented from $V_1$ to $V_2$ (the *directed cut* from $V_1$ to $V_2$) is denoted by $\overrightarrow{E}(V_1,V_2)$. The maximum cardinality of a directed cut in $G$ is denoted by ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{maxdicut}}}(G)$.
Let $G$ be an oriented graph. For each vertex $v$, we define the *deficit* of $v$ as $\delta(v)=d^+(v)-d^-(v)$, where $d^+(v)$ and $d^-(v)$ denote the out-degree and in-degree of $v$, respectively. We define the *sign* of a vertex $v$ as the sign of $\delta(v)$, and we say that that a vertex is *positive* or *negative* accordingly. The set of positive vertices is denoted by $V^+$ and the set of negative vertices is denoted by $V^-$. Note that if all the vertices of $G$ have odd degree (in particular if $G$ is $d$-regular with $d$ odd), then every vertex is positive or negative and this case $V^+,V^-$ form a bipartition of the vertex set $V$ of $G$.
Note that the median algorithm described in the previous subsection can be rephrased as: find an acyclic orientation of $G$ and then choose the cut $(V^+,V^-)$ with respect to this orientation. Our second proof of Theorem \[thm:median1\] will be a direct consequence of the following general result (which proves that not only the cut, but also the *directed* cut between $V^+$ and $V^-$ has size at least $n/2$, and that the original orientation does not need to be acyclic).
\[thm:mediand\] Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex oriented $d$-regular graph with $d$ odd, and let $V^+$ and $V^-$ be defined as above. Then the directed cut $\overrightarrow{E}(V^+,V^-)$ contains at least $\max\{\tfrac{n}2,\tfrac{2}{d+1/d} \cdot{\ensuremath{\mathrm{maxdicut}}}(G)\}$ arcs.
We write ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}=|\overrightarrow{E}(V^+,V^-) |$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}={\ensuremath{\mathrm{maxdicut}}}(G)$, and set $D=\sum_{v\in V^+} d^+(v) + \sum_{v\in V^-} d^-(v){\geqslant}n\cdot \frac{d+1}{2}$. Observe that $D$ counts the number of arcs of $G[V^+]$ and $G[V^-]$ once, while the arcs of $\overrightarrow{E}(V^+,V^-)$ are counted twice. Since $G$ contains $dn/2$ arcs, it follows that $$\label{eq1}
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}{\geqslant}D-\frac{dn}{2} {\geqslant}\frac{n}{2}.$$
This proves that the directed cut output by the algorithm has size at least $\frac{n}{2}$, which readily implies Theorem \[thm:median1\].
![Sets $V^+$, $V^-$, $V_1$, $V_2$, and $M$.[]{data-label="fig:dessincut"}](dessincut)
We now consider an optimal directed cut $\overrightarrow{E}(V_1,V_2)$ of $G$ (i.e. a directed cut of cardinality ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}={\ensuremath{\mathrm{maxdicut}}}(G)$), and define $M$ as the set of vertices $(V_1\cap V^-)\cup(V_2\cap V^+)$ (see Figure \[fig:dessincut\] for an illustration). Note that each arc of $\overrightarrow{E}(V_1,V_2)$ which is not incident to a vertex of $M$ is also an arc of $\overrightarrow{E}(V^+,V^-)$. Since the vertices of $V_1\cap V^-$ have out-degree at most $\tfrac{d-1}2$ and the vertices of $V_2\cap V^+$ have in-degree at most $\tfrac{d-1}2$, we have $$\label{eq2}
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}{\geqslant}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}- \frac{d-1}{2}\cdot |M|.$$
Now observe that
$$2|\overrightarrow{E}(V_1,V_2)| {\leqslant}\sum_{v\in V^+\setminus M} d^+(v) + \sum_{v\in V^-\setminus M} d^-(v) + \sum_{v\in V^-\cap M} d^+(v) + \sum_{v\in V^+\cap M} d^-(v)$$ $$= D + \sum_{v\in V^-\cap M} (d^+(v)-d^-(v)) + \sum_{v\in V^+\cap M} (d^-(v)-d^+(v) )
{\leqslant}D - |M|.$$
This implies $$\label{eq3}
2\cdot{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}{\leqslant}D-|M|.$$
It follows from (\[eq2\]) that $|M|{\geqslant}\frac{2}{d-1}({\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}-{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}})$, which we can plug into (\[eq3\]) to obtain: $$\tfrac{2d}{d-1}\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}{\leqslant}D+\tfrac{2}{d-1}\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}.$$
It directly follows from (\[eq1\]) that $D{\leqslant}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}+\frac{dn}{2}{\leqslant}(d+1) \,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}$ and plugging it into the previous inequality, we obtain:
$$\tfrac{2d}{d-1}\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}{\leqslant}(d+1+\tfrac{2}{d-1})\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}=\tfrac{d^2+1}{d-1}\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}},$$
and finally:
$$\frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}}{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}}{\geqslant}\frac{2d}{d^2+1}=\frac{2}{d+1/d},$$ as desired.
From now on, we call the 0-round algorithm resulting from Theorem \[thm:mediand\] the *oriented median algorithm*. The factor $\frac{2}{d+1/d}$ might seem a little surprising, but it turns out to be sharp, in the following sense: there are $d$-regular oriented graphs for which the oriented median algorithm outputs a cut of size precisely $\frac{2}{d+1/d}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}$. To see this, take $n$ to be a multiple of $4d$, and take 4 sets of vertices $A,B,C,D$ as in Figure \[fig:abcd\]. Each set is an independent set, and its size is $n$ times the fraction indicated in the figure (for instance $A$ and $B$ both contain $\tfrac{d+1}{4d}\cdot n$ vertices). The arc labelled $\tfrac12$ between $A$ and $B$ indicates that we add $\tfrac12\cdot n$ arcs joining $A$ to $B$, and similarly for the arcs joining $A$ and $D$, and the arcs joining $B$ and $C$). It can be checked that the number of arcs incident to each set is precisely $d$ times the size of the set, so the graph can be made $d$-regular (and we can make sure that the out-degree of each vertex is equal to the average out-degree of its part, for instance the vertices of $A$ have out-degree $\tfrac{4d}{d+1}\cdot (\tfrac{(d-1)^2}{8d}+\tfrac12)=\tfrac{d+1}2$, so they lie in $V^+$). It can also be checked that the directed cut output by the algorithm, $\overrightarrow{E}(A\cup D,B\cup C)$, has cardinality $n/2$ (the arcs joining $A$ to $B$), while the optimal directed cut $\overrightarrow{E}(A\cup C,B\cup D)$ contains $\tfrac{d^2+1}{2d}\cdot \tfrac{n}2=\tfrac{d+1/d}2\cdot \tfrac{n}2$ arcs.
![An example showing the sharpness of the analysis of Theorem \[thm:mediand\][]{data-label="fig:abcd"}](exabcd)
So the problem does not come from the analysis of the algorithm, but rather from the algorithm itself, which is unable to detect the kind of structure depicted in Figure \[fig:abcd\].
To overcome this issue and close the gap with the $\frac{2}{d}$ bound, one might be tempted to consider local improvements. In the following, a vertex will be *stable* if it has at least one neighbor on the other side of the cut. Otherwise it will be *unstable*. We now consider the following simple algorithm: at every round, every unstable vertex changes side. The algorithm stops when all vertices are stable. As we can see, the running time (and even the termination) of this algorithm is highly dependent on the starting point: for instance if all vertices start on the same side of the cut, then the algorithm never ends. When we perform one round of this algorithm, we say that we perform a *flip* (as this algorithm can be seen as a variant of the well known FLIP algorithm that is further discussed in the conclusion).
Even though this algorithm may never end, we will prove shortly that if we take as starting point the cut given by the oriented median algorithm (that gives a $\frac{2}{d+1/d}$-approximation in 0 rounds) and perform $2$ flips, we then improve slightly on the approximation ratio of $\frac{2}{d+1/d}$.
We first explain some useful properties of stability, as defined above.
Once a vertex is stable, it remains stable after any number of flips.
Simply notice that if a vertex $u$ is stable, then it has a neighbor $v$ on the other side of the cut and $v$ must be stable too. If $u$ or $v$ become unstable then one of them becomes unstable while the second one is on the other side of the cut, which is impossible.
\[cla:inc\] Once an edge is in the directed cut, it remains in the directed cut after any number of flips.
Any edge in the directed cut joins two stable vertices, and thus remains in the cut after any number of flips.
We define ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_i$ to be the number of edges in the directed cut after $i$ flips. We take the notation defined in the proof of Theorem \[thm:mediand\]: $V^+$ and $V^-$ are the sets of vertices of positive and negative deficit, respectively, ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_0={\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}=|\overrightarrow{E}(V^+,V^-)|$ is the size of the dicut given by the oriented median algorithm (running in 0 rounds), ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}={\ensuremath{\mathrm{maxdicut}}}(G)$ is the size of the maximum dicut, $D=\sum_{v\in V^+} d^+(v) + \sum_{v\in V^-} d^-(v)$, and $M$ is the set of vertices whose side differ in $\overrightarrow{E}(V^+,V^-)$ and in some fixed maximum dicut $(V_1,V_2)$.
By Claim \[cla:inc\], we have that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_j{\geqslant}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_i$ for any $j{\geqslant}i$. Using this, a simple modification of the proof of Theorem \[thm:mediand\] shows the following:
\[cla:formula\] Assume we have the following inequalities for some $\alpha,\beta \in [0,1]$: $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_j{\geqslant}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}- \frac{d-1}{2}\cdot |M| + \alpha\cdot |M|$$ $$2\cdot {\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}{\leqslant}D-|M| - \beta \cdot |M|$$ then $$\frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_j}{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}}{\geqslant}f_d(\alpha,\beta):=\frac{d-2\alpha+\beta}{d^2/2 -\alpha\cdot (d+1) +\beta+1/2}$$
The following claim immediately holds as well:
\[cla:f\_inc\] For any, $d{\geqslant}3$, $\alpha,\beta \in [0,1]$ such that $\alpha+\beta>0$, $f_d(\alpha,\beta)>f_d(0,0)=\frac{2}{d+1/d}$.
More precisely, for any $y\in (0,1)$, $$\inf_{\alpha,\beta \in [0,1],\alpha+\beta {\geqslant}y} f_3(\alpha,\beta)=f_3(0,y)=\frac{3+y}{5+y}$$ and for any $d{\geqslant}5$, $$\inf_{\alpha,\beta \in [0,1],\alpha+\beta {\geqslant}y} f_d(\alpha,\beta)=f_d(y,0)=\frac{d-2y}{d^2/2-y(d+1)+1/2}$$
Notice that, for any $d{\geqslant}3$, $\alpha,\beta \in (0,1)$, $\frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha} f_d(\alpha,\beta)=\frac{4(d-1)(\beta+1)}{(d^2-2\alpha\cdot (d+1)+2\beta + 1)^2}>0$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial \beta} f_d(\alpha,\beta)=\frac{2(d-1)(d-2\alpha+1)}{(d^2-2\alpha\cdot (d+1)+2\beta + 1)^2}>0$. This immediately proves the first claim.
For the second claim, by previous calculations we can set $\beta = y-\alpha$ and compute: $$\frac{d}{d\alpha}f_d(\alpha,y-\alpha) = -\frac{2(d-1)(d-2y-3)}{(d^2-2\alpha(d+2)+2y+1)^2}$$ Clearly, if $d>3$, then the minimum is reached for $\alpha=y$ and $\beta=0$. And if $d=3$ then the minimum is reached for $\alpha=0$ and $\beta=y$.
Knowing these claims, we now prove that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_2/{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}$ is greater than some $f_d(\alpha,\beta)$ with $\alpha+\beta>0$. To show this, we need to prove refined versions of inequalities and .
Recall the proof of inequality (\[eq2\]) (${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_0{\geqslant}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}- \frac{d-1}{2}\cdot |M|$): Start with some optimum cut and remove the edges of the cut leaving $M\cap V^-$ and the edges entering $M\cap V^+$. By definition we remove at most $\frac{d-1}{2}\cdot |M|$ edges, which implies (\[eq2\]).
Let $E_0$ be the set of edges with one end in $V^-$ and the other in $M\cap V^+$, or with one end in $M\cap V^-$ and the other in $V^+$, or between two vertices of $M\cap V^+$, or between two vertices of $M\cap V^+$. We claim that $$\label{eq2bis}
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_0 {\geqslant}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}- \frac{d-1}{2}\cdot |M|+|E_0|.$$
To see this, observe that the only edges of $E_0$ that are in the optimum cut are the edges going from $M\cap V^-$ to $M\cap V^+$, and these are counted twice on our computation. The remaining edges of $E_0$ are counted once in $\frac{d-1}{2}\cdot |M|$ or ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_0 $ but not in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}$.
We denote the stable and unstable vertices (with respect to ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_0$) by $S_0$ and $U_0$, respectively.
Let $E_1$ be the set of edges directed from $V^+\cap S_0$ to $V^+\cap U_0$, or from $V^-\cap U_0$ to $V^-\cap S_0$. Observe that each such edge is added to the cut after one flip and thus $$\label{eq2ter}
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_1 {\geqslant}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}- \frac{d-1}{2}\cdot |M|+|E_0|+|E_1|.$$
Let $U_1$ be the set of vertices that are unstable after 1 flip. Consider by symmetry the subset $U_1^r$ of $U_1$ that lie on the right side of the cut. These vertices were in $V^+$ (i.e. on the left side of the cut) before the first flip. Since each vertex of $V^+$ has deficit at least 1, the sum of the deficits of the vertices of $U_1^r$ is at least $|U_1^r|$ and thus the number of edges leaving $U_1^r$ is at least $|U_1^r|$. After one flip, by definition of $U_1$, all these edges are directed toward stable vertices on the right side of the cut. It follows that after a second flip, all these edges join the cut, and thus $$\label{eq2q}
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_2 {\geqslant}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}- \frac{d-1}{2}\cdot |M|+|E_0|+|E_1|+|U_1|.$$
We now focus on finding a refined version of inequality (\[eq3\]) (which states that $2\cdot{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}{\leqslant}D-|M|$). Let $F_0$ be the set of edges between two vertices of $V^+\setminus M$, or between two vertices of $V^-\setminus M$. Note that each edge of $F_0$ is counted in $D$ but does not appear in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}$, thus we obtain $$\label{eq3bis}
2\cdot{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}{\leqslant}D-|M|-|F_0|.$$
If we denote by $M^*$ the set of vertices of $M$ with deficit larger than 1 in absolute value (in other words, with deficit at least 3 or at most $-3$), the two main inequalities can be slightly refined as $$\label{eq3ter}
2\cdot{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}{\leqslant}D-|M|-|F_0|-|M^*|.$$ $$\label{eq2c}
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_2 {\geqslant}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}- \frac{d-1}{2}\cdot |M|+|E_0|+|E_1|+|U_1|+|M^*|.$$
We are now ready to prove the following.
\[thm:mediand\_flip\] Assume that $d{\geqslant}3$ is odd. Then the 2-round algorithm consisting of the oriented median algorithm followed by two flips provides a $\frac{2}{d+1/d-3/d^2+O(d^{-3})}$-approximation for the [MaxDiCut]{} problem in $d$-regular graphs.
We use the notation defined in this section. Let $M_1$ be the set of vertices of $M\setminus M^*$ (i.e. the subset of vertices of $M$ of deficit 1 in absolute value) that are not incident to any edge of $E_0$ or $E_1$. In particular all the vertices of $M_1$ are unstable, and their in-degrees and out-degrees are $\tfrac{d-1}2$ or $\tfrac{d+1}2$.
Assume first that $|M_1|{\geqslant}x \cdot |M|$, with $x=\tfrac{d^2+d}{d^2+4d+1}$. Note that for every $v\in M_1$, all the neighbors of $v$ are in $V\setminus M$, on the same side of the cut as $v$ (with respect to ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_0$). Since $v\in M_1$ is unstable and not incident to any edge of $E_1$, all the in-neighbors of $v$ are unstable as well. It follows that $|U_0\setminus M|{\geqslant}\tfrac{d-1}{2d}|M_1|$. Let $W$ be the subset of vertices $w\in U_0\setminus M$ that have a stable out-neighbor in $M$ (if $w\in V^+$) or a stable in-neighbor in $M$ (if $w\in V^-$). Since stable vertices of $M$ are in $M\setminus M_1$, we have $|W|{\leqslant}\tfrac{d-1}2(|M|-|M_1|)$, and thus $$\begin{array}{rcl}
|U_0\setminus M|-|W| & {\geqslant}&\tfrac{d-1}{2d}|M_1| -\tfrac{d-1}{2}|M|+\tfrac{d-1}{2}|M_1|\\
& {\geqslant}& \tfrac{d^2-1}{2d}|M_1| -\tfrac{d-1}{2}|M|\\
&{\geqslant}& \tfrac1{2d}(x(d^2-1)-d(d-1)) |M|\\
& = &(1-x)|M|
\end{array}$$ by definition of $x$. Note that each vertex $u\in (U_0\setminus M)\setminus W$ is unstable, so all its neighbors are on the same side as $u$. Consider by symmetry the case $u\in V^+$. By definition, $u$ has no stable out-neighbor in $M$. If $u$ has a stable in-neighbor $v$, then the edge $uv$ is in $E_1$. If $u$ has a neighbor $v \not\in M$, then the edge $uv$ is in $F_0$. If none of these cases occur, then all neighbors of $u$ are in $M$, and are unstable. It follows that $u$ is in $U_1$, the set of vertices that are still unstable after 1 flip. It follows that $$|E_1|+|F_0|+|U_1|{\geqslant}\tfrac12( |U_0\setminus M|-|W|){\geqslant}\tfrac12(1-x) |M|.$$
Using inequalities (\[eq2q\]) and (\[eq3ter\]) together with Claims \[cla:formula\] and \[cla:f\_inc\], we obtain that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_2/{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}{\geqslant}f_d(\alpha,\beta)$ with $\alpha,\beta{\geqslant}0$ and $\alpha+\beta{\geqslant}\tfrac12(1-x)$.
Assume now that $|M_1|< x \cdot |M|$. In this case, it means that at least $(1-x)\cdot |M|$ vertices $v$ are in $M^*$ (i.e. have deficit at least 3 in absolute value) or are incident to an edge of $E_0$ or $E_1$. It follows that $$|M^*|+|E_0|+|E_1|{\geqslant}\tfrac12(1-x)|M|,$$ and thus ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_2/{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}{\geqslant}f_d(\alpha,\beta)$ with $\alpha,\beta{\geqslant}0$ and $\alpha+\beta{\geqslant}\tfrac12(1-x)$.
In both cases we obtain ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_2/{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}{\geqslant}f_d(\alpha,\beta)$ with $\alpha,\beta{\geqslant}0$ and $\alpha+\beta{\geqslant}\tfrac12(1-x)=\tfrac{3d+1}{2d^2+8d+2}$. It follows from Claim \[cla:f\_inc\], that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{CUT}}}_2/{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}{\geqslant}\tfrac2{d+1/d-3/d^2+O(d^{-3})}$.
Theorem \[thm:mediand\_flip\] proves that after 2 flips, we can slightly improve on the approximation ratio of Theorem \[thm:mediand\]. A natural question is whether the same can be achieved after a single flip. The construction of Figure \[fig:abcdf\], which is a refinement of the construction of Figure \[fig:abcd\], shows that it is not the case: if we apply the oriented median algorithm and then perform a single flip, the size of the cut does not change (it remains $\tfrac2{d+1/d}\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OPT}}}$).
![A refinement of the construction of Figure \[fig:abcd\]. The subscripts $u$ and $s$ stand for *unstable* and *stable*, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:abcdf"}](exabcd_flip)
Conclusion
==========
FLIP
----
In Section \[sec:low\], we have designed a very simple one-round algorithm approximating [MaxCut]{} in regular graphs (with odd degrees). Once a solution has been obtained, it might be tempting to run a few more rounds of computation to see if the solution can be improved locally.
We have already seen a simple way to improve the quality of a solution (by moving the so-called unstable vertices to the other side of the cut), but the notion of stability we used was specifically designed to improve the approximation ratio in a small number of rounds. Another simple way to locally improve a cut (in the sequential setting this time) is to take a vertex with more neighbors in its own part than in the other part, and change its side. If this is done until no such vertex exists, the resulting cut is *maximal*, and in this case is a $\tfrac12$-approximation of the maximum cut. This operation, called *FLIP*, has been studied for a long time. When the edges are weighted, it was proved by Poljak [@Pol95] that any sequence of FLIPs takes only polynomially many steps before reaching a maximal cut in cubic graphs, while Monien and Tscheuschner [@MT10] proved that there are graphs of maximum degree 4 for which a sequence of FLIPs can take exponentially many steps to reach a maximal cut. In the unweighted case however, since each flip improves the cut by at least one, the maximum number of flips before reaching a maximal cut is bounded by the number edges (which is linear in $n$ in bounded degree graphs). In the distributed framework, it might be tempting to consider running some rounds of the *distributed FLIP* dynamics: at each round, each vertex with more neighbors in its own part than in the other part changes side. The graph $D^d_{2n}$ constructed in the previous sections shows that it might not be helpful at all: if all the vertices of the outer cycle are in one side of the cut, and all the vertices of the inner cycle are on the other side of the cut, then at each round, all the vertices of the graph would change side, not improving the solution.
It might be worth noting that in our application of the median algorithm, not all vertices of the outer cycle of $D^d_{2n}$ are on the same side of the cut (given the bad labelling of Figure \[fig:ex\]): due to some side-effects, roughly $d$ vertices in the outer cycle are not on the same side of the cut as the others, and similarly for the inner cycle. It can then be checked that if we run the distributed FLIP dynamics in this instance, the solution does improve over time, but improving the approximation ratio from $\tfrac1{d}$ to $\tfrac1{d}+\epsilon$ requires $\Omega(\epsilon n)$ rounds, which is extremely unpractical. This has to be compared with the lower bound of Theorem \[thm:lb\], which says that in order to achieve an approximation ratio of $\tfrac1{d}+\epsilon$ in general, one needs a number of rounds of the order of $\Omega(\log^*n)$.
Maximal cut
-----------
An interesting aspect of the Maximal cut problem defined in the previous subsection is that it is an LCL problem (of locality 1): each vertex only needs to check that at least half of its neighbors lie on the other side of the cut. This is in stark contrast with [MaxCut]{}, as we have seen already. It was recently proved by Balliu, Hirvonen, Lenzen, Olivetti, and Suomela [@BHLOS19] that any deterministic algorithm finding a maximal cut in $d$-regular graphs ($d{\geqslant}3$) takes $\Omega(\log n)$ rounds and any randomized algorithm takes $\Omega(\log \log n)$ rounds in the model. It would be interesting to find algorithms matching these round complexities. Note that if we merely require that each vertex has at least $d/2-O(\sqrt{d})$ neighbors on the other side of the cut, the problem can be easily reduced to the distributed Lovász Local Lemma, and therefore solved efficiently.
We would like to thank Jérémie Chalopin and Keren Censor-Hillel for their remarks on the complexity of finding an orientation using very small messages in the model. We also thank Michal Dory for calling reference [@CHW08] to our attention, and David Gamarnik for pointing out references [@CGHV15; @DMS17; @GL18; @L17] to us.
[99]{}
M. [Å]{}strand, V. Polishchuk, J. Rybicki, J. Suomela and J. Uitto. *Local algorithms in (weakly) coloured graphs*, CoRR abs/1002.0125, 2010.
A. Balliu, J. Hirvonen, C. Lenzen, D. Olivetti, and J. Suomela, *Locality of not-so-weak coloring*, In Proc. of the 26th International Colloquium on Structural Information and Communication Complexity (SIROCCO), 2019.
K. Censor-Hillel, R. Levy and H. Shachnai, *Fast Distributed Approximation for Max-Cut*. In Proc. of the 13th International Symp. on Algorithms and Experiments for Wireless Sensor Networks (ALGOSENSORS), 2017.
Y.-J. Chang, T. Kopelowitz, and S. Pettie, *An Exponential Separation between Randomized and Deterministic Complexity in the Model*, In Proc. of the IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2016.
E. Csóka, B. Gerencsér, V. Harangi, and B. Virág, *Invariant gaussian processes and independent sets on regular graphs of large girth*, Random Structures Algorithms [**47**]{} (2015), 284–303.
A. Czygrinow, M. Hanckowiak, and W. Wawrzyniak, *Fast Distributed Approximations in Planar Graphs*, In Proc. of the 22nd International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC), 2008.
A. Dembo, A. Montanari, and S. Sen, *Extremal cuts of sparse random graphs*, Ann. Probab. [**45(2)**]{} (2017), 1190–1217.
P. Erdős and R. Rado, *Combinatorial theorems on classifications of subsets of a given set*, Proc. London Math. Soc. [**3**]{} (1952), 417–439.
P. Erdős and G. Szekeres, A combinatorial problem in geometry, Compos. Math. [**2**]{} (1935), 463–470.
D. Gamarnik and Q. Li, *On the max‐cut of sparse random graphs*, Random Structure Algorithms [**52(2)**]{} (2018), 219–262.
D. Gamarnik and M. Sudan, *Limits of local algorithms over sparse random graphs*, In Proc. of Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS), 369–376, 2014.
, [D.G. Harris]{}, and [F. Kuhn]{}, *On Derandomizing Local Distributed Algorithms*, In Proc. of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2018.
M. Ghaffari, F. Kuhn and Y. Maus, *On the complexity of local distributed graph problems*, In Proc. of the 49th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC), 2017, 784–797.
M. Göös, J. Hirvonen, and J. Suomela, *Lower bounds for local approximation*, J. ACM [**60**]{} (2013), \#39.
H. Hatami, L. Lovász, and B. Szegedy, *Limits of local-global convergent graph sequences*, Geom. Funct. Anal. [**24(1)**]{} (2014), 269–296.
J. Hirvonen, J. Rybicki, S. Schmid and J. Suomela, *Large Cuts with Local Algorithms on Triangle-Free Graphs*, Electron. J. Combin. [**24(4)**]{} (2017), \#P4.21.
F. Kardoš, D. Král’ and J. Volec. *Maximum edge-cuts in Cubic Graphs With Large Girth and in Random Cubic Graphs*, Random Structures Algorithms [**41(4)**]{} (2012), 506–520.
K.-i. Kawarabayashi and G. Schwartzman, *Adapting Local Sequential Algorithms to the Distributed Setting*, In Proc. 32nd International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC), 2018, 35:1–-35:17.
N. Linial, *Locality in distributed graph algorithms*, SIAM J. Comput. [**21(1)**]{} (1992), 193–201.
R. Lyons, *Factors of IID on trees*, Combin. Probab. Comput. [**26(2)**]{} (2017), 285–300.
M. Molloy and B. Reed, *Graph Colouring and the Probabilistic Method*, Springer, 2002.
B. Monien and T. Tscheuschner, *On the Power of Nodes of Degree Four in the Local Max-Cut Problem*, In: Calamoneri T., Diaz J. (eds) Algorithms and Complexity. CIAC 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6078. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
D. Mubayi and A. Suk, *A survey of hypergraph Ramsey problems*, ArXiv e-prints, 2017.
M. Naor and L. Stockmeyer, *What can be computed locally?*, In Proc. of the 25th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC), 1993, 184–193.
S. Poljak, *Integer linear programs and local search for max-cut*, SIAM J. Comput. [**21(3)**]{} (1995), 450–-465.
M. Rahman and B. Virág, *Local algorithms for independent sets are half-optimal*, Ann. Probab. [**45(3)**]{} (2017), 1543–1577.
F. P. Ramsey, *On a problem of formal logic*, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. [**30**]{} (1930), 264–286.
J. B. Shearer, *A note on bipartite subgraphs of triangle-free graphs*, Random Structures Algorithms [**3(2)**]{} (1992), 223–226.
[^1]: An extended abstract of this work appeared in the proceedings of the 45th International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science (WG), 2019.Partially supported by ANR Projects GATO (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">anr-16-ce40-0009-01</span>) and GrR (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">anr-18-ce40-0032</span>), and LabEx PERSYVAL-Lab (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">anr-11-labx-0025</span>).
[^2]: Their algorithm has two phases: The first consists in finding a large bipartite induced subgraph (this can be done in a constant number of rounds), and the second phase greedily assigns each remaining vertex to the side of the bipartition where it has fewer neighbors (it is unlikely that this greedy procedure can be performed in a constant number of rounds, and at least Theorem \[thm:lb\] shows that it cannot be performed in a constant number of rounds when there are no restrictions on the girth).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a previous contribution (Mol. Phys. [**103**]{}, xxxx, 2005), we established the suitability of density functional theory (DFT) for the calculation of molecular anharmonic force fields. In the present work, we have assessed a wide variety of basis sets and exchange-correlation functionals for harmonic and fundamental frequencies, equilibrium and ground-state rotational constants, and thermodynamic functions beyond the RRHO (rigid rotor-harmonic oscillator) approximation. The fairly good performance of double-zeta plus polarization basis sets for frequencies results from an error compensation between basis set incompleteness and the intrinsic error of exchange-correlation functionals. Triple-zeta plus polarization basis sets are recommended, with an additional high-exponent $d$ function on second-row atoms. All conventional hybrid GGA functionals perform about equally well: high-exchange hybrid GGA and meta-GGA functionals designed for kinetics yield poor results, with the exception of of the very recently developed BMK functional which takes a middle position along with the HCTH/407 (second generation GGA) and TPSS (meta-GGA) functionals. MP2 performs similarly to these functionals but is inferior to hybrid GGAs such as B3LYP and B97-1.'
author:
- 'A. Daniel Boese'
- Wim Klopper
- 'Jan M. L. Martin'
date: 'Received Feb. 14, 2005; Final form Mar. 15, 2005; [*Int. J. Quantum. Chem.*]{}, in press'
title: Assessment of Various Density Functionals and Basis Sets for the Calculation of Molecular Anharmonic Force Fields
---
Introduction
============
In recent years, Density Functional Theory (DFT) has perhaps been the most commonly applied method within the field of computational chemistry. Harmonic frequencies can routinely be computed, and assist experimentalists in the assignment of their measured infrared spectra.
Several contributions have been made in the last years which have established the computation of anharmonic force fields more firmly. The calculation of fundamental frequencies by the use of anharmonic force fields allows direct comparison between computed and observed spectroscopic transitions in contrast to harmonic frequencies, including resonances between several modes as well as overtones.
In the field of computational thermochemistry, quartic force fields provide both zero-point vibrational energies (ZPVEs) and thermal corrections beyond the rigid rotor-harmonic oscillator approximation. In applications where high-temperature data are important, anharmonic effects will become non-negligible[@h2o] and the computation of such corrections will become more important.
As early as 1997, DFT was employed for the computation of anharmonic force fields of polyatomic molecules. Thiel and coworkers studied three small molecules using several generalized gradient approximation (GGA) functionals[@thiel]. In the following years, calculations of anharmonic force fields using DFT have been few and far between: Handy and coworkers have computed the force fields of ammonia[@anharmhandy1], benzene[@anharmhandy2] and diazomethane[@Baraille] with hybrid density functionals.
Starting in 2003, an increasing number of papers reporting DFT anharmonic force fields have been published and several groups have been working on this subject. Noteworthy are the activities in the Handy group, with studies of furan, pyrrole and thiophene[@Rudolf] and phosphorus pentafluoride[@Tew]. Barone[@BaroneAzabenzenes] and two of us[@Azabenzenes] have independently published two detailed studies on the azabenzene series; in the latter paper, we also explored the possibility of combining DFT anharmonic force fields with coupled cluster geometries and harmonic frequencies. As for validation studies, the group of Hess[@Neugebauer] has published one on a small number of mainly triatomic molecules. Barone and coworkers have published a series of articles [@Baroneval; @Baroneval2; @Baroneval3; @Baroneval4; @Baroneval5] about the calculation of anharmonic force fields. Their validation set consists of three larger polyatomic molecules (CH$_2$NH, H$_2$CO, and C$_2$H$_4$) plus two larger organic molecules (tetrazine and benzene) to compare harmonic frequencies.
Finally, we have published a detailed study on the calculation of quartic force fields[@anhar1], derived spectroscopic constants (vibrational anharmonicities, rotation-vibration coupling constants), and thermodynamic functions, all of which were compared to the corresponding data obtained from accurate ab initio (large basis set coupled cluster) quartic force fields. The validation set included 17 molecules, namely C$_2$H$_2$[@c2h2], C$_2$H$_4$[@c2h4], CCl$_2$, CF$_2$[@cf2], CH$_2$NH[@ch2nh], CH$_2$[@anhar1], CH$_4$[@ch4], H$_2$CO[@h2co], H$_2$O[@h2o], H$_2$S[@h2s], HCN[@anhar1], N$_2$O[@n2o], NH$_2$[@nh2], PH$_3$[@ph3], SiF$_4$[@sif4], SiH$_4$[@sih4], and SO$_2$[@so2]: the citations accompanying each molecule point to the source for the [*ab initio*]{} reference data. In that same paper, we also considered (for a subset of molecules) convergence in terms of the integration grids used for energy+gradient and for the CPKS (coupled perturbed Kohn-Sham) step, as well as in terms of the step size employed for the numerical differentiation. Finally, we assessed the performance of various GGA and hybrid GGA exchange-correlation functionals, specifically BLYP[@BLYP], HCTH407[@HCTH407], and PBE [@PBE] among the former, and B3LYP[@B3LYP], B97-1[@HCTH93], B97-2[@B97-2], and PBE0[@PBE0] among the latter.
Briefly summarizing our findings, we found the computed anharmonicities to be very sensitive to the DFT integration grid and step sizes. We were only able to assess a few different basis sets, and concluded that the TZ2P basis set was likely to be sufficient in all cases. For basis sets of double-zeta quality, the basis set error was on the order of the error inherent in the exchange-correlation functionals themselves, hence results using these basis sets are to be taken with some caution. HCTH/407 appeared to be the most suitable GGA functional for the purpose, and B97-1 the most suitable hybrid GGA functional, immediately followed by B3LYP. Somewhat surprisingly, when combining DFT anharmonicities with large basis set CCSD(T) geometries and harmonic frequencies, GGA functionals yielded better results than their hybrid counterparts. In many cases, ZPVEs (zero-point vibrational energies) and thermal corrections of sufficiently high quality to be used in conjunction with nonempirical extrapolation-based computational thermochemistry methods like W1, W2, and W3 theory[@W2; @W3] — or explicitly correlated methods like CC-R12[@KlopperReview] — can only be achieved by combining large basis set CCSD(T) geometries and harmonic frequencies with the DFT anharmonicities.
In the present contribution, we shall assess performance of a wider variety of exchange-correlation functionals, including several meta-GGA and meta-GGA functionals, as well as some recent functionals developed with thermochemical kinetics in mind. We will also include HF and MP2 results for comparison.
In addition, we will consider a much wider variety of basis sets. Suitable step sizes and DFT grids were established in the previous paper and will not be reconsidered here.
Computational Details
=====================
All calculations were run on the Intel/Linux farms of the Martin group and of the Faculty of Chemistry at the Weizmann Institute of Science.
Following the approach first proposed by Schneider and Thiel[@rovib4], a full cubic and a semidiagonal quartic force field are obtained by central numerical differentiation (in rectilinear normal coordinates about the equilibrium geometry) of analytical second derivatives. The latter were obtained by means of locally modified versions of [gaussian 03]{}[@g03]; modified routines from [cadpac]{}[@Cadpac] were used as the driver for the numerical differentiation routine. In this approach, the potential energy surface is expanded through quartic terms at the global minimum geometry like: $$\begin{aligned}
V=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i}\omega_i q^2_i +
\frac{1}{6}\sum_{ijk}\phi_{ijk}q_i q_j q_k +
\frac{1}{24}\sum_{ijk}\phi_{ijkk}q_i q_j q_k q_l\end{aligned}$$ where the $q_i$ are dimensionless rectangular normal coordinates, $\omega_i$ are harmonic frequencies, and $\phi_{ijk}$ and $\phi_{ijkl}$ third and fourth derivatives with respect to the $q_i$ at the equilibrium geometry.
All the force fields have been analyzed by means of the [spectro]{}[@Spectro] and by [polyad]{}[@Polyad] rovibrational perturbation theory programs developed by the Handy group and by Martin, respectively.
In all cases, when strong Fermi resonances lead to band origins perturbed more than about 2 cm$^{-1}$ from their second-order position, the deperturbed values are reported and resonance matrices diagonalized to obtain the true band origins. Rotational constants were similarly deperturbed for strong Coriolis resonances.
Thermodynamic functions beyond the harmonic approximation are obtained by means of the integration of asymptotic series method as implemented in the NASA PAC99 program of McBride and Gordon[@PAC99].
The quadrature grids used are Euler-Maclaurin radial grids[@Han93] with 140 points if the molecule includes only first-row atoms, and 200 points otherwise. As angular grid the 974-point Lebedev grid[@Lebedev] was employed. For consistency with our previous paper[@anhar1], grid pruning was not applied, although spot-checking suggests that it would not have affected results in any significant way. Such grids are commonly denoted 140$\times$974 and 200$\times$974, respectively. For the CPKS (coupled-perturbed Kohn-Sham) steps, we used a different, significantly coarser (75$\times$194) grid. In our previous paper we showed that this combination of grids results in computed fundamental frequencies that are numerically precise to 1 cm$^{-1}$ or better.
The numerical step size determined to be optimal in our previous work[@anhar1] was: $$\begin{aligned}
q_{step}(i)=\hbox{4}\times\sqrt{\frac{\mu}{\hbox{amu}}}\times
\sqrt{\frac{1000~\hbox{cm}^{-1}}{\omega(i)}}\end{aligned}$$ The steps are done along the unnormalized Cartesian displacement vector of the mass weighted normal coordinates.
We have furthermore tightened convergence criteria at all stages of the electronic structure calculations to $10^{-10}$ or better (no convergence could be achieved with even tighter criteria). No auxiliary basis sets were employed.
Results and discussion
======================
Basis set
---------
We have considered the following basis sets (see Table \[table0\] for detailed primitive and contracted basis set sizes):
- Dunning’s cc-pV$n$Z correlation consistent basis sets (going from double-zeta to quadruple-zeta quality) for the first row[@PVXZfirst], and the cc-pV($n$+d)Z basis sets of Wilson, Peterson, and Dunning[@PVX+dZ] for the second row. (The latter include additional high-exponent $d$ functions, which have been shown to be important[@so2] for spectroscopic constants of molecules in which a second-row atom is surrounded by one of more highly electronegative first-row atoms.) These basis sets were optimized at the CISD (configuration interaction with all single and double excitations) level.
- The TZ2P[@TZ2P] and DZP [@DZP] basis sets. (Note that the TZ2P version used by most groups actually includes a third $d$ function for second-row atoms.)
- Jensen’s pc-$n$ basis sets which have been specifically optimized for the BLYP functional[@Jensen1; @Jensen2; @Jensen3; @Jensen4]. The pc-1 and pc-2 basis sets are the same size as Dunning’s cc-pVDZ and cc-pVTZ basis sets, respectively, while the pc-3 basis set is of $5s4p2d1f$ quality on H, $6s5p3d2f1g$ quality on C–F, and $6s5p3d2f1g$ quality on Si–Cl, and could arguably be described as a quintuple-zeta rather than a quadruple-zeta basis set.
- Pople’s 3-21G[@321G1; @321G2], 6-31G[@631G1; @631G2], and 6-311G[@6311G1; @6311G2; @McLean] basis sets (the latter two with various combinations of diffuse and polarisation functions). The 3-21G and 6-31G basis sets (and their polarized variants) were optimized at the Hartree-Fock level, the 6-311G basis set at the MP2 level.
- Ahlrichs’ TZV basis set[@TZV], which is usually augmented with the polarization functions of Dunning’s cc-pVTZ basis set. We denote this combination TZVPP. For second-row systems, it is again strongly recommended to include an additional $d$ function: a basis set satisfying that requirement, and which shall be denoted TZV(P+1)P, was obtained by combining Ahlrichs’ TZV with the polarization functions from the cc-pV(T+d)Z basis set[@PVX+dZ].
Relative CPU times for the hybrid functionals can be approximately gauged from the basis set sizes in Table \[table0\]. In practice, CPU time scaling is a lot less steep than the theoretical $N^4$ thanks to integral screening and various cutoffs, and scaling becomes more favorable as the molecule grows.
Since we are only comparing basis sets, we used two additional molecules which have not been included into the validation set before, HOO and CH$_{3}$. Both force fields have previously been computed[@CH3; @HOO] with great accuracy by [*ab initio*]{} methods. The lowest bending mode ($\Pi_g$) of acetylene requires the addition of diffuse functions in order to obtain a qualitatively correct anharmonicity — both [*ab initio*]{}[@c2h2] and DFT[@anhar1] — and hence has been eliminated from consideration here. Overall, this leaves us with 96 harmonic/fundamental frequencies in our validation set.
The most saturated basis set used is, as our experience shows[@BMH2], the pc-3 basis set (see above). As the Dunning correlation consistent basis sets were developed for correlated ab initio methods, exponents for the polarization functions (which in their case are more appropriately named angular correlation functions) are biased to the high-exponent region. As a result, they do not appear to be the most efficient choice of basis sets for Hartree-Fock or density functional theory, at least for atomization energies[@BMH]. We compare [*all*]{} basis sets to the largest one used. For B3LYP, where we only looked at five basis sets, the most accurate basis set used is the pc-2 basis set, as the results from Table \[table1\] show.
Like for atomization energies, the 3-21G basis set is yielding extremely large errors. Its RMS error compared to our largest basis set is 150 cm$^{-1}$, and even the anharmonic correction has an RMS error of 30 cm$^{-1}$. Even worse, some of the force fields yield positive anharmonic corrections. The unpolarized 6-31G basis set fares little better for harmonic and fundamental frequencies. However, unlike the 3-21G basis set, the anharmonic corrections for most molecules are at least somewhat reasonable. Nevertheless, even here we experienced (albeit small) positive anharmonic corrections for two molecules. The first basis set which gives good results is the 6-31G\* basis set. The RMS error for the harmonic and fundamental frequency is still considerable at 46 cm$^{-1}$, however no more qualitatively wrong anharmonicities are seen. The rest of the double-zeta basis sets seem to give results which are comparable to each other(RMS errors around 30 cm$^{-1}$), whereas the 6-31+G\* and pc-1 basis sets are a bit closer to the basis set limit. Starting with basis sets of triple-zeta quality, the basis set errors in the harmonic frequencies get significantly smaller, ranging from 16 to 5 cm$^{-1}$. Pople’s basis sets of triple-zeta quality do not perform well compared to, e.g., the TZ2P basis set, only the 6-311+G(3df,2pd) with all possible polarization functions shows a low error. The 6-31G basis sets also seem to require diffuse functions to yield results comparable to the other basis sets double-zeta quality. This reiterates the observation made in our contribution where we looked at basis set effects for atomization energies[@BMH]. Here, we concluded that “diffuse functions are more important with the Pople basis sets, in that they provide a significant error reduction”. This implies that the 6-31G basis sets are slightly less balanced than the other used basis sets. When looking at the basis set error of the TZVPP basis set, the extra $d$ polarization function lowers the error by another 30%, making it the basis set with the lowest error of all triple-zeta basis sets tested. Finally, this error is again reduced by half by the only other basis set of quadruple-zeta quality tested, indicating that the basis set is very close to the Kohn-Sham limit for these properties. Exactly the same behavior can be observed for the B3LYP functional, with similar errors compared to the pc-2 reference basis set. Thus, we can expect [*all*]{} hybrid functionals with 20% exchange to give similar basis set errors. Interestingly, although the intrinsic basis set errors of different basis sets look like they are the same at the triple-zeta level, compared to the pc-2 basis set the error of e.g. 6-311+G(3df,2pd) basis set is still 8.3 cm$^{-1}$). This implies that the errors for the different triple-zeta basis sets do not seem to be consistent. Relative to pc-3, the average basis set incompleteness error for DFT harmonic or fundamental frequencies obeys the following sequence:\
cc-pVQZ $\ll$ 6-311+G(3df,2pd) $\approx$ TZV(P+1)P $\approx$ pc-2 $\approx$ TZVPP $\approx$ cc-pVTZ $<$ TZ2P $<$ 6-311+G(3d,2p) $<$ 6-311+G\*\* $\ll$ pc-1 $\approx$ 6-31+G\*\* $<$ DZP $\approx$ cc-pVDZ $\ll$ 6-31G\* $\ll$ 6-31G $\ll$ 3-21G\
Of course, the error in the fundamental frequencies transfers to basis set errors in the zero-point energies, as shown in Figure \[Figure1\]. Here, considerable error cancellation occurs, and the larger frequencies obtain also a larger weight. For example, the TZ2P basis set has about the same basis set error as 6-311+G\*\*, different from what could be deduced from Table \[table1\]. The basis sets of double-zeta quality with polarization functions (excluding 6-31G\*) exhibit errors between 0.58 and 0.48 kJ/mol compared to the largest basis set used, and the basis sets of triple-zeta quality between 0.38 and 0.26 kJ/mol.
In Table \[table2\], we compare the results of B97-1 and B3LYP with the different basis sets to our reference values. Of course, error cancellation takes place here, and the basis set error of the large basis sets will be masked by the greater error of the functional itself. Nevertheless, from this perspective, the results are a bit surprising: For harmonic frequencies, the TZ2P basis set (which B97-1 has been fitted to) and the DZP basis set(!) show the lowest error in our validation study. For B3LYP, the TZ2P basis set yields the lowest errors as well. Overall, there is little difference between the different basis sets. Only the 3-21G, 6-31G, cc-pVDZ and perhaps the 6-31G\* basis sets exhibit really large errors. For all the other basis sets, basis set error is comparable to the intrinsic error for the exchange-correlation functional. Still, it might be possible that some molecules outside our validation set have a stronger basis set dependence, making at least a basis set of triple-zeta quality necessary. For example, the aforementioned C$_2$H$_2$ molecule has a strong basis set dependence and showed large errors and a positive anharmonic correction when not using diffuse functions in the basis set. Consistently for all basis sets, B3LYP has a larger RMS error than B97-1 in the harmonic frequencies by about 2 cm$^{-1}$. On the other hand, the anharmonic correction seems to be described better by the B3LYP functional for most basis sets (with exception of the pc-1 basis set, which yields particularly low errors for the anharmonic correction in conjunction with the B97-1 basis set). Nevertheless, the differences are very small, and might well change when larger and other molecules would be considered in the validation set.
We again consider the anharmonic zero-point energies, error statistics for which are shown in Figure \[Figure2\]. Like for the fundamental frequencies, no difference between the basis sets of double and triple-zeta quality can be seen. The TZ2P basis set once more exhibits the most pronounced error cancellation between the basis set error and intrinsic error of the functional.
The basis set errors for the rotational constants (relative to the largest basis set considered, pc-3) are shown in Table \[table3\]. For the TZ2P basis set, the CH$_2$ molecule has been excluded. The $B_e$ values correlate directly to the accuracy of the geometry of the molecule. The difference between the errors of the different $B_e$ and $B_0$ values is quite small, since only the third derivatives contribute to it. As one might expect, [*all*]{} basis sets underestimate the rotational constants (or, conversely, overestimate bond lengths) relative to the basis set limit. As for the harmonic frequencies, a very large difference is encountered when going from the 3-21G and 6-31G basis sets to those including polarization functions. While the error is cut down to a third by including diffuse functions for harmonic frequencies, for rotational constants it is reduced even further, to approximately one-quarter. Going from double to triple zeta, the same trend can be observed, with errors in both frequencies and rotational constants being cut to approximately one-third. Even without the diffuse functions, the 6-31G\* basis set yields a lower error than the pc-1 basis set. Comparing the basis sets of triple-zeta quality, the same trend can be observed. TZ2P seems to be a good compromise between quality and computational cost, as it yields an RMS error lower than the pc-2 basis set despite not containing any $f$ functions. For rotational constants and thus geometries, the extra tight $d$ functions for the TZVPP basis set seems to be extremely important: The RMS error is reduced from 1% to 0.29% just by including this additional function for the second-row molecules. While the TZVPP basis set is one of the worst-performers of the triple-zeta basis sets tested, the TZV(P+1)P basis set is only surpassed in accuracy by the 6-311+G(3df,2pd) basis set. The anharmonic corrections exhibit similar basis set convergence behavior, with the notable exception of the TZVPP basis set, where quite large deviations are seen. Again, the basis set dependencies observed for the B97-1 functional can be transferred to the RMS errors of the B3LYP functional.
The overall errors compared to our reference values in Table \[table4\] all consistently underestimate the rotational constants when using either the B3LYP or B97-1 functionals. This implies that, as we have seen above, when getting closer to the basis set limit our structures (at least for our validation set) also become better. As a rule of thumb, this is generally the case for these two most popular hybrid functionals. Hence, unlike the case of frequencies — where double-zeta basis sets sometimes yield closer agreement with experiment than their quadruple-zeta counterparts because of error compensation with the intrinsic error of the functional — larger basis sets always yield better agreement with the reference data for [*geometries*]{}, and at least a polarized triple-zeta basis set is always recommended. This implies that for our test set, an (by a small amount) larger admixture of exchange in the hybrid functional would yield better results. In the next section, such functionals will be assessed. Again, the effect when going from $r_e$ to $r_0$ geometries is quite small, at least compared to the error made by DFT. All basis sets, even including the 3-21G basis set, yield the same error in the corrections.
For the sake of brevity, we will only report errors in the thermodynamic functions using the different basis sets. All data (Table \[table5\]) are relative to thermodynamic functions obtained from our reference spectroscopic constants by the same integrated asymptotic series procedure. Also, we will not discuss here any of the approximations considered in our previous paper, such as the RRHO approximation with equilibrium geometries and harmonic frequencies, the RRHO approximation with zero-point average geometries and fundamental frequencies or using DFT anharmonic force fields combined with large basis set CCSD(T) geometries and harmonic frequencies. Hence, only the data obtained from the pure DFT anharmonic force field will be presented. Generally, the results of the thermodynamic functions can be understood form the errors of the different basis sets in Table \[table2\] and Table \[table4\], unless error compensation takes place. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case, and it is very hard to draw conclusions. The errors of basis sets of double- and triple-zeta quality show virtually no difference. Only for the entropy, larger deviations between the different basis sets can be seen. In our previous study, it proved to be the only of the three variables under investigation which showed a lower error for the combination of CCSD(T) harmonic frequencies and geometries with DFT compared to the pure DFT results at 2000 K. This implies that the error cancellation effects do not seem to work as well for the entropy than for the enthalpy or the heat capacity.
Exchange-correlation functionals
--------------------------------
Turning towards the assessment of density functionals, we used for the functionals the TZ2P basis set for all molecules except C$_2$H$_2$. For the latter molecule, diffuse functions were necessary, hence the aug-cc-pVTZ basis set was employed in this case. In our previous study, we tested the BLYP, HCTH/407, PBE, B97-1, B97-2, and PBE0 functionals. However, in the last two years some additional functionals have been published, which may replace the old functionals. In addition, we have computed [*ab initio*]{} force fields with the MP2 and HF methods to compare to the functionals tested.
In our experience, CPU times with Gaussian 03 do not strongly, or very systematically, depend on the exchange-correlation functional, especially as no auxiliary “density fitting” basis sets are used here. With other codes, GGAs will offer a marked advantage over hybrid functionals.
The main progress made in recent years in functional development was the inclusion of the kinetic energy density in a couple of functionals. This has been done first by Becke[@B95], then by Van Voorhis and Scuseria[@VSXC] as well as by Boese and Handy[@tHCTH]. Lately, Perdew and coworkers[@TPSS] have also published a new meta-Generalized Gradient Approximation (meta-GGA) functional. The resulting functionals were Bc95 (which however was later disavowed by Becke himself:[@B97] “The functional of Part IV \[i.e., Ref.[@B95]\] is problematic in very weakly bound systems... and is therefore not recommended. This will be corrected in future publications.”), VSXC, $\tau$-HCTH and its hybrid and TPSS and its hybrid version.
Several groups realized[@baker95; @durant96] that typical hybrid GGA functionals (with about 20% exact exchange) have significant problems in describing barrier heights (albeit less so than pure GGAs). Durant[@durant96] serendipitously found that BHLYP (with 50% exact exchange[@BHLYP]) exhibits these problems to a much lesser degree than typical hybrid GGAs. Truhlar and coworkers[@mPW1K] took an existing modified Perdew-Wang functional[@PW91; @Ada98] and optimized the fraction of Hartree-Fock exchange for optimal reproduction of a representative set of reaction barrier heights. The resulting mPW1K functional had 42.8% of Hartree-Fock type exchange. However, this functional, like other hybrid GGA functionals with such a large fraction of ‘exact’ exchange, performs particularly poorly for atomization energies and ground-state geometries[@BMH]. Truhlar and coworkers later proposed[@mPWB1K] two functionals around the Bc95 correlation functional, mPW1B95 (with 44% exact exchange) for equilibrium thermochemistry and mPWB1K (with 31 % exact exchange) for kinetics.
Finally, Boese and Handy conjectured that $\tau$ does not merely simulate exact exchange (as previously argued[@VSXC]), but that it is capable of simulating [*variable*]{} exact exchange[@tHCTH], and thus is potentially capable of substantially reduced errors in equilibrium properties with high-exact exchange functionals. Figure 1 of Ref.[@BMK] proves the latter to be the case, and offers at least circumstantial evidence that the $\tau$ terms can ‘back-correct’ for excessive exact exchange where it is desirable (that is, near equilibrium geometries). Boese and Martin[@BMK] were thus able to construct a density functional, termed BMK (Boese-Martin for Kinetics) that [*accurately reproduces transition states and reaction barrier heights without compromising other properties*]{}.
Hence, the new functionals tested are the GGA functionals BLYP, HCTH/407, PBE (from our previous paper), the TPSS meta-GGA functional, the hybrid functionals (developed for use of ground-state properties) B3LYP (20 % exact exchange), B97-1 (21 %), B97-2 (21 %), PBE0 (25 %), TPSSh (10 %), and mPW1B95 (31 %) and the hybrid functionals (developed for use of transition-state properties) mPW1K (42.8 %), mPWB1K (44 %) and BMK (42 %).
The use of exact local exchange for hybrid functionals improves the functionals for many properties,[@Goerling] as this method selects the correct multiplicative potential of the functional. However, we did not consider using hybrid functionals with local exact exchange in this study simply because such an exchange-correlation potential does not change the energy nor its nuclear derivatives. Hence, all functionals used will yield quite close results when using Hartree-Fock or local exchange.[@Karasiev] When analyzing the data in Table \[table6\], HCTH/407 shows the lowest RMS errors of all GGA and meta-GGA functionals, while for example BLYP yields errors almost twice as large. Although TPSS is clearly an improvement over PBE, it is still less accurate than HCTH/407 for our validation set. Interestingly, the anharmonic correction is a lot worse when including the kinetic energy density here, with TPSS yielding an error almost twice as large as the HCTH/407 or BLYP functionals.
Turning towards the hybrid functionals, TPSSh is barely an improvement over PBE0, and B97-1 is the functional with the lowest errors for harmonic and fundamental frequencies. B97-2 shows the lowest RMS error of hybrid functionals for the anharmonic corrections: this may be related to the fact that exchange-correlation potential points were used in its parametrization. This means that the functional development steps include some information about the PES, since the fit to the exchange-correlation-potential means that the functional derivative is evaluated at every gridpoint of the molecule over full space. mPW1B95, while having errors for atomization energies comparable to B3LYP[@mPWB1K; @mPWB1Keval], has a much larger error, which can be almost compared to the error of HCTH/407 functional for the fundamental frequency. BMK yields, as it was reported for a much larger set of harmonic frequencies[@BMK], an RMS error for both harmonic and fundamental frequency comparable to HCTH/407 and mPW1B95. However, it shows a large error for the anharmonic correction, which is only surpassed by the Hartree-Fock method. This of course suggests that the potential energy surface has been changed, as we could have expected from our previous observations. (For instance, in the case of the H$_2$S molecule, BMK underestimates both harmonic stretching frequencies, unlike all other high-exact exchange functionals. However, the anharmonic corrections are underestimated for this molecules, resulting in accidental good agreement with experiment for the fundamentals.) In general, the anharmonic correction is underestimated on average, and the harmonic frequency overestimated. This corresponds to a steepening of the potential energy surface near the minimum, which is effectively what the kinetic energy density terms ‘did’ to get the atomization energy correct. Thus, these results give further insight into the functional.
We also note that the performance of the different density functionals for [*anharmonic*]{} frequencies is consistent with what we found for much larger sets of [*harmonic*]{} frequencies.[@BMK] Finally, Hartree-Fock unsurprisingly yields extremely large errors for the frequencies, more than three times as large as the worst functional tested and ten times as large as the most accurate functional. The anharmonic correction is not described well either, although the error here is not as large, only three times as bad as the best functional. MP2 shows errors close to HCTH/407 or BMK for harmonic and fundamental frequencies, but the corrections are still not as accurate as with most density functionals. To investigate the arguably stronger basis set dependence of the MP2, method, we additionally used a larger cc-pVTZ basis set for MP2. The error is reduced by about ten wavenumbers, which is still worse than all hybrid functionals with a lower HF percentage than 40%. Overall, we would rank the errors of the methods under investigation for harmonic or fundamental frequencies as follows:\
B97-1 $\approx$ B97-2 $\approx$ B3LYP $\approx$ PBE0 $\approx$ TPSSh $<$ mPW1B95 $<$ HCTH/407 $\approx$ MP2 $\approx$ BMK $\approx$ TPSS $\ll$ mPWB1K $\approx$ mPW1K $\approx$ PBE $<$ BLYP $\ll$ HF\
Generally, the errors of the fundamental frequencies transfer to RMS errors of the zero-point energies of the methods in displayed in Figure \[Figure3\]. Again, B97-1 shows the lowest error of all methods tested, with the error of HCTH/407, TPSS and BMK about twice as large. Here, MP2 has an RMS error slightly worse than the latter three functionals. For the computation of accurate transition states accurate zero-point energies are needed. Usually, a frequency calculation has to be performed anyhow (in order to verify that one indeed has found a transition state), and good performance of the functional for zero-point energies allows one to ‘recycle’ that frequency calculation for the ZPVE. Here, we again see a superior performance of BMK over the other two functionals developed for such interactions, reducing the error by about half. This means that the not-so-good performance of mPW1K and mPWB1K is even worse than expected, since its errors in the zero-point energies are even close to the worst-performer GGA functionals, BLYP and PBE.
The errors of the different functionals for rotational constants, using the TZ2P basis set (again excluding CH$_2$ from the validation set) are displayed in Table \[table7\]. For geometries, the functionals with $\geq$40% exchange — with the notable exception of BMK — all do worse than the GGA functionals tested. Both TPSS and TPSSh yield much poorer results as well. Otherwise, the results are quite similar to what we observed for the frequencies. HCTH/407 yields the lowest errors of the GGA functionals, and all hybrid functionals with about 20% exact exchange yield similar results. By just ranking our hybrid functionals by the amount of exact exchange, we can determine their accuracy: TPSSh, with only 10% exact exchange yields errors worse than the GGA functional HCTH/407. B3LYP and B97-1 have 20 and 2 % exact exchange, respectively. Although B97-2 also has 21% exact exchange, it shows lower errors than the latter two because it has been fit to exchange-correlation potential points. Finally, PBE0 has 25% exact exchange, yielding errors for rotational constants close to B97-2. Nevertheless, TPSS is again an improvement over PBE, although the improvement is not as large as it was for harmonic frequencies. For the sake of comparison, MP2 yields results worse than the ‘regular exchange’ hybrid GGA functionals but better than most GGA functionals, and also better than the high-exact exchange functionals (except for BMK). When increasing the basis set for MP2, the errors are approximately lowered to those of the hybrid functionals, although it does not surpass them. Particularly disappointing is performance for both mPW1K and mPW1B95. BMK stands out among the high-exact exchange functionals, yielding RMS errors about half of mPW1K and mPWB1K. Again, the $B_e-B_0$ corrections are too small to distinguish any functional from each other. All their errors have about the same values, as it was the case when comparing the different basis sets in conjunction with the B97-1 functional to our reference values. Ranking the functionals for the rotational constants, we arrive at:\
PBE0 $\approx$ B97-2 $<$ B97-1 $\approx$ B3LYP $<$ HCTH/407 $\approx$ BMK $\approx$ mPW1B95 $\approx$ MP2 $\ll$ TPSSh $<$ TPSS $\ll$ mPW1K $\approx$ mPWB1K $<$ PBE $\ll$ BLYP $\ll$ HF\
The values of three different thermodynamic functions investigated with different functionals are shown in Table \[table8\]. At room temperature, BMK and MP2 yield the lowest errors of all methods tested. This is changed at 2000 K; as the higher vibrational levels become occupied, the problems of both MP2 and especially BMK become apparent. Since the errors in the anharmonic corrections for both methods are larger than for ’normal’ hybrid functionals, they become more inaccurate at higher temperatures. Unlike the results from Table \[table5\], where a lot of error cancellation occurred, most functionals do perform with errors like the aforementioned rankings, at least at the medium temperature of 600K. Again, the entropy is the most sensitive thermodynamic function to the different methods used.
Conclusions
===========
We have assessed a wide variety of basis sets and exchange-correlation functionals for harmonic and fundamental frequencies, rotational constants, and post-RRHO thermodynamic functions.
For harmonic or fundamental vibrational frequencies, even a double-zeta plus polarization basis set will only have a basis set incompleteness error comparable to the intrinsic error in hybrid GGA functionals like B3LYP or B97-1. To be on the safe side, the TZ2P basis set (which in fact is a TZ3P basis set for second-row atoms) can be used. With double-zeta plus polarization basis sets, some error cancellation between basis set and functional errors often occurs.
No such cancellation is seen for geometries or rotational constants: Improving the basis set further is always ‘worthwhile’ here. The TZ2P basis set represents a good compromise between accuracy and computational cost.
No clear conclusions could be drawn for thermodynamic functions, except perhaps for some basis set dependence for entropies at high temperatures.
When using the Ahlrichs TZVPP basis set, performance for second-row molecules can be greatly improved by adding a high-exponent $d$ function, leading to the TZV(P+1)P basis set. In general, a high-exponent $d$ function on second-row atoms is strongly recommended.
For harmonic or fundamental frequencies, there is little to choose between the various ‘conventional’ hybrid GGAs, all of which have intrinsic RMS errors in the 30–35 cm$^{-1}$ range. (We note that our dataset is somewhat biased towards ‘inorganic’ molecules, and better DFT performance can be expected for organic molecules.) Somewhat larger RMS errors in the 50 cm$^{-1}$ range are seen for MP2, HCTH407, TPSS, and BMK. ‘Kinetics’ functionals (except for BMK), as well as first-generation GGAs, yield much poorer results. One downside of BMK are larger errors than GGAs and ‘conventional’ hybrid GGAs for anharmonic corrections. MP2 exhibits the same problem to a lesser extent. Analogous conclusions can be drawn for rotational constants, geometries, and thermodynamic functions.
Acknowledgments
===============
ADB acknowledges a postdoctoral fellowship from the Feinberg Graduate School (Weizmann Institute). Research at Weizmann was supported by the Minerva Foundation, Munich, Germany, by the Lise Meitner-Minerva Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry (of which JMLM is a member [*ad personam*]{}), and by the Helen and Martin Kimmel Center for Molecular Design. This work is related to Project 2003-024-1-100, “Selected Free Radicals and Critical Intermediates: Thermodynamic Properties from Theory and Experiment,” of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).
[99]{} J. M. L. Martin, J. P. François, and R. Gijbels, , 7633 (1992); J. M. L. Martin, unpublished CCSD(T)/cc-pVQZ calculations S. Dressler and W. Thiel. , 71 (1997). M. Rosenstock, P. Rosmus, E. A. Reinsch, O. Treutler, S. Carter, and N. C. Handy, , 853 (1998). A. Miani, E. Cane, P. Palmieri, A. Trombetti, and N. C. Handy, , 248 (2000). I. Baraille, C. Larrieau, A. Dargelos, and M. Chaillet, , 91 (2001). R. Burcl, N. C. Handy, and S. Carter, , 1881 (2003). A. Caligiana, V. Aquilanti, R. Burcl, N. C. Handy, and D. P. Tew, , 335 (2003). V. Barone, , 4146 (2004). A. D. Boese and J. M. L. Martin, , 3085 (2004). J. Neugebauer and B. A. Hess, , 7215 (2003). V. Barone, , 3059 (2004). P. Carbonniére and V. Barone, , 365 (2004). P. Carbonniére and V. Barone, , 226 (2004). V. Barone, , 014108 (2005). P. Carbonnière, T. Lucca, C. Pouchan, N. Rega, and V. Barone, , 384 (2005). J. M. L. Martin, T. J. Lee, and P. R. Taylor, , 676 (1998). J. M. L. Martin, T. J. Lee, P. R. Taylor, and J. P. François, , 2589 (1995); J. M. L. Martin and P. R. Taylor, , 336 (1996). J. Demaison, L. Margulès, J. M. L. Martin, and J. E. Boggs, , 3282 (2002). G. de Oliveira, J. M. L. Martin, I. K. C. Silwal, and J. F. Liebman, , 1297 (2001). A. D. Boese, W. Klopper, and J. M. L. Martin, , XXXX (2005). T. J. Lee, J. M. L. Martin, and P. R. Taylor, , 254 (1995). J. M. L. Martin, T. J. Lee, and P. R. Taylor, , 105 (1993); J. M. L. Martin, CCSD(T)/PVQZ calculations. J. M. L. Martin, J. P. François, and R. Gijbels, , 445 (1995). J. M. L. Martin and P. R. Taylor, , 535 (1993). J. M. L. Martin, J. P. François, and R. Gijbels, , 3530 (1992). D. Wang, Q. Shi, and Q.-S. Zhu, , 9624 (2000). X.-G. Wang, E. L. Sibert III, and J. M. L. Martin, , 1353 (2000). J. M. L. Martin, K. K. Baldridge, and T. J. Lee, , 945 (1999). J. M. L. Martin, , 2791 (1998). A. D. Becke, 3098 (1988); C. Lee, W. Yang, R. G. Parr, 785 (1988). A. D. Boese and N. C. Handy, , 5497 (2001). J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, , 3865 (1996). A. D. Becke, , 5648 (1993). F. A. Hamprecht, A. J. Cohen, D. J. Tozer and N. C. Handy, , 6264 (1998). P. J. Wilson, T. J. Bradley, and D. J. Tozer, , 9233 (2001). C. Adamo and V. Barone, , 113 (1998). J. M. L. Martin and G. de Oliveira, , 1843 (1999). A. D. Boese, M. Oren, O. Atasoylu, J. M. L. Martin, M. Kállay and J. Gauss, , 4129 (2004). For a review see W. Klopper, “R12 methods, Gaussian geminals”, in [*Modern Methods and Algorithms of Quantum Chemistry, 2nd Edition*]{}, Ed. J. Grotendorst (John von Neumann Institute for Computing, Jülich, Germany, 2000, pp. 181-229); available online at <http://www.fz-juelich.de/nic-series/Volume3/klopper.pdf>. W. Schneider and W. Thiel, , 367 (1989). Gaussian 03, Revision B.02, M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, J. A. Montgomery, Jr., T. Vreven, K. N. Kudin, J. C. Burant, J. M. Millam, S. S. Iyengar, J. Tomasi, V. Barone, B. Mennucci, M. Cossi, G. Scalmani, N. Rega, G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota, R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai, M. Klene, X. Li, J. E. Knox, H. P. Hratchian, J. B. Cross, C. Adamo, J. Jaramillo, R. Gomperts, R. E. Stratmann, O. Yazyev, A. J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. Pomelli, J. W. Ochterski, P. Y. Ayala, K. Morokuma, G. A. Voth, P. Salvador, J. J. Dannenberg, V. G. Zakrzewski, S. Dapprich, A. D. Daniels, M. C. Strain, O. Farkas, D. K. Malick, A. D. Rabuck, K. Raghavachari, J. B. Foresman, J. V. Ortiz, Q. Cui, A. G. Baboul, S. Clifford, J. Cioslowski, B. B. Stefanov, G. Liu, A. Liashenko, P. Piskorz, I. Komaromi, R. L. Martin, D. J. Fox, T. Keith, M. A. Al-Laham, C. Y. Peng, A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe, P. M. W. Gill, B. Johnson, W. Chen, M. W. Wong, C. Gonzalez, and J. A. Pople, Gaussian, Inc., Pittsburgh PA, 2003. The Cambridge Analytic Derivatives Package (Cadpac), Issue 6.5, Cambridge, 1998 Developed by R. D. Amos with contributions from I. L. Alberts, J. S. Andrews, S. M. Colwell, N. C. Handy, D. Jayatikala, P.J. Knowles, R. Kobayashi,K. E. Laidig, G. Laming, A. M. Lee, P. E. Maslen, C. W. Murray, P. Palmieri, J. E. Rice, E. D. Simandiras, A. J. Stone, M.-D. Su, and D. J. Tozer. J. F. Gaw, A. Willets, W. H. Green, and N. C. Handy, in: J. M. Bowman (Ed.), Advances in Molecular Vibration and Collision Dynamics, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1990. J. M. L. Martin, “POLYAD: a vibrational perturbation theory program including arbitrary resonance matrices” (Weizmann Institute of Science, Reovot, 1997). B. J. McBride and S. Gordon, PAC99, Properties and Coefficients code, NASA Reference Publication RP-1271, NASA Lewis/Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, 1992. C. W. Murray, N. C. Handy, and G. J. Laming, , 997 (1993) V. I. Lebedev, Zh. Vychisl. Mat. Mat. Fiz. [**15**]{}, 48 (1975); V. I. Lebedev, Zh. Vychisl. Mat. Mat. Fiz. [**16**]{}, 293 (1976); V. I. Lebedev, Sibirsk. Mat. Zh. [**18**]{}, 132 (1977); V. I. Lebedev and A. L. Skorokhodov, Russian Acad. Sci. Dokl. Math. [**45**]{}, 587 (1992) T. H. Dunning, , 1007 (1989); R. A. Kendall, T. H. Dunning, and R. J. Harrison, , 6796 (1992). A. K. Wilson, K. A. Peterson, and T. H. Dunning Jr., , 9244 (2001). T. H. Dunning, , 716 (1971). T. H. Dunning Jr. and P. J. Hay, in: Modern Theoretical Chemistry, ed. H. F. Schaefer III, Plenum, New York (1976), vol.3, 1. F. Jensen, , 9113 (2001); erratum [**116**]{}, 3502 (2002). F. Jensen, , 7372 (2002). F. Jensen, , 9234 (2002). F. Jensen and T. Helgaker, , 3463 (2004). J. S. Binkley, J. A. Pople, and W. J. Hehre, , 939 (1980). M. S. Gordon, J. S. Binkley, J. A. Pople, W. J. Pietro, and W. J. Hehre, , 5039 (1982). W. J. Ditchfield and J. A. Pople, , 2257 (1971). P. C. Hariharan and J. A. Pople, , 213 (1973). M. J. Frisch, J. A. Pople, and J. S. Binkley, , 3265 (1984). R. Krishnan, J. S. Binkley, R. Seeger, and J. A. Pople, , 650 (1980). A. D. McLean and G. S. Chandler, J. Chem. Phys. [**72**]{}, 5639 (1980). A. Schäfer, C. Huber, and R. Ahlrichs, , 5829 (1994). D. W. Schwenke, , 731 (1999). B. A. Flowers, P. G. Szalay, J. F. Stanton, M. Kállay, J. Gauss, and A. G. Császár, , [**108**]{}, 3195 (2004). A. D. Boese, J. M. L. Martin, and N. C. Handy, unpublished results. A. D. Boese, J. M. L. Martin, and N. C. Handy, , 3005 (2003). A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys. [**104**]{}, 1040 (1996). T. Van Voorhis, and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys [**109**]{}, 400 (1998). A. D. Boese and N.C. Handy, , 9559 (2002). J. M. Tao, J. P. Perdew, V. N. Staroverov, and G. E. Scuseria, , 146401 (2003). A. D. Becke, , 8554 (1997). J. Baker, J. Andzelm, M. Muir, and P. R. Taylor, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**237**]{}, [53]{} (1995). J. L. Durant, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**256**]{}, 595 (1996). A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys. [**98**]{}, 1394 (1993). B. J. Lynch, P. L. Fast, M. Harris, and D. G. Truhlar, , 4811 (2000). J. P. Perdew and Y. Wang, 13244 (1992). C. Adamo and V. Barone, J. Chem. Phys. [**108**]{}, 664 (1998). A. D. Boese and J. M. L. Martin, , 3405 (2004). W. Hieringer, F. Della Sala, and A. Görling , 115 (2004). V. V. Karasiev, , 8576 (2003). Y. Zhao and D. G. Truhlar, , 6908 (2004). Y. Zhao, B. J. Lynch, and D. G. Truhlar, , 43 (2005).
![\[Figure1\]Boese et al](figures/figure1.ps "fig:"){width="12cm"}\
![\[Figure2\]Boese et al](figures/figure2.ps "fig:"){width="12cm"}\
![\[Figure3\]Boese et al](figures/figure3.ps "fig:"){width="12cm"}\
Fig. 1:\
RMS errors (in kJ/mol) for the B97-1 anharmonic ZPVE for several basis sets, relative to the largest basis set used.
Fig. 2:\
RMS errors (in kJ/mol) for the B97-1 anharmonic ZPVE for several basis sets, relative to the [*ab initio*]{} reference values.
Fig. 3:\
RMS errors (in kJ/mol) for several functionals for the anharmonic ZPVE, compared to the [*ab initio*]{} reference values.
------------------ ---------- ------------- -------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ---- --------- ---------
H 1st row 2nd row H 1st row 2nd row H 1st row 2nd row
3-21G 3s 6s3p 9s6p 2s 3s2p 4s3p 2 9 13
6-31G 6s 10s4p 16s10p 2s 3s2p 4s3p 2 9 13
6-31G\* 6s 10s4p1d 16s10p1d 2s 3s2p1d 4s3p1d 2 15$^a$ 19$^a$
6-31+G\*\* 6s1p 11s5p1d 17s11p1d 2s1p 4s3p1d 4s3p1d 5 19$^a$ 23$^a$
6-311+G\*\* (b) 5s1p 12s6p1d 14s10p1d 3s1p 5s4p1d 7s6p1d 6 22 30
6-311+G(3d,2p) 5s2p 12s6p3d 14s10p3d 3s2p 5s4p3d 7s6p3d 9 32 40
6-311+G(3df,2pd) 5s2p1d 12s6p3d1f 14s10p3d1f 3s2p1d 5s4p3d1f 7s6p3d1f 14 39 47
DZP 4s1p 9s5p1d 11s7p1d 2s1p 4s2p1d 6s4p1d 5 16 24
TZ2P 5s2p 10s6p2d 12s9p3d 3s2p 5s4p2d 9s6p3d 9 27 42
cc-pVDZ 4s1p 9s4p1d 12s8p1d 2s1p 3s2p1d 4s3p1d 5 14 18
cc-pVTZ 5s2p1d 10s5p2d1f 15s9p2d1f 3s2p1d 4s3p2d1f 5s4p2d1f 14 30 34
cc-pVQZ 6s3p2d1f 12s6p3d2f1g 16s11p3d2f1g 4s3p2d1f 5s4p3d2f1g 6s5p3d2f1g 30 55 59
cc-pV(D+d)Z 4s1p 9s4p1d 12s8p2d 2s1p 3s2p1d 4s3p2d 5 14 23
cc-pV(T+d)Z 5s2p1d 10s5p2d1f 15s9p3d1f 3s2p1d 4s3p2d1f 5s4p3d1f 14 30 39
cc-pV(Q+d)Z 6s3p2d1f 12s6p3d2f1g 16s11p4d2f1g 4s3p2d1f 5s4p3d2f1g 6s5p4d2f1g 30 55 64
pc-1 4s1p 7s4p1d 11s8p1d 2s1p 3s2p1d 4s3p1d 5 14 18
pc-2 6s2p1d 10s6p2d1f 13s10p2d1f 3s2p1d 4s3p2d1f 5s4p2d1f 14 30 34
pc-3 9s4p2d1f 14s9p4d2f1g 17s13p4d2f1g 5s4p2d1f 6s5p4d2f1g 6s5p4d2f1g 34 64 64
TZVPP 5s2p1d 11s6p2d1f 14s9p2d1f 3s2p1d 5s3p2d1f 5s4p2d1f 14 31 34
TZV(P+1)P 5s2p1d 11s6p2d1f 14s9p3d1f 3s2p1d 5s3p2d1f 5s4p3d1f 14 31 39
------------------ ---------- ------------- -------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ---- --------- ---------
: Summary of basis sets used in the present work.\[table0\]
\(a) Using Cartesian d functions by default
\(b) 2nd row basis set is actually McLean-Chandler[@McLean]
[|c c|c c|c c|c c|]{} && &\
& Basis set & mean & RMS & mean & RMS & mean & RMS\
\
minimal & 3-21G &-31.3 &148.1&-26.2 &141.1& -3.2 & 30.0\
double-zeta & 6-31G &-31.8 &121.9&-30.1 &116.9& 0.6 & 11.6\
& 6-31G\* & 12.9 & 46.6& 14.3 & 46.6& 0.4 & 9.8\
& cc-pVDZ & -9.3 & 30.7& -7.4 & 31.5& -0.1 & 8.9\
& DZP & 2.0 & 29.8& 3.5 & 27.3& 0.3 & 5.2\
& 6-31+G\*\* & 3.1 & 26.5& 4.2 & 26.3& 0.7 & 4.5\
& pc-1 & -1.0 & 26.3& -0.1 & 27.3& 0.8 & 6.8\
triple-zeta & 6-311+G\*\*& -4.3 & 15.6& -2.3 & 17.1& -0.2 & 3.6\
&6-311+G(3d,2p)& -1.3 & 11.2& 1.0 & 14.4& -0.5 & 3.7\
& TZ2P & 0.6 & 8.9& 3.0 & 13.0& -0.6 & 3.4\
& cc-pVTZ & -0.5 & 6.8& 1.9 & 9.7& -0.6 & 2.9\
& TZVPP & -0.2 & 6.8& 1.2 & 8.9& 0.4 & 2.7\
& pc-2 & 1.3 & 6.3& 2.8 & 8.6& 0.3 & 2.2\
& 6-311+G(3df,2pd) & 0.7 & 5.2& 3.1 & 8.8& -0.5 & 3.1\
& TZV(P+1)P& 1.1 & 4.4& 2.6 & 6.9& 0.3 & 2.8\
quadruple-zeta& cc-pVQZ& 0.3 & 2.8& 1.9 & 5.4& 0.2 & 1.5\
\
double-zeta & 6-31G\* & 10.1 &45.2& 9.6 & 42.2& 0.5 & 10.0\
& 6-31+G\*\* & -0.1 & 21.1& -0.6 & 20.1& 0.7 & 3.8\
triple-zeta & TZ2P & 0.7 & 9.8& 1.3 & 9.8& -0.6 & 2.5\
& cc-pVTZ & -1.6 & 9.1& -1.7 & 10.0& 0.1 & 4.6\
& 6-311+G(3df,2pd) & -0.3 & 8.3& -0.3 & 7.8& -0.1 & 2.5\
------------ ------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------
Functional Basis set mean RMS mean RMS mean RMS
B97-1 3-21G -38.2 134.5 -32.4 127.2 -5.6 26.8
6-31G -40.7 108.4 -38.7 104.6 -2.0 11.4
6-31G\* 4.7 36.4 6.3 36.1 -1.4 8.3
cc-pVDZ -17.3 44.0 -15.5 41.7 -1.7 8.0
DZP -7.8 29.6 -5.4 29.7 -2.2 7.5
6-31+G\*\* -6.5 30.6 -4.7 31.3 -1.6 8.0
pc-1 -9.2 35.0 -7.8 34.7 -1.2 6.2
6-311+G\*\* -13.7 38.7 -10.8 36.3 -2.7 9.1
6-311+G(3d,2p) -11.3 34.0 -8.3 32.6 -2.8 8.3
TZ2P -8.9 29.6 -5.7 28.3 -3.4 8.7
cc-pVTZ -9.7 34.1 -6.5 31.2 -3.2 8.2
TZVPP -9.7 32.4 -7.5 31.1 -2.0 8.2
pc-2 -8.2 31.5 -5.8 30.2 -2.3 7.0
6-311+G(3df,2pd) -8.9 33.1 -5.8 31.5 -2.9 7.7
TZV(P+1)P -8.3 31.8 -6.0 30.4 -2.1 8.2
cc-pVQZ -9.0 32.7 -6.5 32.4 -2.4 7.8
pc-3 -9.5 32.7 -8.7 34.0 -2.6 7.5
B3LYP 6-31G\* 3.1 41.3 3.6 41.3 -0.3 6.5
6-31+G\*\* -8.5 34.0 -7.5 34.1 -1.0 6.8
TZ2P -7.6 31.5 -5.2 30.4 -2.3 6.7
cc-pVTZ -9.6 36.4 -7.9 34.8 -1.7 6.2
6-311+G(3df,2pd) -8.8 33.7 -6.6 32.8 -2.0 6.7
pc-2 -8.3 34.5 -6.6 33.5 -1.6 6.5
------------ ------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------
: Basis set incompleteness errors (cm$^{-1}$, relative to our reference values) in harmonic frequencies, fundamental frequencies, and anharmonic corrections for several basis sets used in conjunction with the B97-1 and B3LYP functionals.\[table2\]
[|c c|c c|c c|c c|]{} & & &\
& Basis set & mean & RMS & mean & RMS & mean & RMS\
\
minimal & 3-21G &-6.13 & 8.66&-6.26 & 8.76& -0.024 & 0.070\
double-zeta & 6-31G &-5.67 & 8.66&-5.72 & 8.70& -0.011 & 0.027\
& DZP &-1.99 & 2.39&-1.95 & 2.41& -0.003 & 0.014\
& cc-pVDZ &-1.87 & 2.33&-1.80 & 2.35& -0.008 & 0.032\
& pc-1 &-1.84 & 2.25&-1.80 & 2.27& -0.005 & 0.014\
& 6-31G\* &-1.54 & 1.94&-1.55 & 2.01& -0.012 & 0.038\
& 6-31+G\*\* &-1.43 & 1.78&-1.41 & 1.80& -0.002 & 0.006\
triple-zeta & 6-311+G\*\*&-0.93 & 1.25&-0.91 & 1.28& 0.000 & 0.009\
& TZVPP &-0.47 & 1.00&-0.48 & 1.04& -0.002 & 0.085\
& cc-pVTZ &-0.39 & 0.75&-0.30 & 1.04& -0.002 & 0.029\
& pc-2 &-0.25 & 0.55&-0.26 & 0.58& -0.001 & 0.002\
& TZ2P &-0.33 & 0.52&-0.25 & 0.81& -0.005 & 0.027\
&6-311+G(3d,2p)&-0.24 & 0.34&-0.18 & 0.35& 0.000 & 0.005\
& TZV(P+1)P&-0.19 & 0.29&-0.20 & 0.20& -0.002 & 0.085\
& 6-311+G(3df,2pd) &-0.07 & 0.17&-0.08 & 0.18& 0.000 & 0.002\
quadruple-zeta& cc-pVQZ&-0.03 & 0.16&-0.05 & 0.17& -0.001 & 0.005\
\
double-zeta & 6-31G\* &-1.40 & 1.82&-1.40 & 1.90&-0.012 & 0.042\
& 6-31+G\*\* &-1.30 & 1.52&-1.27 & 1.52&-0.001 & 0.006\
triple-zeta & cc-pVTZ &-0.15 & 0.63&-0.07 & 0.93& 0.002 & 0.029\
& 6-311+G(3df,2pd) & 0.20 & 0.61& 0.21 & 0.61& 0.000 & 0.002\
& TZ2P &-0.05 & 0.60& 0.12 & 0.48& 0.026 & 0.094\
------------ ------------------ ------- ------ ------- ------ -------- -------
Functional Basis set mean RMS mean RMS mean RMS
B97-1 3-21G -6.13 8.82 -6.22 8.87 -0.016 0.048
6-31G -5.95 9.22 -5.96 9.25 -0.002 0.031
DZP -2.22 2.73 -2.16 2.72 0.004 0.038
cc-pVDZ -2.08 2.56 -2.03 2.72 0.000 0.032
6-31G\* -1.75 2.21 -1.72 2.24 -0.003 0.034
6-31+G\*\* -1.63 2.17 -1.57 2.23 0.006 0.044
pc-1 -2.02 2.59 -1.97 2.63 0.003 0.038
6-311+G\*\* -1.16 1.71 -1.57 1.80 0.008 0.052
TZVPP -0.67 1.45 -0.60 1.58 0.006 0.045
cc-pVTZ -0.56 1.12 -0.37 1.09 0.010 0.037
pc-2 -0.41 1.07 -0.33 1.24 0.007 0.048
TZ2P -0.46 1.01 -0.23 1.12 0.013 0.043
6-311+G(3d,2p) -0.42 0.88 -0.26 1.00 0.007 0.047
TZV(P+1)P -0.35 0.84 -0.27 1.02 0.006 0.045
6-311+G(3df,2pd) -0.25 0.77 -0.16 0.98 0.007 0.048
cc-pVQZ -0.19 0.75 -0.12 0.95 0.006 0.045
pc-3 -0.16 0.74 -0.07 0.97 0.007 0.048
B3LYP 6-31G\* -1.65 2.21 -1.64 2.27 -0.005 0.035
6-31+G\*\* -1.55 2.24 -1.50 2.32 -0.005 0.045
cc-pVTZ -0.36 0.99 -0.37 1.09 0.008 0.037
6-311+G(3df,2pd) -0.01 0.92 0.06 1.17 0.007 0.050
TZ2P -0.22 1.04 -0.23 1.12 0.015 0.048
pc-2 -0.20 1.17 -0.13 1.24 0.006 0.050
------------ ------------------ ------- ------ ------- ------ -------- -------
: Errors (cm$^{-1}$) for equilibrium and vibrational ground state rotational constants (and difference between them) for several basis sets using the B3LYP and B97-1 functional, compared to our reference values. \[table4\]
------------ ------------------ -------- ------ ------ -------- ------ ------ -------- ------ ------
Functional Basis set 298.15 600 2000 298.15 600 2000 298.15 600 2000
B97-1 3-21G 1.13 1.03 2.36 0.19 0.49 2.26 1.93 2.57 3.38
6-31G 1.65 1.20 1.00 0.35 0.76 1.50 3.03 4.00 4.60
6-31G\* 0.29 0.36 0.65 0.06 0.14 0.62 0.55 0.67 0.86
6-31+G\*\* 0.50 0.40 0.76 0.11 0.24 0.81 0.84 1.15 1.53
6-311+G\*\* 0.50 0.40 0.94 0.10 0.24 0.84 0.75 1.06 1.53
DZP 0.56 0.40 0.72 0.12 0.26 0.70 0.96 1.28 1.54
cc-pVDZ 0.57 0.41 0.57 0.12 0.27 0.64 0.98 1.32 1.56
pc-1 0.46 0.36 0.57 0.10 0.22 0.68 0.80 1.08 1.41
TZVPP 0.35 0.29 0.75 0.07 0.16 0.57 0.53 0.74 0.95
cc-pVTZ 0.33 0.30 0.69 0.06 0.15 0.55 0.37 0.56 0.79
pc-2 0.28 0.23 0.73 0.05 0.12 0.45 0.34 0.50 0.64
TZ2P 0.31 0.29 0.55 0.04 0.14 0.56 0.35 0.57 0.81
6-311+G(3d,2p) 0.42 0.38 0.80 0.07 0.19 0.68 0.45 0.73 1.09
6-311+G(3df,2pd) 0.36 0.32 0.72 0.06 0.17 0.58 0.45 0.69 0.96
cc-pVQZ 0.25 0.24 0.65 0.05 0.13 0.44 0.36 0.54 0.71
pc-3 0.26 0.25 0.70 0.05 0.13 0.57 0.35 0.53 0.95
B3LYP 6-31G\* 0.34 0.39 0.51 0.06 0.16 0.47 0.54 0.69 0.81
6-31+G\*\* 0.52 0.41 0.67 0.11 0.24 0.70 0.84 1.15 1.46
cc-pVTZ 0.33 0.30 0.66 0.06 0.15 0.49 0.37 0.95 1.07
6-311+G(3df,2pd) 0.39 0.35 0.78 0.06 0.18 0.63 0.45 0.70 1.03
TZ2P 0.34 0.34 0.92 0.05 0.15 0.76 0.42 0.59 0.93
pc-2 0.32 0.28 0.78 0.05 0.14 0.49 0.36 0.56 0.76
------------ ------------------ -------- ------ ------ -------- ------ ------ -------- ------ ------
: RMS errors using different basis sets for thermodynamic functions at several temperatures using DFT anharmonic force fields\[table5\]
----------------- ---------- ------ ----- ------ ----- ------ ------
Type Method mean RMS mean RMS mean RMS
GGA BLYP -61 107 -60 107 -0.3 6.1
GGA HCTH/407 -27 54 -26 55 -1.3 6.7
GGA PBE -55 91 -53 91 -2.5 9.2
mGGA TPSS -29 61 -26 62 -2.8 11.1
Hybrid(AE) B3LYP -5 34 -2 34 -2.5 7.5
Hybrid(AE) B97-1 -7 32 -3 32 -4.0 10.3
Hybrid(AE) B97-2 9 33 11 37 -2.6 6.6
Hybrid(AE) PBE0 8 34 12 39 -3.8 9.1
Hybrid(AE) TPSSh -7 35 -4 35 -2.7 8.6
Hybrid(AE) mPW1B95 20 43 22 51 -2.1 12.8
Hybrid(TS) mPW1K 52 89 56 97 -4.2 9.8
Hybrid(TS) mPWB1K 49 86 50 93 -0.9 14.4
Hybrid(TS) BMK 20 58 26 58 -5.9 21.8
[*ab initio*]{} HF 105 324 113 329 -7.4 22.5
[*ab initio*]{} MP2 16 56 21 61 -5.0 12.7
[*ab initio*]{} MP2/pVTZ 16 45 22 53 -5.1 12.8
----------------- ---------- ------ ----- ------ ----- ------ ------
: Errors (cm$^{-1}$) in harmonic frequencies, fundamental frequencies, and anharmonic corrections for several methods.\[table6\]
------------ ---------- ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- -------
Type Method mean RMS mean RMS mean RMS
GGA BLYP -2.28 2.77 -2.19 2.81 0.014 0.051
GGA HCTH/407 -0.61 1.25 -0.50 1.30 0.005 0.040
GGA PBE -2.01 2.32 -1.84 2.28 0.018 0.057
mGGA TPSS -1.28 1.83 -1.19 1.92 0.001 0.039
Hybrid(AE) B3LYP -0.18 1.05 0.14 1.12 0.015 0.047
Hybrid(AE) B97-1 -0.42 1.01 -0.19 1.03 0.012 0.043
Hybrid(AE) B97-2 0.34 0.92 0.61 1.15 0.015 0.047
Hybrid(AE) PBE0 0.25 0.90 0.59 1.19 0.018 0.051
Hybrid(AE) TPSSh -0.95 1.66 -0.89 1.81 0.002 0.035
Hybrid(AE) mPW1B95 0.90 1.30 1.10 1.64 0.009 0.064
Hybrid(TS) mPW1K 1.76 2.05 2.00 2.42 0.018 0.051
Hybrid(TS) mPWB1K 1.93 2.19 2.30 2.66 0.018 0.051
Hybrid(TS) BMK 0.34 1.28 0.57 1.56 0.017 0.065
ab initio HF 3.22 3.77 3.60 4.28 0.022 0.079
ab initio MP2 -0.05 1.35 -0.02 1.46 0.005 0.042
ab initio MP2/pVTZ 0.12 1.06 0.23 1.07 0.013 0.102
------------ ---------- ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- -------
: Errors (cm$^{-1}$) for equilibrium and vibrational ground state rotational constants (and difference between them) for several exchange-correlation functionals. \[table7\]
------------ ---------- -------- ------ ------ -------- ------ ------ -------- ------ ------
Type Method 298.15 600 2000 298.15 600 2000 298.15 600 2000
GGA BLYP 0.94 0.96 1.09 0.15 0.43 1.48 1.08 1.69 2.51
GGA HCTH/407 0.64 0.56 0.62 0.09 0.29 0.96 0.63 1.07 1.61
GGA PBE 0.89 0.92 1.04 0.14 0.40 1.27 0.94 1.51 2.19
mGGA TPSS 0.62 0.46 0.95 0.11 0.22 0.89 0.62 0.94 1.37
hybrid(AE) B3LYP 0.55 0.39 0.90 0.08 0.22 0.79 0.54 0.82 1.14
hybrid(AE) B97-1 0.58 0.47 0.53 0.09 0.23 0.62 0.52 0.85 1.11
hybrid(AE) B97-2 0.45 0.41 0.64 0.06 0.22 0.71 0.44 0.81 1.17
hybrid(AE) PBE0 0.45 0.41 0.98 0.07 0.19 0.94 0.44 0.70 1.23
hybrid(AE) TPSSh 0.55 0.45 0.76 0.10 0.26 0.75 0.74 1.10 1.46
hybrid(AE) mPW1B95 0.55 0.42 0.90 0.08 0.15 0.85 0.47 0.59 1.10
hybrid(TS) mPW1K 0.70 0.86 0.91 0.08 0.29 1.40 0.60 1.04 1.94
hybrid(TS) mPWB1K 0.55 0.75 0.91 0.09 0.24 1.21 0.62 0.94 1.73
hybrid(TS) BMK 0.43 0.67 1.56 0.04 0.22 1.45 0.26 0.63 1.51
ab initio HF 1.60 2.09 1.62 0.19 0.70 3.00 1.26 2.32 4.21
ab initio MP2 0.44 0.63 0.80 0.05 0.20 1.05 0.34 0.66 1.30
------------ ---------- -------- ------ ------ -------- ------ ------ -------- ------ ------
: RMS errors for thermodynamic functions at several temperatures using DFT anharmonic force fields\[table8\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report on the structural and spectroscopic characterization of the multiferroic Fe$_2$Mo$_3$O$_8$. Synchrotron x-ray and neutron diffraction, as well as thermal expansion measurements reveal a lattice anomaly at $T_\mathrm{N}\simeq 60$K but do not show any symmetry lowering in the magnetically ordered state. The lattice parameter $c$ exhibits a non-monotonic behavior with a pronounced minimum around 200K, which is also reflected in an anomalous behavior of some of the observed infrared-active optical excitations and parallels the onset of short-range magnetic order, likely promoted by the quasi-2D nature of exchange interactions. The infrared reflectivity spectra measured between 5 and 300K in the frequency range of $100-8000$cm$^{-1}$ reveal most of the expected phonon modes in comparison with the eigenfrequencies obtained by density-functional calculations. The $A_1$ phonons show an overall hardening upon cooling, whereas a non-monotonic behavior is observed for some of the $E_1$ modes. These modes also show a strongly increased phonon lifetime below $T_\mathrm{N}$, which we associate with quenching of orbital degrees of freedom on the tetrahedrally coordinated Fe$^{2+}$ site through constraining the orbital moment direction in the magnetically ordered state. A similar increase is observed in the lifetime of the higher-lying $d$-$d$ excitations of the tetrahedral Fe$^{2+}$ site, which become clearly visible below $T_\mathrm{N}$ only.'
author:
- 'S. Reschke'
- 'A.A. Tsirlin'
- 'N. Khan'
- 'L. Prodan'
- 'V. Tsurkan'
- 'I. Kézsmárki'
- 'J. Deisenhofer'
date:
- 'April 23, 2020'
- 'April 23, 2020'
title: 'Structure, phonons, and orbital degrees of freedom in Fe$_2$Mo$_3$O$_8$'
---
Introduction
============
The transition-metal molybdenum oxides $A_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$ ($A$ = Mn, Fe, Co) exhibit a hexagonal structure in the polar space group $P6_3mc$ with the resulting polarization pointing along the $c$-axis [@McCarroll:1957; @Bertrand:1975; @LePage:1982; @Kurumaji:2015]. The crystal structure of [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Crystal\_structure\]. The transition metal ions occupy two different sites with octahedral (Fe1) and tetrahedral (Fe2) coordinations, while the Mo$^{4+}$ ions are located at octahedrally coordinated sites. With the onset of antiferromagnetic ordering of the transition-metal ions, typically occurring between ${\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{N}}}}{}= 40 - 60$K [@Bertrand:1975], these compounds become multiferroics. In zero magnetic field, they realize either a collinear easy-axis antiferromagnetic or a ferrimagnetic state, as observed in [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} [@Bertrand:1975; @McAlister:1983] and [Mn$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} [@McAlister:1983; @Kurumaji:2017], respectively.
The magnetic structure of [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{}, with simultaneous antiferromagnetic ordering of the spins on the tetrahedrally and octahedrally coordinated sites, is displayed in Fig. \[fig:Crystal\_structure\]. In the case of [Mn$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{}, the ferrimagnetic order is realized by ferromagnetic ordering of the spins both at, respectively, tetrahedral and octahedral sites, with the two being antiparallel. These two states are in fact close in energy. In Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$, the ferrimagnetic spin arrangement can be induced by applying external magnetic field [@Wang:2015] or substituting Fe by non-magnetic Zn ions [@Kurumaji:2015]. As a clear manifestation of the multiferroic character in the optical properties, magnetoelectric spin excitations were reported in [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} [@Kurumaji:2017a] and in Zn-doped [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{}, exhibiting an optical diode effect [@Yu:2018] and non-reciprocal gyrotropic birefringence [@Kurumaji:2017b], respectively.
Qualitatively, the multiferroic behavior of [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} can be understood within the polar $P6_3mc$ symmetry of its room-temperature crystal structure without invoking symmetry lowering. However, a recent spectroscopic study pinpointed additional IR- and Raman-active, presumably phonon modes appearing below ${\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{N}}}}{}$, and interpreted them as a signature of symmetry lowering [@Stanislavchuk:2019], although no direct measurement of the low-temperature crystal structure was attempted. Moreover, an *ab initio* study [@Solovyev:2019] failed to reproduce the antiferromagnetic order observed experimentally, thus raising the question whether the hexagonal room-temperature crystal structure is the right starting point for modeling the interesting physics of [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{}, or effects like charge separation and Jahn-Teller distortions on Fe sites with tetra- and octahedral coordination should be taken into account.
In this study, we report on the crystal structure as well as electronic and vibrational IR-active excitations of [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} as a function of temperature. Our structural data exclude a symmetry lowering with decreasing temperature, whereas subsequent band-structure calculations reveal orbital degrees of freedom that give rise to a sizable orbital moment on the tetrahedrally coordinated Fe site. These orbital degrees of freedom have unusual ramifications for the vibrational excitations, especially the $E_1$ phonon modes that show an unusual temperature dependence with a strongly increased lifetime in the magnetically ordered state. We thus establish orbital degrees of freedom of Fe$^{2+}$ as an important and previously overlooked ingredient of the [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} physics.
Methods
=======
Polycrystalline sample of [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} was prepared by a repeated annealing of FeO (99.999%) and MoO$_2$ (99%) in evacuated quartz ampoules at 1000$^\circ$C. [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} single crystals were grown by the chemical transport reaction method at temperatures between 950 and 900$^\circ$C with TeCl$_4$ as the transport agent. X-ray analysis of the crushed single crystals confirmed single phase of [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{}.
X-ray and neutron diffraction experiments were performed on the polycrystalline sample. The neutron data were collected in the temperature range $1.7-275$K at the HRPT diffractometer of the Swiss Neutron Source (SINQ) at the Paul Scherrer Institute (Villigen, Switzerland) using neutrons with the 1.494A wavelength. The sample was placed inside a vanadium can and cooled down in the standard Orange cryostat. High-resolution synchrotron x-ray diffraction was performed at several temperatures between 25K and 300K at the MSPD beamline [@Fauth:2013] of ALBA (Barcelona, Spain) using the wavelength of 0.3251A and the multi-analyzer detector. The powder sample was loaded into a spinning glass capillary and cooled down with the He-flow cryostat. The Jana2006 program [@jana2006] was used for the structure refinement.
Thermal expansion measurements were performed with the dilatometer described in Ref. using a PPMS from Quantum Design. The length change along the $c$ direction of a hexagonal-shaped crystal was measured. The background contribution has been measured separately and subtracted from the raw data.
Reflectivity measurements were performed on an as-grown $ab$-plane single crystal and on an $ac$-cut mosaic sample composed of two single crystals. By using the Bruker Fourier-transform IR-spectrometers IFS 113v and IFS 66v/S equipped with He-flow cryostats, the frequency range from 100 to 8000cm$^{-1}$ and the temperature range from 5 to 300K could be covered. The temperature dependence of eigenfrequencies $\omega_{0}$ and dampings $\gamma$ of the phonon modes was analyzed by an oscillator model with the RefFIT program developed by A. Kuzmenko [@Kuzmenko:2018; @Kuzmenko:2005]. The optical conductivity was calculated from the reflectivity by Kramers-Kronig transformation with the $\omega^{-1}$ high-frequency extrapolation, followed by the $\omega^{-4}$ extrapolation for frequencies above 800000cm$^{-1}$.
Band structures and orbital energies were obtained *ab initio* from density-functional (DFT) calculations performed in the full-potential FPLO code [@Koepernik:1999]. Additionally, we employed VASP [@Kresse:1996a; @Kresse:1996b] for calculating phonon frequencies using frozen displacements. The calculations were performed for the crystal structures refined at 1.7K and 275K. The Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof exchange-correlation potential [@Perdew:1996] was combined with the mean-field DFT+$U$ correction for correlation effects in the Fe $3d$ shell. The on-site Coulomb repulsion $U_d=5$eV, Hund’s coupling $J_d=1$eV, and atomic-limit double-counting correction were applied following previous studies [@Xiang:2008]. The calculated phonon frequencies are rather insensitive to the type of magnetic order, as well as to thermal expansion [@supplement], but drastic changes in the phonon frequencies were observed when DFT was used instead of DFT+$U$, and a non-magnetic (spin-unpolarized) calculation was performed [@supplement]. Such plain-DFT results reproduce the calculated phonon frequencies reported in Ref. , but show a quite poor agreement with the experiment [@supplement].
Results
=======
Crystal structure {#sec:structure}
-----------------
Both x-ray and neutron diffraction data are compatible with the hexagonal $P6_3mc$ symmetry at all temperatures down to 1.7K. Neutron data showed increased intensities of several low-angle reflections, most notably $100$, below ${\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{N}}}}{}$, whereas x-ray intensities remained unchanged (Fig. \[fig:npatterns\]). This indicates that the onset of magnetic order in [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} has only a weak influence on the crystal structure, and changes in the neutron data are mostly related to the magnetic scattering. Indeed, neutron diffraction data below ${\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{N}}}}{}$ were successfully refined using the same $P6_3mc$ model (Table \[tab:atomic\]) along with the antiferromagnetic structure proposed in Ref. , where both Fe1 and Fe2 moments point along the six-fold axis (magnetic space group $P6_3'm'c$). The in-plane components of the magnetic moments are zero within the sensitivity of our measurement and in agreement with the vanishing magnetic susceptibility measured in field applied along the $c$-axis [@Strobel:1982].
The magnetic structure of [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} entails the Fe1 and Fe2 moments as independent parameters. However, the refinement was not sensitive to their ratio, so we eventually constrained the two and arrived at 4.61(2)$\mu_\mathrm{B}$ at 1.7K in excellent agreement with the earlier work [@Bertrand:1975]. The ordered moment is somewhat higher than the spin-only value of 4$\mu_\mathrm{B}$ for high-spin Fe$^{2+}$, suggesting a sizable orbital contribution.
![(a)–(d) Temperature evolution of the $100$ (a,b) and $204$ (c,d) reflections in the neutron (a,c) and synchrotron (b,d) data. Individual patterns are offset for clarity. (e) Rietveld refinement of the 1.7K neutron data using the $P6_3mc$ symmetry of the crystal structure, with the tick marks showing peak positions and the line in the bottom showing the difference pattern. (f) Temperature evolution of the ordered magnetic moment ($\mu_{\text{Fe1}}=\mu_{\text{Fe2}}$) obtained from the neutron data.[]{data-label="fig:npatterns"}](FIG_02.pdf)
Neither atomic coordinates nor thermal displacement parameters showed any abrupt changes around ${\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{N}}}}{}$. The atomic coordinates are nearly constant within the temperature range of our study, whereas the displacement parameters systematically increase upon heating [@supplement]. The in-plane lattice parameter $a$ also increases upon heating due to thermal expansion (Fig. \[fig:nparam\]a), but the out-of-plane lattice parameter $c$ reveals a rather unusual behavior with a minimum around 200K and a kink at ${\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{N}}}}{}$ (Fig. \[fig:nparam\]b). This kink is even better visible in the linear thermal-expansion coefficient obtained from dilatometry (Fig. \[fig:nparam\]e).
site $x/a$ $y/b$ $z/c$ $U_{\rm iso}$
----- ------ ----------- ----------- ------------ ---------------
Fe1 $2b$ $\frac13$ $\frac23$ 0.95310(1) 0.12(2)
0.95315(1) 0.50(4)
Fe2 $2b$ $\frac13$ $\frac23$ 0.51260(1) 0.17(2)
0.51257(1) 0.63(4)
Mo $6c$ 0.1461(1) $-x$ 0.25 0.02(2)
0.1463(2) 0.25 0.25(3)
O1 $2a$ 0 0 0.39048(1) 0.29(4)
0.39051(1) 0.51(7)
O2 $2b$ $\frac13$ $\frac23$ 0.14643(1) 0.46(4)
0.14649(1) 0.61(7)
O3 $6c$ 0.4880(1) $-x$ 0.36299(2) 0.29(2)
0.4874(2) 0.36288(1) 0.59(4)
O4 $6c$ 0.1665(1) $-x$ 0.63421(1) 0.31(2)
0.1664(2) 0.63409(1) 0.61(4)
: \[tab:atomic\] Structural parameters of Fe$_2$Mo$_3$O$_8$ at 1.7K (upper rows) and 275K (bottom rows), as determined from Rietveld refinements of the neutron diffraction data. The atomic displacement parameters $U_{\rm iso}$ are given in $10^{-2}$A$^2$. The lattice parameters are $a=5.77499(2)$A, $c=10.0636(1)$A at 1.7K and $a=5.78021(4)$A, $c=10.0608(2)$A at 275K, and the space group is $P6_3mc$. The refinement residuals $R_I/R_p$ are $0.009/0.034$ at 1.7K and $0.011/0.056$ at 275K, with the higher $R_p$ due to the lower statistics of the 275K data.
A weak lattice anomaly at ${\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{N}}}}{}$ is not unexpected, but the minimum in the $c$ parameter at 200K has no counterpart in thermodynamic or spectroscopic measurements reported so far. A closer inspection of the data suggested two further effects that appear below this temperature. First, reflection broadening becomes more anisotropic, as can be seen from the increase in the $S_{202}$ parameter (Fig. \[fig:nparam\]c) which accounts for the anisotropic contribution to the reflection width due to strain [@Stephens:1999]. This parameter is non-zero even at room temperature but remains nearly temperature-independent down to 200K, increases below this temperature, and saturates below ${\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{N}}}}{}$. The change in the peak width is hardly noticeable in the neutron data but can be recognized in the high-resolution synchrotron data that show slightly broader $h0l$ reflections below 200K (Fig. \[fig:npatterns\]d).
Second, neutron diffraction data collected right above ${\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{N}}}}{}$ show a broad diffuse feature around the position of the $100$ reflection. This reflection then attains the largest magnetic contribution in the ordered state, so the broad feature represents magnetic diffuse scattering. It is gradually suppressed upon heating and fully disappears around $200$K, where the background of the neutron diffraction pattern develops a weak downward curvature typical of paramagnetic scattering (Fig. \[fig:nparam\]d).
![(a)–(c) Temperature evolution of the lattice parameters (a,b) and strain parameter $S_{202}$ (c) according to neutron diffraction data. (d) Temperature evolution of the magnetic diffuse scattering. (e) Linear thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha=(1/L_0)(dL/dT)$ determined by dilatometry for $\Delta L\|c$. []{data-label="fig:nparam"}](FIG_03.pdf)
These observations suggest that short-range magnetic order appears in [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} below 200K. Its formation may be linked to the minimum in the $c$ parameter, because the onset of spin-spin correlations will often facilitate lattice expansion if it leads to an increase in the exchange energy and stabilization of magnetic order [@Chatterji:2011]. The relation of the minimum in $c$ to the increase in the reflection broadening, $S_{202}$, is less obvious at this point, since anisotropic strain exists in the system even at room temperature. Such a broadening is usually caused by defects like antiphase boundaries or stacking faults, while its further increase below 200K may be a mere consequence of the non-monotonic temperature evolution of the lattice parameter $c$ and does not indicate tendency toward symmetry lowering. Indeed, in systems with symmetry lowering an anisotropic strain broadening will usually precede the symmetry-lowering phase transition and diverge upon approaching the transition from above [@Wang:2018]. This does not happen in [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{}, where the high-resolution synchrotron data collected both right above and well below ${\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{N}}}}{}$ reveal only a weak broadening of the $h0l$ reflections (Fig. \[fig:npatterns\]d).
Regarding the transition at ${\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{N}}}}{}$, it does not lead to any symmetry lowering either. Dilatometry reveals a weak thermal hysteresis around 60K (Fig. \[fig:nparam\]e). On the other hand, the linear thermal expansion coefficient develops a $\lambda$-type anomaly typical of a second-order phase transition. Therefore, we interpret the transition at ${\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{N}}}}{}$ as weakly first-order and exclude any significant structural changes upon the formation of the magnetically ordered state in [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{}.
Orbital degrees of freedom {#sec:orbital}
--------------------------
We now use accurate crystallographic data to assess orbital degrees of freedom in [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} that features octahedrally and tetrahedrally coordinated Fe$^{2+}$ with the $d^6$ electronic configuration. Both ions should be in a high-spin state according to the large magnetic moment they exhibit, and consequently possess orbital degrees of freedom when the octahedra and tetrahedra are not distorted. These orbital degrees of freedom may or may not be quenched in the real structure owing to weak distortions present therein.
Energies of the crystal-field levels in [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} are obtained from DFT by projecting the calculated band structure (FPLO) onto Wannier functions derived from Fe $d$ states with suitable symmetries [^1]. We find that the lower-lying triply-degenerate level of the octahedrally coordinated Fe$^{2+}$ is split into the $a_1$ and $e_1$ manifolds, whereas the higher-lying doubly-degenerate level is not split [@supplement]. Likewise, for the tetrahedrally coordinated Fe$^{2+}$ the lower-lying doubly-degenerate level is not split, and the higher-lying triply-degenerate level undergoes the splitting (Fig. \[fig:orbitals\]). The octahedral crystal-field splitting ($\Delta_o\simeq 0.68$eV) is about twice larger than the tetrahedral crystal-field splitting ($\Delta_t\simeq 0.33$eV), as expected from the atomic theory.
![Crystal-field levels of the Fe$^{2+}$ ions in [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{}, as determined by DFT. The energies are given with respect to the Fermi level of the uncorrelated band structure. The inset for the tetrahedrally coordinated site shows weak splitting of the lowest doublet by spin-orbit coupling (SOC).[]{data-label="fig:orbitals"}](FIG_04.pdf)
The quenching of orbital degrees of freedom hinges upon weak splittings of the triply-degenerate states. In the case of the octahedrally coordinated Fe$^{2+}$, the $a_1$ level lies below the $e_1$ level and can be occupied by the minority-spin electron of Fe$^{2+}$, so that orbital degrees of freedom are quenched. On the other hand, the minority-spin electron of the tetrahedrally coordinated Fe$^{2+}$ remains on the doubly-degenerate $e_1$ level, with orbital degrees of freedom remaining unquenched. This qualitative analysis is corroborated by the full-relativistic DFT+$U$ calculations that open a band gap of about 1.6eV [@supplement] and yield a large orbital moment of 0.5$\mu_\mathrm{B}$ on the tetrahedrally coordinated Fe$^{2+}$ and a negligibly small orbital moment of less than 0.01$\mu_\mathrm{B}$ on the octahedrally coordinated Fe$^{2+}$. The size of the orbital moment is comparable to the excess magnetic moment obtained by subtracting the spin-only moment of 4$\mu_\mathrm{B}$ from the ordered moment of $4.61(2)$$\mu_\mathrm{B}$ determined experimentally by neutron diffraction (Sec. \[sec:structure\]), although in the latter case only the site-averaged magnetic moment is available.
Optical spectroscopy
--------------------
Reflectivity spectra of [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} have been measured in the frequency range between 100 and 8000cm$^{-1}$ for two polarizations of the incoming light beam, $E^{\omega}\perp c$ and $E^{\omega}\parallel c$. Figure \[fig:broadband\_R\] shows the reflectivity for both polarizations at 5 and 100K, i.e. for temperatures below and above the magnetic ordering temperature of $T_{\mathrm{N}}=60$K. At frequencies below 900cm$^{-1}$, several excitation features including the phonon modes can be observed. Their temperature dependence will be analyzed in detail below. For frequencies around 3500cm$^{-1}$ several excitations can be found that broaden considerably above [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}. These excitations can be ascribed to [$d$-$d$ transitions]{} of the tetrahedral Fe$^{2+}$ sites, which are commonly found in this frequency range [@Low:1960a; @Feiner:1982; @Mualin:2002; @Ohgushi:2005; @Fedorov:2006; @Laurita:2015; @Evans:2017], whereas the [$d$-$d$ transitions]{} of octahedral Fe$^{2+}$ are usually located at higher energies [@Stoehr:2006; @Riedel:2007].
\[sec:phonons\]Far-infrared excitations and phonons
---------------------------------------------------
The number and symmetry of the allowed zone-center IR active phonon modes for [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} with space group [$P6_{3}mc$]{} [@Bertrand:1975] are given by the irreducible representations of the normal modes, of which the nine one-dimensional $A_1$-modes should be observable for [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{} and the 12 doubly degenerate $E_1$-modes for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma &= 9A_1 + 12E_1 &&\text{(Raman- and IR active)}\nonumber \\
&+ 13E_2 &&\text{(Raman-active)}\nonumber \\
&+ A_1 +E_1 &&\text{(acoustic)}\nonumber \\
&+ 3A_2 + 10B_1 +3B_2 &&\text{(silent).} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Figure \[fig:FIR\_R\] shows the FIR reflectivity spectra of [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} for both [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} and [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{} at three selected temperatures. The optical conductivity calculated via Kramers-Kronig transformation from the 5K reflectivity data is shown in Fig. \[fig:FIR\_sigma\]. For [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{}, the reflectivity data above 150cm$^{-1}$ has been used for the calculation.
In the following, we will distinguish three different types of excitation features in the FIR spectra, depending on the temperature range of their occurrence:\
(i) excitations visible already at room temperature, which are directly compared to IR active phonons of $A_1$ or $E_1$ symmetry, (ii) the spectral feature in the 600-700cm$^{-1}$ range shown in detail in Fig. \[fig:FIR\_R\](c); this feature occurs below 200K concomitantly with the minimum in the $c$-axis lattice parameter (see Fig. \[fig:nparam\]), and (iii) excitations observed only in the magnetically ordered state below [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{} and indicated by the black arrows in Fig. \[fig:FIR\_R\].\
All experimentally observed modes and the calculated phonon frequencies are summarized in Table \[tab:TAB\_01\].
We start with the excitations of the first group and compare their frequencies with phonon eigenfrequencies obtained from DFT+$U$ calculations. To this end, peaks in the experimental optical conductivity are used, as indicated in Fig. \[fig:FIR\_sigma\]. Note that the features showing up at 215, 305, 335, and 520cm$^{-1}$ for [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{}[ ]{}(indicated by the green arrows in Fig. \[fig:FIR\_sigma\]) stem from a slight polarization leakage of the [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} direction.
For [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} nine modes are observable below 800cm$^{-1}$ already at room temperature and can be compared to the twelve calculated eigenfrequencies of the expected $E_1$ modes in the upper part of Table \[tab:TAB\_01\]. Similarly, for [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{} all observed eight modes present already at room temperature below 800cm$^{-1}$ are assigned to the expected $A_1$ phonon modes. In the latter case, there is an excellent agreement between the experimental and calculated frequencies. Only for the lowest-lying $A_1$-mode, we cannot identify an experimental counterpart, because at around 190cm$^{-1}$ there is an artefact resulting from our experimental setup. However, no mode was reported in this frequency range in Ref. [@Stanislavchuk:2019].
For [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{}, the agreement for the $E_1$ modes is still good but less favorable, and the counterparts of three modes could not be identified experimentally. The excitation features present around 850cm$^{-1}$ should not be considered as phonons, even if they are present already at room temperature for both polarizations and have been assigned to a one-dimensional representation $A_1$ in Ref.[@Stanislavchuk:2019]. First, these features develop a two-peak structure below 200K (see Fig. \[fig:FIR\_R\](d)), where short-range magnetic order presumably sets in. Second, at the lowest temperatures the energy differences between the two modes (see Figs. \[fig:FIR\_sigma\](c) and (d) and Tab. \[tab:TAB\_01\]) are 13cm$^{-1}$ and 26cm$^{-1}$ for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} and [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{}, respectively. These splittings are of the same size as the ones observed for the electronic $d$-$d$ excitations of the tetrahedral Fe$^{2+}$ sites, which will be discussed below. This suggests that the excitations around 850cm$^{-1}$ are of electronic origin. Besides, no phonon eigenfrequencies were found in our calculations in this frequency range.
----- --------- --------- --------- ----- ---------
$E_{1}$ $A_{1}$
70K 5K DFT+$U$ 70K 5K DFT+$U$
135 129 162 201
191 269 269 262
218 214 223 371 371 365
286 447 446 444
290 292 312 458 457 454
333 335 351 558 556 558
454 452 455 643 643 651
473 727 727 734
473 471 481 782 782 787
510 514 522
561 559 577
751 754 750
836 837 831 830
850 850 857 856
613 596
697 692
270 230
426
468
----- --------- --------- --------- ----- ---------
: \[tab:TAB\_01\] Summary of experimental excitation frequencies (in cm$^{-1}$) measured at 70K and 5K. Upper part: Modes already visible at room temperature and corresponding values obtained from the DFT+$U$ calculations (1.7K crystal structure, antiferromagnetic order). Middle part: excitations concomitant with the onset of short-range magnetic order. Lower part: excitations concomitant with the onset of long-range magnetic order and appearing only below [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}.
The temperature dependence of the modes below 800cm$^{-1}$ was obtained by fitting the reflectivity spectra with a sum of Lorentz and Fano oscillators for the complex dielectric constant, $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon &=\epsilon_\infty \nonumber\\ &+\sum_k\frac{\omega_{p,k}^2}{\omega_{0,k}^2-\omega^2-i\gamma_k \omega}\left( 1+i\frac{\omega_{q,k}}{\omega} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\omega_{p,k}\omega_{q,k}}{\omega_{0,k}\omega} \right)^2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $\omega_0$ denotes eigenfrequency, $\gamma$ the damping, and $\omega_p$ the plasma frequency. $\omega_q$ accounts for the asymmetry of the Fano oscillator, which was used to describe the asymmetric lineshapes of the four lowest-lying modes for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} and for the 269 and 458cm$^{-1}$ modes for [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{}. For $\omega_q =0$ the symmetric Lorentzian lineshape is recovered. The fano lineshape has been utilized to achieve a better fit for these six modes, but it is not clear at present, whether the asymmetry originates from the coupling to continuum background of other degrees of freedom or not. The values for the high-frequency dielectric constant $\epsilon_\infty$ obtained at the lowest temperature are $7.6$ for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} and $5.8$ for [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{}).
For [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} at the highest temperatures the reflectivity was fitted with nine oscillators in agreement with the number of modes discernible at room temperature. Below 200K, two additional oscillators were included to take into account the broad features in the region between 600 and 700cm$^{-1}$. To describe the modes emerging below [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}, two additional modes were included. However, the mode at 468cm$^{-1}$ is too weak to be included in the fit (see Fig. \[fig:Fit\_examples\]). Similarly, for [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{} the modes listed in Table \[tab:TAB\_01\] were included in the fitting procedure, except for the ones at 230 and 447cm$^{-1}$, which have an extremely small spectral weight and are close to the experimental resolution limit. Finally, additional oscillators were included to account for the polarization leakage features.
Figure \[fig:Fit\_examples\] shows representative fits of the experimental reflectivity data measured at 5K for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} and [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{} with the oscillator model described above. For both polarization directions the fit describes the experimental data quite well.
The temperature dependence of $\omega_0$ and $\gamma$ of the strongest phonon modes for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} is shown in Figure \[fig:Fitparameter\_Eperp\]. For all these modes clear anomalies of both $\omega_0$ and $\gamma$ can be found at [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}. Already above [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}, the eigenfrequencies of some modes show a non-monotonic evolution in the temperature range between 150 and 200K, correlating with the minimum observed in the $c$-axis lattice constant. The changes below [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{} are even more pronounced. In particular, the damping $\gamma$ of all these modes is abruptly reduced when entering the antiferromagnetically ordered phase. This overall decrease of $\gamma$ at [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{} is relatively strong, for the modes at the lowest frequencies the damping changes by one order of magnitude.
The temperature dependence of $\omega_0$ and $\gamma$ of the six strongest IR modes for polarization [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{} is shown in Fig. \[fig:Fitparameter\_Epara\]. In this polarization direction, the phonons are less affected by the magnetic ordering. Above [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}, the eigenfrequencies of all modes monotonically increase with lowering the temperature, which is an expected behavior for anharmonic solids that stems from thermal expansion and phonon-phonon interactions [@Cowley:1963; @Cowley:1965; @Klemens:1966; @Menendez:1984]. Except the phonon mode located around 556cm$^{-1}$, the eigenfrequencies for [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{} experience either no or only slight changes at [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}. The 556cm$^{-1}$ phonon reveals a drop in $\omega_0$ below [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}, however, in this case the nearby [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} active mode, which can be seen due to polarization leakage, hampers the fitting. In contrast to the [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} active modes, the damping $\gamma$ shows an overall monotonically decreasing behavior with lowering temperature. Besides, $\gamma$ is not significantly affected by the magnetic ordering and shows a smooth behavior upon crossing [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}.
The hardening of the phonon modes upon cooling is also in line with the DFT+$U$ results obtained for the 1.7K and 275K crystal structures. Most of the modes are expected to harden [@supplement]. For example, the frequencies of the $A_1$ modes should increase, on average, by 1cm$^{-1}$, which is indeed observed experimentally (Fig. \[fig:Fitparameter\_Epara\]). A similar hardening trend is expected for the $E_1$ modes from the DFT+$U$ calculations, but most of them show a different behavior: some of them soften (135 and 290cm$^{-1}$), some remain temperature-independent (218 and 510cm$^{-1}$), or even behave non-monotonically (454 and 473cm$^{-1}$) between 300K and [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}. In fact, DFT+$U$ calculations for the antiferromagnetic spin configuration yield higher frequencies than in the ferromagnetic case [@supplement]. Therefore, the onset of antiferromagnetic short-range order below 200K should generally harden the $E_1$ modes, which is not the case for at least half of them. However, spin-phonon coupling [@Baltensperger:1968] can lead to such effects already in the paramagnetic phase of exchange coupled systems, as reported, for example, for ferrimagnetic FeCr$_2$S$_4$ [@Rudolf:2005], or in frustrated spinel oxides [@Kant:2009].
We now discuss additional modes appearing in the spectra below 200K (group ii) and below [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{} (group iii). The broad feature appearing below 200K and highlighted in Fig. \[fig:FIR\_R\](c) has been fitted with two Lorentzian oscillators. Fig. \[fig:Fitparam\_broad\_feature\] shows the temperature dependence of their $\omega_0$, $\gamma$, and the total oscillator strength $\Delta\epsilon$. No phonons of suitable symmetry are expected in this frequency range, and the spectral feature is indeed much broader than the typical phonon resonance. Its overall intensity follows the increase in the $c$-lattice parameter (Fig. \[fig:nparam\]b) and becomes saturated below [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}, suggesting short-range magnetic order as the origin of this feature and magnetic degrees of freedom closely involved. The eigenfrequency (Fig. \[fig:Fitparam\_broad\_feature\](a)) of the upper mode is nearly constant between 5 and 200K within the experimental accuracy. For the lower-lying mode, $\omega_0$ exhibits a sudden drop when entering the antiferromagnetially ordered phase. The damping (Fig.\[fig:Fitparam\_broad\_feature\](b)) of the lower mode is constant within the error bar. For the excitation with higher frequency, $\gamma$ increases with increasing temperature above [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}.
Finally, several additional modes are observed below [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{} only. Their frequencies are listed in the lower part of Table \[tab:TAB\_01\]. There are three additional modes for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} at 270, 426, and 468cm$^{-1}$ and one additional mode at 230cm$^{-1}$ for [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{} (arrows in Fig. \[fig:FIR\_R\](a) and red dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:FIR\_sigma\]). The eigenfrequencies and occurrence of these modes below [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{} are in agreement with the spectra reported in Ref. [@Stanislavchuk:2019]. In comparison with the calculated eigenfrequency of 286cm$^{-1}$ and 473cm$^{-1}$ without direct counterpart, the additional modes at 270cm$^{-1}$ 468cm$^{-1}$ could correspond to two of the three missing $E_1$ modes of the hexagonal [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} structure. However, the two other modes at 426cm$^{-1}$ and 230cm$^{-1}$ lie far away from any of the calculated frequencies without experimental counterpart. Since these modes appear at low temperatures only, it is tempting to assign them to a symmetry lowering below [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{} as suggested in [@Stanislavchuk:2019], but our diffraction data exclude this scenario. A third possibility is that these additional excitations are of mixed nature, because excitations of electronic origin are also possible in [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{}, as we discuss below.
\[sec:ddTrans\][$d$-$d$ transitions]{} in the mid-infrared
----------------------------------------------------------
We complete our spectroscopic characterization by analyzing MIR reflectivity spectra for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} and [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{}. The excitations observed between 3300 and 3700cm$^{-1}$ (Fig. \[fig:MIR\_reflectivity\]) can be ascribed to the [$d$-$d$ transitions]{} of the tetrahedral Fe$^{2+}$ ions [@Stanislavchuk:2019], which are typically found in this frequency range [@Low:1960a; @Feiner:1982; @Mualin:2002; @Ohgushi:2005; @Fedorov:2006; @Laurita:2015; @Evans:2017]. The excitation energy yields $\Delta_t\simeq 3500$cm$^{-1}$ (0.43eV), which is somewhat larger than found from DFT (0.33eV), probably due to the correlation and multiplet effects neglected in the calculation.
For both polarization directions the [$d$-$d$ transitions]{} show up as sharp features in the reflectivity at low temperatures. With increasing temperature the [$d$-$d$ transitions]{} become gradually suppressed and considerably broadened when approaching [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}. Above [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}, the [$d$-$d$ transitions]{} remain visible as weak and broad features in the reflectivity spectra. Thus, the temperature dependence of the linewidth of the [$d$-$d$ transitions]{} strongly resembles that of the damping $\gamma$ for the phonon modes active for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{}.
The [$d$-$d$ transitions]{} show a clear selection rule. For [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} the spectrum is dominated by three excitations located at 3472, 3486 and 3498cm$^{-1}$, while for [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{} one excitation can be observed at 3447cm$^{-1}$. The excitation energies have been determined from the maxima of the dielectric loss $\epsilon_2$, which is shown in Fig. \[fig:MIR\_epsilon\] for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} (a) and [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{} (b) for selected temperatures between 10 and 70K.
The energies of the mid-infrared excitations observed in our spectra and in Ref. [@Stanislavchuk:2019] are summarized in Table \[tab:dd-Trans\]. The most intense excitations observed in MIR are in agreement with the data reported in Ref. [@Stanislavchuk:2019], but the additional sample-dependent broad excitation features in the reflectivity spectrum of Ref. [@Stanislavchuk:2019] for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} around 3000cm$^{-1}$ are absent in our spectra.
The presence of several [$d$-$d$ transitions]{} for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} stems from the fact that the energy levels shown in Fig. \[fig:orbitals\] are split by the spin-orbit coupling. The $e_1$ doublets produce five evenly spaced levels [@Low:1960; @Slack:1966] and generate multiple absorption lines that can be clearly resolved at temperatures below [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}. Three lines observed for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} are separated from each other by 13cm$^{-1}$, while the line observed for [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{} is separated from them by twice this value (26cm$^{-1}$) as indicated in Fig. \[fig:MIR\_epsilon\]. In addition, the same energy separations have been observed in the FIR regime for the excitations in the range 830-860cm$^{-1}$, generating an unusual set of electronic energy levels for the tetrahedral Fe sites. Note that an unusual level scheme had been addressed previously in connection with the interpretation of Mössbauer data [@Varret:1972].
These equidistant energy separations of 13cm$^{-1}$ suggest that the fine structure of the levels originates from the lowest-lying electronic states split by spin-orbit coupling [@Low:1960] as depicted in Fig. \[fig:orbitals\] . In addition, a recent study of the low-energy excitation in Zn-doped [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} revealed a vibronic excitation of the tetrahedral Fe$^{2+}$ ions with an onset at 12cm$^{-1}$ [@Csizi:2020], which strongly supports this assignment. From the spacing of $6\lambda^2/\Delta_t=13$cm$^{-1}$ we estimate the spin-orbit coupling constant $\lambda\simeq 87$cm$^{-1}$, which is on par with other compounds containing Fe$^{2+}$ [@Slack:1966; @Laurita:2015].
This work Ref. [@Stanislavchuk:2019] Polarization
----------- ---------------------------- ---------------------
3440 (R)
3446 3448 (IR,R) $E^{w} \parallel c$
3472 3467 (IR,R) $E^{w} \perp c$
3485 3481 (IR,R) $E^{w} \perp c$
3498 3494 (IR,R) $E^{w} \perp c$
: \[tab:dd-Trans\] Energies of the observed mid-infrared excitations at 5K in comparison to the observed Raman (R) and infrared-active (IR) modes reported in Ref. [@Stanislavchuk:2019]. The values are given in cm$^{-1}$.
Discussion and Summary
======================
Several scenarios have been proposed for [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} in the recent literature. In Ref. , symmetry lowering was inferred from the additional, presumably phonon modes appearing at low temperatures, whereas the authors of Ref. speculated on the possibility of an orbital ordering, which should also lead to a symmetry lowering. Alternatively, they put forward charge separation between the octahedral and tetrahedral sites as a microscopic mechanism that does not require symmetry lowering [@Solovyev:2019]. Our low-temperature structural data exclude all these possibilities. No signs of symmetry lowering have been observed down to 1.7K. Moreover, the local environment of both Fe sites does not change with temperature and remains typical for Fe$^{2+}$. The absence of charge separation is confirmed by the bond-valence-sum (BVS) analysis of interatomic distances [@Brown:1985] that serves as a sensitive probe of Fe valence in mixed-valence oxides [@Senn:2012; @Ovsyannikov:2016]. Using experimental structural data at 1.7K, we estimate BVS of 2.01 on the tetrahedrally coordinated site and 2.15 on the octahedrally coordinated site, which clearly rules out the Fe$^{1+}$–Fe$^{3+}$ scenario advocated by Ref. .
Our data also show that orbital degrees of freedom of the octahedrally coordinated Fe$^{2+}$ site are quenched by the trigonal distortion. This quenching does not occur for the tetrahedrally coordinated site, but in that case no Jahn-Teller distortion is expected either. Spin-orbit coupling lifts the degeneracy and creates a significant orbital moment that contributes to the ordered magnetic moment below $T_N$. With the experimental value of 4.61(2)$\mu_\mathrm{B}$ at 1.7K, the ordered moment clearly exceeds its spin-only value, thus confirming the formation of the orbital moment and, consequently, spin-orbit coupling as the primary mechanism lifting orbital degeneracy of the tetrahedrally coordinated Fe$^{2+}$ site in [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{}.
Another, and perhaps less anticipated effect of the orbital degrees of freedom is the anomalous behavior of the $E_1$ phonon modes, including the non-monotonic temperature evolution of their frequencies and the abrupt increase in the phonon lifetime upon entering the magnetically ordered state. The fact that these features are only observed in the $E_1$ channel suggests their relation to the electronic levels of the $e_1$ symmetry, where orbital degeneracy occurs. Indeed, orbital fluctuations can occur through the fluctuating direction of the orbital moment. It should be parallel to the spin moment of Fe$^{2+}$, but otherwise is not constrained. In the absence of magnetic order, the orbital moment of Fe$^{2+}$ can point along $c$ or along $-c$, which are two different and distinguishable directions in the polar crystal structure of [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{}. Internal fields that set in below [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{} fix the direction of the spin moment on a given Fe site and, therefore, quench orbital fluctuations. This quenching may affect the lifetime of the $E_1$ phonons.
Concerning the number of phonon modes, we identified eight out of the nine expected $A_1$-modes showing an excellent agreement with our DFT+$U$ calculation and nine out of twelve $E_1$ modes with a less satisfactory agreement. The additional weak modes in the range of 830-860cm$^{-1}$ and the broad absorption feature at 600-700cm$^{-1}$ undergo changes at around 200 K, indicating their relation to the minimum in the temperature dependence of the lattice parameter $c$ and the associated onset of short-range magnetic order. None of these modes can be interpreted as pure phonons. They probably have a combined vibrational and electronic origin.
The additional modes for [$E^{\omega}\perp c$]{} and [$E^{\omega}\parallel c$]{} observed below $T_N$ may not be pure phonons either, as magnetic degrees of freedom allow for combined phonon and magnon excitations. Moreover, it may be difficult to track experimentally, whether these modes are present in the magnetically ordered state only, or exist at all temperatures and simply become visible around [$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}, because their lifetime increased, similar to the $E_1$ phonons (Fig. \[fig:Fitparameter\_Eperp\]). In this case, a combination of electronic and phonon excitations becomes another plausible scenario. The splitting of the $e_1$ doublets (Fig. \[fig:orbitals\]) creates low-energy excitations that are optically allowed [@Slack:1967] and couple to phonons, sometimes in a very intricate way [@Slack:1969]. An unambiguous assignment of these coupled modes appears to be difficult even for single Fe$^{2+}$ ions [@Slack:1969; @Ham:1971; @Vogel:1980], let alone the concentrated Fe system of [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} with additional magnetic degrees of freedom appearing below 200K, where short-range magnetic order sets in. Our finding of similar energy separations of the $d$-$d$ excitations around 3500cm$^{-1}$ and the excitations around 830-860cm$^{-1}$ indicate an unusual electronic level scheme of the tetrahedral Fe$^{2+}$ sites, which might originate from vibronic couplings.
In summary, our crystallographic study of the [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} multiferroic confirmed its robust hexagonal symmetry down to low temperatures. Orbital degrees of freedom are quenched on the octahedrally coordinated Fe$^{2+}$ site but remain active on the tetrahedrally coordinated site, where spin-orbit coupling generates a sizable orbital moment. The anomalous temperature dependence of the $E_1$ phonon modes with their largely increased lifetime in the magnetically ordered state also indicates the importance of orbital degrees of freedom, possibly via constraining the orbital moment direction in the antiferromagnetic state. The electronic excitations associated with the Fe$^{2+}$ ions on the tetrahedral sites suggest a splitting of the ground and first excited state by 13cm$^{-1}$, in agreement with the direct observation of a low-energy mode, which was reported recently for Zn-doped [Fe$_{2}$Mo$_3$O$_8$]{} and interpreted in terms of a vibronic excitation [@Csizi:2020].
We thank ALBA and PSI for granting the beamtime for this project and acknowledge Aleksandr Missiul (ALBA) and Denis Sheptyakov (PSI) for their help with the data collection. AAT and NK were supported by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research through the Sofja Kovalevskaya Award of Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. This research was partly funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG via the Transregional Collaborative Research Center TRR 80 “From Electronic correlations to functionality” (Augsburg, Munich, Stuttgart).
[55]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01577a021) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1051/jphys:01975003605037900) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1107/S0567740882005445) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.031034) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-8853(83)90073-2) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.045142) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/srep12268) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.020405) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.037601) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.077206) [ ()](https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.02325) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.3.114402) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0885715613000900) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1515/zkri-2014-1737) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4748864) @noop (), [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1979470) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1743) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-0256(96)00008-0) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.167207) @noop [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4596(82)90003-2) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889898006001) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/23/27/276007) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05529-2) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.118.1130) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3719/15/7/017) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.65.035211) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.155114) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1109/JQE.2006.880119) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.207201) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlumin.2017.04.017) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , ) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , ) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1080/00018736300101333) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1051/jphys:019650026011065900) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.148.845) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.29.2051) [****, ()](https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.5169/seals-113910) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.014450) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.214417) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.118.1119) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.152.376) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1051/jphys:01972003305-6054900) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1107/S0108768185002063) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10704) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/NCHEM.2478) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.155.170) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.187.511) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.4.777) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.22.4511)
[^1]: A similar level scheme is obtained in Ref. when the full-potential Wien2K code is used.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have generated new, self-consistent spectral and atmosphere models for the effective temperature range 600 K to 1300 K thought to encompass the known T dwarfs. For the first time, theoretical models are compared with a [*family*]{} of measured T dwarf spectra at wavelengths shortward of $\sim$1.0 micron. By defining spectral indices and standard colors in the optical and very near-infrared, we explore the theoretical systematics with , gravity, and metallicity. We conclude that the short-wavelength range is rich in diagnostics that complement those in the near-infrared now used for spectral subtyping. We also conclude that the wings of the Na D and K I (7700Å) resonance lines and aggressive rainout of heavy metals (with the resulting enhancement of the sodium and potassium abundances at altitude) are required to fit the new data shortward of 1.0 . Furthermore, we find that the water bands weaken with increasing gravity, that modest decreases in metallicity enhance the effect in the optical of the sodium and potassium lines, and that at low , in a reversal of the normal pattern, optical spectra become bluer with further decreases in . Moreover, we conclude that T dwarf subtype is not a function of alone, but that it is a non-trivial function of gravity and metallicity as well. As do Marley et al. (2001), we see evidence in early T dwarf atmospheres of a residual effect of clouds. With cloudless models, we obtain spectral fits to the two late T dwarfs with known parallaxes, but a residual effect of clouds on the emergent spectra of even late T dwarfs can not yet be discounted. However, our focus is not on detailed fits to individual objects, but on the interpretation of the overall spectral and color trends of the entire class of T dwarfs, as seen at shorter wavelengths.'
author:
- 'Adam Burrows, Adam J. Burgasser, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, James Liebert, J. A. Milsom, D. Sudarsky, and I. Hubeny'
title: Theoretical Spectral Models of T Dwarfs at Short Wavelengths and Their Comparison with Data
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The discovery of Gliese 229B ushered in a new chapter in stellar astronomy by penetrating unambiguously below the main sequence edge (Nakajima et al. 1995; Oppenheimer et al. 1995). In Gliese 229B, absorption in the far infrared due to collision-induced absorption (CIA) by H$_2$ and the lack of absorption in the near infrared at the classic steam opacity windows together result in a redistribution of Gliese 229B’s emergent flux from the mid- and far-IR to the $Z$ ($\sim$1.05 ), $J$ ($\sim$1.25 ), $H$ ($\sim$1.6 ), and $K$ ($\sim$2.2 ) bands in the near-infrared. These band fluxes exceed the corresponding black body values for a given by as much as two to three orders of magnitude. Given the importance of the near-infrared bands, it is only natural that they be used to help establish the associated new spectral types (Burgasser et al. 2001a; Geballe et al. 2002). Following on the heels of Gliese 229B, in the last few years more than twenty so-called “T" dwarfs (Strauss et al. 1999; Burgasser et al. 1999,2000a,2000c,2001a; Cuby et al. 1999; Tsvetanov et al. 2000; Leggett et al. 1999,2000; Geballe et al. 2002) and $\sim$200 so-called “L" dwarfs (Ruiz, Leggett, and Allard 1997; Delfosse et al. 1997; Kirkpatrick et al. 1999,2000; Mart[í]{}n et al. 1999) have been discovered (most by the 2MASS, SDSS, and DENIS surveys), introducing the first new “stellar" spectral types since the establishment and articulation of the original MKK system (Morgan, Keenan, and Kellman 1943; Morgan et al. 1992). This new progression of M$\rightarrow$L$\rightarrow$T from stars to brown dwarfs is one of the most exciting recent developments in “stellar" astronomy.
While the use of the near-infrared to characterize and type L and T dwarfs may be natural for low-temperature objects (most of which are substellar), this ignores their many interesting spectral features and unique behavior shortward of 1.0 micron, the classic realm of stellar classification. It has recently been shown that the potassium resonance doublet near 7700 Å and the sodium D line(s) around 5890 Å, along with their broad wings, dominate T dwarf spectra between 0.5 and 1.0 microns (Burrows, Marley, and Sharp 2000 (BMS); Tsuji, Ohnaka, and Aoki 1999; Liebert et al. 2000). It was also shown by BMS that the I-band magnitude of Gliese 229B measured by Golimowski et al. (1998) and by Matthews et al. (1996) is fully consistent with the potassium wing hypothesis. The resulting red/purple/magenta “visual" appearance and the diagnostic (and at times, counterintuitive; see §\[system\]) gravity, , and metallicity dependences of the short-wavelength spectra make the optical (loosely defined by the “CCD" cutoff) from $\sim$0.4 to $\sim$1.0 an intriguing subject of study and theoretical inquiry. Hence, in this paper we focus on the spectra of T dwarfs below 1.0 . We have calculated a new series of self-consistent spectra, colors, and spectral indices for theoretical brown dwarf atmospheres with from 600 K to 1300 K. The low of these models and the fact that they do not incorporate clouds/grains in their atmospheres exclude the L dwarfs from this inquiry (Burrows et al. 2001; Ackerman and Marley 2001). However, although we concentrate here on the T dwarfs, we still find hints of the presence of clouds, particularly for the early Ts.
In §\[data\], we summarize some of the recent T dwarf measurements shortward of 1.0 micron, which we interpret with the new theoretical models. In §\[theory\], we present a full suite of new theoretical spectra. These spectra will be used later in §\[modelfits\]–§\[comparisons\] to extract information from the new T dwarf data at short wavelengths. Section \[uncertain\] summarizes the major techniques, assumptions, and uncertainties in modeling of T dwarf spectra and includes an aside on the treatment of the alkali line profiles. In §\[profbright\], we give example T/P profiles and representative plots of the $\tau_{\lambda} = 2/3$ temperature, T$_{2/3}$. Next, in §\[define\] we define the spectral indices and colors we use throughout, particularly in §\[comparisons\]. Note that §\[profbright\] and §\[define\] describe diagnostics by which one can better understand the observational trends. Then in §\[modelfits\], we provide representative fits to the spectra of Gliese 229B and Gliese 570D and continue in §\[rainout\] with what can be learned with the new data at short wavelengths concerning the rainout of refractories (Burrows and Sharp 1999; Lodders 1999) and the line profiles of the alkali metals. After this, in §\[system\] we describe the systematic dependences of the optical and near-infrared spectra on , gravity, and metallicity and in §\[comparisons\] we compare the theoretical spectral indices with those obtained using T dwarf spectra. Finally, in §\[clouds\] we list several hints of the residual influence of clouds in early T dwarf atmospheres (see also Marley et al. 2001) and in §\[conclusion\] we summarize our general results and conclusions. Given the remaining ambiguities in both the gas-phase opacities (e.g., of methane, the alkali metals, water) and in the proper treatment of clouds and given the possible effects of non-equilibrium chemistry (Griffith and Yelle 1999,2000; Saumon et al. 2000; Lodders 1999), we are less interested in obtaining detailed fits than we are in the overall systematics of the class of T dwarfs. Hence, our focus in this paper is on the generic behavior at short wavelengths of the T dwarf [*family*]{} as a whole.
The Observed T Dwarf Spectra Shortward of 1.0 {#data}
==============================================
This is the first paper in which theoretical models and optical data for a large collection of T dwarfs, not just individual T dwarfs such as Gliese 229B (Marley et al. 1996; Allard et al. 1996; Tsuji et al. 1996,1999; Saumon et al. 2001) or Gliese 570D (Geballe et al. 2001), are compared. Table 1 itemizes 13 T dwarfs (and 2 late L dwarfs) with recently-obtained optical data. It lists objects in order of assigned spectral subtype (Kirkpatrick et al. 1999; Burgasser et al. 2001a) and provides the associated references and short-hand names we employ. More detailed discussions on the Keck LRIS (Oke et al. 1995) optical spectra of these T dwarfs and the associated signal-to-noise ratios can be found in Kirkpatrick et al. (2001) and Burgasser (2001a,b).
Figures \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\] depict spectra for the objects listed in Table 1 (except for 2MASS-1237) from 0.6 to 1.0 . To facilitate intercomparison, these spectra have been normalized to a value of one at 1.0 . Normalization also serves to emphasize that we still don’t know the parallaxes for most of these T dwarfs and, hence, can not assign absolute flux levels. The data shortward of $\sim$0.8 have a signal-to-noise ratio per pixel as low as $\sim$1 (Burgasser 2001b; Kirkpatrick et al. 2001). Therefore, below 0.8 we have used boxcar smoothing for the noisiest spectra to help discriminate between the relative flux levels of these T dwarfs in the $\sim$0.7 region.
As is clear from Figs. \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\], the spectral slopes shortward of 1.0 cover a broad range of values and the spectra themselves fan out into a family that no doubt reflects variations in the underlying physical properties. Ignoring the two L dwarfs, the salient features are the water feature near 0.93 , the spectral slope in the 0.8 to 0.95 region, and the relative height of the bump between the KI resonance lines ($\sim$7700Å) and the Na D lines ($\sim$5890 Å). These features inform our choice of the spectral indices we define for this study (§\[define\]). Indeed, as was demonstrated by Liebert et al. (2000) with their optical spectrum of SDSS-1624 (T6), it is clear from Figs. \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\] that the K I doublet at $\sim$7700Å and its wings dominate the region from 0.7 to 1.0 (see §\[theory\]). Also, as is clearest for the early T dwarfs and 2MASS-0559 (T5, green in Fig. \[fig:1\]), absorption by the Na D lines is a natural explanation for the suppression of flux shortward of 0.7 . In principle, the equivalent widths of the Cs features at 8523 Å and 8946 Å and of the Rb features at 7802 Å and 7949 Å are additional diagnostics (Basri et al. 1999; Griffith and Yelle 2000). A useful index in this spectral region is the i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$ (Sloan AB; Fukugita et al. 1996) color, where i$^{\prime}$ peaks in the region from $\sim$0.7 to $\sim$0.8 and z$^{\prime}$ extends from approximately $\sim$0.8 to $\sim$1.0 .
The fact that the behavior of the spectra depicted in Figs. \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\] is not completely monotonic with the infrared-determined spectral subtypes indicates to us that the T dwarf spectral subtypes are not determined solely by . Gravity and, perhaps, metallicity also play a role. In particular, the 2MASS-0559 (T5) (green curve in Fig. \[fig:1\]) spectrum shortward of 0.9 is “redder" than that of SDSS-1624 (T6) (blue curve in Fig. \[fig:1\]), despite the former’s earlier spectral subtype. As we argue in §\[comparisons\], this implies that the surface gravity of SDSS-1624 (T6) is lower than that of 2MASS-0559 (T5). In addition, even though the spectral subtype of SDSS-1021 is T3, while that of SDSS-1254 is T2, the relative flux level of SDSS-1021 is generally above (at both 0.73 and 0.83 ) that of SDSS-1254. Since in §\[theory\] and §\[system\] we demonstrate in the likely range of SDSS-1021 and SDSS-1254 that decreases in and increases in gravity increase the redness of the spectrum shortward of 0.9 , we conclude that the gravity (and presumably the mass) of SDSS-1021 is lower than that of SDSS-1254. Though is the major determinant, a sufficiently large gravity difference can reverse the apparent dependence of subtype on changes in .
The optical data depicted in Figs. \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\] are state-of-the-art, but, in particular for the later T dwarfs and shortward of 0.8 , they are of fairly low resolution. Nevertheless, these spectra can help guide us in this exploration of the dependence of optical spectra on T dwarf physical properties and in discerning the range of gravities and represented by the objects in Table 1. The near absence of parallaxes is an impediment to detailed fits, as is the noise in the observed spectra at shorter optical wavelengths. However, the optical colors and spectral indices (§\[define\] and §\[comparisons\]) that can be calculated for the growing list of T dwarfs with measured spectra shortward of 1.0 still provide useful physical diagnostics with which our suite of theoretical models can be used to determine the possible range of their , gravities, and metallicities.
Theoretical Brown Dwarf Spectra from 1300 K to 600 K {#theory}
====================================================
As a prelude to the discussions in §\[modelfits\]–§\[comparisons\], we present a collection of new theoretical spectra that span the T dwarf regime. Figure \[fig:3\] portrays the absolute flux ($\cal{F}_\nu$) in milliJanskys versus wavelength from 0.4 to 1.5 for solar-metallicity models for the two gravities and the full range of (see §\[uncertain\]). The higher curves in Fig. \[fig:3\] are for models with the higher . Prominent are the Na D and K I resonance doublets at $\sim$5890 Å and $\sim$7700 Å, the water bands around 0.93 , 1.15 , and 1.4 , the Cs I lines at 8523 Å and 8946 Å, the Li I line at 6708 Å, the Rb I lines at 7802 Å and 7949 Å, and (for the hottest models) the TiO and VO features near $\sim$0.45 and 0.9$\rightarrow$1.05 . At 1.2432/1.2522 the K I doublet is seen for at 700 K and above. It was assumed in these models that clouds/grains/dust that may form at depth nevertheless have no effect on an object’s T/P profile, nor on its spectrum. As we argue in §\[clouds\], this may not be true for the earliest T dwarfs. In determining molecular abundances, unless otherwise stated we employed the rainout prescription for the refractory silicates described in Burrows and Sharp (1999). As explained in that reference and in Burrows, Marley, and Sharp (2000), rainout depletes the atmospheres of the refractory elements Ca, Al, Mg, Fe, and Si. This affects the abundance profiles of not only the nascent alkali metals, but TiO, VO, FeH, and CrH. In particular, rainout suppresses the formation of alkali feldspars and enables atomic Na and K to survive to lower temperatures and pressures, at which point they form Na$_2$S(c) and KCl(c) (Lodders 1999). As a consequence, their influence on the emergent spectrum in the “optical" between 0.5 and 1.1 is enhanced. Rainout also restricts the range of lower temperatures and pressures where TiO, VO, Fe(l,c), CrH, and FeH can be found. However, since the CrH opacities are soon to be updated significantly, FeH and CrH bands were not incorporated into this model set and we defer a discussion of their role to a later work (see also §\[uncertain\]).
The normalized observed spectra shortward of 1.0 were presented in Figs. \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\]. The corresponding normalized theoretical spectra at solar-metallicity and for gravities of 10$^{5}$ cm s$^{-2}$ and 10$^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$ are displayed in Fig. \[normal\]. A comparison of Figs. \[fig:1\], \[fig:2\], and \[normal\] is illuminating and reveals that the theoretical family nicely spans the observations. Furthermore, the general overall spectral shapes, particularly from 0.8 to 0.9 , are reproduced. We compare these model spectra with data in §\[modelfits\]-§\[system\]. However, we first discuss some of the major uncertainties in the models and a variety of physical diagnostics that are useful in interpreting measurements.
Model Assumptions, Techniques, and Uncertainties {#uncertain}
================================================
To construct new atmosphere/spectral models of brown dwarfs, we employ the complete linearization/accelerated-$\Lambda$-iteration method of Hubeny and Lanz (1995), molecular and atomic opacities as described in Burrows et al. (2001), and the equation of state of Saumon, Chabrier, and Van Horn (1995). We explore both rainout, using the prescription of Burrows and Sharp (1999) (see also Lodders 1999), and non-rainout composition assumptions, though when not explicitly stated rainout has been incorporated. The T/P profiles at depth obtained using the Lodders (1999) and the Burrows and Sharp (1999) rainout prescriptions are the same (all else being equal) to better than 2% (M. Marley, private communication).
The depletion of refractories into silicate clouds is an intrinsically non-equilibrium and dynamical process. Hence, any prescription that purports to address this can do so only crudely. Fortunately, it is the clouds at depth into which settle/rain the refractory elements that would have been in the upper atmospheres that are the most problematically handled; the upper atmospheric depletions of Mg, Si, Fe, Al, and Ca themselves and the resultant metal-depleted molecular compositions are better handled, yielding compositions that are probably good to better than 10%. Since our modeling is focussed on T dwarfs in which clouds play no central role (however, see §\[clouds\]), our rainout prescriptions are as good as current practice allows. However, at the higher in the L dwarf regime, the actual physics of clouds (and their particle sizes, spatial extent, optical properties, and degree of patchiness) assumes a greater importance. Furthermore, the possible effects of non-equilibrium chemistry and rapid transport of spectroscopically-active species may also be important (Lodders 1999; Griffith and Yelle 1999,2000; Saumon et al. 2000). In particular, though CO and NH$_3$ have no strong bands short of 1.0 micron and play only a very minor role in setting the T/P profile of a T dwarf, the suggestion that their abundances may be out of equilibrium due to dynamic convective transport deserves further attention (Saumon et al. 2000; Noll, Geballe, and Marley 1997). Quite obviously, no current prescription for cloud opacities or for dynamic transport and their effects on emergent spectra can be beyond reproach or improvement. In this paper, given our focus on T dwarfs we ignore both.
Our models are produced using the opacity sampling technique to arrive at converged and consistent temperature/pressure profiles, from which higher-resolution spectra are then calculated for a given spectral interval. For the T/P profile calculation, no more than 2000 wavelengths are needed, which range from 0.4 to 300 . Each model was converged in temperature and flux to better than 0.1% in typically a few minutes on a standard workstation. The speed of our code is a direct consequence of the complete linearization approach. Marley et al. (2001) and Burrows et al. (1997) use the k-coefficient method with the equivalent of $\sim$800 wavelengths. Similar to the ODF method, their implementation avoids its major pitfall by combining the abundance-weighted opacities of all the relevant molecules and atoms before creating the distribution function that is at the heart of the ODF approach. We use a mixing-length prescription to handle convection, with a mixing-length parameter of 1.0. Marley et al. (2001) flatten the entropy gradient in convective regions. Saumon et al. (2000) use the T/P profiles generated by Marley, as in Marley et al. (2001). Allard et al. (2001) use mixing-length theory, with a mixing-length parameter of 1.0. At low , the actual mixing length parameter is irrelevant; changing the mixing-length parameter from 0.5 to 2.0 changes the T/P profile by no more than $\sim$20 K. However, above $\sim$1500 K, the actual value of this parameter is an issue of modest interest. Nevertheless, the theoretical T/P profiles in grainless atmospheres below = 1500 K are similar, differing by no more than 10% (usually less) at atmospheric levels from 800 K to 2000 K (cf. this work; Marley, unpublished; Allard et al. 2001).
For the spectra we display here, 5000 wavelengths, logarithmically spaced from 0.4 to 1.5 , were used and then the spectrum was boxcar-smoothed to an effective resolution, R ($\lambda/\Delta\lambda$), of 1000 at each wavelength. Models were generated with from 600 K to 1300 K, in steps of 100K (plus at a few extra , when needed), at two gravities ($g$ = $10^{5}$ cm s$^{-2}$ and $10^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$), and for three metallicities (Z) ($0.3\times$solar, solar, and $2.0\times$solar). The Anders and Grevesse (1989) abundance data were used to represent/define the solar pattern. This -gravity-Z parameter set was chosen to allow us to span the model space in which it is reasonable to assume the newly-discovered T dwarfs reside, as well as to gauge the systematic behavior of the observables with , gravity, and metallicity.
The brown dwarf radii ($R$) assumed were derived from the analytic formula found in Burrows et al. (2001) and Marley et al. (1996): $$\begin{aligned}
R &=& 6.7\times10^4{\rm km}\Bigl(\frac{10^5}{g}\Bigr)^{0.18}\Bigl(\frac{T_{\rm eff}}{10^3}\Bigr)^{0.11}\, ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is in cm s$^{-2}$ and is in Kelvin. This procedure is not perfectly consistent, since the evolutionary models upon which this equation for the radius is based incorporate slightly different atmosphere models as boundary conditions. Nevertheless, the error in the radius is small ($\sles$10%) and the derived colors and spectral indices are independent of radius.
The major differences between theoretical models arise from the different opacity databases employed. For substellar dwarfs, the major gas-phase opacities are due to H$_2$O, H$_2$, CH$_4$, CO, NH$_3$, the neutral alkali metals, TiO, VO, FeH, and CrH. A subsidiary role is played by PH$_3$, MgH, CaOH, CaH, SiO, and H$_2$S. Importantly, the [*equilibrium*]{} abundances of the dominant molecules (in particular, H$_2$O, H$_2$, CH$_4$, CO, N$_2$, and NH$_3$) are easily calculated (Burrows and Sharp 1999). Most researchers use the same H$_2$ (Borysow and Frommhold 1990; Zheng and Borysow 1995; Borysow, Jø[rgensen]{}, and Zheng 1997) and H$_2$O (Partridge and Schwenke 1997) opacities. We calculate our TiO and VO opacities using Plez (1998,1999) and Jø[rgensen]{} (1997), including the effects of isotope shifts, and believe them to be state-of-the-art. As stated in §\[theory\], we omit FeH and CrH from this T dwarf model set. Their omission affects predominantly L dwarfs in the spectral regions around 0.86 and 0.99 (FeH, the Wing-Ford band), but does not change to any significant degree T-dwarf T/P profiles, nor the vast majority of the spectrum where FeH/CrH features do not contribute. Note that, as do most researchers in this field (Saumon et al. 2000; Marley et al. 2001; Allard et al. 2001), we currently use the 52-million line subset of the 308-million line Partridge and Schwenke (1997) water database. Though recently questions have been raised concerning its accuracy in some wavelength regimes (Jones et al. 2002), the Partridge and Schwenke compilation remains the best available.
Methane opacities are an important wildcard, with the “hot bands" and the red side of the $H$ photometric band being the most problematic (Burrows et al. 2001). However, apart from a minor band near 0.89 , methane plays only a very modest role in “optical" T dwarf spectra, though its effects in the infrared help to define the T dwarfs and the L$\rightarrow$T transition (Burgasser et al. 1999). The methane feature that has the most effect on a T/P profile is the strong $\nu_3$ band at 3.3 , but its opacity seems to be well in hand. Not unexpectedly, most researchers use much the same methane opacity data (cf. Burrows et al. 2001; Saumon et al. 2000; Marley et al. 2001). Nevertheless, it is in the different implementations of the extant line lists and opacity databases, in the different collisional broadening prescriptions, and in the inaccuracies in these various databases that one is likely to find the origin of most of the differences between the various theoretical models (Burrows et al. 1997; Allard et al. 2001; Tsuji et al. 1999; Saumon et al 2000; Geballe et al. 2001; Marley et al. 2001) and between theory and data. However, the alkali lines and their wing profiles are a special case to which we now turn.
An Aside on the Assumed Shapes of the Alkali Line Wings {#alkali}
-------------------------------------------------------
As emphasized in Burrows, Marley, and Sharp (2000), it is not strictly correct to use Lorentzian profiles for the Na D ($\sim$5890 Å) and K I ($\sim$7700 Å) doublets in their far wings, as we do for this paper and as is the standard practice in most stellar atmospheres work. In fact, the dominance of these doublets is a central feature of brown-dwarf/T-dwarf spectra and colors at wavelengths from 0.4 through 1.0 . While the line core behavior and oscillator strengths for these transitions are well in hand (Piskunov et al. 1995), there remain ambiguities in the treatment of these lines at large detunings ($\Delta\lambda$) and the as-yet-unknown shapes of their wings will have a bearing on the viability of spectral fits. For this study, we have used the default Lorentzian out to a transition wavelength redward of the line cores (7700 Å for Na D and 9800 Åfor the K I doublet), after which we allow the strength to decay as a Gaussian in wavelength with a width of 0.075$\times\lambda_{\rm central}$. The latter merely results in a smooth cutoff at a large detuning, but is otherwise arbitrary. This prescription for the alkali wings is different from that suggested by Burrows, Marley, and Sharp (2000) because in this paper we want to make only minimal alterations to the standard Lorentzian until better estimates of the wing shapes are available. The BMS prescription has an ad hoc parameter $q$ whose value affects the far wing line shape and introduces an “effective" cutoff, but is in fact unconstrained. A choice of $q = 0.6$ for K and $q = 0.2$ for Na provides as good a fit to T dwarf spectra as the simpler prescription we employ here, given the noise in the optical data (Liebert et al. 2000). However, the use of a BMS $q$ parameter implies a certain functional form that is not motivated by the proper physical chemistry, only by the need for a cutoff (§\[rainout\]).
Though the general overall spectral shapes seen in Fig. \[normal\], particularly from 0.8 to 0.9 , are reproduced (Liebert et al. 2000) with either the BMS or our modified Lorentzian prescriptions, there are two features that are problematic in the comparision of Figs. 1, 2, and 4. One is that the theoretical peak between the K I and Na D troughs is shifted by $\sim$0.02 to shorter wavelengths than the observed average. This could easily be a consequence of the all-too-simple alkali line profile algorithms used. The other is that for the earlier T dwarfs the K I trough at 7700 Å is a bit narrower than derived using either the BMS or the current theory. Both prescriptions yield equally discrepant spectral shapes, though the fractional deviations in the flux densities or “equivalent widths" derived using either prescription are at most a few tens of percent. It should be noted that the prescriptions for the alkali line shapes used in the literature have included a pure Lorentzian with a sharp cutoff at an arbitrary wavelength at a large detuning (Allard et al. 2001), a pure Lorentzian with a sharp cutoff at an arbitrary wavelength at a small detuning (Tsuji et al. 1999), and the Burrows, Marley, and Sharp (2000) prescription (Marley et al. 2001; Saumon et al. 2000; Geballe et al. 2001). Frequently, however, the alkali-line-shape prescription employed in a paper is unexplained and sometimes the Na/K alkali metals have been omitted (Griffith, Yelle, and Marley 1998).
The data shortward of 0.8 are indeed noisy, so this might be a major factor in any discrepancies between our theoretical spectra and observation, but as the comparison of Figs. \[fig:1\], \[fig:2\], and \[normal\] nevetheless demonstrates, the remaining $\sim$10-50% ambiguity in the flux densities is much smaller than the factors of $\sim$2–10 deviations previously seen in the literature shortward of 0.8 (cf. Tsuji et al. 1999). Hence, our current approach to the Na/K alkali-line shapes is as reasonable as any, but the reader should bear in mind the need for significant further improvement.
T/P Profiles and the “$\tau_{\lambda} = 2/3$" Temperature {#profbright}
=========================================================
The dependence of the theoretical spectra on , gravity, and metallicity is a major focus of this paper. Effects such as the general reddening in the optical with decreasing (at a given gravity), which reverses at lower effective temperatures (particularly noticeable in Fig. \[normal\] around 0.75 ), will be discussed in §\[system\]. To facilitate that discussion, we present here representative model temperature/pressure profiles in Fig. \[profiles\] and representative plots of the T$_{2/3}$ temperature versus wavelength in Fig. \[bright\]. T$_{2/3}$ is defined in this paper as the temperature level in the brown dwarf atmosphere at which the total optical depth is $2/3$. Roughly, it is the temperature of the layer to which one is probing when measuring a spectrum at the corresponding wavelength and is a measure of the depth to which an observed spectrum is allowing us to peer (see also Saumon et al. 2000, their Figure 6). Fig. \[profiles\] can be used to gauge the dependence on , gravity , and metallicity of the optical depth above a given temperature level in an atmosphere. As Fig. \[profiles\] suggests, lower-metallicity models have higher pressures at a given temperature and higher-models have lower pressures at a given temperature. Moreover, as would be expected from hydrostatic equilibrium, higher-gravity models have higher pressures at a given temperature.
T$_{2/3}$ is the “decoupling" temperature at a given wavelength, or the wavelength-dependent temperature level to which one probes an atmosphere by measuring its spectrum. Fig. \[bright\] indicates that shortward of 1.0 , higher gravities result in slightly lower T$_{2/3}$s and higher always result in higher T$_{2/3}$s. In addition, Fig. \[bright\] shows that in the $Z$ band ($\sim$1.05 ), one is probing to $\sim$1500-1600 K for the 1100 K models and that in the $J$ band ($\sim$1.25 ), one is probing to $\sim$1400-1500 K, for the same models. Note that below the Na D line at $\sim$5890 Å, T$_{2/3}$ for the sample models is rising to between 1200 and 1600 K, while at the centers of the strong Na D and K I resonance doublets, T$_{2/3}$ is near 800 K.
Definitions of Color Indices {#define}
============================
Color-color diagrams are traditional tools used to determine the physical properties of stars. In addition, non-traditional, but diagnostic, spectral indices (ratios of flux levels or flux averages at different wavelengths) can perform the same function (Burgasser et al. 2000b; Burgasser 2001b; Geballe et al. 2002; Tokunaga and Kobayashi 1999). Such indices are very useful for encapsulating and describing trends in , gravity, and metallicity and in isolating one class of objects from another. This is especially true when spectral data are noisy, when subtle changes in plotted spectra are difficult to discern by eye, or when distances are not known (as is currently the case for the majority of T dwarfs). Hence, we have calculated a set of spectral indices and colors that highlight various features of the family of T dwarf spectra, both theoretical and observed, and use them to derive physical facts about the T dwarfs listed in Table 1, as well as about the spectral class as a whole.
The indices we have defined are: $$\begin{aligned}
X97 = \log_{10}(F_{\lambda}(0.90-0.91\mu {\rm m})/F_{\lambda}(0.72-0.73\mu {\rm m}))\, ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
X98 = \log_{10}(F_{\lambda}(0.90-0.91\mu {\rm m})/F_{\lambda}(0.855-0.86\mu {\rm m}))\, ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
X23 = \log_{10}(F_{\lambda}(0.92-0.925\mu {\rm m})/F_{\lambda}(0.928-0.945\mu {\rm m}))\, ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
X126.105 = \log_{10}(F_{\lambda}(1.26\mu {\rm m})/F_{\lambda}(1.05\mu {\rm m}))\, .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that $F_{\lambda}$ (not $F_{\nu}$) is used, that a range of wavelengths implies an average in the indicated wavelength range, and that the indices do not have a prefactor of 2.5. These indices were chosen to highlight important features in T dwarf spectra at shorter wavelengths. Both X97 and X98 were defined to avoid the water feature at $\sim$0.93 . X97 is a measure of the relative flux in the spectral bump between the Na D and K I (7700 Å) lines and the region around 0.9 and captures the effect of rainout. X98 is a measure of the slope between 0.8 and 0.9 and, hence, is a measure of the shape of the red wing of the K I line at 7700Å. X23 is a measure of the depth of the water feature near 0.93 and reflects the influences of H$_2$O abundance, gravity, and the residual effect of silicate clouds. X126.105 is a measure of the ratio of the fluxes at 1.26 and 1.05 , near the traditional $J$ and $Z$ bands at the prominent peaks in T dwarf spectra (see Fig. \[fig:3\]). Our indices short of 1.0 are similar to those employed by Burgasser et al. (2001b) and Geballe et al. (2002), but are a bit better tuned to capture physical effects, as opposed to observational trends. However, almost any of the “optical" indices recently defined by those measuring L and T dwarfs could have sufficed. (Tokunaga and Kobayashi (1999) do not define indices short of 1.0 , the spectral region on which we have focussed in this paper.)
We also use the the colors i$^{\prime}$ - z$^{\prime}$ and $J-K$, where the former is in the Sloan AB system and the latter is in the Bessell (or Cousins) system (Bessell and Brett 1988). Importantly, the choice of system or index for the purpose of deriving trends is arbitrary. We chose Bessell for the $J - K$ color to connect with the traditional color system in light of the continuing confusion in the use of UKIRT, Ks, and 2MASS filters; there is as yet no uniformity from telescope to telescope in the use of near-infrared filter sets. Hence, our colors are just like spectral indices (e.g., X97 $\dots$) and those calculated and discussed here should be viewed as such. Our colors are derived from spectra, not photometry, and they are used to discover trends, not to compare with standard-star-calibrated values. Nevertheless, our i$^{\prime}$ - z$^{\prime}$ and $J - K$ (Bessell) colors are as good as any, given the differences between the underlying spectra of calibration standards and T dwarfs and given the accuracy of the flux calibration for the data (Burgasser et al. 2000a). Note that $J - K$ has been included in this paper, despite our emphasis on the optical, to make at least one tie-in with the spectral range now being used to define the T dwarf spectral subtypes.
In Table 2, we provide these indices and colors for from 600 K to 1300 K, gravities of 10$^{5}$ cm s$^{-2}$ and 10$^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$, and metallicities of 0.3$\times$solar, solar, and 2.0$\times$solar, where solar is defined by Anders and Grevesse (1989). We include “no-rainout" models at 900 K and the two gravities and the observed T dwarfs listed in Table 1. Table 2 summarizes all the basic trends (on which we focus in §\[comparisons\]). We use these indices in the following sections to facilitate the diagnosis of the observed spectral trends.
Fits to Gliese 229B and Gliese 570D Spectra {#modelfits}
===========================================
That our prescription for the alkali line shapes has some merit is demonstrated in Fig. \[fittwo\], where solar-metallicity spectral fits for the two T dwarfs, Gliese 229B and Gliese 570D, for which there are published parallaxes (Perryman et al. 1997; 5.8 and 5.9 parsecs, respectively) are presented. For Gliese 570D (as for the other T dwarfs in this paper), ours is the first paper to compare data with theory below 0.8 . (For Gliese 229B, there are no spectral data as yet below 0.85 , only $R$ and $I$ band photometry.) The spectra portrayed in Fig. \[fittwo\] are given in absolute flux units. The shape of the spectrum from 1.0 to 1.1 , the slope of the spectra around 0.8 to 0.9 , the Gliese 229B WFPC2 $R$ band measurement (Golimowski et al 1998), the flux level at $\sim$0.7 for Gliese 570D, and the i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$ color for Gliese 570D are all reproduced. As Fig. \[fittwo\] indicates, our theoretical fluxes for both Gliese 229B and Gliese 570D (which span more than three orders of magnitude) are good to 10–30%, though the noise below 0.8 is problematic. Geballe et al. (2001) do not study Gliese 570D shortward of 0.8 . However, they obtain comparably good fits above 0.8 , though we reproduce the shapes and magnitudes in the $Z$ and $J$ bands more closely. Focussed on Gliese 229B and NH$_3$, Saumon et al. (2000) do not discuss spectra shortward of 1.0 . Marley et al. (2001) do not compare theoretical spectra with observational data. In their Gliese 229B campaign, Griffith, Marley, and Yelle (1998) and Griffith and Yelle (1999) do not include the Na and K alkali lines in their opacity database. Instead, they posit the existence at altitude of a cloud of red grains whose imaginary index of refraction has a more extreme dependence on wavelength than that of Titan tholins, red phorphorus, or polyacetylenes (Noy, Podolak, and Bar-Nun 1981; Khare and Sagan 1984). In their important Gliese 229B study, Tsuji et al. (1999) conclude that a combination of silicate dust with the K I doublet at 7700 Å can explain its spectrum shortward of 1.0 . However, as is still the standard practice in stellar atmospheres work, Tsuji et al. truncated the alkali lines at very small detunings, which necessitated the introduction of another component to explain the spectrum. As did BMS, we find that including the wings of the potassium doublet obviates the need for another component to explain the sharp declivity shortward of 1.0 in T dwarf spectra in general (Fig. \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\]) and in Gliese 229B’s spectrum in particular.
As Fig. \[fittwo\] indicates, the relative flux ratios in the $Z$ and $J$ bands are well-modeled. In contrast, the best-fit model of Gliese 229B by Tsuji et al. (1999) in the $Z$ and $J$ bands is off by a factor of 2–3, reflecting the need to cutoff the alkali metal wings as discussed in §\[alkali\] and §\[rainout\]. Importantly, the corresponding no-rainout spectra below 0.8 (not shown) (Allard et al. 2001) are generically off by a factor greater than 5 (§\[rainout\]). Slightly more precise fits can in fact be achieved by adjustments in , metallicity, and gravity. However, our purpose here is not to obtain the ultimate fit, but to verify our general approach and to extract the essential conclusions about the class of T dwarfs as a whole using spectra at short wavelengths.
Nevertheless, the depths of the water features near 0.93 , 1.15 and 1.4 (not shown) are not fit well. Leakage in the spectrometer of light from adjacent peaks into the troughs might explain the effect at 1.4 , and perhaps a fraction of the effect at 1.15 , but these are major discrepancies that may point to a residuum of dust in the atmosphere (Tsuji et al 1999; Saumon et al. 2000) or to problems with the water opacity database used (Partridge and Schwenke 1997). The models of all groups fail to explain these water troughs (Saumon et al. 2000; Marley et al. 2001; Allard et al. 2001). Lowering the metallicity enough, particularly for a majority of the T dwarfs in Table 1 which all manifest this problem, would not seem to be a viable option generically (Allard et al. 2001; however, see Griffith and Yelle 1999). Furthermore, a low-enough metallicity that would solve the problem at 0.93 would also shift the $J - K$ magnitudes away from the observed values for the T dwarfs (Burgasser et al. 2001a) by as much as $-0.5$ magnitudes at 900 K. (However, a lower metallicity may be implicated for 2MASS-0937; see §\[comparisons\].)
A for Gliese 570D of $\sim$750 K at a low gravity of 10$^{5}$ cm s$^{-2}$ (mass $\sim$30 ) is similar to that derived in Geballe et al. (2001), but at their low end. Equally good solar-metallicity fits to Gliese 570D can be found from $\sim$750 K to $\sim$840 K, where the corresponding gravities range from $10^{5}$ cm s$^{-2}$ to $\sim$$10^{5.4}$ cm s$^{-2}$. Our range for Gliese 570D is a bit more conservative than that of Geballe et al. (2001) due to the fact that we have not imposed an age constraint. However, as demonstrated in Fig. \[fittwo\] for Gliese 229B, at the current level of observational precision it is only a trajectory in -gravity space (given roughly by /$g^{0.2}$ = const.) that can be constrained. Gliese 229B could have a near 780 K and a gravity near 10$^{4.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$ (mass $\sgreat$15 ). What is shown in Fig. \[fittwo\] are just representative fits to the Gliese 229B and Gliese 570D data. Solar-metallicity models of Gliese 229B that fit these spectra include those with from 780 K to 950 K (higher would imply a higher gravity than is realistic for brown dwarfs). Very subsolar-metallicity models for Gliese 229B would compromise the acceptable fits in $J - K$.
Without parallaxes, we prefer not to provide spectral fits for the other T dwarfs in Table 1. It is not that fits can’t be obtained. That they can should be clear from Figs. \[fig:3\] and \[normal\] and from Table 2. Rather, the problem is that too many models can be found to fit, and and gravity are only loosely constrained. Nevertheless, our models and the indices discussed in §\[comparisons\] yield for all but the early T dwarfs a range of 900$\pm$150 K. With parallaxes, we should be able to tighten this constraint and determine the /$g$ trajectory (and core entropy; Burrows, Marley, and Sharp 2000) for each observed T dwarf. However, at this stage, we don’t want to claim more than is prudent.
Conclusions Concerning Alkali Metal Line Profiles and Rainout {#rainout}
=============================================================
There are a few conclusions of a qualitative nature, in particular concerning the truncation of the resonance lines of Na and K and the seeming necessity of rainout, that deserve special mention. Figure \[figcompare\] demonstrates many of these with a collection of representative theoretical model spectra at = 900 K and solar metallicity from 0.4 to 1.5 . All the spectral models have T/P profiles that are consistently derived for the opacities and abundance prescriptions used. The solid red line depicts the \[900 K/$10^{5}$ cm s$^{-2}$\] model and the solid blue line the \[900 K/$10^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$\] model. The black line portrays a model with $g$ = $10^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$, but uses Lorentzian line profiles without cutoffs for the Na D and K I (7700 Å) lines. In addition, this spectrum does not incorporate the rainout of Ti and V species, and, hence, leaves them suspended in the atmosphere in strict chemical equilibrium. The dashed blue line is a \[900 K/$10^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$\] model, but one that does not incorporate a prescription for the rainout of the silicates and the consequent survival of Na and K to lower temperatures and pressures in the atmosphere. The spectrum of 2MASS-0559 (T5) is included on Fig. \[figcompare\] in green and is the absolute flux spectrum under the assumption that its distance is 10 parsecs.
That unmodified Lorentzians produce spectra that do not fit is demonstrated in Fig. \[figcompare\] by the relative positions of the black line (Lorentzian model) and the solid blue line. The latter spectrum in the $Z$ ($\sim$1.05 ) and $J$ ($\sim$1.25 ) bands is much closer to the data shown in Fig. \[fittwo\] and to those obtained for the objects in Table 1 by Burgasser (2001b); the truncated models do not decapitate the $Z$ and $J$ bands by as much as an order of magnitude in the way that the untruncated Lorentzian does. As mentioned in §\[modelfits\], the absence of such a cutoff is the reason for the discrepancy by a factor of 2 to 3 in the Tsuji, Ohnaka, and Aoki (1999) model for Gliese 229B in the $Z$ and $J$ bands. The difference at = 900 K and $g$ = $10^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$ between our standard model result and that with untruncated Lorentzians is $\sim$1.2 magnitudes in i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$; the X98 and X97 indices are similarly incorrect (Table 2).
Note that, since Na is $\sim$20 times more abundant than K, it is Na that would account for most of this anomalous suppression beyond 1.0 , despite the greater spectral distance of the Na D line. One concludes from Fig. \[figcompare\] that the true line profiles must be truncated and are not strictly Lorentzians.
As is clear from Fig. \[figcompare\], the no-rainout (dashed blue) and rainout (solid blue) spectra differ by 0.5-1.0 dex from one another, particularly at 0.7 between the dominating Na D and K I resonance doublets. A comparison of these curves with the new T dwarf spectra provided in Figs. \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\] leads to the strong conclusion that the no-rainout models do not fit the new optical data. This is clear confirmation of the BMS prediction (see their Figures 2 and 3) for the “entire" family of T dwarfs, not just for SDSS-1624 (Liebert et al. 2000), and is consistent with the Marley et al. (2001) Figure 3. Geballe et al. (2001) came to a similar conclusion for Gliese 570D vis à vis rainout, but did not have data nor theory shortward of 0.8 . Given the ambiguities in the alkali line profiles near 1.0 , spectra from 0.8 to 1.0 can not be used to draw clear conclusions about the occurrence of rainout; it is only with the new data at shorter wavelengths ($< 0.8$ ) that one can distinguish unambiguously between the effects of rainout and of the unknown alkali line profile shapes, given the well-known oscillator strengths.
As Table 2 indicates, i$^{\prime}$ - z$^{\prime}$ for the no-rainout models is as much as 1.0-1.5 magnitudes discrepant. The indices X98 and X97 tell a similar story. Without rainout, the “redness" of the optical spectra and the large flux contrast between the $Z$ peak and the bump at 0.7-0.75 can not be reproduced. Rainout leads to an enhancement in the abundance of atomic Na and K at lower temperatures (and lower pressures) in the atmosphere and to greater absorption shortward of 0.9 . A comparison on Fig. \[figcompare\] of the spectrum of 2MASS-0559 (T5) with the no-rainout/rainout theoretical curves serves to emphasize this point (2MASS-0559 is here merely representative of the T dwarfs listed in Table 1). Hence, we have in the new T dwarf spectra at short wavelengths evidence for the influence of cloud formation at depth and element depletion (Si, Mg, Al) at altitude (Burrows and Sharp 1999; Burrows, Marley, and Sharp 2000; Lodders 1999), leading to the suppression of alkali feldspar production at higher temperatures near $\sim$1400 K and the consequent persistence of atomic Na and K to lower atmospheric temperatures. In particular, the fit displayed in Fig. \[fittwo\] for Gliese 570 D and the approximate fit to the Gliese 229B datum in the $R$ band do not seem possible with any no-rainout models.
As a test, for the Lorentzian model portrayed on Fig. \[figcompare\] we suppressed the effects of rainout on the TiO and VO abundances, thereby enhancing the abundances of those molecules at altitude. As this = 900 K model demonstrates, around 0.45 (near the $B$ band) TiO features would be visible, even for a model with such a low . This is a consequence of the low gaseous opacities at the shortest wavelengths. The high T$_{2/3}$s (Fig. \[bright\]) in this wavelength range say the same thing; at short wavelengths one is probing deeply. If such features are not seen (and this we suspect), it would be another indication of rainout. Moreover, cloud veiling could also be implicated. Hence, observations at wavelengths even shorter than the Na D line(s) can provide information concerning the deep atmosphere.
The Systematic Dependence of T Dwarf Spectra on , Gravity, and Metallicity {#system}
==========================================================================
From the spectra presented in Figs. \[fig:3\], \[normal\], and \[figcompare\], the representative T/P profiles and T$_{2/3}$s shown in Figs. \[profiles\] and \[bright\], and the indices and colors tabulated in Table 2, we can determine the general theoretical trends for T dwarf spectra with , gravity, and metallicity.
Systematics with {#systeff}
-----------------
Just as Fig. \[profiles\] and all previous calculations indicate, as the effective temperature decreases for a given gravity the pressure in the atmosphere at a given temperature increases. This implies that the column depth in gm cm$^{-2}$ to a given temperature level increases with decreasing (in hydrostatic equilibrium, column depth = $P/g$). Hence, for a ubiquitous species such as water, the $\tau = 2/3$ surface that roughly determines the position of the “photosphere" (on average, or at a given wavelength) is at progressively lower temperatures with decreasing (see Fig. \[bright\]). The result is that T$_{2/3}$ in the water absorption troughs near 0.93 , and between the $Z$, $J$, and $K$ bands (for instance), as well as those at the emission peaks themselves, decreases. However, since the near-IR is not on the Rayleigh-Jeans tail, these decreases in T$_{2/3}$ lead to an increase in the flux contrast from peak to valley, as well as to an overall decrease in the fluxes. Hence, the water troughs deepen with decreasing and, as Table 2 demonstrates, $J - K$ gets [*bluer*]{} with decreasing (Burrows et al. 1997; Allard et al. 2001). Roughly, this may be what is seen for the T dwarfs in the near IR (Burgasser et al. 2001a) and in Figs. \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\]. At the higher (in the Ls and early to mid Ts), the systematics with decreasing described above for water can also be seen in the spectral region shortward of 1.0 micron dominated by the alkali metal lines and wings. In addition, increasing pressure with decreasing leads to greater pressure-broadening, enhancing the influence of the alkali metal wings. Both effects lead to a [*reddening*]{} of the spectrum below $\sim$1.0 with decreasing which has been identified in previous theoretical explorations (e.g., BMS; Marley et al. 2001; Allard et al. 2001).
However, the Na and K abundances are very small below a certain temperature (1050 K to 850 K, depending on element and pressure). Since there is such a “top" to the atomic alkali region, as decreases further at low the region containing Na and K atoms becomes more and more buried. The result is a gradual diminution of the role of the Na and K lines from 0.4 to 1.0 and a consequent “bluing" of the spectrum below $\sim$1.0 . This effect below 1.0 was predicted by BMS; we now quantify it and in Fig. \[normal\], which shows the incipient closing of the K I absorption trough at 7700 Å and the slight bluing of the optical spectrum at low . The gravity- and metallicity-dependent reversal of the indices X97, X98, and i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$ at low is captured in Table 2. Recently, this prediction for the low behavior of T dwarfs, as seen in i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$, has been verified by Marley et al. (2001). The turnaround with decreasing in the behavior of these spectral indices and of the i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$ color is even more clearly portrayed in Figs. \[fig:10\], \[fig:12\], and \[fig:13\] (discussed in §\[comparisons\]). For the i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$ color, for this transition ranges from $\sim$700 K to $\sim$800 K. In this range, both i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$ and the overall spectral shape shortward of 1.0 micron are weak functions of .
Systematics with Gravity {#gravity}
------------------------
A T dwarf with a of $\sles$1000 K and a gravity of 10$^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$ has a mass near 70 (and an age $\sgreat$10$^{9.7}$ years). One with a gravity of 10$^{5}$ cm s$^{-2}$ has a mass near 35 . As we go down in gravity to 10$^{4.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$, we are exploring masses just above 15 . The observed T dwarfs may possibly span this entire range. Figure \[profiles\] shows that as the gravity increases the pressure at a given temperature in the atmosphere increases as well. What this figure does not show is that the column depth of material actually decreases with increasing gravity. This means that for a given , the depths of the water troughs and the contrasts between the emission peaks and these troughs actually [*decrease*]{} with increasing gravity. In particular, we discover that the relative depth of the water feature near 0.93 (measured by X23) decreases with increasing gravity. This is opposite to the effect of decreasing . One consequence is that any indices constructed from the contrasts between peak and water trough are not a one-parameter family in alone. Hence, we find that the effect of decreasing can be compensated by an increase in gravity. Importantly, as Table 2 demonstrates, increasing the gravity by 0.5 dex has the same effect on $J - K$ as decreasing by 100-200 K. Hence, given the current method of T dwarf spectral subtyping in the near-IR (Burgasser et al. 2001a; Geballe et al. 2002), effective temperature alone can not be construed to imply subtype. At a given , lowering the gravity can lead to a later subtype. Moreover, a later subtype does not necessarily imply a lower .
As Table 2 indicates, $J - K$ gets bluer with increasing gravity. This is predominantly a consequence of the pressure dependence of the CIA opacity of H$_2$ at 2.2 . Shortward of 1.0 micron, at higher increasing gravity reddens the i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$ color and increases (steepens) the X97 and X98 indices. However, at lower an increase in gravity leads to a slight reversal and i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$ becomes bluer. This newly-quantified behavior can be seen in Fig. \[fig:12\] (§\[comparisons\]) and Table 2 and is a consequence of the same systematics in the atmospheric profiles (Fig. \[profiles\]) discussed earlier that are responsible for the reversal in the dependence of the optical colors and slopes at lower .
Systematics with Metallicity {#smetal}
----------------------------
Figure \[figmetal\] portrays the metallicity dependence of T dwarf spectra from 0.4 to 1.5 , for a single representative of 900 K and a gravity of 10$^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$. Metallicities at 0.3, 1.0, and 2.0 times solar are compared. Shortward of 0.9 , we find that the lower-metallicity model is redder and the higher-metallicity model is bluer than the solar model. This newly-quantified effect may seem backwards, since one might have expected a lower metallicity to weaken the effects of the alkali metals. However, as the metallicity is lowered, the abundances of the other metals (such as oxygen in the form of water) are also lowered, leading to a more transparent atmosphere. As a result, one is peering more deeply into the atmosphere to higher pressures. This is clearly apparent in the relative positions on Fig. \[profiles\] of the red (low-metallicity) lines. At higher pressures, the Na D and K I resonance lines at $\sim$5890 Å and $\sim$7700 Å are stronger. Hence, i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$ reddens with decreasing metallicity. This is quite similar to what happens in subdwarf M stars. Overall, the solar and 2.0$\times$solar models are very similar shortward of 1.0 . Unless the metallicity is significantly subsolar (Griffith and Yelle 1999), the metallicity dependence of T dwarf spectra in the optical is weak (except perhaps shortward of 0.6 ). Note that our lower-metallicity model has a more rounded $Z$ band peak. Such a shape is not in evidence in the T dwarf data.
The differences in the near-IR at $H$ and $K$ are more pronounced, with lower-metallicity models being generically more blue in $J - K$ and $H - K$. For instance, from 600 to 1300 K, the differences between the solar-metallicity and the 0.3$\times$solar-metallicity models vary from 0.1 to 0.5 magnitudes in $J - K$ (cf. Table 2 and Fig. \[fig:12\]). The higher pressures in the low-metallicity atmospheres increase the CIA opacity and suppress the $K$ band flux. We find that decreasing the metallicity by a factor of three has a greater effect on the $K$ band than increasing the gravity by the same factor. This behavior with metallicity requires that if Gliese 229B has a low metallicity (Griffith and Yelle 1999) it must also have a low gravity. High-gravity models for Gliese 229B can not simultaneously be low-metallicity (Allard et al. 2001). It would be very useful for the determination of the physical parameters of the T dwarf Gliese 229B to obtain its spectrum from $\sim$0.6 to 0.8 and its X97 and i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$ indices (consistently calibrated).
Index and Color Comparisons {#comparisons}
===========================
Figures \[fig:10\], \[fig:11\], \[fig:12\], and \[fig:13\] are “color-color" diagrams that summarize the numerical data in Table 2. The upper-case letters on the figures represent the positions in these index plots of the measured T dwarfs. The letter that corresponds to a given T dwarf is indicated in Table 2 and in the figure caption to Fig. \[fig:10\]. Errors of $\sgreat$0.1 dex in the X indices and $\sim$0.25 in i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$ and $J - K$ (Bessell/Cousins) colors have been suppressed on these figures to avoid further clutter and to allow the basic collective gestalt to emerge. The lines on the plots are families as a function of at given gravities and metallicities. Each point represents an from 600 K to 1300 K, in steps of 100 K. The basic success of the models is clear from the correspondence between the regions occupied by the observed T dwarfs and where the theory points reside. In principle, a comparison of the observed positions on these plots with those for the theoretical models would allow one to determine , gravity, and metallicity. However, the errors in the indices and the overlaps of the model families make such a determination a bit less straightforward. In fact, such errors make it difficult to determine and gravity for most of the T dwarfs listed in Table 1 to better than $\pm$150 K in and 0.25 dex in gravity. Fits to most of the measured spectra can be obtained, but without parallaxes and given the remaining errors in the data they tell us very little we can use. Hence, we prefer not to provide specific object-by-object and gravity estimates, unless parallaxes are available or the object is an outlier in its spectrum or indices. Nevertheless, from Table 2, Fig. \[normal\], the new optical data, and our theoretical models we can infer that the of the listed T dwarfs, except for the three early Ts, are 900$\pm$150 K. The corresponding gravity range could in principle span our model set from 10$^{4.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$ to 10$^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$. Note that values for the of the early T dwarfs are approximately bracketed by 1100 K and 1300 K (see Table 2, Figs. \[fig:10\], \[fig:11\], \[fig:12\], and \[fig:13\]). Parallaxes would enable a determination of the possible /$g$ line for each object (as obtained in §\[modelfits\] for Gliese 229B) and are eagerly awaited.
From Fig. \[fig:10\], we see that our theory successfully provides the correct general overall X97/X98 slope and distinguishes the L dwarf region from the T dwarf region. Furthermore, it demonstrates that if the observed early T dwarfs (green) are not generically low-gravity objects (dashed), that the T dwarf edge has an effective temperature near 1300 K. (If these early T dwarfs were low-gravity objects, the T dwarf edge would be even lower in .) This L/T boundary temperature is in contrast with the $\sim$1600 K suggested by Basri et al. (1999). For higher gravity, SDSS-1254 (T2,D) would have a near 1200 K. However, despite the inclusion of rainout, the models are still displaced downward by $\sim$0.2 dex in X97. (Note that the non-rainout models \[cf. Table 2\] would be displaced downward in X97 by a further $\sim$0.5 dex and to the left in X98 by $\sim$0.2 dex!)
The fact that 2MASS-0937 (T6p,I), Gl 570D (T8,N), and 2MASS-0415 (T8,O) are outliers is consistent with their lower , higher gravity, or lower metallicity. In particular, 2MASS-0937, due to its high X97 (and i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$; see Fig. \[fig:11\]) and to the fact that in the near-IR it was typed by Burgasser et al. (2001a) as an earlier subtype than the other two, seems clearly to have either a higher gravity or a lower metallicity than the average T dwarf observed to date (Burgasser et al. 2001a). The lower-metallicity solution is slightly favored when one looks at the other index figures and makes a consensus judgment. Furthermore, the $Z$-band spectrum of 2MASS-0937 (Burgasser et al. 2001a) is a bit more rounded than average, reminiscent of the behavior of the low-metallicity model depicted in Fig. \[figmetal\]. We do not draw any conclusions from the lonely position of 2MASS-1237 (K) on this figure and on Figs. \[fig:11\] and \[fig:12\] due to the noisiness of its spectrum between the Na D line and the K I line at 7700 Å. Better data are clearly needed.
Figure \[fig:11\] demonstrates once again that our basic theoretical treatment shortward of 1.0 micron is not far wrong. We also see that the of modest- to high-gravity models of the early T dwarfs must be $\le$1300 K and that 2MASS-0937 (I) is best fit with a low-metallicity model, though not definitively so. However, the proximity of the model lines, their overlap, and the errors in the data together make it difficult to draw detailed conclusions concerning the “central" T dwarfs.
Figure \[fig:12\] is a color-color diagram that demonstrates the non-monotonic behavior of i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$ with (§\[system\]) and the outlier status of 2MASS-0937. It also makes the case that the early T dwarfs are not fit well in the near infrared by this grainless model set. No doubt, part of the problem lies with the incomplete methane opacity database in the $H$ and $K$ bands, notably the absence of the “hot" bands of methane. However, this can not account for the full discrepancy. The theoretical models are too blue in $J - K$ and the best explanation for this is the influence of residual dust/grains/clouds even in the early T dwarfs SDSS-0837 (T1,C), SDSS-1254 (T2,D), and SDSS-1021 (T3,E). The possible presence of grains is also suggested in Fig. \[fig:13\], which portrays both the behavior of X98 with X23 (H$_2$O jump) and the non-monotonic behavior with discussed previously. Figure \[fig:13\] shows that the depth of the water feature near 0.93 is not well reproduced by the models, unless many of the observed T dwarfs are of low metallicity (Griffith and Yelle 1999,2000). We surmise that extra opacity due to dust may be shallowing the water trough near 0.93 by 0.1 to 0.15 dex. Such dust may also be contributing to the general reddening shortward of 1.0 micron (Tsuji, Ohnaka, and Aoki 1999), still dominated by the wings of the K I (7700 Å) doublet.
The index figures and Table 2 allow one to draw some qualitative conclusions concerning specific T dwarfs. As indicated in Fig. \[fittwo\], Gliese 229B can be fit by a low-g/low-or a high-g/high-model. However, its value of X23 (J on Fig. \[fig:13\], one of the highest for the observed T dwarfs) implies that the low-gravity solution is preferred. It is probable from their values of i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$, X97, and X23 that SDSS-1624’s gravity is lower than that of 2MASS-0559. Furthermore, a direct comparision of SDSS-1624’s spectrum with that of Gliese 229B leads one to conclude that its gravity is greater than that of Gliese 229B. In addition, a comparison of the i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$, X98, and X97 indices for SDSS-1021 (T3) and SDSS-1254 (T2) leads one to conclude that SDSS-1021 has the lower gravity. This is also the conclusion arrived at in §\[data\] directly from the spectra. SDSS-1021 could also have a higher .
Hints of Clouds {#clouds}
===============
The discussion in §\[rainout\] points to a quite interesting fact. At near the early edge of the T dwarf family ($\sim$1300 K), T$_{2/3}$ in the $Z$ and $J$ bands reaches 1700-1800 K for atmospheres without the opacity effects of clouds. This suggests that the silicate/iron clouds expected to reside above 1500-1700 K might significantly affect the shape and strength of the $J$ and $Z$ emission peaks, even at such low . A very similar conclusion was reached by Marley et al. (2001). This is not unreasonable, since the L to T transition is thought to coincide with the settling to depth of the clouds that dominate the L dwarf spectral type (Ackerman and Marley 2001; Burrows et al. 2001). The spectra of the early T dwarfs should show the residual influence of such clouds. Indeed, as we argue in §\[comparisons\], the (i$^{\prime}$-z$^{\prime}$)/($J - K$) color-color diagram suggests that clouds are required to fit the early T dwarfs SDSS-0837 (T1), SDSS-1254 (T2), and SDSS-1021 (T3). As the T$_{2/3}$ temperature argument suggests, it is in the $Z$ and $J$ bands where the effects of clouds are primarily expected. Our spectral models at $\sim$1300 K (Fig. \[fig:3\]) manifest TiO and VO features in these bands because we have not included the effects of clouds. Clouds should not only mute the effects of TiO and VO on the $Z$ and $J$ bands of the = 1200/1300 K models in Fig. \[fig:3\], but should also help reduce the contrast between the emission peaks at $Z$, $J$, and $K$ and the water troughs at 1.15 and 1.4 (Jones and Tsuji 1997). Furthermore, because the subordinate K I absorptions at 1.2432/1.2522 are from a thermally-excited state, they are formed only at high atmospheric temperatures. Coincidently, they reside in the middle of the $J$ band where one is probing higher temperatures, as indicated by the higher T$_{2/3}$s there (Fig. \[bright\]). However, the strengths we derive for these subordinate lines (see Fig. \[fig:3\]) are generally greater than observed (McLean et al. 2000; Saumon et al. 2000). This too may point to a mitigating role of veiling clouds/dust/grains. Hence, there are numerous spectral regions that speak to the potential influence of clouds on T dwarf spectra.
However, there remains a puzzle that may not be so easily explained by dust. The classic Li feature at 6708 Å is included in our model set and can be seen on the curves in Fig. \[fig:3\]. Observations (Kirkpatrick et al. 1999) suggest that the strength of this feature peaks in the mid-L spectral range and then drops monotonically. Currently, there is little indication of this line in the observed late L dwarfs, nor in the T dwarfs. However, in both our rainout and no-rainout (unpublished) models the Li line survives to below = 600 K. Allard et al. (2001) also obtain this feature at low and Pavlenko (2001) has an extensive theoretical discussion concerning its formation in late L dwarfs. Since lithium burning in objects that currently have T dwarf occurs only for a narrow range of masses and gravities ($> 2.5\times 10^{5}$ cm s$^{-2}$), nuclear burning seems to be excluded as a generic explanation. Chemistry would be the natural culprit, but both the Burrows and Sharp (1999) and Lodders (1999) rainout prescriptions and the no-rainout prescription (true equilibrium) give qualitatively the same result. Since atomic Li should exist in abundance to temperatures around 1300 K (Lodders 1999) and should trail off below that and since T$_{2/3}$s around 6700 Åare 1000 K to 1350 K for from 700 to 1300 K (see Fig. \[bright\] for 700$\rightarrow$1100 K), there is no obvious reason the 6708 ÅLi line should disappear before the L/T boundary. Therefore, we suspect there is an interesting story to be told about real brown dwarf atmospheres in the resolution of this Li-line problem.
Conclusions {#conclusion}
===========
We have generated spectral models for the temperature range 600 K to 1300 K thought to encompass the T dwarfs. Comparing these models with the new T dwarf data shortward of 1.0 micron, we find that the models can explain in qualitative and semi-quantitative fashion, the new observations and their systematic trends. Furthermore, we demonstrate that untruncated Lorentzian line profiles for the Na D and K I (7700 Å) resonance doublets are disfavored, that the atmospheric abundances of sodium and potassium have indeed been enhanced by the rainout of silicates (BMS; Lodders 1999), that water bands weaken with increasing gravity, that modest decreases in metallicity enhance the effect of the alkali lines in the optical, and that at low the behavior of the optical spectra with reverses and becomes bluer with further decreases in (as predicted by BMS). Moreover, we find that the upper edge of the T dwarf range is near $\sim$1300 K.
We determine that the optical range is rich in diagnostics that are complementary to those in the near-infrared now used for spectroscopic classification. An important conclusion is that the T dwarf subtype is not a function of alone; subtype is also a non-trivial function of gravity and metallicity. Even if the range of metallicities represented by the known T dwarfs is small, gravity will play an important role in the near-IR and shortward of 1.0 micron in determining spectral shape, colors, and spectral subtype.
From the shallowness of the water feature near 0.93 , from the weaker than predicted K I features in the $J$ band, from the failure of the models to fit the $J - K$ colors of the early T dwarfs, and from the presence in the hotter models of TiO and VO features in the $Z$ and $J$ bands (not seen in the observations of the earlier T dwarfs), we find evidence of residual dust/grains/clouds in early T dwarf atmospheres. A similar conclusion was recently reached by Marley et al. (2001). The L dwarfs are known to be dominated by clouds (Burrows et al. 2001, and references therein), and the transition from the L dwarfs to the T dwarfs is predominantly due to the depletion and rainout of heavy metals (Ackerman and Marley 2001; Burrows and Sharp 1999; Marley et al. 1996; Allard et al. 1996). However, the continuing effect of clouds in the early T dwarfs seems to be indicated by the data. Clouds in T dwarf atmospheres do not explain the redness of the spectrum shortward of 1.0 (though they might contribute to it); this is mostly explained by the K I line at 7700 Å and its wing (Burrows, Marley, and Sharp 2000). However, the L and T transition is not as abrupt as earlier inferred by the sharp swing to the blue of $J - K$. One can still see deeply into the atmosphere, even for low , into regions occupied by silicate (and other?) clouds. The opacity spectrum of clouds is much more continuous and featureless than that of gas. As a consequence, the influence of clouds is manifest by broad shape changes in the optical and near-IR spectra and by the suppression of gas-phase spectral features, not by specific and distinct spectral features, until one gets to $\sim$10 and the classical silicate band appears. Certainly, good models of the particle size spectrum, spatial extent, and composition of the grains or droplets are required to reproduce the measured spectra of the early T dwarfs in detail. The later T dwarfs are easier to fit, but the residual effect of clouds at depth on the emergent spectra can not yet be discounted.
The T dwarfs are all brown dwarfs and the number of such substellar objects known to astronomy is growing fast. Their spectra hold the key to their physical characterization and shortward of 1.0 micron these spectra have great diagnostic potential. We have attempted to make only a preliminary stab at comparing the new data at short wavelengths with theory and look forward to the creation of better opacity databases and cloud models, more precise spectral measurements, and the measurement of parallaxes that together will enable the final, detailed determination of the masses, gravities, , and compositions of the objects that inhabit this fascinating new spectral class.
We are happy to thank Christopher Sharp, Curtis Cooper, Richard Freedman, Jonathan Lunine, Bill Hubbard, Didier Saumon, Mark Marley, Hugh Harris, Conard Dahn, and Phil Pinto for insightful discussions and advice. For electronic versions of the synthetic spectra discussed in this paper, please contact the first author. This work was supported in part by NASA grants NAG5-10760, NAG5-10629, NAG5-7499, and NAG5-7073. A.J.B. acknowledges support from the Space Telescope Science Institute through NASA/HST proposal \#8563. Portions of the data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Ackermann, A. and Marley, M.S. 2001, , 556, 872 Allard, F., Hauschildt, P.H., Baraffe, I. & Chabrier, G. 1996, , 465, L123 Allard, F., Hauschildt, P.H., Alexander, D.R., Tamanai, A., and Schweitzer, A. 2001, in press. Anders, E. and Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197
Basri, G. et al. 2000, , 538, 363 Bessell, M.S., and Brett, J. M. 1988, , 100, 1134 Borysow, A. and Frommhold, L. 1990, , 348, L41 Borysow, A., Jø[rgensen]{}, U.G., and Zheng, C. 1997, , 324, 185 Burgasser, A.J., et al. 1999, , 522, L65 Burgasser, A.J., et al. 2000a, , 531, L57 Burgasser, A.J., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Reid, I. N., Liebert, J., Gizis, J. E., & Brown, M. E. 2000b, , 120, 473 Burgasser, A.J., et al. 2000c, , 120, 1100 Burgasser, A.J., et al. 2001a, , 563, in press Burgasser, A.J. 2001b, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology Burrows, A., Marley M., Hubbard, W.B. Lunine, J.I., Guillot, T., Saumon, D. Freedman, R., Sudarsky, D. and Sharp, C.M. 1997, , 491, 856 Burrows, A. and Sharp, C.M. 1999, , 512, 843 Burrows, A., Marley, M. S., and Sharp, C. M. 2000, , 531, 438 Burrows, A., Hubbard, W.B., Lunine, J.I., and Liebert, J. 2001, Rev. Mod. Phys., 73, 719 Cuby, J.G., Saracco, P., Moorwood, A.F.M., D’Odorico, S., Lidman, C., Comer[ó]{}n, F., and Spyromilio, J. 1999, , 349, L41 Delfosse, X., Tinney, C.G., Forveille, T., Epchtein, N., Bertin, E., Borsenberger, J., Copet, E., De Batz, B., Fouqué, P., Kimeswenger, S., Le Bertre, T., Lacombe, F., Rouan, D., and Tiphène, D. 1997, å, 327, L25 Fan, X., et al. 2000, , 119, 928 Fukugita, M. et al. 1996, , 111, 1748 Geballe, T.R., Saumon, D., Leggett, S.K., Knapp, G.R., Marley, M.S., and Lodders, K. 2001, , 556, 373 Geballe, T.R. et al. 2002, , 563, in press Golimowski, D. A., 1998, , 115, 2579 Griffith, C.A., Yelle, R.V., and Marley, M.S. 1998, Science, 282, 2063 Griffith, C.A. and Yelle, R.V. 1999, , 519, L85 Griffith, C.A. and Yelle, R.V. 2000, , 532, L59 Hubeny, I. and Lanz, T. 1995, , 439, 875 Jones, H.R.A. and Tsuji, T. 1997, , 480, L39 Jones, H.R.A., Pavlenko, Y., Viti, S., and Tennyson, J. 2002, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., in press. Jø[rgensen]{}, U.G., 1997, in [*Molecules in Astrophysics: Probes and Processes*]{}, ed. E.F. van Dishoeck, (Kluwer, IAU Symp. 178), pp. 441-456 Khare, B.N. and Sagan, C. 1984, Icarus, 60, 127 Kirkpatrick, J.D., Reid, I.N., Liebert, J., Cutri, R.M., Nelson, B., Beichman, C.A., Dahn, C.C., Monet, D.G., Gizis, J., and Skrutskie, M.F. 1999, , 519, 802 Kirkpatrick, J. D., Reid, I. N., Liebert, J., Gizis, J. E., Burgasser, A. J., Monet, D. G., Dahn, C. C., Nelson, B., & Williams, R. J. 2000, , 120, 447 Kirkpatrick, J.D., et al. 2001, submitted to Leggett, S. K., Toomey, D. W., Geballe, T. R., and Brown, R. H. 1999, , 517, L139 Leggett, S. K., et al. 2000, , 536, L35 Liebert, J., Reid, I. N., Burrows, A., Burgasser, A. J., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Gizis, J. E. 2000, , 533, L155 Lodders, K. 1999, , 519, 793 Marley, M.S., Saumon, D., Guillot, T., Freedman, R.S., Hubbard, W.B., Burrows, A. & Lunine, J.I. 1996, Science, 272, 1919 Marley, M.S., Seager, S., Saumon, D., Lodders, K., Ackerman, A.S., and Freedman, R. 2001, , in press (astro-ph/0105438). Mart[í]{}n, E. L., Delfosse, X., Basri, G., Goldman, B., Forveille, T., & Zapatero Osorio, M. R. 1999, , 118, 2466 Matthews, K., Nakajima, T., Kulkarni, S.R., & Oppenheimer, B.R. 1996, , 112, 1678 McLean, I., et al. 2000, , 533, L45 Morgan, W. W., Keenan, P.C., and Kellman, E. 1943, An Atlas of Stellar Spectra, with an Outline of Spectral Classification. (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press) Morgan, D.H., Tritton, S.B., Savage, A., Hartley, M., and Cannon, R.D. 1992, in Digitised Optical Sky Surveys, ed. H.T. MacGillivray and E.B. Thomson (Dordrecht: Boston), p. 11 Nakajima, T., Oppenheimer, B.R., Kulkarni, S.R., Golimowski, D.A., Matthews, K. and Durrance, S.T. 1995, Nature, 378, 463 Noll, K., Geballe, T.R., & Marley, M.S. 1997, , 489, 87 Noy, M., Podolak, M., and Bar-Nun, A. 1981, J. Geophys. Research, 86, 11985 Oke, J.B. et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375 Oppenheimer, B.R., Kulkarni, S.R., Matthews, K., and Nakajima, T. 1995, Science, 270, 1478 Partridge, H. and Schwenke, D.W. 1997, J. Chem. Phys., 106, 4618 Pavlenko, Ya.V., 2001, Astronomy Reports, 45, 144 Perryman, M.A.C. 1997, å, 323, L49 Piskunov, N.E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T.A., Weiss, W.W., & Jeffery, C.S. 1995, Suppl., 112, 525 Plez, B., 1998, , 337, 495 Plez, B. 1999, private communication. Ruiz, M.T., Leggett, S.K., and Allard, F. 1997, , 491, L107 Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., and Van Horn, H.M. 1995, , 99, 713 Saumon, D., Geballe, T.R., Leggett, S.K., Marley, M.S., Freedman, R.S., Lodders, K., Fegley, B., and Sengupta, S.K. 2000, , 541, 374 Schultz, A.B. 1998, , 492, L181 Strauss, M.A., et al. 1999, , 522, L61 Tokunaga, A.T., and Kobayashi, N. 1999, , 117, 1010 Tsuji, T., Ohnaka, K., Aoki, W., and Nakajima, T. 1996, å, 308, L29 Tsuji, T., Ohnaka, K., and Aoki, W. 1999, , 520, L119 Tsvetanov, Z.I., et al. 2000, , 531, L61 Zheng, C. and Borysow, A. 1995, Icarus, 113, 84
[cccc]{} 2MASSI J1507038-151648 & 2MASS-1507 & L5& 1\
2MASSW J1632291+190441 & 2MASS-1632 & L8& 1\
SDSSp J083717.22$-$000018.3 & SDSS-0837 & T1& 2\
SDSSp J125453.90$-$012247.4 & SDSS-1254 & T2& 2\
SDSSp J102109.69$-$030420.1 & SDSS-1021 & T3& 2\
2MASSI J0559191$-$140448 & 2MASS-0559 & T5& 3\
SDSSp J162414.37+002915.6 & SDSS-1624 & T6& 4\
2MASSI J0937347+293142 & 2MASS-0937 & T6p& 5\
SDSSp J134646.45$-$003150.4 & SDSS-1346 & T6& 6\
2MASSI J1237392+652615 & 2MASS-1237 & T6.5& 7\
Gliese 229B & Gl 229B& T6.5 &8\
2MASSI J0727182+171001 & 2MASS-0727 & T7& 5\
2MASSI J1217110$-$031113 & 2MASS-1217 & T7.5& 5\
2MASSW J1457150-212148 & Gl 570D & T8 &9\
2MASSI J0415195$-$093506 & 2MASS-0415 & T8 &5\
[ccccccc]{} 2MASS-1507 (L5,A ) &$ 2.16$&$ 0.68$&$ 0.07$&$ -0.02$&$ - $&$ - $\
2MASS-1632 (L8,B) &$ 2.88$&$ 1.10$&$ 0.17$&$ 0.14$&$ - $&$ - $\
SDSS-0837 (T1,C) &$ 3.61$&$ 1.48$&$ 0.13$&$ 0.30$&$ 1.07 $&$ 0.057 $\
SDSS-1254 (T2,D) &$ 4.08$&$ 1.58$&$ 0.11$&$ 0.37$&$ 0.98 $&$ 0.120 $\
SDSS-1021 (T3,E) &$ 3.92$&$ 1.41$&$ 0.11$&$ 0.36$&$ 0.84 $&$ 0.232 $\
2MASS-0559 (T5,F) &$ 4.32$&$ 1.69$&$ 0.13$&$ 0.38$&$ 0.17 $&$ 0.188$\
SDSS-1624 (T6,G) &$ 3.66$&$ 1.34$&$ 0.28$&$ 0.37$&$ - $&$ - $\
2MASS-0937 (T6p,I) &$ 4.99$&$ 2.10$&$ 0.35$&$ 0.49$&$ -0.57 $&$ 0.127$\
SDSS-1346 (T6,H) &$ 4.36$&$ 1.63$&$ 0.44$&$ 0.43$&$ -0.33 $&$ 0.230$\
2MASS-1237 (T6.5,K) &$ 3.86$&$ 1.33$&$ 0.28$&$ 0.46$&$ -0.40 $&$ 0.083$\
Gl 229B (T6.5,J) & $-$ & $-$ &$0.46$&$ 0.52$&$ -0.16$&$ -0.300 $\
2MASS-0727 (T7,L) &$ 4.06$&$ 1.76$&$ 0.29$&$ 0.34$&$ -0.51 $&$ 0.168$\
2MASS-1217 (T7.5,M) &$ 3.83$&$ 2.35$&$ 0.34$&$ 0.37$&$ -0.03 $&$ 0.207$\
Gl 570D (T8,N) &$ 4.38$&$ 1.97$&$ 0.53$&$ 0.41$&$ -0.34 $&$ 0.217$\
2MASS-0415 (T8,O) &$ 4.01$&$ 1.82$&$ 0.35$&$ 0.40$&$ -0.28 $&$ 0.221$\
&&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
g = $10^5$ cm s$^{-2}$: &&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
1300 K &$ 3.10$&$ 1.01$&$ 0.27$&$ 0.21$&$ 0.48 $&$ 0.32$\
1200 &$ 3.63$&$ 1.29$&$ 0.43$&$ 0.33$&$ 0.31 $&$ 0.14$\
1100 &$ 3.91$&$ 1.43$&$ 0.53$&$ 0.39$&$ 0.23 $&$ 0.13$\
1000 &$ 4.14$&$ 1.52$&$ 0.62$&$ 0.40$&$ 0.09 $&$ 0.17$\
900 &$ 4.38$&$ 1.64$&$ 0.72$&$ 0.42$&$ -0.05 $&$ 0.22$\
800 &$ 4.53$&$ 1.71$&$ 0.81$&$ 0.43$&$ -0.29 $&$ 0.27$\
700 &$ 4.63$&$ 1.78$&$ 0.91$&$ 0.45$&$ -0.53 $&$ 0.35$\
600 &$ 4.51$&$ 1.75$&$ 0.99$&$ 0.42$&$ -0.92 $&$ 0.45$\
&&&&&&\
g = $10^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$: &&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
1300 K &$ 3.47$&$ 1.19$&$ 0.20$&$ 0.29$&$ 0.34 $&$ 0.31$\
1200 &$ 3.83$&$ 1.35$&$ 0.28$&$ 0.34$&$ 0.18 $&$ 0.34$\
1100 &$ 4.39$&$ 1.60$&$ 0.42$&$ 0.45$&$ -0.09 $&$ 0.16$\
1000 &$ 4.68$&$ 1.73$&$ 0.48$&$ 0.48$&$ -0.24 $&$ 0.20$\
900 &$ 4.74$&$ 1.76$&$ 0.52$&$ 0.47$&$ -0.38 $&$ 0.27$\
800 &$ 4.85$&$ 1.82$&$ 0.57$&$ 0.48$&$ -0.69 $&$ 0.35$\
700 &$ 4.70$&$ 1.78$&$ 0.63$&$ 0.47$&$ -0.89 $&$ 0.44$\
600 &$ 4.44$&$ 1.72$&$ 0.74$&$ 0.42$&$ -1.26 $&$ 0.50$\
&&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
No rainout: &&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
900 K/5.${\odot}$.norain &$ 3.20$&$ 1.23$&$ 0.83$&$ 0.31$&$ -0.12$&$ -0.15$\
900/5.5${\odot}$.norain &$ 3.08$&$ 1.16$&$ 0.64$&$ 0.31$&$ -0.45$&$ -0.20$\
&&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
g = $10^5$ cm s$^{-2}$: &&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
1300 K &$ 3.19$&$ 1.00$&$ 0.17$&$ 0.21$&$ 0.11 $&$ 0.32$\
1200 &$ 3.61$&$ 1.21$&$ 0.26$&$ 0.28$&$ -0.09 $&$ 0.25$\
1100 &$ 4.16$&$ 1.49$&$ 0.36$&$ 0.41$&$ -0.35 $&$ 0.14$\
1000 &$ 4.53$&$ 1.65$&$ 0.43$&$ 0.46$&$ -0.48 $&$ 0.13$\
900 &$ 4.89$&$ 1.80$&$ 0.47$&$ 0.49$&$ -0.71 $&$ 0.16$\
800 &$ 5.26$&$ 1.97$&$ 0.52$&$ 0.53$&$ -1.01 $&$ 0.19$\
700 &$ 5.23$&$ 1.97$&$ 0.56$&$ 0.54$&$ -1.27 $&$ 0.25$\
600 &$ 5.17$&$ 1.97$&$ 0.61$&$ 0.54$&$ -1.82 $&$ 0.30$\
&&&&&&\
g = $10^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$: &&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
1300 K &$ 3.56$&$ 1.17$&$ 0.13$&$ 0.28$&$ -0.04 $&$ 0.20$\
1200 &$ 4.15$&$ 1.46$&$ 0.18$&$ 0.39$&$ -0.34 $&$ 0.18$\
1100 &$ 4.59$&$ 1.64$&$ 0.22$&$ 0.46$&$ -0.55 $&$ 0.23$\
1000 &$ 4.89$&$ 1.77$&$ 0.26$&$ 0.50$&$ -0.70 $&$ 0.20$\
900 &$ 5.23$&$ 1.90$&$ 0.29$&$ 0.54$&$ -0.90 $&$ 0.18$\
800 &$ 5.44$&$ 2.00$&$ 0.32$&$ 0.59$&$ -1.22 $&$ 0.21$\
700 &$ 5.29$&$ 1.95$&$ 0.35$&$ 0.56$&$ -1.51 $&$ 0.26$\
600 &$ 5.11$&$ 1.90$&$ 0.40$&$ 0.54$&$ -2.01 $&$ 0.29$\
&&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
g = $10^5$ cm s$^{-2}$: &&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
1300 K &$ 3.20$&$ 1.11$&$ 0.42$&$ 0.25$&$ 0.72 $&$ 0.10$\
1200 &$ 3.44$&$ 1.20$&$ 0.48$&$ 0.26$&$ 0.58 $&$ 0.21$\
1100 &$ 3.89$&$ 1.44$&$ 0.66$&$ 0.39$&$ 0.43 $&$ 0.16$\
1000 &$ 4.13$&$ 1.55$&$ 0.77$&$ 0.39$&$ 0.29 $&$ 0.11$\
900 &$ 4.12$&$ 1.55$&$ 0.84$&$ 0.38$&$ 0.30 $&$ 0.18$\
800 &$ 4.29$&$ 1.65$&$ 0.97$&$ 0.39$&$ 0.17 $&$ 0.26$\
700 &$ 4.37$&$ 1.71$&$ 1.12$&$ 0.40$&$ -0.05 $&$ 0.35$\
600 &$ 4.17$&$ 1.66$&$ 1.24$&$ 0.34$&$ -0.36 $&$ 0.45$\
&&&&&&\
g = $10^{5.5}$ cm s$^{-2}$: &&&&&&\
&&&&&&\
1300 K &$ 3.69$&$ 1.30$&$ 0.35$&$ 0.36$&$ 0.42 $&$ 0.12$\
1200 &$ 3.92$&$ 1.41$&$ 0.43$&$ 0.40$&$ 0.34 $&$ 0.09$\
1100 &$ 4.06$&$ 1.48$&$ 0.49$&$ 0.41$&$ 0.25 $&$ 0.13$\
1000 &$ 4.17$&$ 1.53$&$ 0.56$&$ 0.41$&$ 0.14 $&$ 0.22$\
900 &$ 4.41$&$ 1.66$&$ 0.65$&$ 0.43$&$ 0.06 $&$ 0.29$\
800 &$ 4.46$&$ 1.70$&$ 0.74$&$ 0.44$&$ -0.12 $&$ 0.38$\
700 &$ 4.39$&$ 1.69$&$ 0.82$&$ 0.42$&$ -0.43 $&$ 0.48$\
600 &$ 4.11$&$ 1.61$&$ 0.96$&$ 0.36$&$ -0.73 $&$ 0.56$\
&&&&&&\
=+0.1pc
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The real part of the in-plane optical self-energy data in underdoped Bi$_{2}$Sr$_{2}$CaCu$_{2}$O$_{8+\delta}$ (Bi-2212) and ortho II YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6.5}$ contains new and important information on the pseudogap. Using a theoretical model approach we find that the density of state lost below the pseudogap $\Delta_{pg}$ is accompanied with a pileup just above this energy. The pileup along with a sharp mode in the bosonic spectral function leads to an unusually rapid increase in the optical scattering rate and a characteristically sloped peak in the real part of the optical self-energy. These features are not found in optimally doped and overdoped samples and represent a clearest signature so far of the opening of a pseudogap in the in-plane optical conductivity.'
author:
- 'J. Hwang$^{1}$'
- 'J. P. Carbotte$^{1,2}$'
- 'T. Timusk$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Evidence for a pseudogap in underdoped Bi$_{2}$Sr$_{2}$CaCu$_{2}$O$_{8+\delta}$ and YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6.50}$ from in-plane optical conductivity measurements'
---
A striking feature of the underdoped cuprates, not present in conventional metals, is the appearance of a pseudogap[@timusk99] below a characteristic temperature $T^*$. In general, the opening of a pseudogap $\Delta_{pg}$ leads to a reduction in the electronic density of states (DOS) around the Fermi energy. Since, as yet, there is no full understanding of the exact origin of the pseudogap in the cuprates, an important issue is how it should be modelled, its width in frequency, its behavior as a function of doping and temperature and what happens to the spectral weight in the gap. While the first evidence of a pseudogap in the cuprates came from NMR experiments[@warren89; @alloul89] that showed a gap in the spin excitation spectrum, a gap in the charge excitations was found in the c-axis conductivity of underdoped YBCO by Homes [*et al.*]{}[@homes93]. The conductivity in this direction is incoherent, and like c-axis tunneling, is expected to be proportional to the density of states. Homes [*et al.*]{} concluded that the spectral weight lost in the pseudogap region was recovered at much higher frequencies. A similar conclusion was reached by Loram [*et al.*]{} from specific heat measurements [@loram98]. In contrast, Yu [*et al.*]{} from a recent study of c-axis conductivity of underdoped RBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6.5}$ (R=Y, Nd, and La) extending the measurements to higher frequency found that spectral weight was recovered [@Yu07]. Also tunneling data suggests that the “coherence peak” that signals a tunneling conductance that is enhanced over the background persists well into the normal state in Bi-2212 [@renner98] suggesting a recovery of gapped states.
The pseudogap is more difficult to identify in the ab-plane transport. While it was clear very early on that the ab-plane absorption showed an unmistakable decrease at energies below $\Delta_{pg}$[@orenstein90; @rotter91; @basov96; @puchkov96; @hwang06], a clear interpretation in terms of a pseudogap was problematic since it is difficult to separate the effects of a pseudogap (a pseudogap in the density of states) and a gap in the spectrum of inelastic excitations (a spin gap) since both reduce absorption at low frequencies. Further, studies of the real part of the conductivity did not show the expected reduction in optical spectral weight below the pseudogap energy[@santander02]. This remains unexplained. In this letter we find that by focussing not on features in the optical conductivity, but on the real and imaginary parts of the optical self-energy we [*are able to*]{} separate the contributions of the pseudogap and inelastic scattering. Furthermore, simulations with simple models show that spectral features in the density of states are less spread out in the self-energy than in the conductivity making small changes easier to estimate accurately. We can trace to missing states below the gap to the region just above it.
It has become common in the optical literature to analyze reflectivity measurements in terms of the real and imaginary parts of the optical conductivity $\sigma(\omega)=\sigma_1(\omega)+i\sigma_2(\omega)$ and present the results for the optical scattering rate $1/\tau^{op}(\omega)$ as a function of $\omega$. The extended Drude formula, which is valid for correlated electrons, can be written as $ 4 \pi
\sigma(\omega)\equiv i\omega_{p}^2
/[\omega-2\Sigma^{op}(\omega)]$, where $\omega_p$ is the plasma frequency and $\Sigma^{op}(\omega)\equiv\Sigma_1^{op}(\omega)+i\Sigma_2^{op}(\omega)$ is by definition the optical self-energy. Its imaginary part gives the optical scattering rate and its real part is related to the optical mass re-normalization. The real and imaginary parts of $\Sigma^{op}(\omega)$ are related by Kramers-Kronig (K-K) transformations. They play, for the optical conductivity, a role similar to that played by the quasiparticle self-energy $\Sigma^{qp}(\omega)$ in angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy but these are different quantities although they are closely related [@carbotte05; @schachinger03].
The real part of $\Sigma^{op}(\omega)$ obtained from the in-plane conductivity in the highly underdoped regime[@hwang06; @hwang04; @hwang07] shows a particularly clear and striking signature of the pseudogap modelled just as was done from the specific heat[@loram98] by a simple reduction in electronic density of states in the vicinity of the Fermi energy. Contrary to the specific heat case, however, we find evidence that these missing states in DOS pile up in the region just above the pseudogap energy. While the exact shape taken by the quasiparticle DOS around the Fermi energy will in principle be reflected in the shape of the real part of the optical self-energy, these details are of secondary importance.
In Fig. \[Fig1\] we compare results for $-2\Sigma^{op}_1(\omega)$ vs. $\omega$ obtained in ref. [@hwang04; @hwang07] for an underdoped Bi-2212 sample (top frame) with an overdoped sample with approximately the same critical temperature (bottom frame). The evolution of the curves seen as the temperature is lowered is quite different in the two cases. The overdoped samples show only small changes while the underdoped one shows the growth of a sharp triangle-like peak around 750 cm$^{-1}$. We will argue that this sharp peak is a result of a pseudogap opening with a recovery region just above it while at the same time a sharp resonance exists in the electron-boson spectral density $I^2\chi(\omega)$ which we believe to be due to spin fluctuations and not phonons. The inset in the top frame of Fig. 1 shows results from the highly underdoped ortho II compound YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6.5}$[@hwang06] in which every second chain is full and the others are empty, leading to a perfect stoichiometric sample. The same characteristic temperature evolution is seen in YBCO as in Bi-2212. This suggests that this sharp peak is a universal feature of the underdoped cuprates.
To establish our central point it will be sufficient to use approximate, but surprisingly accurate, formulas that relate the real and imaginary parts of the scattering rates to the electron-boson spectral density $I^2\chi(\omega)$ for zero temperature from the work of Mitrovic [*et al.*]{}[@mitrovic85] and others[@allen71; @shulga91; @sharapov05; @knigavko05]. At $T=0$ we have[@mitrovic85], $$\begin{split}
-2\Sigma_1^{op}(\omega)\! \cong \! \frac{2}{\omega}
\!\int^{\infty}_0 \!\!d\Omega I^2\chi(\Omega) \!\int^{\infty}_0
\!\!d\omega'\tilde{
N}(\omega')\\
\times
\ln\Big{|}\frac{(\omega'+\Omega)^2}{(\omega'+\Omega)^2-\omega^2}\Big{|}\nonumber
\end{split}$$ $$-2\Sigma_2^{op}(\omega)\!\equiv\!
\frac{1}{\tau^{op}(\omega)}\!\cong \!
\frac{2\pi}{\omega}\!\!\int^{\omega}_0 \!\!\!\!d\Omega
I^2\chi(\Omega)\!\!\int^{\omega-\Omega}_0
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!d\omega'\tilde{N}(\omega')\nonumber$$ where $\tilde{N}(\omega)$ is the renormalized electronic density of states symmetrized about the Fermi energy. It contains the pseudogap and, for finite bands, would decay rapidly at the renormalized band edge. There is a cutoff frequency, $\Omega_c$ on the spectral density. Here we used $\Omega_c$ = 4000 cm$^{-1}$ .
![(color online) Minus twice the real part of the optical self-energy $-2\Sigma^{op}(\omega)$ vs. $\omega$ for underdoped (top frame) and overdoped Bi-2212 (bottom frame)[@hwang04; @hwang07]. The inset shows the corresponding results for underdoped ortho II YBCO[@hwang06].[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Pseudo2F1.eps){width="3.5"}
We begin with the following observation. For a constant density of states and coupling to a single mode of energy $\omega_E$ [*i.e.*]{} $I^2\chi(\omega)=A_0\delta(\omega-\omega_E)$ with $A_0$ setting the scale, the optical scattering rate ($1/\tau^{op}(\omega)$) is zero for $\omega < \omega_E$ and equal to $2 \pi A_0[(\omega-\omega_E)/\omega]$ for $\omega \geq
\omega_E$ which starts from zero at $\omega=\omega_E$ and saturates to $2 \pi A_0$ only for $\omega \gg \omega_E$. If, in addition, there is a full gap $\Delta_{pg}$ (the pseudogap) in the symmetrized density of electronic states $\tilde{N}(\omega)$, $1/\tau^{op}(\omega)$ starts instead from zero at $\omega=\omega_E+\Delta_{pg}$ and rise towards saturation according to the modulating factor $(\omega-\omega_E-\Delta_{pg})/\omega$ which effectively rises more slowly with $\omega$ than does $(\omega-\omega_E)/\omega$. This is seen in the middle frame of Fig. 2 where we show $-2\Sigma^{op}_2(\omega)$ for three cases, A, B, C all based on the electron-boson spectral density shown in the inset, $I^2\chi(\omega)=A_p/[\sqrt{2\pi}(d/2.35)]
e^{-(\omega-\omega_{p})^2/[2(d/2.35)^2]} +A_s\:
\omega/[\omega_{sf}^2+\omega^2]$, where $A_p=$ 200, $\omega_{p}=$ 250 cm$^{-1}$, $d=$ 10 cm$^{-1}$, $A_s=$ 100 cm$^{-1}$, and $\omega_{sf}=$ 500 cm$^{-1}$. It has a peak at $\omega=250$ cm$^{-1}$ and a broad background extending to 4000 cm$^{-1}$, modelled on results for underdoped ortho II YBCO[@hwang06]. The curve A includes no pseudogap while curve B has $\Delta_{pg} =
550$ cm$^{-1}$ and starts from zero at 800 cm$^{-1}$ in contrast to curve A which starts at 250 cm$^{-1}$. Comparing with curve A shows that a pseudogap leads to an optical scattering rate which rises less steeply from zero than it would with $\Delta_{pg}=0$. A slower rise would also arise if instead of using a delta function at $\omega_E$ for $I^2\chi(\omega)$ part of the weight (not shown here) was distributed to a region of higher frequencies. The two curves for $-2\Sigma^{op}_2(\omega)$ as well as C continue to rise at the largest photon energies shown because we have included a background in $I^2\chi(\omega)$ which extends to 4000 cm$^{-1}$. The curve C includes a full pseudogap just as in curve B but now it is also assumed that the lost states in $\tilde{N}(\omega)$ reappear just above $\Delta_{pg}$ in the interval $\Delta_{pg}$ to $2\Delta_{pg}$. These extra electronic states lead to increased scattering and the curve C rises from zero much more rapidly than curve B. Also at the energy marking the end of the enhanced density of states (recovery region) there is a kink in $1/\tau^{op}(\omega)$ beyond which the rate of increase in $1/\tau^{op}(\omega)$ becomes less rapid.
![(color online) Model results for $-2\Sigma^{op}_1(\omega)$ vs. $\omega$ (top frame) and $-2\Sigma^{op}_2(\omega)$ vs. $\omega$ (middle frame). The electrons are coupled to bosons with electron-boson spectral weight shown in the inset of the middle frame. A, B and C curves are with no pseudogap, pseudogap without recovery region, and pseudogap with recovery, respectively. The corresponding density of states, $\tilde{N}(\omega)$, is shown in the inset (bottom frame) with the same line types. In the bottom frame we show the derivative, $d[-2\Sigma^{op}_1(\omega)]/d\omega$ vs. $\omega$.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Pseudo2F2n.eps){width="3.5"}
![(color online) Comparison of $-2\Sigma^{op}_1(\omega)$ vs. $\omega$ for underdoped Bi-2212 and overdoped Bi-2212 samples, bottom frame. The top frame shows results of model calculations. Solid (dark-blue) and dashed (blue) curves are with pseudogap and recovery and without gap (see corresponding quadratic behavior $\tilde{N}(\omega)$ curves in the inset) for the $I^2\chi(\omega)$ shown in the inset to Fig. \[Fig2\]. Dashed (purple) and solid (green) curves are obtained when the electron-boson spectral density, just has a continuous background.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Pseudo2F3n.eps){width="3.5"}
In the top frame of Fig. \[Fig2\] we show the real part of $\Sigma^{op}(\omega)$ which corresponds to the K-K transformation of the optical scattering rates of the middle frame. For the curve A there is no singularity at $\omega_E$. Rather there is a very broad maximum at $\omega \sim \sqrt{2}\omega_E$ followed by a slow drop to about 1/3 its maximum value at 4000 cm$^{-1}$. If, on the other hand, we include a pseudogap without a recovery region above it, we get curve B, for which the peak falls at $\sim \sqrt
2(\omega_E + \Delta_{pg}$). Including a recovery region in the density of states changes the shape of $\Sigma^{op}_1(\omega)$ significantly as we can see in curve C. Here we include a full gap below $\Delta_{pg}$ and displaced states just above as shown in the solid (red) curve of the inset on the bottom panel of Fig. \[Fig2\] where our model $\tilde{N}(\omega)$ is shown. In this cases $-2\Sigma^{op}_1(\omega)$ develops a much more pronounced peak between $\omega_E + \Delta_{pg}$ and $\omega_E +
2\Delta_{pg}$, points marked by maximum slopes. This structure is seen both in underdoped Bi-2212 and YBCO samples at low temperature normal state of Fig. \[Fig1\] and is strong evidence for a pileup of the spectral weight lost below $\Delta_{pg}$, in the region $\Delta_{pg} < \omega < 2\Delta_{pg}$. The above characteristics are a clear signature of pseudogap formation in the in-plane conductivity.
The feature of the model curves displayed in the top frame of Fig. \[Fig2\] which we have just described and which are most important for the interpretation of experiments, shows up even more clearly in the [*derivative*]{} of the real part of the optical self-energy $d[-2\Sigma^{op}_1(\omega)]/d\omega$. Results are shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \[Fig2\]. The curve A shows maximum slope at the energy $\omega_E$ of the peak in $I^2\chi(\omega)$ (see inset in the middle frame of Fig. \[Fig2\]) and it is zero at $\sim \sqrt{2}\omega_E$. Curve B has a maximum at $\omega_E+\Delta_{pg}$ and a zero at $\sim
\sqrt{2}(\omega_E+\Delta_{pg})$ while curve C peaks at $\omega_E+\Delta_{pg}$ and shows a minimum at $\omega_E+2\Delta_{pg}$ indicating the end of the recovery region in our model of the effective electronic density of states, $\tilde{N}(\omega)$.
In the lower panel of Fig. \[Fig3\] we repeat our experimental results for the underdoped and overdoped samples of Fig. \[Fig1\] but for clarity, show only the two lowest temperatures. In the top frame we show four curves. One set is based on the electron-boson spectral density shown in the inset of Fig. \[Fig2\]. The other is obtained when only the background is
kept in $I^2\chi(\omega)$. In Bi-2212 series we have found that in the overdoped regime there is no prominent peak in the electron-boson spectral density, only a background remains[@carbotte05; @schachinger03; @schachinger06; @hwang06a]. For this figure we have used quadratic pseudogap shown as the (dark-blue) solid curve in the inset of Fig. \[Fig3\]. Starting with the two curves for the background only, $I^2\chi(\omega)=
100\:\omega/[500^2+\omega^2]$, we see that including a pseudogap does not change the curve for $\Sigma^{op}_1(\omega)$ much in agreement with the data and there is, in this sense, no clear signature of $\Delta_{pg}$ in such spectra. On the other hand contrasting with the other two curves, the pseudogap now clearly changes the shape of $\Sigma^{op}_1(\omega)$ and brings it much closer to the experimental results for the underdoped sample (lower panel). The peak in the (dark-blue) solid curve can be made sharper and resemble even more a logarithmic singularity by decreasing the width of the recovery region. This arises because the sharp rise seen in $1/\tau^{op}(\omega)$ (curve B) of Fig. \[Fig2\] middle frame, can be made even steeper and come closer to a pure vertical rise. We conclude that the striking difference observed in $\Sigma_1^{op}(\omega)$ between underdoped and overdoped samples can be understood to result from the absence of a pseudogap and a sharp peak in $I^2\chi(\omega)$ for the overdoped case, and a combination of a peak and pseudogap in the underdoped case. Both are needed to get agreement with the data, including a recovery of spectral weight in the electronic density of states in the region just above the pseudogap with the end of the recovery region marked by a kink in $\Sigma^{op}_1(\omega)$ around 940 cm$^{-1}$ for Bi-2212 (purple arrow in lower panel of Fig. \[Fig3\]) and similarly 970 cm$^{-1}$ for YBCO. If we assume the position of the peak in $I^2\chi(\omega)$ to be set by the neutron resonance energy given by $\Omega_{res}=5.4 k_B T_c$ [@he01] we conclude that the pseudogap has a value of 43 meV in Bi-2212 and nearly the same 45 meV in YBCO and that the recovery region is approximately $\Delta_{pg}$ wide. We note that our suggestion that the recovery of spectral weight occurs immediately above the gap region in the normal state just above $T_c$, is in accord with tunneling spectra [@renner98].
In summary, the real part of the optical self-energy, $-2\Sigma^{op}_1(\omega)$, defined through a generalized Drude formula at low temperature in the normal state, for the underdoped case, shows characteristic triangular behavior around 750 cm$^{-1}$ not seen in overdoped samples. This behavior is traced to the existence of a pseudogap $\Delta_{pg}$ in the electronic density of states with states lost below $\Delta_{pg}$ recovered in the region immediately above it as well as the existence of a peak in the electron-boson spectral density responsible for the inelastic scattering. By contrast, in the overdoped samples no pseudogap opens and the fluctuation spectrum $I^2\chi(\omega)$ has no resonance peak but rather consists only of a reasonably flat background. Criteria to recover a value of the pseudogap and the end of the recovery region are given and applied to underdoped Bi-2212 and ortho II YBCO. The signature of the pseudogap is much clearer in the optical self-energy than it is in the in-plane conductivity, the quantity used in previous studies.
This work has been supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIAR). We acknowledge the contribution of Hiroshi Eisaki and Genda Gu for the Bi-2212 crystals and Ruixing Liang, Doug Bonn, and Walter Hardy for the YBCO crystal.
[99]{}
T. Timusk and B. Statt, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**62**]{}, 61 (1999).
W. W. Warren Jr. [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 1193 (1989).
H. Alloul, T. Ohno, and P. Mendels, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 1700 (1989).
C. C. Homes, T. Timusk, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, and W. N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1645 (1993).
J. W. Loram Mirza, K. A. Mirza, J. R. Cooper, J. L. Tallon, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [**59**]{}, 2091 (1998).
Li Yu [*et al.*]{}, preprint cond-mat/0705.0111.
Ch. Renner, B. Revaz, J-Y Genoud, K. Kadowaki, and O. Fischer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{} 149, (1998).
J. Orenstein [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev B [**42**]{}, 6342 (1990).
L.D. Rotter [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2741 (1991).
D. N. Basov [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 4090 (1996).
A. V. Puchkov, D. N. Basov, and T. Timusk, J. Phys.: Conden. Matter [**8**]{}, 10049 (1996).
J. Hwang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 014508 (2006).
A. F. Santander-Syro, R. P. Lobo, N. Bontemps, Z. Konstantinovic, Z. Li, and H. Raffy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 097005 (2002).
J. P. Carbotte, E. Schachinger, and J. Hwang, Phys. Rev B [**71**]{}, 054506 (2005).
E. Schachinger, J. J. Tu, and J. P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev B [**67**]{}, 214508 (2003).
J. Hwang, T. Timusk, and G. D. Gu, Nature (London) [**427**]{}, 714 (2004).
J. Hwang, T. Timusk, and G. D. Gu, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**19**]{}, 125208 (2007).
B. Mitrovic and M. A. Fiorucci, Phys. Rev. B [**31**]{}, 2694 (1985).
P. B. Allen, Phys. Rev. B [**3**]{}, 305 (1971).
S.V. Shulga, O.V. Dolgov, and E.G. Maksimov, Physica C [**178**]{}, 266 (1991).
S. G. Sharapov and J. P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 134506 (2005).
A. Knigavko and J. P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 035125 (2005); [*ibid*]{} [**73**]{}, 125114 (2006).
E. Schachinger, D. Neuber, and J. P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 184507 (2006).
J. Hwang, T. Timusk, E. Schachinger, and J. P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 144508 (2007).
H. He [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 1610 (2001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We obtain real-valued, time-periodic and radially symmetric solutions of the cubic Klein-Gordon equation $$\partial_t^2 U - \Delta U + m^2 U = \Gamma (x) U^3
\quad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}^3,$$ which are weakly localized in space. Various families of such “breather” solutions are shown to bifurcate from any given nontrivial stationary solution. The construction of weakly localized breathers in three space dimensions is, to the author’s knowledge, a new concept and based on the reformulation of the cubic Klein-Gordon equation as a system of coupled nonlinear Helmholtz equations involving suitable conditions on the far field behavior.
address: ' D. ScheiderKarlsruhe Institute of Technology Institute for Analysis Englerstra[ß]{}e 2 D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany'
author:
- Dominic Scheider
bibliography:
- 'Literatur.bib'
title: 'Breather Solutions of the Cubic Klein-Gordon Equation'
---
Introduction and Main Results
=============================
We construct real-valued solutions $U(t, x)$ of the cubic Klein-Gordon equation $$\label{eq_wave}
\partial_t^2 U - \Delta U + m^2 U = \Gamma(x) \: U^3
\qquad
\text{on } {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}^3$$ where $\Gamma \in L^\infty_\mathrm{rad}({\mathbb{R}}^3) \cap C^1_\mathrm{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ and $m > 0$ is a (mass) parameter. Here we restrict ourselves to the case of three space dimensions which is the most relevant one for applications in physics and which allows to use the tools established in [@own_cubic]. Throughout, the notations $\partial_{1, 2, 3}, \nabla, \Delta, D^2$ refer to differential operators acting on the space variables. The solutions we aim to construct are polychromatic, that is, they take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_poly}
&U(t, x) = u_0(x) + \sum_{k=1}^\infty 2 \,\cos(\omega k t) u_k(x) = \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \mathrm{e}^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega k t} u_k(x)
\\
\nonumber
&\text{where} \: \:
u_k \in X_1= \left\{ u \in C_\mathrm{rad}({\mathbb{R}}^3, {\mathbb{R}}) \big| \: {\left\lVert (1 + |\cdot|^2)^\frac{1}{2} u \right\rVert}_\infty < \infty \right\}
\subseteq L^4_\mathrm{rad}({\mathbb{R}}^3),
\: \: u_{-k} = u_k
\\
\nonumber
&\text{and (for simplicity)} \: \: \omega > m.\end{aligned}$$ Such solutions are periodic in time and localized as well as radially symmetric in space. They are sometimes referred to as breather solutions, c.f. the “Sine-Gordon breather” in [@Ablowitz], equation (28). The construction of breather solutions is of particular interest since, as indicated in a study [@Weinstein] on perturbations of the Sine-Gordon breather, Birnir, McKean and Weinstein conjecture that “for the general nonlinear wave equation \[author’s note: in 1+1 dimensions\], breathing \[...\] takes place only for isolated nonlinearities”, see [@Weinstein p.1044]. This conjecture is supported by recent existence results for breathers for the 1+1 dimensional wave equation with specific, carefully designed potentials which we comment on below. Our results, however, indicate that the situation might be entirely different for weakly localized breathers for the Klein-Gordon equation in 1+3 dimensions, in the sense that such breather solutions are abundant even in “simple” settings.
We will find breather solutions of with $u_k \not\equiv 0$ for at least two distinct integers $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_0$ by rewriting it into an infinite system of stationary equations for the functions $u_k$. Indeed, inserting , a short and formal calculation leads to
\[eq\_stationary\_0\] $$\begin{aligned}
- \Delta u_0 + m^2 \, u_0 &= \Gamma(x) \: \left( {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \right)_0,
\label{eq_stationary_1}
\\
- \Delta u_{k} - (\omega^2 k^2 - m^2) u_{k} &= \Gamma(x) \: \left( {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \right)_{k}
\label{eq_stationary_2}
\qquad \text{for } k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{ 0 \}.\end{aligned}$$
In fact, includes , but we intend to separate the “Schrödinger” equation characterized by $0 \not\in \sigma(- \Delta + m^2)$ from the infinite number of “Helmholtz” equations characterized by $0 \in \sigma(- \Delta - (\omega^2 k^2 - m^2))$, $k \neq 0$. Our construction of breathers for relies on new methods for such Helmholtz equations introduced in [@own_cubic] which exploit the so-called far field properties of their solutions and lead to a rich bifurcation structure. These methods will be sketched only briefly in the main body of this paper; more details will be given in Section \[sect\_helmholtz\] at the end (which can be read independently).
The solutions we obtain bifurcate from any given stationary (radial) solution $w_0 \in X_1$, $w_0 \not \equiv 0$ of the Klein-Gordon equation . That is, $w_0$ solves the stationary nonlinear Schrödinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_w0}
- \Delta w_0 + m^2 \, w_0 = \Gamma (x) \: w_0^3
\quad \text{on }{\mathbb{R}}^3;\end{aligned}$$ regarding existence of such $w_0$, cf. Remark \[rmk\] (b). Let us remark briefly that all (distributional) solutions of in $X_1 \subseteq L^4_\text{rad}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ are twice differentiable by elliptic regularity. In order to make bifurcation theory work, we impose the following nondegeneracy assumption: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_nondegenerate,S}
q_0 \in X_1, \: \: - \Delta q_0 + q_0 = 3 \Gamma(x) \: w_0^2 \: q_0
\text{ on } {\mathbb{R}}^3
\qquad \text{implies }
\qquad
q_0 \equiv 0.\end{aligned}$$ We comment on this assumption in Remark \[rmk\] (c) below. In particular, and our main result presented next hold if $\Gamma$ is constant and $w_0$ is a (positive) ground state of . We now present our main result.
\[thm\_poly\] Let $\Gamma \in L^\infty_\mathrm{rad}({\mathbb{R}}^3) \cap C^1_\mathrm{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$, $\omega > m > 0$ and assume there is some stationary solution $U^0(t,x) = w_0(x)$, $w_0 \not \equiv 0$ of the cubic Klein-Gordon equation , i.e. $w_0 \in X_1$ solving . Assume further that $w_0$ is nondegenerate in the sense of . Then for every $s \in {\mathbb{N}}$ there exist an open interval $J_s \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ with $0 \in J_s$ and a family $(U^{\alpha})_{\alpha \in J_s} \subseteq C^2({\mathbb{R}}, X_1)$ with the following properties:
- All $U^\alpha$ are time-periodic, twice continuously differentiable classical solutions of of the polychromatic form , $$\begin{aligned}
U^\alpha(t, x) = u_0^\alpha(x) + \sum_{k=1}^\infty 2 \,\cos(\omega k t) u_{k}^\alpha(x).\end{aligned}$$
- The map $\alpha \mapsto (u_k^\alpha)_{k \in {\mathbb{N}}_0}$ is smooth in the topology of $\ell^1({\mathbb{N}}_0, X_1)$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\alpha}\bigg|_{\alpha = 0} u_k^\alpha \not\equiv 0
\quad \text{if and only if} \quad k = s\end{aligned}$$ (“excitation of the s-th mode”). In particular, for sufficiently small $\alpha \neq 0$, these solutions are non-stationary. Moreover, for different values of $s$, the families of solutions mutually differ close to $U^0$.
- If we assume additionally $\Gamma(x) \neq 0$ for almost all $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^3$, then every nonstationary polychromatic solution $U^\alpha$ possesses infinitely many nonvanishing modes $u_k^\alpha$.
\[rmk\]
- We require continuity of $\Gamma$ since we use the functional analytic framework of [@own_cubic]. The existence and continuity of $\nabla \Gamma$ will be exploited in proving that $U^\alpha$ is twice differentiable. This assumption as well as $\Gamma \neq 0$ almost everywhere in (iii) might be relaxed; however, this study does not aim at the most general setting for the coefficients but rather focuses on the introduction of the setup for the existence result.
- The existence of stationary solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation resp. of solutions to can be guaranteed under additional assumptions on $\Gamma$. We refer to [@Lions], Theorem I.2 and Remarks I.5, I.6 by Lions for positive (ground state) solutions and to Theorems 2.1 of [@Willem1], [@Willem2] by Bartsch and Willem for bound states.
- In some special cases, nondegeneracy properties like have been verified, e.g. by Bates and Shi [@bates] in Theorem 5.4 (6), or by Wei [@wei] in Lemma 4.1, both assuming that $w_0$ is a ground state solution of in the autonomous case with constant positive $\Gamma$. It should be pointed out that, although the quoted results discuss nondegeneracy in a setting on the Hilbert space $H^1({\mathbb{R}}^3)$, the statements can be adapted to the topology of $X_1$, as we will demonstrate in Lemma \[lem\_nondegeneracy\].
- The assumption $\omega > m$ on the frequency ensures that the stationary system contains only one equation of Schrödinger type. This avoids further nondegeneracy assumptions on higher modes, which would not be covered by the previously mentioned results in the literature.
- The above result provides, locally, a multitude of families of breathers bifurcating from every given stationary solution characterized by different values of $s$, $\omega$ and possibly certain asymptotic parameters, see Remark \[rmk\_previouschapter\] below.\
It would be natural, further, to ask for the global bifurcation picture given some trivial family $\mathcal{T} = \{ (w_0, \lambda) \, | \, \lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$. (Here $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}$ denotes a bifurcation parameter which in our case is not visible in the differential equation and thus will be properly introduced later.) Typically, global bifurcation theorems state that a maximal bifurcating continuum of solutions $(U, \lambda)$ emanating from $\mathcal{T}$ at $(w_0, \lambda_0)$ is unbounded unless it returns to $\mathcal{T}$ at some point $(w_0, \lambda_0')$, $\lambda_0' \neq \lambda_0$. In the former (desirable) case, however, a satisfactory characterization of global bifurcation structures should provide a criterion whether or not unboundedness results from another stationary solution $w_1 \neq w_0$ with $\{ (w_1, \lambda) \, | \, \lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ belonging to the maximal continuum. Since it is not obvious at all whether and how such a criterion might be derived within our framework, we focus on the local result, which already adds new aspects to the state of knowledge about the existence of breather solutions summarized next.
An Overview of Literature
-------------------------
### Polychromatic Solutions {#polychromatic-solutions .unnumbered}
The results in Theorem \[thm\_poly\] can and should be compared with recent findings on breather (that is to say, time-periodic and spatially localized) solutions of the wave equation with periodic potentials $V(x), q(x) = c \cdot V(x) \geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_wave1D}
V(x) \partial_t^2 U - \partial_x^2 U + q(x) U = \Gamma(x) U^3
\qquad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}.\end{aligned}$$ Such breather solutions have been constructed by Schneider et al., see Theorem 1.1 in [@Schneider], and Hirsch and Reichel, see Theorem 1.3 in [@Hirsch], respectively. In brief, the main differences to the results in this article are that the authors of [@Schneider], [@Hirsch] consider a setting in one space dimension and obtain strongly spatially localized solutions, which requires a comparably huge technical effort. We give some details: Both existence results are established using a polychromatic ansatz, which reduces the time-dependent equation to an infinite set of stationary problems with periodic coefficients, see [@Schneider], p. 823, resp. [@Hirsch], equation (1.2). The authors of [@Schneider] apply spatial dynamics and center manifold reduction; their ansatz is based on a very explicit choice of the coefficients $q, V, \Gamma$. The approach in [@Hirsch] incorporates more general potentials and nonlinearities and is based on variational techniques. It provides ground state solutions, which are possibly “large” - in contrast to our local bifurcation methods, which only yield solutions close to a given stationary one as described in Theorem \[thm\_poly\], i.e. with a typically “small” time-dependent contribution.\
Periodicity of the potentials in is explicitly required since it leads to the occurrence of spectral gaps when analyzing the associated differential operators of the stationary equations. In contrast to the Helmholtz methods introduced here, the authors both of [@Schneider] and of [@Hirsch] strive to construct the potentials in such way that $0$ lies in the aforementioned spectral gaps, and moreover that the distance between $0$ and the spectra has a positive lower bound. This is realized by assuming a certain “roughness” of the potentials, referring to the step potential defined in Theorem 1.1 of [@Schneider] and to the assumptions (P1)-(P3) in [@Hirsch] which allow potentials with periodic spikes modeled by Dirac delta distributions, periodic step potentials or some specific, non-explicit potentials in $H^r_\text{rad}({\mathbb{R}})$ with $1 \leq r < \frac{3}{2}$ (see [@Hirsch], Lemma 2.8).
Let us summarize that the methods for constructing breather solutions of outlined above can handle periodic potentials but require irregularity, are very restrictive concerning the form of the potentials and involve a huge technical effort in analyzing spectral properties based on Floquet-Bloch theory. The Helmholtz ansatz presented in this article provides a technically elegant and short approach suitable for constant potentials; in the context of breather solutions, it is new in the sense that it provides breathers with slow decay, it provides breathers on the full space ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, and it provides breathers for simple (constant) potentials.
### The Klein-Gordon Equation as a Cauchy Problem {#the-klein-gordon-equation-as-a-cauchy-problem .unnumbered}
Possibly due to its relevance in physics, there is a number of classical results in the literature concerning the nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation. The fundamental difference to the results in this article is that the vast majority of these concerns the Cauchy problem of the Klein-Gordon equation, i.e. $$\label{eq_NKG}
\begin{split}
&\partial_t^2 U - \Delta U + m^2 \, U = \pm U^3
\quad \text{on } [0, \infty) \times {\mathbb{R}}^3
\\
&U(0, x) = f(x), \: \partial_t U(0, x) = g(x)
\quad \text{ on } {\mathbb{R}}^3
\end{split}$$ for suitable initial data $f, g: {\mathbb{R}}^3 \to {\mathbb{R}}$. Usually, the dependence of the nonlinearity on $U$ is much more general (allowing also derivatives of $U$) and the space dimension is not restricted to $N=3$. On the other hand, most results in the literature only concern the autonomous case, which is why we set in this discussion $\Gamma \equiv \pm 1$.
An overview of the state of knowledge towards the end of the 1970s can be found e.g. in [@StraussNKG] by Strauss, who discusses among other topics global existence (Theorem 1.1), regularity and uniqueness (Theorem 1.2), blow-up (Theorem 1.4) and scattering (Theorem 4.1). In the first-mentioned result, which is originally due to Jörgens, global existence of distributional solutions with locally as well as globally finite energy $$\begin{aligned}
E_B[U(t,\,\cdot\,)]
= \frac{1}{2} \int_B |\partial_t U(t,x)|^2 + |\nabla U(t,x)|^2 + m^2 |U(t,x)|^2 \: \mathrm{d}x
+ \frac{1}{4} \int_B |U(t, x)|^4 \: \mathrm{d}x,
\:\:
B \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^3\end{aligned}$$ is proved provided $\Gamma \equiv -1$. Following a classical strategy for evolution problems, local existence is shown by means of a fixed point iteration, and global existence can be obtained by an iteration argument based on energy conservation. For $\Gamma \equiv +1$, Theorem 1.4 due to Keller and Levine demonstrates the existence of blow-up solutions.\
During the following decade, Klainerman [@Klainerman1; @Klainerman2] and Shatah [@Shatah1; @Shatah2] independently developed new techniques leading to significant improvements in the study of uniqueness questions and of the asymptotic behavior of solutions as $t \to \infty$. These results work in settings with high regularity and admit more general nonlinearities with growth assumptions for small arguments, which includes the cubic one as a special case. In particular, Klainerman and Shatah prove the convergence to solutions of the free Klein-Gordon equation and show uniform decay rates of solutions as $t \to \infty$. In the case of a cubic nonlinearity, these results only apply if the space dimension is at least $2$. This is why, more recently, the question of corresponding uniqueness and convergence properties for cubic nonlinearities in $N = 1$ space dimensions has attracted attention; we wish to mention at least some of the related papers. For explicit choices of the cubic nonlinearity, there are results by Moriyama and by Delort, see Theorem 1.1 of [@Moriyama] resp. Théorèmes 1.2, 1.3 in [@Delort]. Only the latter result allows a nonlinearity of the form $\pm U^3$ not containing derivatives (see [@Delort], Remarque 1.4); however, the initial data are assumed to have compact support. Global existence, uniqueness, decay rates and scattering exclusively for the nonlinearity $\pm U^3$ can be found in Corollary 1.2 of [@Hayashi] by Hayashi and Naumkin.
The relation to our results is not straightforward since the bifurcation methods automatically provide solutions $U^\alpha$ which exist globally in time irrespective of the sign (or even of a possible $x$-dependence) of $\Gamma$ and which do not decay as $t \to \infty$, and there is no special emphasis on the role of the initial values $U^\alpha(0, x), \nabla U^\alpha(0, x)$ along the bifurcating branches. Our methods instead focus on several global properties of the solutions $U^\alpha(t, x)$ such as periodicity in time and localization as well as decay rates in space, i.e. the defining properties of breathers.
Research Perspectives
---------------------
Apart from bifurcation methods, nonlinear Helmholtz equations and systems can also be discussed in a “dual” variational framework as introduced by Evéquoz and Weth [@EvequozWeth]. This might offer another way to analyze the system leading to “large” breathers in the sense that they are not close to a given stationary solution as the ones constructed in Theorem \[thm\_poly\]. Furthermore, such an ansatz might be a promising step towards extensions to non-constant, e.g. periodic potentials.
The Proof of Theorem \[thm\_poly\]
==================================
The Functional-Analytic Setting
-------------------------------
We look for polychromatic solutions as in with coefficients ${\mathbf{u}} = (u_k)_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}_1 := \ell^1_\text{sym}({\mathbb{Z}}, X_1)
:= \left\{
(u_k)_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \: \bigg| \: u_k = u_{-k} \in X_1, {\left\lVert (u_k)_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_1} := \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\left\lVert u_k \right\rVert}_{X_1} < \infty
\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ The Banach space $X_1$ has been defined in ; it prescribes a decay rate which is the natural one for solutions of Helmholtz equations as in , see also Section \[sect\_helmholtz\]. Throughout, we denote by ${\mathbf{w}} = (\delta_{k, 0} w_0)_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} = ( ..., 0, w_0, 0, ...) $ the stationary solution with $w_0 \in X_1 \cap C^2_\mathrm{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ fixed according to equation . We will find polychromatic solutions of by solving the countably infinite Schrödinger-Helmholtz system , , which is equivalent to , on a formal level; for details including convergence of the polychromatic sum in , see Proposition \[prop\_mapping\].
Our strategy is then as follows:
- Intending to apply bifurcation techniques, we have to analyze the linearized version of the infinite-dimensional system , , which resembles the one of the two-component system discussed by the author in [@own_cubic]. We therefore summarize, for the reader’s convenience, a collection of results concerning the linearized setting in Proposition \[prop\_chapter2\].
- We then present a suitable setup for bifurcation theory; in particular, we introduce a bifurcation parameter which is not visible in the differential equation but appears in the so-called far field of the functions $u_k$, more specifically a phase parameter in the leading-order contribution as $|x| \to \infty$.
- The aforementioned fact that solutions of , obtained in this setting provide polychromatic, classical solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation will be proved as a part of Proposition \[prop\_mapping\] below. Indeed, regarding differentiability, we will see that the choice of suitable asymptotic conditions will ensure uniform convergence and hence smoothness properties of the infinite sums defining the polychromatic states.
- Finally, in Proposition \[prop\_kernel\], we essentially verify the assumptions of the Crandall-Rabinowitz Bifurcation Theorem.
After that, we are able to give a very short proof of Theorem \[thm\_poly\]. The auxiliary results will be proved in Section \[ch\_wave-proofs\]. The final Section \[sect\_helmholtz\] provides some more details on the theory of linear Helmholtz equations in $X_1$.
Throughout, we denote the convolution in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ by the symbol $\ast$ and use $\star$ in the convolution algebra $\ell^1$. Extending the notation defined above, for $q \geq 0$, we let $$\begin{aligned}
&X_q := \left\{ u \in C_\text{rad}({\mathbb{R}}^3, {\mathbb{R}}) \, | \, {\left\lVert u \right\rVert}_{X_q} < \infty \right\}
&& \text{with } {\left\lVert u \right\rVert}_{X_q} := \sup_{x \in {\mathbb{R}}^3} (1 + |x|^2)^{q/2} |u(x)|,
\\
& \mathcal{X}_q := \ell^1_\text{sym}({\mathbb{Z}}, X_q)
&& \text{with } {\left\lVert {\mathbf{u}} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_q} := {\left\lVert (u_k)_k \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_q} := \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\left\lVert u_k \right\rVert}_{X_q}.\end{aligned}$$
\[prop\_convolution-x1\] The convolution of sequences ${\mathbf{u}}^{(1)}, {\mathbf{u}}^{(2)}, {\mathbf{u}}^{(3)} \in \mathcal{X}_1$ is well-defined in a pointwise sense and satisfies ${\mathbf{u}}^{(1)} \star {\mathbf{u}}^{(2)} \star {\mathbf{u}}^{(3)} \in \mathcal{X}_3$. Moreover, we have the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert {\mathbf{u}}^{(1)} \star {\mathbf{u}}^{(2)} \star {\mathbf{u}}^{(3)} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_3}
\leq {\left\lVert {\mathbf{u}}^{(1)} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_1} {\left\lVert {\mathbf{u}}^{(2)} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_1} {\left\lVert {\mathbf{u}}^{(3)} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_1}.\end{aligned}$$
We rewrite the system , using ${\mathbf{u}} = {\mathbf{w}} + {\mathbf{v}}$ with ${\mathbf{w}} = ( ..., 0, w_0, 0, ...) $; then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_stationary-v}
- \Delta v_k - (\omega^2 k^2 - m^2) \, v_k = \Gamma (x) \cdot
\left[ \left(({\mathbf{w}} + {\mathbf{v}}) \star ({\mathbf{w}} + {\mathbf{v}}) \star ({\mathbf{w}} + {\mathbf{v}})\right)_k - \delta_{k, 0} w_0^3 \right]
\quad \text{on }{\mathbb{R}}^3.\end{aligned}$$ We will find solutions of this system of differential equations by solving instead a system of coupled convolution equations which, for $k \not\in \{ 0, \pm s \}$, have the form $v_k = \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_k} [f_k]$. Here $f_k$ represents the right-hand side of , $\mu_k := \omega^2 k^2 - m^2$, and the coefficients $\tau_k \in (0, \pi)$ will have to be chosen properly according to a nondegeneracy condition. The convolution operators $$\mathcal{R}_{\mu}^{\tau} = \frac{\sin(|\,\cdot\,| \sqrt{\mu} + \tau)}{4\pi \sin(\tau) |\,\cdot\,|} \: \ast \: : X_3 \to X_1
\qquad (\mu > 0, \: \: 0 < \tau < \pi)$$ can be viewed as resolvent-type operators for the Helmholtz equation $(- \Delta - \mu) v = f$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ involving an asymptotic condition on the far field of the solution $v$, namely $$|x| \: v(x) \sim \sin(|x| \sqrt{\mu} + \tau) + O\left(\frac{1}{|x|}\right)
\quad \text{as} \quad |x| \to \infty.$$ Such conditions are required since the homogeneous Helmholtz equation $(- \Delta - \mu) v = 0$ has smooth nontrivial solutions in $X_1$ (known as Herglotz waves), which are all multiples of $$\tilde{\Psi}_\mu (x) := \frac{\sin(|x| \sqrt{\mu})}{4 \pi |x|} \quad (x \neq 0).$$ We refer to Section \[sect\_helmholtz\], more precisely Lemma \[lem\_linH\], for details; the case $\tau = 0$ requires a larger technical effort and is presented in Lemma \[lem\_linH-0\]. This involves linear functionals $\alpha^{(\mu)}, \beta^{(\mu)} \in X_1'$ which, essentially, yield the coefficients of the sine resp. cosine terms in the asymptotic expansion above. Relying on these tools and notations, we summarize the relevant facts on the linearized versions of the Helmholtz equations in the following Proposition.
\[prop\_chapter2\] Let $w_0 \in X_1$ be a solution of equation with $\Gamma \in L^\infty_\mathrm{rad}({\mathbb{R}}^3) \cap C_\mathrm{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ and $\omega > m > 0$; define $\mu_k := \omega^2 k^2 - m^2$. For every $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{ 0 \}$, there exists (up to a multiplicative constant) a unique nontrivial and radially symmetric solution $q_k \in X_1$ of
\[eq\_qk\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_qk-1}
- \Delta q_k - \mu_k \, q_k = 3 \, \Gamma(x) w_0^2(x) \: q_k \qquad \text{on }{\mathbb{R}}^3.\end{aligned}$$ It is twice continuously differentiable and satisfies, for some $c_k \neq 0$ and $\sigma_k \in [0, \pi)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_qk-2}
q_k(x) = c_k \cdot \frac{\sin(|x| \, \sqrt{\mu_k} + \sigma_k)}{|x|} + O\left(\frac{1}{|x|^2}\right)
\quad \text{as } |x| \to \infty.\end{aligned}$$
The equations , are equivalent to the convolution identities $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
q_k =
3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\sigma_{k}} [\Gamma w_0^2 \, q_{k}]
=
3 \: \left( \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k} [\Gamma w_0^2 \, q_{k}]
+ \cot(\sigma_k) \tilde{\mathcal{R}}_{\mu_k} [\Gamma w_0^2 \, q_{k}] \right)
& \text{if } \sigma_k \in (0, \pi),
\\
q_k = 3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\pi/2} [\Gamma w_0^2 \, q_{k}]
+ \left( \alpha^{(\mu_k)}(q_{k}) + \beta^{(\mu_k)}(q_{k}) \right) \cdot \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_k}
& \text{if } \sigma_k = 0.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ For all $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $\cos(\sigma_k) \, \beta^{(\mu_k)}(q_{k}) = \sin(\sigma_k) \, \alpha^{(\mu_k)}(q_{k})$.
The existence statement and the asymptotic properties in can be proved using the Prüfer transformation, see [@own_cubic], Proposition 6; the statements in the second part are consequences of Lemmas \[lem\_linH\] and \[lem\_linH-0\] in the final Section \[sect\_helmholtz\]. For these results to apply we have assumed initially that $\Gamma$ is continuous and bounded, whence $3 \, \Gamma w_0^2 \in X_2$.
We now present the general assumptions valid throughout the following construction and the proof of Theorem \[thm\_poly\]. We let $\sigma_k$ for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{ 0 \}$ as in Proposition \[prop\_chapter2\] above and fix $s \in {\mathbb{N}}$, recalling that we aim to “excite the $s$-th mode” in the sense of Theorem \[thm\_poly\] (ii). With this, let us introduce $$\label{eq_assumptions}
\tau_{\pm s} := \sigma_{\pm s},
\qquad
\tau_k := \begin{cases}
\frac{\pi}{4} & \text{if } \sigma_k \neq \frac{\pi}{4},
\\
\frac{3\pi}{4} & \text{if } \sigma_k = \frac{\pi}{4}
\end{cases}
\quad \text{ for } k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{ 0, \pm s \},$$ see also Remark \[rmk\_previouschapter\] (b). Thus in particular $\tau_k \neq \sigma_k$ for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{ 0, \pm s \}$, and we conclude from the uniqueness statement in Proposition \[prop\_chapter2\] the nondegeneracy property
\[eq\_nondegenerate\] $$\label{eq_nondegenerate,1}
k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{0, \pm s \}, \quad q \in X_1, \quad
q = 3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_k} [\Gamma w_0^2 \, q]
\qquad \Rightarrow \qquad
q \equiv 0;$$ for the $0$-th mode, using the resolvent $\mathcal{P}_{\mu_0} = (- \Delta + \mu_0)^{-1}: X_3 \to X_1$ (see Lemma \[lem\_linS\]), the corresponding property is assumed in : $$\label{eq_nondegenerate,2}
q \in X_1, \quad
q = 3 \: \mathcal{P}_{\mu_0} [\Gamma w_0^2 \, q]
\qquad \Rightarrow \qquad
q \equiv 0.$$
We now introduce a map the zeros of which provide solutions of the system . Throughout, we use the shorthand notation ${\mathbf{u}} = {\mathbf{v}} + {\mathbf{w}}$ for ${\mathbf{v}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$ and the stationary solution ${\mathbf{w}} = (..., 0, w_0, 0, ...)$. As above, we have to distinguish the cases $\tau_s \in (0, \pi)$ and $\tau_s = 0$. (In the following, please recall that we consider some fixed $s \neq 0$.) For $0 < \tau_{\pm s} < \pi$, we introduce $F: \: \mathcal{X}_1 \times {\mathbb{R}}\to \mathcal{X}_1$ via
\[eq\_FG\] $$\label{eq_F}
F({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda)_{k}
:= v_k -
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{P}_{\mu_0}
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_0
- \Gamma \: w_0^3 \right]
& k = 0,
\\
\mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\pi/2}
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{\pm s} \right]
\\
\qquad
+ (\cot(\tau_{\pm s}) - \lambda) \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s} \ast
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{\pm s} \right]
& k = \pm s,
\\
\mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_{k}}
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{k} \right]
& \text{else}.
\end{cases}$$ Similarly, if $\sigma_s = 0$, we define $G: \: \mathcal{X}_1 \times {\mathbb{R}}\to \mathcal{X}_1$ by $$\label{eq_G}
G({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda)_{k}
:= v_k -
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{P}_{\mu_0}
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_0
- \Gamma \: w_0^3 \right]
& k = 0,
\\
\mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\pi/2}
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{\pm s} \right]
\\
\qquad
+ (1 - \lambda)
\left( \alpha^{(\mu_s)}(v_{\pm s}) + \beta^{(\mu_s)}(v_{\pm s}) \right) \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s}
& k = \pm s,
\\
\mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_{k}}
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{k} \right]
& \text{else}.
\end{cases}$$
The following result collects some basic properties of the maps $F$ and $G$ and the polychromatic states related to their zeros.
\[prop\_mapping\] Let $s \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $(\tau_k)_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}}$ be chosen as in . The maps $F, G: \mathcal{X}_1 \times {\mathbb{R}}\to \mathcal{X}_1$ are well-defined and smooth with $F({\mathbf{0}}, \lambda) = G({\mathbf{0}}, \lambda) = {\mathbf{0}}$ for all $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Further, if $F({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda) = {\mathbf{0}}$ resp. $G({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda) = {\mathbf{0}}$ for some $ {\mathbf{v}} \in \mathcal{X}_1, \lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}$, then ${\mathbf{v}}$ solves the stationary system and $$\begin{aligned}
U(t, x) := w_0(x) + v_0(x) + \sum_{k=1}^\infty 2 \,\cos(\omega k t) v_k(x)
\qquad
(t \in {\mathbb{R}}, x \in {\mathbb{R}}^3)\end{aligned}$$ defines a twice continuously differentiable, classical solution $U \in C^2({\mathbb{R}}, X_1)$ of the Klein-Gordon equation .
Again, the proof can be found in Section \[ch\_wave-proofs\]. We will even show that $U \in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}, X_1)$. For the derivatives of $F$ resp. $G$ with respect to the Banach space component ${\mathbf{v}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$, we will verify the following explicit formulas: Letting ${\mathbf{q}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$ and abbreviating ${\mathbf{u}} := {\mathbf{v}} + {\mathbf{w}}$,
\[eq\_DFG\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_DF}
(DF({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda)[{\mathbf{q}}])_k
= q_k - \begin{cases}
3 \: \mathcal{P}_{\mu_0} [\Gamma \left({\mathbf{q}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_0]
& k = 0,
\\
3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\pi/2}
\left[ \Gamma \left({\mathbf{q}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{\pm s} \right]
&
\\
\:
+ 3 \: (\cot(\tau_s) - \lambda) \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s} \ast
\left[ \Gamma \left({\mathbf{q}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \right)_{\pm s} \right]
& k = \pm s,
\\
3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_k}
\left[ \Gamma \left({\mathbf{q}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_k \right]
& \text{else};
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_DG}
(DG({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda)[{\mathbf{q}}])_k
= q_k - \begin{cases}
3 \: \mathcal{P}_{\mu_0} [\Gamma \left({\mathbf{q}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_0]
& k = 0,
\\
3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\pi/2}
\left[ \Gamma \left({\mathbf{q}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{\pm s} \right]
&
\\
\:
+ (1 - \lambda) \!
\left( \alpha^{(\mu_s)}(q_{\pm s}) + \beta^{(\mu_s)}(q_{\pm s}) \right) \! \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s}
& k = \pm s,
\\
3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_k}
\left[ \Gamma \left({\mathbf{q}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_k \right]
& \text{else}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
\[rmk\_previouschapter\]
- As earlier announced, we now see that the bifurcation parameter $\lambda$ appears only in the asymptotic expansions of the $s$-th components $v_{\pm s}$ of the solutions and not in the differential equation . This is different from [@own_cubic] where the bifurcation parameter takes the role of a coupling parameter of the Helmholtz system.
- The choice of the parameters $\tau_k$ in equation is far from unique. Indeed, one could instead consider any configuration satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_k = \tau_{-k} \neq \sigma_k \: \text{ for all } k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{ \pm s \},
\qquad
\{ \tau_k \, | \, k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{ \pm s \} \} \subseteq (\delta, \pi - \delta)\end{aligned}$$ for some $\delta \in \left(0, \frac{\pi}{2} \right)$. The former condition is required for the nondegeneracy statement , and the latter will be used to obtain uniform decay estimates in the proof of Proposition \[prop\_mapping\], see Lemma \[lem\_uniformdecay\].\
However, as in [@own_cubic], the question whether another choice of $\tau_k$ leads to different bifurcating families is still open. Hence we discuss only the explicit choice in .
In the so-established framework, we intend to apply the Crandall-Rabinowitz Bifurcation Theorem. The next result shows that its assumptions are satisfied.
\[prop\_kernel\] Let $s \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $(\tau_k)_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}}$ be chosen as in . The linear operator $DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0): \mathcal{X}_1 \to \mathcal{X}_1$ is 1-1-Fredholm with a kernel of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\ker DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0) = \mathrm{span } \, \{ {\mathbf{q}} \}
\qquad \text{where } q_k \neq 0 \text{ if and only if } k = \pm s.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the transversality condition is satisfied, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_\lambda DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0)[{\mathbf{q}}] \not\in \mathrm{ran} \, DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0).\end{aligned}$$ A corresponding statement holds true for $DG({\mathbf{0}}, 0): \mathcal{X}_1 \to \mathcal{X}_1$.
The Proof of Theorem \[thm\_poly\]
----------------------------------
Let us fix some $s \in {\mathbb{N}}$, and choose $(\tau_k)_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}}$ as in . We introduce the trivial family $\mathcal{T} := \{ ({\mathbf{0}}, \lambda) \in \mathcal{X}_1 \times {\mathbb{R}}\: | \: \lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$.
By Proposition \[prop\_mapping\], the maps $F$ resp. $G$ are smooth and vanish on the trivial family $\mathcal{T}$. In view of Proposition \[prop\_kernel\], the Crandall-Rabinowitz Theorem shows that $({\mathbf{0}}, 0) \in \mathcal{T}$ is a bifurcation point for $F({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda) = 0$ resp. $G({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda) = 0$ and provides an open interval $J_s \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ containing $0$ and a smooth curve $$\begin{aligned}
J_s \to \mathcal{X}_1 \times {\mathbb{R}},
\qquad
\alpha \mapsto ({\mathbf{v}}^\alpha, \lambda^\alpha) = \left( (v_k^\alpha)_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}}, \lambda^\alpha \right)\end{aligned}$$ of zeros of $F$ resp. $G$ (we do not denote its dependence on $s$) with ${\mathbf{v}}^0 = {\mathbf{0}}, \lambda^0 = 0$ as well as $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\alpha} \big|_{\alpha = 0} {\mathbf{v}}^\alpha = {\mathbf{q}}$ where ${\mathbf{q}}$ is a nontrivial element of the kernel of $DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0)$ resp. $DG({\mathbf{0}}, 0)$. We let ${\mathbf{u}}^\alpha := {\mathbf{v}}^\alpha + {\mathbf{w}}$ and define polychromatic states $U^\alpha$ as in (i). Then $U^\alpha$ is a classical solution of the cubic Klein-Gordon equation due to Proposition \[prop\_mapping\] since $F({\mathbf{v}}^\alpha, \lambda^\alpha) = 0$ resp. $G({\mathbf{v}}^\alpha, \lambda^\alpha) = 0$. By their very definition, the solutions $U^\alpha$ are time-periodic with period $2 \pi / \omega$ (maybe less). This proves (i).
Since $F$ resp. $G$ are smooth, so is the map $J_s \to \mathcal{X}_1 \times {\mathbb{R}}, \: \alpha \mapsto ({\mathbf{v}}^\alpha, \lambda^\alpha)$. By Proposition \[prop\_kernel\], $q_k \neq 0$ if and only if $k = \pm s$, which implies that only the $\pm s$-th components of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\alpha} \bigg|_{\alpha = 0} {\mathbf{u}}^\alpha
= \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\alpha} \bigg|_{\alpha = 0} {\mathbf{v}}^\alpha = {\mathbf{q}}\end{aligned}$$ do not vanish. For sufficiently small nonzero values of $\alpha$, the solutions $U^\alpha$ are thus nonstationary. In particular, the direction of bifurcation changes when changing the value of $s$, and the associated bifurcating curves are, at least locally, mutually different.
We show finally that, under the additional assumption that $\Gamma(x) \neq 0$ for almost all $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^3$, every non-stationary solution $$\begin{aligned}
U^\alpha(t, x) = w_0(x) + v_0^\alpha(x) + \sum_{k=1}^\infty 2 \cos(\omega k t) \: v_k^\alpha(x)\end{aligned}$$ in fact possesses infinitely many nontrivial coefficients $v_k^\alpha$. Indeed, assuming the contrary, we can choose a maximal $r > 0$ (since $U^\alpha$ is non-stationary) with $v_r^\alpha \not\equiv 0$ or equivalently $u_r^\alpha = v_r^\alpha + w_r = v_r^\alpha \not\equiv 0$. But then, $$\begin{aligned}
v_{3r}^\alpha
= \sum_{l+m+n = 3r} \mathcal{R}_{\mu_{3r}}^{\tau_{3r}} [\Gamma \: u_l^\alpha \, u_m^\alpha \, u_n^\alpha]
= \mathcal{R}_{\mu_{3r}}^{\tau_{3r}} [\Gamma \: (v_r^\alpha)^3] \not\equiv 0\end{aligned}$$ since the convolution identity implies $- \Delta v_{3r}^\alpha - \mu_{3r} v_{3r}^\alpha = \Gamma \: (v_r^\alpha)^3$, and $\Gamma \: (v_r^\alpha)^3 \not\equiv 0$ since $\Gamma(x) \neq 0$ almost everywhere by assumption. This contradicts the maximality of $r$. $\square$
The Proof of Remark \[rmk\] (c)
-------------------------------
Finally, as announced in Remark \[rmk\] (c), we verify the nondegeneracy assumption resp. for constant positive $\Gamma$.
\[lem\_nondegeneracy\] Let $\Gamma \equiv \Gamma_0$ for some $\Gamma_0 > 0$, and assume that $w_0 \in C^2_\mathrm{rad}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ is a radially symmetric solution of the profile of which satisfies $w_0(r) > 0$, $w_0'(r) < 0$ for all $r>0$, and both $w_0(r)$ and $w_0'(r)$ decay exponentially as $r \to \infty$. Then the nondegeneracy property holds, i.e. for any radial, twice differentiable $q_0 \in X_1$ $$\begin{aligned}
- \Delta q_0 + q_0 = 3 \Gamma_0 \: w_0^2 \: q_0
\text{ on } {\mathbb{R}}^3
\qquad \text{implies }
\qquad
q_0 \equiv 0.\end{aligned}$$
This can be proved closely following the line of argumentation by Bates and Shi [@bates], Theorem 5.4 (6). The main difference is that they state the nondegeneracy result as a spectral property of the operator $- \Delta + m^2 + 3 \Gamma_0 w_0^2: \: H^2({\mathbb{R}}^3) \to L^2({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ whereas we cannot use the Hilbert space setting but discuss solutions in $X_1$. However, the technique of Bates and Shi (and also of Wei’s proof in [@wei]) is based on an expansion at a fixed radius $r > 0$ in terms of the eigenfunctions of the Laplace-Beltrami operator on $L^2(\mathbb{S}^2)$. This provides coefficients depending on $r$, and the conclusions are obtained from the analysis of these profiles on an ODE level using results due to Kwong and Zhang [@kwong]. These ideas apply in the topology of $X_1$ in the very same way; for details, cf. [@myDiss], (proof of) Lemma 4.11.
Proofs of the Auxiliary Results
===============================
\[ch\_wave-proofs\]
[Proposition \[prop\_convolution-x1\]]{} Let ${\mathbf{u}}^{(j)} = (u^{(j)}_k)_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$ for $j= 1, 2, 3$. We find the following chain of inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
&{\left\lVert {\mathbf{u}}^{(1)} \star {\mathbf{u}}^{(2)} \star {\mathbf{u}}^{(3)} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_3}
=
\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\left\lVert ({\mathbf{u}}^{(1)} \star {\mathbf{u}}^{(2)} \star {\mathbf{u}}^{(3)})_k \right\rVert}_{X_3}
\\
&\quad \leq
\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \sum_{\substack{l, m, n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\\ l + m + n = k}} {\left\lVert u_l^{(1)} \, u_m^{(2)} \, u_n^{(3)} \right\rVert}_{X_3}
\\
&\quad \leq
\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \sum_{\substack{l, m, n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\\ l + m + n = k}}
{\left\lVert u_l^{(1)} \right\rVert}_{X_1} \, {\left\lVert u_m^{(2)} \right\rVert}_{X_1} \, {\left\lVert u_n^{(3)} \right\rVert}_{X_1}
\\
&\quad=
{\left\lVert \left( {\left\lVert u_l^{(1)} \right\rVert}_{X_1} \right)_{l \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \star \left( {\left\lVert u_m^{(2)} \right\rVert}_{X_1} \right)_{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}}
\star \left( {\left\lVert u_n^{(3)} \right\rVert}_{X_1} \right)_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \right\rVert}_{\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}})}
\\
&\quad\leq
{\left\lVert \left( {\left\lVert u_l^{(1)} \right\rVert}_{X_1} \right)_{l \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \right\rVert}_{\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}})}
{\left\lVert \left( {\left\lVert u_m^{(2)} \right\rVert}_{X_1} \right)_{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \right\rVert}_{\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}})}
{\left\lVert \left( {\left\lVert u_n^{(3)} \right\rVert}_{X_1} \right)_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \right\rVert}_{\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}})}
\\
&\quad =
{\left\lVert {\mathbf{u}}^{(1)} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_1} {\left\lVert {\mathbf{u}}^{(2)} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_1} {\left\lVert {\mathbf{u}}^{(3)} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_1},\end{aligned}$$ where finally Young’s inequality for convolutions in $\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}})$ has been applied. Since the latter term is finite, we infer ${\mathbf{u}}^{(1)} \star {\mathbf{u}}^{(2)} \star {\mathbf{u}}^{(3)} \in \mathcal{X}_3$.
[Proposition \[prop\_mapping\]]{}
The proof of Proposition \[prop\_mapping\] requires convergence properties in order to handle the infinite series in the definition of $U(t,x)$, which we first provide in the following two lemmas.
\[lem\_scaling\] The convolution operators $\mathcal{R}_\mu^\tau: X_3 \to X_1$ satisfy for $\tau \in (0, \pi)$ and $\mu > 0$ $$\qquad \forall \: f \in X_3
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\begin{split}
&{\left\lVert \mathcal{R}_\mu^\tau [f] \right\rVert}_{X_1}
\leq \frac{C}{\sin(\tau)} \: \left( 1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}} \right) \: \cdot {\left\lVert f \right\rVert}_{X_3},
\\
&{\left\lVert \mathcal{R}_\mu^\tau [f] \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)}
\leq \frac{C}{\sqrt[4]{\mu} \: \sin(\tau)} \cdot {\left\lVert f \right\rVert}_{L^\frac{4}{3}({\mathbb{R}}^3)}.
\end{split}$$
The fact that a power of $\mu$ appears in the denominator is crucial since it will finally provide the convergence and regularity of the polychromatic sums where $\mu = \mu_k = \omega^2 k^2 - m^2$ for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$.\
The proof of Lemma \[lem\_scaling\] relies, via rescaling, on the respective estimates for $\mu = 1$. These can be found in [@own_cubic], pp. 1038–1039 for the $X_3$-$X_1$ estimate and in [@EvequozWeth], Theorem 2.1 for the $L^{4/3}$-$L^4$ estimate.
\[lem\_uniformdecay\] Let $\Gamma \in L^\infty_\mathrm{rad}({\mathbb{R}}^3) \cap C^1_\mathrm{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ and assume ${\mathbf{u}} = (u_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$ is a sequence of $C^2_\mathrm{loc}$ functions which satisfy the following system of convolution equations: $$\begin{aligned}
u_k = \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_k} [\Gamma \: ({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}})_k]
\qquad \qquad \qquad \text{for all } k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\text{ with } |k| > s\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_k = \omega^2 k^2 - m^2$ and $\tau_k \in (\delta, \pi - \delta)$ for some $\omega > m, \delta \in \left(0, \frac{\pi}{2} \right)$. Then there holds:
- For every $\alpha \geq 0$, there exists a constant $C_\alpha \geq 0$ with $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert u_k \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)} + {\left\lVert \Gamma \: ({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}})_k \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)}
\leq C_\alpha \cdot (k^2 + 1)^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}
\qquad
(k \in {\mathbb{Z}}).\end{aligned}$$
- For every ball $B = B_R(0) \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^3$ and $\alpha \geq 0$ there exists a constant $D_\alpha(B) \geq 0$ with $$\begin{aligned}
|u_k(x)| + |\nabla u_k(x)| + |D^2 u_k(x)| \leq D_\alpha(B) \cdot (k^2 + 1)^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}
\qquad
(k \in {\mathbb{Z}}, x \in B).\end{aligned}$$
- For every $\alpha \geq 0$, there exists a constant $E_\alpha \geq 0$ with $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert u_k \right\rVert}_{X_1} \leq E_\alpha \cdot (k^2 + 1)^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}
\qquad
(k \in {\mathbb{Z}}).\end{aligned}$$
The proof of Lemma \[lem\_uniformdecay\] can also be found in detail in the author’s PhD thesis [@myDiss], Lemma 4.13. We present here the most important step and summarize the remainder briefly, since it is mainly based on the application of (standard) elliptic regularity estimates.
As $u_k \in X_1 \cap C^2_\text{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ for all $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ by assumption, it is straightforward to find constants as in the lemma for a finite number of elements $u_{-s}, ..., u_s$. Hence it is sufficient to study those $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ with $|k| > s$; for these, we have $\mu_k = k^2 \omega^2 - m^2 \geq c_s (k^2 +1)$ for some positive $c_s > 0$ depending on the parameters $\omega$ and $m$. The decay estimates of arbitrary order in $k$ we aim to prove essentially go back to the $L^{4/3}$-$L^4$ scaling property stated in Lemma \[lem\_scaling\] above. Indeed, due to $\delta < \tau_k < \pi - \delta$, it provides $C_1 = C_1({\left\lVert \Gamma \right\rVert}_\infty, \delta, \omega, m, s) \geq 0$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_proof-scale-k}
{\left\lVert u_k \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)}
\leq
\frac{C_1}{(k^2 + 1)^\frac{1}{4}} \:
{\left\lVert ({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}})_k \right\rVert}_{L^\frac{4}{3}({\mathbb{R}}^3)}
\qquad \text{for all } k \in {\mathbb{Z}}.\end{aligned}$$ With that, assuming $\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} (k^2 + 1)^\frac{\alpha}{2} {\left\lVert u_k \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)} < \infty$ for some $\alpha \geq 0$ (which is trivially satisfied for $\alpha = 0$ since ${\mathbf{u}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$), one can iterate as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} (k^2 + 1)^\frac{\alpha + 1/2}{2} \: {\left\lVert u_k \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)}
\overset{\eqref{eq_proof-scale-k}}{\leq}
C_1 \: \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} (k^2 + 1)^\frac{\alpha}{2}
\: {\left\lVert ({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}})_k \right\rVert}_{L^\frac{4}{3}({\mathbb{R}}^3)}
\\
& \quad \leq C_1 \:
\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \sum_{l+m+n = k}
((l+m+n)^2 + 1)^\frac{\alpha}{2} {\left\lVert u_l \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)} \, {\left\lVert u_m \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)} \, {\left\lVert u_n \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)}
\\
& \quad \leq 2^\alpha \: C_1 \:
\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \sum_{l+m+n = k}
\left[ (l^2 + 1)^\frac{\alpha}{2} {\left\lVert u_l \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)} \, (m^2 + 1)^\frac{\alpha}{2} {\left\lVert u_m \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)} \, (n^2 + 1)^\frac{\alpha}{2} {\left\lVert u_n \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)} \right]
\\
& \quad = 2^\alpha \: C_1 \:
\left( \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} (k^2 + 1)^\frac{\alpha}{2} {\left\lVert u_k \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)} \right)^3
\\
& \quad < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ This shows the first part of the estimate in (i), and the second part follows by combining the former with the interpolation estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert u_l u_m u_n \right\rVert}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}}^3)}
&\leq {\left\lVert u_l \right\rVert}_{L^{12}({\mathbb{R}}^3)}{\left\lVert u_m \right\rVert}_{L^{12}({\mathbb{R}}^3)}{\left\lVert u_n \right\rVert}_{L^{12}({\mathbb{R}}^3)}
\\
&\leq \left[ {\left\lVert u_l \right\rVert}_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}}^3)}{\left\lVert u_m \right\rVert}_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}}^3)}{\left\lVert u_n \right\rVert}_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}}^3)} \right]^\frac{1}{3} \: \Big[ {\left\lVert u_l \right\rVert}_{\infty}{\left\lVert u_m \right\rVert}_{\infty}{\left\lVert u_n \right\rVert}_{\infty} \Big]^\frac{2}{3}
\\
&\leq \left[ {\left\lVert u_l \right\rVert}_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}}^3)}{\left\lVert u_m \right\rVert}_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}}^3)}{\left\lVert u_n \right\rVert}_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}}^3)} \right]^\frac{1}{3} \: {\left\lVert {\mathbf{u}} \right\rVert}^2_{\mathcal{X}_1}.\end{aligned}$$ The local estimate in (ii) can be derived from the global $L^4$ bounds in (i) using elliptic regularity, which first provides estimates in $W^{2,4}_\text{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ and then is suitable Hölder spaces. The estimate (iii) in the $X_1$ norm essentially uses the explicit representations (given $f \in X_3$) $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{R}_\mu^\tau [f](x)
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \frac{\sin(|x-y|\sqrt{\mu_k} + \tau_k)}{4 \pi |x-y| \sin(\tau_k)}
\cdot f(y)
\: \mathrm{d}y
\\
& = \frac{\sin(|x| \sqrt{\mu_k} + \tau_k)}{|x| \sin(\tau_k)} \int_0^{|x|} \frac{\sin(r \sqrt{\mu_k}) }{r \sqrt{\mu_k}}
f(r) \: r^2 \: \mathrm{d}r
+ \frac{\sin(|x| \sqrt{\mu_k})}{|x| \sin(\tau_k)}
\int_{|x|}^\infty \frac{\sin(r \sqrt{\mu_k} + \tau_k) }{r \sqrt{\mu_k}} f(r) \: r^2 \: \mathrm{d}r.\end{aligned}$$ Starting here, Hölder’s inequality and (i) yield (iii); again, for details, cf. [@myDiss].
For $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and ${\mathbf{v}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$, we set ${\mathbf{u}} := {\mathbf{w}} + {\mathbf{v}}$ and recall the defining equations and : $$\begin{aligned}
&F({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda)_{k}
:= v_k -
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{P}_{\mu_0}
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_0
- \Gamma \: w_0^3 \right]
& k = 0,
\\
\mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\pi/2}
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{\pm s} \right]
\\
\qquad
+ (\cot(\tau_{\pm s}) - \lambda) \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s} \ast
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{\pm s} \right]
& k = \pm s,
\\
\mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_{k}}
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{k} \right]
& \text{else};
\end{cases}
\\
&G({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda)_{k}
:= v_k -
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{P}_{\mu_0}
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_0
- \Gamma \: w_0^3 \right]
& k = 0,
\\
\mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\pi/2}
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{\pm s} \right]
\\
\qquad
+ (1 - \lambda)
\left( \alpha^{(\mu_s)}(v_{\pm s}) + \beta^{(\mu_s)}(v_{\pm s}) \right) \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s}
& k = \pm s,
\\
\mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_{k}}
\left[ \Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{k} \right]
& \text{else}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Our main concern will be convergence of the infinite sums related to the space $\mathcal{X}_1 = \ell^1_\mathrm{sym}({\mathbb{Z}}, X_1)$. Noticing that $F$ and $G$ only differ in the $\pm s$-th component, and that the scalar parameter $\lambda$ only appears as a multiplicative factor, we solely discuss smoothness of the map $F(\,\cdot\, , \lambda): \mathcal{X}_1 \to \mathcal{X}_1$ with $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}$ fixed.
The main tool is the following uniform norm estimate for the operators appearing in the components of $F$. Recalling that $\tau_k \in \{ \frac{\pi}{4}, \frac{3\pi}{4} \}$ for $k \neq 0, \pm s$ by , Lemma \[lem\_scaling\] above (for $k \neq 0, \pm s$) as well as the continuity properties stated in Lemmas \[lem\_convol\] and \[lem\_linS\] (for $k = \pm s$ and $k = 0$, respectively) provide a constant $C_0 = C_0(\lambda, \tau_s, \omega, m) > 0$ with $$\label{eq_proof-C0}
\begin{split}
&{\left\lVert \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_{k}} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{L}(X_3, X_1)} \leq C_0 \quad (k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{ \pm s \}),
\\
&{\left\lVert \mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\pi/2} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{L}(X_3, X_1)} \leq \frac{C_0}{2},
\:\:
{\left\lVert (\cot(\tau_{\pm s}) - \lambda) \: \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s} \ast \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{L}(X_3, X_1)} \leq \frac{C_0}{2},
\\
&{\left\lVert \mathcal{P}_{\mu_0} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{L}(X_3, X_1)} \leq C_0.
\end{split}$$
We now let ${\mathbf{v}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$ and define ${\mathbf{u}} = {\mathbf{v}} + {\mathbf{w}}$. Since $\Gamma$ is assumed to be continuous and bounded, Proposition \[prop\_convolution-x1\] implies that $\Gamma \: \left({\mathbf{u}}\star{\mathbf{u}}\star{\mathbf{u}}\right) \in \mathcal{X}_3$. Thus every component $F({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda)_k$ is a well-defined element of $X_1$, and we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert F({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda) \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_1}
&= \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\left\lVert F({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda)_k \right\rVert}_{X_1}
\\
& \overset{\eqref{eq_proof-C0}}{\leq}
{\left\lVert {\mathbf{v}} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_1}
+ C_0 {\left\lVert \Gamma w_0^3 \right\rVert}_{X_3}
+ C_0 \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\left\lVert \Gamma \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_k \right\rVert}_{X_3}
\\
& \!\!\! \overset{\text{Prop.}~\ref{prop_convolution-x1}}{\leq}
{\left\lVert {\mathbf{v}} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_1} +
C_0 {\left\lVert \Gamma \right\rVert}_\infty {\left\lVert w_0 \right\rVert}_{X_1}^3
+ C_0 {\left\lVert \Gamma \right\rVert}_\infty {\left\lVert {\mathbf{u}} \right\rVert}_{\mathcal{X}_1}^3.\end{aligned}$$ This is finite, hence $F({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda) \in \mathcal{X}_1$ as asserted. Since $F(\,\cdot\, , \lambda)$ is a combination of continuous linear operators and polynomials in the convolution algebra, essentially the same estimates can be used to show differentiability (to arbitrary order); one thus obtains in particular .
First of all, recalling that ${\mathbf{w}} = (..., 0, w_0, 0, ...)$ and hence $({\mathbf{w}} \star {\mathbf{w}} \star {\mathbf{w}})_k = \delta_{k, 0} \, w_0^3$ for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, one can immediately see that $F({\mathbf{0}},\lambda) = G({\mathbf{0}},\lambda) = {\mathbf{0}}$ for all $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Let us now assume that $F({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda) = 0$ resp. $G({\mathbf{v}}, \lambda) = 0$ for some ${\mathbf{v}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$ and $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Again, we define ${\mathbf{u}} := {\mathbf{v}} + {\mathbf{w}}$, and summarize $$\begin{aligned}
u_0 - w_0 &= v_0
= \mathcal{P}_{\mu_0} \left[ \Gamma \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_0
- \Gamma \: w_0^3 \right],
\\
u_{\pm s} &= v_{\pm s}
= \mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\pi/2}
\left[ \Gamma \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{\pm s} \right]
+ \begin{cases}
(\cot(\tau_s) - \lambda) \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s} \ast
\left[ \Gamma \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_{\pm s} \right],
\\
(1 - \lambda)
\left( \alpha^{(\mu_s)}(v_{\pm s}) + \beta^{(\mu_s)}(v_{\pm s}) \right) \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s},
\end{cases}
\\
u_k &= v_k
= \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_k}
\left[ \Gamma \left({\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}} \star {\mathbf{u}}\right)_k \right]
\qquad (k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{ 0, \pm s \}).\end{aligned}$$ By choice of $\tau_k$ in equation , we observe in particular that the requirements of Lemma \[lem\_uniformdecay\] are satisfied with any $\delta < \frac{\pi}{4}$, which we will rely on throughout the subsequent steps. But first, according to Lemmas \[lem\_convol\] and \[lem\_linS\], $v_k, u_k \in X_1 \cap C^2_\mathrm{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ satisfy the differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
- \Delta v_k - \mu_k v_k = \Gamma (x) \: \big[ ({\mathbf{u}}\star{\mathbf{u}}\star{\mathbf{u}})_k - \delta_{k,0} w_0^3 \big]
\quad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^3\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently, in view of ${\mathbf{w}} = (..., 0, w_0, 0, ...)$, of and of $\mu_k = \omega^2 k^2 - m^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_stationary-proof}
- \Delta u_k - (\omega^2 k^2 - m^2) u_k = \Gamma (x) \: ({\mathbf{u}}\star{\mathbf{u}}\star{\mathbf{u}})_k
\quad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^3.\end{aligned}$$ We now define formally for $t \in {\mathbb{R}}, x \in {\mathbb{R}}^3$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_poly-proof}
U(t, x) := w_0(x) + v_0(x) + \sum_{k=1}^\infty 2 \cos(\omega kt) \: v_k(x)
= \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \mathrm{e}^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega k t} \: u_k(x).\end{aligned}$$ Since by assumption ${\mathbf{u}} = {\mathbf{v}} + {\mathbf{w}} \in \ell^1({\mathbb{Z}}, X_1)$, the Weierstrass M-test asserts that the sum in converges in $X_1$ uniformly with respect to $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$, and hence the map $t \mapsto U(t, \,\cdot \,)$ is continuous as a map from ${\mathbb{R}}$ to $X_1$. We next show stronger regularity properties of $U(t,x)$.
We prove that the map $t \mapsto U(t, \,\cdot \,)$, when interpreted as a map from ${\mathbb{R}}$ to $X_1$, possesses two continuous time derivatives given by $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t U(t, \,\cdot \,) = \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\mathrm{i}}\omega k \: \mathrm{e}^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega k t} \: u_k,
\qquad
\partial_t^2 U(t, \,\cdot \,) = \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} -\omega^2 k^2 \: \mathrm{e}^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega k t} \: u_k.\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, term-by-term differentiation is justified since the sums above as well as in converge in $X_1$ uniformly with respect to time. This is a consequence of the Weierstraß M-test and the decay estimate in Lemma \[lem\_uniformdecay\] (iii). Hence, as asserted, the map $t \mapsto U(t, \,\cdot \,)$ is twice continuously differentiable as a map from ${\mathbb{R}}$ to $X_1$ - the same strategy yields in fact $C^\infty$ regularity in time.
Similarly, the local regularity estimate in Lemma \[lem\_uniformdecay\] (ii) implies $U \in C^2({\mathbb{R}}\times B)$ for every given ball $B = B_R(0) \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^3$ again via term-by-term differentiation. Since the radius of the ball $B$ is arbitrary, we conclude for $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and all $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^3$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \partial_t^2 - \Delta + m^2 \right] U(t, x)
&=
\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \mathrm{e}^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega k t} \: \left[ -\omega^2 k^2 - \Delta + m^2 \right] u_k(x)
\\
&\!\!\overset{\eqref{eq_stationary-proof}}{=}
\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \mathrm{e}^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega k t} \: \Gamma(x) \: \sum_{l+m+n = k} u_l(x) \, u_m(x) \, u_n(x)
\\
&=
\Gamma(x) \: \left( \sum_{l \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \mathrm{e}^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega l t} \: u_l(x) \right)
\left( \sum_{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \mathrm{e}^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega m t} \: u_m(x) \right)
\left( \sum_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \mathrm{e}^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega n t} \: u_n(x) \right)
\\
&= \Gamma(x) \: U(t,x)^3\end{aligned}$$ where the re-ordering of the summation is justified by absolute convergence of the sums. Thus $U$ is shown to be a classical solution of the Klein-Gordon equation .
[Proposition \[prop\_kernel\]]{} We prove the statement for the map $F$ and then comment on the aspects that differ in case of $G$. Using formula , we find for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and ${\mathbf{q}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$, recalling that $w_k = 0$ for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{ 0 \}$ and that $\mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\tau_s} = \mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\pi/2} + \cot(\tau_s) \, \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s} \ast$, $$\begin{aligned}
&DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0)[{\mathbf{q}}]_k = q_k - 3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_k} [\Gamma \: ({\mathbf{q}} \star {\mathbf{w}} \star {\mathbf{w}})_k]
= q_k - 3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_k} \left[ \Gamma \: w_0^2 \cdot q_k \right],
\\
&DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0)[{\mathbf{q}}]_0 = q_0 - 3 \: \mathcal{P}_{\mu_0} [\Gamma \: ({\mathbf{q}} \star {\mathbf{w}} \star {\mathbf{w}})_0] = q_0 - 3 \: \mathcal{P}_{\mu_0} \left[ \Gamma \: w_0^2 \cdot q_0 \right].\end{aligned}$$ For ${\mathbf{q}} \in \ker DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0)$, and in view of the choice of $\tau_k$ in , the nondegeneracy properties imply $q_k \equiv 0$ for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}, k \neq \pm s$. Since $\tau_{\pm s} = \sigma_{s}$ in , Proposition \[prop\_chapter2\] guarantees the existence of a nontrivial solution $q_s \in X_1$ of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_qs-case1}
q_s = 3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\tau_s} \left[ \Gamma \: w_0^2 \cdot q_s \right]\end{aligned}$$ which is unique up to a multiplicative factor. Hence $\ker DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0)$ has the asserted form. (We recall here that we consider the subspace of symmetric sequences, whence $q_{-s} = q_s$.) Further, by Lemmas \[lem\_convol\] and \[lem\_linS\] in the final Section \[sect\_helmholtz\], the operators $$\begin{aligned}
X_1 \to X_1, \qquad
\begin{cases}
q_k \mapsto q_k - 3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_k}^{\tau_k} \left[ \Gamma \: w_0^2 \cdot q_k \right]
& (k \neq 0)
\\
q_0 \mapsto q_0 - 3 \: \mathcal{P}_{\mu_0} \left[ \Gamma \: w_0^2 \cdot q_0 \right]
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ are linear compact perturbations of the identity and so $\ker DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0)$ is 1-1-Fredholm. In order to verify transversality, we compute for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and ${\mathbf{q}} \in \ker DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0) \setminus \{ {\mathbf{0}} \}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_\lambda DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0)[{\mathbf{q}}]_k
= \begin{cases}
3 \: \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s} \ast [ \Gamma \: w_0^2 \, q_s ], & k = \pm s,
\\
0, & \text{else}.
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ Assuming for contradiction that $\partial_\lambda DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0)[{\mathbf{q}}] = DF({\mathbf{0}}, 0)[{\mathbf{p}}]$ for some ${\mathbf{p}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$, we infer in particular that the component $p_s$ satisfies the convolution identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_aux-transversal}
p_s - 3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\tau_s} \left[ \Gamma \: w_0^2 \cdot p_s \right]
= 3 \: \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s} \ast [ \Gamma \: w_0^2 \cdot q_s ]\end{aligned}$$ and hence, following Lemmas \[lem\_convol\], \[lem\_linH\] $$\begin{aligned}
- \Delta p_s - \mu_s p_s = 3 \: \Gamma(x) \: w_0^2(x) \, p_s
\quad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^3,\end{aligned}$$ which is also nontrivially solved by $q_s$ as a consequence of . Due to the uniqueness statement in Proposition \[prop\_chapter2\], this implies that $p_s = c \cdot q_s$ for some $c \in {\mathbb{R}}$. But then, applying to , we obtain $ \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s} \ast [ \Gamma \: w_0^2 \cdot q_s ] = 0$. Hence by the asymptotic expansion in Lemma \[lem\_convol\] $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\Gamma w_0^2 q_s} (\sqrt{\mu_s}) = 0\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, due to $q_s = 3 \: \mathcal{R}^{\tau_s}_{\mu_s} [ \Gamma \: w_0^2 \, q_s ]$ and Lemma \[lem\_linH\], $$\begin{aligned}
q_s(x) = O\left(\frac{1}{|x|^2}\right) \text{ as } |x| \to \infty.\end{aligned}$$ This contradicts Proposition \[prop\_chapter2\] stating that the leading-order term as $|x| \to \infty$ of a nontrivial solution $q_s$ of $- \Delta q_s - \mu_s q_s = 3 \: \Gamma(x) \: w_0^2(x) \, q_s$ cannot vanish.
In the case $\tau_s = 0$, we see as above that ${\mathbf{q}} \in \ker DG({\mathbf{0}}, 0)$ if and only if $q_k = 0$ for $k \neq \pm s$, and that $q_{s} = q_{-s}$ can be chosen to be the (nontrivial) solution of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_qs-case2}
q_s = 3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\pi/2} \left[ \Gamma \: w_0^2 \cdot q_s \right]
+ \alpha^{(\mu_s)}(q_s) \: \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s}
\quad \text{with } \quad \beta^{(\mu_s)}(q_s) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $\ker DG({\mathbf{0}}, 0)$ is 1-1-Fredholm. We again assume for contradiction that there is ${\mathbf{p}} \in \mathcal{X}_1$ with $\partial_\lambda DG({\mathbf{0}}, 0)[{\mathbf{q}}] = DG({\mathbf{0}}, 0)[{\mathbf{p}}]$, which implies in particular $$\label{eq_aux-transversal-2}
p_s - 3 \: \mathcal{R}_{\mu_s}^{\pi/2} \left[ \Gamma \: w_0^2 \cdot p_s \right]
- \left( \alpha^{(\mu_s)}(p_s) + \beta^{(\mu_s)}(p_s) \right) \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s}
= \alpha^{(\mu_s)}(q_s) \tilde{\Psi}_{\mu_s}$$ with $\beta^{(\mu_s)}(q_s) = 0$. Thus, according to Lemma \[lem\_convol\], $p_s$ solves the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
- \Delta p_s - \mu_s p_s = 3 \: \Gamma(x) \: w_0^2(x) \, p_s
\quad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^3,\end{aligned}$$ which is also solved by $q_s$, see equation . As before, the uniqueness property in Proposition \[prop\_chapter2\] implies $p_s = c \cdot q_s$ for some $c \in {\mathbb{R}}$, and inserting this into the identity , comparison with yields $\alpha^{(\mu_s)}(q_s) = 0$. Since also $\beta^{(\mu_s)}(q_s) = 0$, we infer from the definition of the functionals $\alpha^{(\mu_s)}, \beta^{(\mu_s)}$ preceding Lemma \[lem\_linH-0\] that, again, $q_s(x) = O(1/|x|^2)$, contradicting Proposition \[prop\_chapter2\].
Appendix: Stationary Linear Helmholtz and Schrödinger Equations {#sect_helmholtz}
===============================================================
Given $\mu > 0$, we study aspects of the solution theory of the linear equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_linSH}
- \Delta u \pm \mu u = f \qquad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^3.\end{aligned}$$ In the case of a “$+$”, equation is said to be a Schrödinger equation. Given any right-hand side $f \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^3)$, a unique solution $u \in H^2({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ can be obtained by applying the resolvent $(- \Delta + \mu)^{-1}$, which can be calculated explicitly by applying the Fourier transform $$\begin{aligned}
u = (- \Delta + \mu)^{-1} f = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \frac{\hat{f}(\xi)}{|\xi|^2 + \mu} \: \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} {\left< \,\cdot\, ,\xi \right>}} \: \frac{\mathrm{d}\xi}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ In the case of a Helmholtz equation, i.e. of a “$-$” sign in , this is not possible since $\mu > 0$ belongs to the essential spectrum of $- \Delta$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. A well-established strategy to find solutions in spaces other than $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ is known as Limiting Absorption Principle(s). The idea is to replace $\mu$ by $\mu + {\mathrm{i}}\varepsilon$, apply an $L^2$-resolvent, and pass to the limit $\varepsilon \to 0$ in a suitable topology, i.e. formally $$\begin{aligned}
u = `` \lim_{\varepsilon \searrow 0}" \: (- \Delta - (\mu + {\mathrm{i}}\varepsilon))^{-1} f =
`` \lim_{\varepsilon \searrow 0}" \: \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \frac{\hat{f}(\xi)}{|\xi|^2 - (\mu + {\mathrm{i}}\varepsilon)} \: \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} {\left< \,\cdot\, ,\xi \right>}} \: \frac{\mathrm{d}\xi}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Using tools from harmonic analysis, such a construction of solutions of linear inhomogeneous Helmholtz equations has been successfully done by Agmon [@agmon-scattering] in weighted $L^2$ spaces, and by Kenig, Ruiz and Sogge [@Kenig] as well as Gutiérrez [@Gutierrez] in certain pairs of $L^p$ spaces. The resolvent-type operator is, then, for sufficiently nice $f$, given by a convolution $$\begin{aligned}
u = \frac{\mathrm{e}^{{\mathrm{i}}| \, \cdot \, | \sqrt{\mu}}}{4 \pi |\, \cdot \, |} \ast f.\end{aligned}$$ Such studies are completed by characterizations of the so-called Herglotz waves, i.e. the solutions of the homogeneous equation $- \Delta u - \mu u = 0$ on the respective spaces, see e.g. [@agmon].
We study the case of (real-valued, radial) functions $f \in X_3, u \in X_1$ with the Banach spaces $$\begin{aligned}
X_q &:=
\left\{
v \in C_\mathrm{rad}({\mathbb{R}}^3) \big| \: {\left\lVert v \right\rVert}_{X_q} := {\left\lVert (1 + |\cdot|^2)^\frac{q}{2} v \right\rVert}_\infty < \infty
\right\},
\qquad q \in \{ 1, 3 \}.\end{aligned}$$ These have been successfully applied in solving systems of cubic Helmholtz equations in [@own_cubic]. Let us again point out that the decay rate prescribed in $X_1$ is the natural one for solutions of Helmholtz equations on the full space ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. Such solutions of the Helmholtz equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_linH}
- \Delta u - \mu u = f \qquad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^3\end{aligned}$$ can be obtained using convolution operators with kernels $\Psi_\mu, \tilde{\Psi}_\mu$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_\mu(x) = \frac{\cos(|x|\sqrt{\mu})}{4 \pi |x|},
\qquad
\tilde{\Psi}_\mu(x) = \frac{\sin(|x|\sqrt{\mu})}{4 \pi |x|}
\qquad
(x \in {\mathbb{R}}^3 \setminus \{ 0 \}).\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Psi_\mu, \tilde{\Psi}_\mu$ are radial solutions of the homogeneous Helmholtz equation on ${\mathbb{R}}^3 \setminus \{ 0 \}$. We notice that $\tilde{\Psi}_\mu$ extends to a smooth solution of $- \Delta u - \mu u = 0$ in $X_1$ and it is, up to constant multiples, the only one. Moreover, the following holds:
\[lem\_convol\] The convolution operators $f \mapsto \Psi_\mu \ast f$, $f \mapsto \tilde{\Psi}_\mu \ast f$ are well-defined, linear and compact as operators from $X_3$ to $X_1$. Moreover, given $f \in X_3$, the functions $w := \Psi_\mu \ast f$ and $\tilde{w} := \tilde{\Psi}_\mu \ast f$ belong to $X_1 \cap C^2_{\mathrm{loc}}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ and satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&- \Delta w - \mu w = f \quad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^3,
\qquad w(x) = 4\pi \: \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \: \hat{f}(\sqrt{\mu}) \: \: \Psi_\mu(x) + O\left( \frac{1}{|x|^2} \right);
\\
&- \Delta \tilde{w} - \mu \tilde{w} = 0 \quad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^3,
\qquad \tilde{w}(x) = 4\pi \: \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \: \hat{f}(\sqrt{\mu}) \: \: \tilde{\Psi}_\mu(x).\end{aligned}$$
Here $\hat{f}(\sqrt{\mu})$ refers to the profile of the Fourier transform on ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. Working in a radial setting with strongly decaying inhomogeneities $f \in X_3$, the properties in the previous Lemma (and in the following ones) can be verified immediately by explicit calculations and need not be derived from suitable Limiting Absorption Principles; for details, we refer to the earlier article [@own_cubic].
The study of conditions guaranteeing uniqueness of solutions of in $X_1$ involves the characterization of Herglotz waves in $X_1$, which are all multiples of $\tilde{\Psi}_\mu$. As in [@own_cubic], inspired by the analysis of the so-called far field of solutions of Helmholtz equations in scattering theory, we impose asymptotic conditions governing the leading-order contribution of $u(x)$ as $|x| \to \infty$. For $\tau \in (0, \pi)$, we introduce $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_{\mu}^{\tau} [f] = \Psi_\mu \ast f + \cot(\tau) \: \tilde{\Psi}_\mu \ast f
= \frac{\sin(|\,\cdot\,| \sqrt{\mu} + \tau)}{4\pi \sin(\tau) \: |\,\cdot\,|} \ast f.\end{aligned}$$ Then, using the above Lemma \[lem\_convol\], one obtains:
\[lem\_linH\] Let $\tau \in (0, \pi)$ and $\mu > 0$. Then the operator $\mathcal{R}_{\mu}^{\tau}: X_3 \to X_1$ is well-defined, linear and compact. Moreover, given $f \in X_3$, we have $u = \mathcal{R}_{\mu}^{\tau} [f]$ if and only if $u \in C^2_{\mathrm{loc}}$ with $$\begin{aligned}
- \Delta u - \mu u = f \quad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^3,
\qquad
u(x) = c \cdot \frac{\sin(|x| \sqrt{\mu} + \tau)}{|x|} + O\left( \frac{1}{|x|^2} \right)
\quad \text{as } |x| \to \infty\end{aligned}$$ for some $c \in {\mathbb{R}}$, and in this case $c = \frac{1}{\sin(\tau)} \: \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \: \hat{f}(\sqrt{\mu})$.
Handling the case of far field conditions with $\tau = 0$ is somewhat more delicate since the existence of the solution $\tilde{\Psi}_\mu$ (which satisfies exactly this condition) excludes an analogous uniqueness statement. For proving Theorem \[thm\_poly\], the following setting is suitable. First, by the Hahn-Banach Theorem, we define continuous linear functionals $\alpha^{(\mu)}, \beta^{(\mu)} \in X'_1$ with the property that, for $u \in X_1$ with $$\begin{aligned}
u(x) = \alpha_u \cdot \tilde{\Psi}_\mu(x) + \beta_u \cdot \Psi_\mu(x) + O\left( \frac{1}{|x|^2} \right)
\quad \text{as } |x| \to \infty,\end{aligned}$$ we have $\alpha^{(\mu)}(u) = \alpha_u$ and $\beta^{(\mu)}(u) = \beta_u$, cf. [@own_cubic], equation (13) and the following explanations. Then, the following analogue of Lemma \[lem\_linH\] holds.
\[lem\_linH-0\] Given $f \in X_3$, we have $u = \mathcal{R}_{\mu}^{\pi/2} [f] + (\alpha^{(\mu)}(u) + \beta^{(\mu)}(u)) \cdot \tilde{\Psi}_\mu$ if and only if $u \in C^2_{\mathrm{loc}}$ with $$\begin{aligned}
- \Delta u - \mu u = f \quad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^3,
\qquad
u(x) = c \cdot \frac{\sin(|x| \sqrt{\mu})}{|x|} + O\left( \frac{1}{|x|^2} \right)
\quad \text{as } |x| \to \infty\end{aligned}$$ for some $c \in {\mathbb{R}}$. In this case, $\beta^{(\mu)}(u) = 0$.
These results will allow to handle the nonlinear Helmholtz equations in ; for the proofs, we refer to the corresponding parts of [@own_cubic]. Nonlinear Schrödinger equations such as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_linS}
- \Delta u + \mu u = f \qquad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^3\end{aligned}$$ for some $\mu > 0$ can also be discussed in a similar setting, which is certainly neither optimal nor most elegant but perfectly suitable for our purpose as another analogue of Lemma \[lem\_convol\].
\[lem\_linS\] Let $\mu > 0$. Then the operator $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_{\mu}: X_3 \to X_1, \quad
f \mapsto \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-|\,\cdot\,| \sqrt{\mu}}}{4 \pi | \, \cdot \, |} \ast f\end{aligned}$$ is well-defined, linear and compact. Moreover, given $f \in X_3$, we have $u := \mathcal{P}_\mu [f] \in X_3 \cap C^2_\mathrm{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$, and $u$ is a solution in $X_1$ of $$\begin{aligned}
- \Delta u + \mu u = f \quad \qquad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^3.
\end{aligned}$$
For details on the proof, which is similar to that of Lemma \[lem\_convol\] but with less difficulties due to the strongly localized kernel, cf. [@myDiss], Lemma 4.10.
Let us remark that, in the Schrödinger case, we do not obtain a family of possible “resolvent-type” operators as $\mathcal{R}_1^\tau = \mathcal{R}_1 + \cot(\tau) \tilde{\mathcal{R}}_1$, $0 < \tau < \pi$, in the Helmholtz case. This is due to the fact that the homogeneous Schrödinger equation $- \Delta u + \mu u = 0$ has no smooth and localized nontrivial solution in $X_1$. In particular, a major consequence in our study of Klein-Gordon breathers is that we have to impose nondegeneracy of $w_0$ as an assumption rather than, as in the Helmholtz case, generate it by choosing an appropriate resolvent $\mathcal{R}_1^\tau$, as will be done in , below.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Project-ID 258734477 – SFB 1173.
The construction of breather solutions of a similar wave-type equation is a major result of the author’s dissertation thesis and can be found partly verbatim in [@myDiss Chapter 4]. Special thanks goes in particular to my PhD advisor Dr. Rainer Mandel who encouraged me to work on this topic and provided advice whenever asked.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We demonstrate that dwarf galaxies ($10^{7} < M_{\rm stellar} <
10^9$, $-12 > M_r > -18$) with no active star formation are extremely rare ($<0.06$%) in the field. Our sample is based on the NASA-Sloan Atlas which is a re-analysis of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 8. We examine the relative number of quenched versus star forming dwarf galaxies, defining quenched galaxies as having no H$\alpha$ emission (EW$_{H\alpha} < 2 \mbox{\AA}$) and a strong 4000-break. The fraction of quenched dwarf galaxies decreases rapidly with increasing distance from a massive host, leveling off for distances beyond 1.5Mpc. We define galaxies beyond 1.5Mpc of a massive host galaxy to be in the field. We demonstrate that there is a stellar mass threshold of $M_{\rm stellar} < 1.0\times10^9$ below which quenched galaxies do not exist in the field. Below this threshold, we find that none of the [2951 ]{}field dwarf galaxies are quenched; all field dwarf galaxies show evidence for recent star formation. Correcting for volume effects, this corresponds to a 1-sigma upper limit on the quenched fraction of 0.06%. In more dense environments, quenched galaxies account for 23% of the dwarf population over the same stellar mass range. The majority of quenched dwarf galaxies (often classified as dwarf elliptical galaxies) are within 2 virial radii of a massive galaxy, and only a few percent of quenched dwarf galaxies exist beyond 4 virial radii. Thus, for galaxies with stellar mass less than $1.0\times10^9$, ending star-formation requires the presence of a more massive neighbor, providing a stringent constraint on models of star formation feedback.
author:
- 'M. Geha, M. R. Blanton, R. Yan, J. L. Tinker'
title: A Stellar Mass Threshold for Quenching of Field Galaxies
---
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
A well-established color bimodality is seen in the local distribution of luminous galaxies [e.g., @baldry06a; @tanaka05a; @blanton05b; @blanton09a] and appears already in place at redshifts above $z\sim1$ [@bell04a; @cooper07a]. The galaxy population divides between blue, star-forming systems and red, quenched systems. The relative fractions between these two populations depends on both stellar mass and environment. Luminous red galaxies exist both in the field and denser regions, however, at fixed stellar mass the fraction of luminous red galaxies is higher in denser environments [e.g., @kauffmann04a; @vandenbosch08a].
The red/quenched fractions for less massive galaxies are lower regardless of environment as compared to their higher mass counterparts. @kauffman03b found a characteristic stellar mass of $3\times 10^{10}$ below which galaxies tend to be star forming and have lower surface brightnesses. In the framework of “central” and “satellite” galaxies [@yang07a; @Zehavi11a], where central galaxies are defined as the most massive galaxy in their dark matter halo based on group catalogs, @wang09a and @peng10a showed that the red fractions for central galaxies decrease as a smooth function of declining stellar mass, reaching red fractions around 10% for the lowest stellar masses ($M_{\rm stellar}
\sim10^9$) available in large numbers in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). Using spectroscopic diagnostics to define quenched galaxies, @wetzel10a and @tinker11a also showed that quenched fractions decrease with stellar mass for central galaxies, reaching slightly lower quenched fractions for central galaxies at the same stellar mass.
Many galaxy formation models predict lower quenched fractions for lower mass central galaxies. Currently favored models suggest that massive galaxies are quenched because they can maintain a hot gaseous halo, due to processes such as heating from supernova or active galactic nuclei [e.g., @croton06a; @dekel08a; @kimm09a]. These processes suppress gas cooling, either heating gas within the galaxy or preventing additional cold gas from accreting, and effectively shutting off star formation [@keres05a]. Low mass galaxies which are satellites of more massive objects are quenched because of the many physical mechanisms available in the group environment, such as ram pressure, harassment and tidal stripping. However, below some threshold, small [*central*]{} galaxies are not expected to be quenched [@gabor12a]. Testing such a framework requires a large well understood sample of low mass galaxies across a range of environments.
Quantifying the quenched fractions of dwarf galaxies, defined here as galaxies fainter than $M_r > -18$ or stellar mass below $10^9$, is challenging, largely because the colors and apparent sizes of low luminosity galaxies are similar to those of more luminous, and far more numerous, background objects. This necessitates spectroscopic samples. In the Local Group, quenched galaxies dominate the dwarf satellite population within 500kpc of either the Milky Way or M31, while star forming gas-rich galaxies tend to lie at larger distances [@einasto74a; @mateo98a; @grcevich09a; @weisz11a]. Similarly, in the nearby Virgo or Coma galaxy clusters, quenched dwarf galaxies dominate the clusters’ center and transition to a more star forming population in the outskirts [@binggeli85b; @ferguson91a; @lisker07a]. @haines08a [@haines07a] found no quenched galaxies fainter than $M_r =-18$ in the SDSS Data Release 4. In this paper, we perform a similar analysis, confirming this result with a much larger sample of dwarf galaxies.
We construct a clean sample of nearly 10,000 dwarf galaxies in the stellar mass range $10^7 < M_{\rm stellar} < 10^9$ ($-12 > M_r >
-18$) across a wide range of environments, using a re-analysis of the SDSS Data Release 8. We demonstrate that quenched galaxies which have ceased forming stars, i.e., “red and dead” galaxies, often classified as dwarf elliptical or dwarf spheroidal galaxies, do not exist in isolation (or as “central” galaxies) for stellar masses below $1.0\times 10^{9}$. In §\[sec\_data\], we discuss the sample construction and environmental parameterization using a nearest neighbor distance. In §\[ssec\_environ\], we demonstrate the absence of quenched dwarf galaxies passing our isolation criteria, noting a significant fraction of isolated red star forming galaxies. In §\[ssec\_thresh\], we compare the fraction of field quenched galaxies as a function of stellar mass. In §\[ssec\_virial\], we compare the distribution of quenched and star forming dwarf galaxies as a function of distance from its host galaxy, in units of the host’s virial radius. In §\[ssec\_SF\], we briefly examine the properties of the star forming field dwarf galaxy sample. We conclude in §\[sec\_concl\] with the implication of these results for star formation feedback and galaxy formation.
Throughout this paper, we assume cosmological parameters $\Omega_0 =
0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$, and $H_0 = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. All magnitudes in this paper are $K$-corrected to rest-frame bandpasses using the method of @blanton06a and [ kcorrect]{} [v4\_2]{}. Because of the small range of look-back times in our sample (a maximum of around 700 Myr), we do not evolution-correct any of our magnitudes.
0.5cm
Constructing the SDSS Dwarf Galaxy Sample {#sec_data}
==========================================
The NASA-Sloan Atlas
--------------------
Our dwarf galaxy sample is derived from the SDSS Data Release 8 spectroscopic catalog [DR8; @dr8], covering $7966~\mathrm{deg^2}$ of the sky. Since the SDSS main catalog is not optimized for nearby low luminosity objects, we instead select objects from the NASA-Sloan Atlas[^1](NSA). The NSA is a reprocessing of the SDSS photometry using the SDSS $ugriz$ images with an improved background subtraction technique (@blanton11a), combined with GALEX images in the near and far-UV. The NSA photometry is a significant improvement over the standard SDSS DR8 photometric catalog, as described in @blanton11a. All galaxies with redshifts $z<0.055$ within the SDSS footprint are analyzed (Figure \[fig\_zdist\]). For each galaxy, the NSA contains a mosaicked image which is deblended and analyzed consistently in all bands. Fluxes are based on two-dimensional [Sérsic]{} models whose structural parameters are fit to the $r$-band image. The NSA catalog galaxy also provides a re-analysis of the SDSS spectroscopic data for each galaxy using the techniques of @yan11a and the SDSS spectrophotometric recalibration of @yan11b. This analysis yields fluxes, equivalent widths and associated errors.
To estimate stellar masses, we use those reported by the [ kcorrect]{} software of @blanton06b which assumes a @chabrier03a initial mass function and are based on fits to both the SDSS optical and, when available, GALEX fluxes. Distances are estimated based on the SDSS NSA redshift and a model of the local velocity field [@willick97a]. Distance errors are folded into our error estimations for stellar mass.
In this paper, we focus largely on dwarf galaxies with stellar masses between $10^{7} < M_{\rm stellar} <10^{9} M_\odot$. In the NSA catalog this corresponds to [9399 ]{}galaxies. A search for objects in the same stellar mass and redshift range in the DR7 NYU Value-Added Galaxy Catalog [VAGC; @blanton05a] yields nearly 16,000 objects over the same area. The standard SDSS photometry used by the VAGC catalog is not optimized for extended nearby galaxies; the excess of ’dwarfs’ in this catalog are primarily shredded pieces of massive galaxies which have been properly accounted for in the NSA catalog.
Environment and Nearest Luminous Neighbors
------------------------------------------
We calculate environments for our dwarf galaxy sample relative to more luminous neighbor galaxies. We want to maximize our ability to identify luminous neighbors, despite the large angular distances for this nearby sample. For example, searching a 1Mpc region around a galaxy 30Mpc away corresponds to 2 degrees on the sky. Many of our dwarf galaxies are on the SDSS Southern stripes, which are only 2.5 degrees wide. For this reason, instead of the NSA catalog, which is limited to the area with SDSS imaging, we use the 2MASS Extended Source Catalog to identify luminous galaxy hosts. For redshifts, we use SDSS spectroscopy plus several other sources: the 2-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS; @colless01a), the 6-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (6dfGRS; @jones04a), ZCAT[^2], ALFALFA (@giovanelli05a) as well as every redshift within $z<0.055$ from the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED). By using this all-sky catalog, we can best identify luminous neighbors even for dwarf galaxies near the edges of the SDSS imaging.
To quantify environment, we determine the distance, $d_{\rm host}$, for each of our dwarf galaxies to its nearest “luminous” neighbor. In this context, we define galaxies as luminous if $M_{K_s} <-23$ corresponding to a stellar mass of approximately 2.5$\times
10^{10}$ (assuming a mean stellar mass-to-light ratio in the $K_s$-band of unity). The 2MASS sample is complete within our dwarf galaxy volume for this choice of $M_{K_s}$. Because we use several different redshift surveys, the sample of luminous galaxies is non-uniform, especially outside the area covered by SDSS main sample spectroscopy. However, we prefer to have as complete a sample of luminous galaxies as possible, in order to most reliably identify isolated dwarf galaxies. To define the environment for each dwarf galaxy, we search for the closest luminous galaxy within 1000[km s$^{-1}$]{} in redshift and within a projected comoving distance $d_{\rm
host}<7$Mpc. A small number of dwarfs have no luminous galaxy within this volume; we set the $d_{\rm host}$ values for these galaxies to 7Mpc.
Definition of Quenched Dwarf Galaxies
-------------------------------------
We divide our sample between galaxies with active star formation and “quenched” galaxies that are not forming stars. We differentiate between these two populations using SDSS spectroscopic diagnostics. We define quenched galaxies as having both no H$\alpha$ emission (EW H$\alpha< 2$) and a criterion based on the 4000 break, D$_n$4000. The D$_n$4000 index is a measure of the light-weighted age of the stellar population [@balogh99a]. Because is it measured in two 100 windows separated by 50, it is less affected by dust reddening than broad-band galaxy colors. Analogous to color indicators, we find that the D$_n$4000 strength is a function of stellar mass (Figure \[fig\_d4000\]) and therefore define quenched galaxies as having D$_n$4000$> 0.6 + 0.1$log$_{10}$(M$_{\rm stellar}[{\mbox{\,$M_{\odot}$}}]$). At a stellar mass of $10^{10}$, this is equivalent to the D$_n$4000$> 1.6$ criterion used by @tinker11a.
Figure \[fig\_3panels\] shows $(g-r)$ color, H$\alpha$ EW, and D$_n$4000 index as a function of nearest neighbor distance, $d_{\rm host}$. We compare the distributions of these quantities for two stellar mass bins: $10^{9.25} < M_{\rm
stellar} <10^{9.75} M_\odot$ (top panels), and $10^{8} < M_{\rm
stellar} <10^{9.25} M_\odot$ (bottom panels). These two stellar mass bins were chosen to have a roughly similar number of galaxies and straddle the stellar mass threshold of $1.0\times10^9$discussed in §\[ssec\_thresh\]. In both bins, the majority of quenched galaxies have red ($g-r$) colors and tend to lie close to a massive parent galaxy, at values of $d_{\rm host} < 1$Mpc. Similarly, the majority of galaxies with strong D$_n$4000 index, an indicator of older stellar populations, exist in close proximity to a larger galaxy. At all masses, galaxies show a wide range of H$\alpha$ EW which extend to values larger than the plotted region. At higher stellar masses, there are a number of galaxies which show no H$\alpha$ emission and high values of D$_n$4000 at large values of $d_{\rm
host}$, however, these objects are missing in the lower mass panels. We explore these quantities further below.
V$_{\rm max}$ Corrections and Surface Brightness Completeness {#ssec_vmax}
-------------------------------------------------------------
The SDSS spectroscopic apparent magnitude limit of $r < 17.77$ restricts the volume over which dwarf galaxies can be found (Figure \[fig\_zdist\]). We will compare quantities as a function of stellar mass and do not want to use a volume-limited sample which would further reduce the number of available dwarf galaxies. Galaxies in a given stellar mass bin will have a range of absolute magnitudes, and therefore a range of volume over which they could be detected in SDSS. To account for this difference, we weight our sample using the $1/V_{\rm max}$ method, determining the maximum volume $V_{\rm max}$ for which each galaxy could have been found, given the spectroscopic apparent magnitude limit. The NSA catalog includes galaxies with redshifts less than $z < 0.055$, thus only galaxies with $M_r < -19.1$ are found throughout the full sample volume. We have compared our $1/V_{\rm max}$ weighted results to that of a volume-limited sample for objects with stellar mass greater than $10^8$. The volume-limited results are far noisier due to the significantly smaller volume probed, but are qualitatively similar.
The SDSS is incomplete for low surface brightness galaxies. The SDSS spectroscopic survey completeness as a function of half-light surface brightness drops below 50% at $\mu_{50, r} \sim
23.5$mag arcsec$^{-2}$ [@blanton04b], and below 10% at $\mu_{50, r} = 24.0$mag arcsec$^{-2}$. For dwarf galaxies with stellar mass below $10^9$, the median surface brightness of our sample is $\mu_{50, r} = 22.3$mag arcsec$^{-2}$. Given the surface brightness incompleteness, we would miss, for example, one out of the five brightest satellites around the Milky Way [@mateo98a].
For the purposes of this study, we are concerned only with whether or not low surface brightness galaxies are preferentially missing from our quenched sample, relative to the full catalog. In dense environments ($d_{\rm host} < 1$Mpc), where we detect both quenched and star forming dwarf galaxies, the surface brightness distribution of quenched systems peaks at slightly lower surface brightnesses ($\mu_{50, r} = 22.5$mag arcsec$^{-2}$) as compared to the star forming sample ($\mu_{50, r} = 22.3$mag arcsec$^{-2}$). However, comparing the shape of the distributions via the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test suggests that the quenched galaxies in dense environments could plausibly be drawn from the surface brightness distribution of star-forming galaxies ($P_{\rm KS} = 0.1$). Unless there is a population of quenched low surface brightness galaxies that exists only in the field below the detection limits of SDSS, our red fractions should not be biased by the surface brightness incompleteness of the survey.
Results
=======
In the sections below, we calculate the quenched fraction, $f_{\rm
quenched}$. Weighting each galaxy by the total volume over which it could be observed, the quenched fraction is:
$$f_{\rm quenched} = \frac{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm quenched}} 1/V_{\rm
max}, i}
{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm quenched} + N_{\rm SF}} 1/V_{\rm max},i}$$
where $N_{\rm quenched}$ and $N_{\rm SF}$ are the number of quenched and star-forming galaxies, respectively. We calculate 1-$\sigma$ errors for $f_{\rm quenched}$ by propagating Poisson counting statistics errors on the independent quantities $N_{\rm quenched}$ and $N_{\rm SF}$. For cases where the number of quenched galaxies equals zero, we calculate the 1-$\sigma$ upper limits directly according to @gehrels86a.
Quenched Fractions as a Function of Environment {#ssec_environ}
-----------------------------------------------
We first explore the fraction of quenched dwarf galaxies as a function of our environment parameter, $d_{\rm host}$. Figure \[fig\_environ\] shows the quenched fraction $f_{\rm quenched}$ for various bins in stellar mass. Quenched galaxies are preferentially found near a massive host. The observed quenched fraction decreases with increasing values of $d_{\rm host}$, and then flattens to a constant level for $d_{\rm host}$ distances greater than 1.5Mpc. In our most massive stellar bin, between $10^{9.5} -10^{10}$, the quenched fraction levels off at a value of $f_{\rm quenched} = 5$% at large distances from a host galaxy. For stellar mass less than $\sim
10^{9}$, the quenched fractions beyond 1.5Mpc are effectively zero (see §\[ssec\_noreds\] for further discussion). In dense environments, $d_{\rm host} < 0.25$Mpc, the quenched fraction does not appear to be a strong function of stellar mass, approaching $f_{\rm
quenched} = 30$% in all our stellar mass bins.
Based on Figure \[fig\_environ\], we define “field” or “isolated” galaxies as those with $d_{\rm host} > 1.5$Mpc. Our definition is motivated by Figure \[fig\_environ\]: we see evidence of environmental processes, in the form of increased quenched fractions, out to at least 1Mpc. The host galaxies in our sample cover a range of masses: as calculated in §\[ssec\_virial\], the virial radii of our host galaxies range between $150-1000$kpc, with a median virial radius of 225kpc. Thus, we are seeing evidence for environment processes several times beyond the host’s virial radii. This result is consistent with @wang09a and we discuss implications of this statement in §\[ssec\_virial\].
In the sections below, we focus on the properties of field galaxies. Our measured quenched fractions for field dwarf galaxies with stellar mass less than $10^9$ are effectively zero, while published red fractions in the same stellar mass range, based only on $g-r$ colors, are between 5-10% of isolated galaxies [@wang09a; @peng11a]. Using colors only, we reproduce the Wang et al. result (Wang et al. Figure 2), finding a red (as opposed to quenched) fraction of 6% in the mass range $10^8 - 10^9$ beyond 1.5Mpc. We find that the majority of these red galaxies (46 out of 49) have strong H$\alpha$ emission; none of these galaxies would not pass our combined H$\alpha$ plus D$_n$4000 criteria for quenching. The distribution of axis ratios (b/a, based on the 2D Sersic $r$-band profile fits) for blue galaxies in this stellar mass range is peaked at 0.5, as expected for a population of disky systems viewed at random viewing positions. The 49 isolated red star forming systems are preferentially disky, peaking at an axis-ratio of 0.32, implying that most of these objects are edge-on star-forming galaxies which appear red due to dust-reddening. This confirms that color selection alone is not a good indicator in selecting quenched galaxies and motivates our spectroscopic criteria.
A Stellar Mass Threshold for Quenched Field Galaxies {#ssec_thresh}
----------------------------------------------------
Previous studies have shown that massive galaxies which are the central galaxy in their dark matter halo are predominantly quenched: the quenched fractions of central galaxies is 100% for galaxies with stellar mass above $10^{11}$, decreasing to 20% of galaxies with stellar mass of $10^{10}$[@wetzel10a; @peng11a; @woo12a]. None of these SDSS-based studies include galaxies less massive than $10^{9}$. With our cleaned SDSS dwarf galaxy sample, we next ask whether the quenched fractions of central galaxies continue to decrease with stellar mass and if there is a threshold below which this fraction reaches zero.
We compare our dwarf galaxy sample to a modified version of the group catalog from @tinker11a based on the SDSS DR7. This is a volume-limited ($z\le 0.06$) catalog including galaxies brighter than $M_r = -18$. To ensure homogeneity with our dwarf galaxy sample, we remeasure physical properties of galaxies in the Tinker et al. catalog, using spectral measurements from @yan11a and stellar masses from the NYU-VAGC. We define quenched galaxies using the same criteria as our dwarf sample: EW H$\alpha < 2$ and D$_n$4000$ > 0.6 + 0.1$log$_{10}$\[M$_{\rm stellar}$\].
The Tinker et al. catalog includes galaxies with stellar mass down to $10^{9.6}$, providing direct overlap with our NSA dwarf galaxy sample. We compare our isolated field dwarf galaxies to their sample of central galaxies. By definition, our isolated dwarf galaxies will be central galaxies, but central galaxies are not necessarily isolated. @tinker11a define central galaxies as those that do not exist within the halo radius of a larger halo. The halo radius is defined as the radius within which the average density is 200 times the background density. We note this is larger than the virial radius in $\Lambda$CDM, within which the average density corresponds to $\sim$360 times the background density [Eqn. 6; @bryan97a]. The halo radius of a smaller galaxy may overlap with a larger galaxy, but will not be considered a satellite until the smaller galaxy itself is within the larger’s halo radius. This motivates us to use a more restrictive definition of central galaxy. We have shown in Figure \[fig\_environ\] that galaxies below a stellar mass of $10^{10}$ show environmental effects out to as much as 1Mpc away from a massive galaxy, several times larger than the host galaxy halo radius. We therefore re-calculate the number of central galaxies in the Tinker et al. catalog, searching for associated objects within three times the halo radius. Using this definition, 75% of central galaxies in the Tinker et al. catalog have $d_{\rm host} > 1.5$Mpc in the overlapping stellar mass range of our dwarf galaxy catalog. This means that our definition of field galaxies is slightly more isolated than that of central galaxies in the Tinker et al. group catalog. This can be seen as slightly lower quenched fractions in the region of overlap shown in Figure \[fig\_f\_red\].
In Figure \[fig\_f\_red\], we plot the fraction of quenched galaxies as a function of stellar mass for central/field galaxies. At high stellar masses, quenched galaxies make up the majority of the central galaxy population. While Tinker et al. and others have shown that the quenched fraction of central galaxies is 100% for stellar masses greater than $10^{11}$, our H$\alpha$ cut removes objects with strong AGN activity, decreasing $f_{\rm quenched}$ at these masses. The quenched fraction decreases with stellar mass, reaching zero at a stellar mass between $1-2\times 10^9$. The least massive quenched field galaxy in our sample has a stellar mass $1.02\times10^9$. We therefore conclude that there is a threshold of $1.0\times10^9$ below which quenched galaxies are not found in the field. This threshold represents a fundamental stellar mass scale. Dwarf galaxies with stellar mass below this scale cannot quench star formation on their own. The threshold stellar mass does not change significantly for reasonable variations of our quenched definition. We list in Table 1, the number of galaxies, $1/V_{\rm max}$ corrections and quenched fractions for our NSA sample.
A stellar mass threshold of $1.0\times 10^9$, below which isolated quenched galaxies do not exist, is consistent with extrapolations of previously published work [@peng10a; @wetzel10a] and confirm, with a larger sample, the conclusions of @haines08a [@haines07a] who found no isolated quenched galaxies in the SDSS DR4 in the absolute magnitude range $-16 < M_r < -18$. These authors use somewhat different definitions of both ’isolated’ and ’quenched’, but also conclude that there is an absence of low mass isolated quenched galaxies.
The Absence of Quenched Dwarf Galaxies in the Field {#ssec_noreds}
---------------------------------------------------
We establish above that quenched central galaxies with stellar masses below $1.0\times 10^9$ do not exist in the field. Dwarf galaxies with stellar mass below this scale cannot quench star formation on their own; [*all*]{} field galaxies in our sample below this threshold are forming stars (see §\[ssec\_SF\]). We detect [2951 ]{}field galaxies in the stellar mass range $10^7
-10^{9.0}$. Accounting for 1/V$_{\rm max}$ corrections, we calculate an upper 1-sigma limit on the quenched fraction of $f_{\rm
quenched} < 0.0006$, or 0.06% using @gehrels86a. In denser regions, defined here as $d_{\rm host} < 0.25$Mpc, we find that 148 out of 1504 galaxies are quenched in the same stellar mass regime, corresponding to a quenched fraction of 23% after volume corrections. Thus, while quenched central galaxies with stellar mass less than $1.0\times
10^9$ exist in dense environments, we do not find these objects in the field.
Quenched Dwarf Galaxies Within 4 $r_{virial}$ of a Massive Host {#ssec_virial}
---------------------------------------------------------------
We next investigate the distribution of quenched dwarf galaxies relative to their host galaxy. Our sample contains 223 quenched galaxies below a stellar mass of $10^9$, all of which are within 1.5Mpc and 1000[km s$^{-1}$]{} of a more luminous host galaxy. We calculate the virial masses of the hosts using the prescriptions of @behroozi10a based on stellar mass. We calculate a virial mass for each host galaxy and determine its virial radius ($r_{\rm vir}$) assuming the average enclosed density is 360 times the background density.
In the top panel of Figure \[fig\_rvir\], we show the distribution of quenched galaxies with stellar mass below $1\times10^9$ as a function of distance from its host galaxy, in units of the host’s virial radius. In the bottom panel of Figure \[fig\_rvir\], we compare this distribution to that of star forming dwarf galaxies (defined as galaxies with detected H$\alpha > 2$, see §\[ssec\_SF\]) in the same stellar mass range. The majority (87%) of quenched dwarf galaxies are within 2$r_{\rm vir}$ of a massive host galaxy and would thus be considered “satellite” galaxies, while 97% of objects are within 4$r_{\rm vir}$. For comparison, less than 50% of star forming dwarf galaxies are within 4$r_{\rm vir}$ of a massive neighbor. The furthest quenched galaxy is 8 $r_{\rm vir}$ from its host, while the furthest star forming dwarf galaxy is over 50$r_{\rm vir}$ from a massive neighbor.
There are numerous proposed mechanisms to quench satellite galaxies within the virial radius of a massive galaxy. Processes such as ram pressure stripping or tidally induced star formation can quickly remove or use up gas as a satellite enters the virial radius of a massive host. The handful of quenched dwarf galaxies between 2-8$r_{\rm vir}$ may be evidence for quenching processes which act at larger distances from the primary halo. Alternatively, these may be “backsplash” galaxies which have previously been within the host virial radius, but are on either highly eccentric orbits or have been dynamical ejected from the host halo [@ludlow09a; @wang09a]. Numerical simulations suggest that up to 10% of satellites associated with a massive galaxy host can reside as far as four virial radii away, consistent with Figure \[fig\_rvir\]. These galaxies are analogous to the dwarf spheroidal galaxies Cetus and Tucana (M$_{\rm
stellar}\sim10^6$), which are roughly 1Mpc, or 3$-4r_{\rm
vir}$ from the Milky Way [@fraternali09a].
Our host galaxy definition is insensitive to whether or not a dwarf galaxy has a companion with stellar mass less than $10^{10}$. While we do not include dwarf galaxies with obvious signs of active merging activity, there are a number of dwarf-dwarf galaxy pairs in the SDSS DR8 volume. We perform a cursory search for isolated dwarf pairs, looking for two or more galaxies with stellar mass less than $10^9$ within a projected distance of 100kpc, a velocity difference less than 100[km s$^{-1}$]{}, and are further than 1.5Mpc from a massive host galaxy. We find 39 pairs matching these criteria. Significant H$\alpha$ is detected in all these dwarf galaxy pairs, with a median H$\alpha$ EW of 40 (slightly above the median of the full star-forming sample). None of the galaxies in these dwarf pairs are quenched. The fact that quenched dwarf galaxies are only found within 8$r_{\rm vir}$ of a more massive neighbor galaxy suggests that such dwarf-only groups are not effective at quenching their member dwarf galaxies. We will explore the properties of dwarf-dwarf systems in a future contribution.
Continuous Star Formation in Isolated Dwarf Galaxies {#ssec_SF}
----------------------------------------------------
We identify [2951 ]{}galaxies with stellar mass less than $1\times
10^9$ that are in the field (as defined here, these are also central/isolated galaxies). All of our field dwarf galaxies show evidence for recent star formation. We briefly examine the properties of these galaxies, deferring a full analysis for a future paper.
The vast majority of field dwarf galaxies have detected H$\alpha$ gflux: 2940 out of [2951 ]{}(99.6%) with stellar mass less than $10^9$ have H$\alpha$ EW $> 2$, with a median EW of 32. The presence of H$\alpha$ emission implies star formation within the past 50Myr [@bruzual03a]. The median star formation rate for these isolated galaxies is 0.03yr$^{-1}$, based on FUV GALEX fluxes [@salim07a]. This rate is comparable to that expected by extrapolating the star formation rate versus stellar mass relationship seen at higher stellar masses [e.g., @wuyts11a]. We note that none of these galaxies show evidence for AGN activity based on their position in \[OIII\]/H$\beta$ versus \[NII\]/H$\alpha$ line ratio diagnostic plot [@kewley01a; @yan11a]. The overwhelming fraction of isolated galaxies with very recent star formation suggests that this population is in a state of continuous star formation.
There are 11 field dwarf galaxies (0.4% of the population) which do not show H$\alpha$ emission. These objects have D$_n4000=1.1-1.3$, suggesting a luminosity-weighted stellar age between 100-200Myr based on @bruzual03a models. We have examined the broad band SDSS images and spectra of these 11 galaxies: 9 are strong post-starburst galaxies (e.g., K+A galaxies) according to the criteria defined by @yan09a through spectral decomposition, and two are border line cases, satisfying the more inclusive K+A criteria defined by @balogh99a based on H$\delta$ absorption EW. We conclude that these galaxies have shut off star formation within the past few hundred million years, and less than 1 Gyr even for the two weaker K+As. The fact that we do not find old quenched galaxies in the field suggest that these rare occasions of post-starburst galaxies are a transient phase in the life of isolated dwarf galaxies: they will soon have star formation again. This population constrains the “burstiness” of star formation, suggesting that star formation rarely shuts off in isolated dwarf galaxies and, if so, for less than a few hundred million years.
Discussion and Conclusions {#sec_concl}
==========================
We demonstrate that quenched dwarf galaxies are rare in isolation, existing almost exclusively in the vicinity of a more massive neighbor. For field galaxies, we find a stellar mass threshold of $1.0\times 10^9$ below which quenched galaxies do not exist. Most quenched galaxies below this stellar mass threshold are found within 2 $r_{\rm vir}$ of a massive host galaxy, and 97% of all quenched dwarf galaxies are found within 4 $r_{\rm vir}$.
With the SDSS DR8 data, we can state that quenched galaxies in the field do not exist below $1.0 \times10^9$, however, we cannot test this statement below $10^7$. The SDSS does not contain a sufficient number of galaxies below this stellar mass. Studies of dwarf galaxies within 10Mpc with stellar masses below $10^7$are consistent with our results: low mass quenched galaxies exist only within a few virial radius of the Milky Way, M31 or the nearby M81 group [@grcevich09a; @weisz11a]. Below the detection limits of any current survey, the quenched fractions of field galaxies may rise again at extremely low stellar masses. Ultra-faint galaxies ($M_V >
-5$, $M_{\rm stellar} < 10^4$) are currently detectable out to only 50kpc in the Milky Way halo [@walsh09a]. These galaxies are thought to form their stars only before reionization [@brown12a]. If counterparts of the ultra-faint galaxies exist in the field, these will appear as quenched objects. Thus, the quenched fractions of field galaxies may rise again at extremely low masses.
There are claims in the literature of isolated quenched dwarf galaxies, however, there are no definitive examples which pass our definition of isolated/field galaxies. At slightly lower stellar mass than the present sample, the dwarf spheroidal galaxies Cetus and Tucana ($\sim10^6$), discussed in §\[ssec\_virial\], are often cited as isolated quenched galaxies, but lie within 1.5Mpc (3 to 4 virial radius) of the Milky Way. @karachentseva11a list ten candidate isolated dwarf spheroidal galaxies which they identify via visual searches. Several of these candidates lie within the SDSS footprint, but are well below the spectroscopic magnitude limits. These objects were not detected in HI surveys, and have no measured radial velocities or secure distance estimates. Spectroscopic follow-up of these candidates will be an excellent test of our conclusions. Finally, we note no contradiction with the results of @wang09a who find a percentage of isolated dwarf galaxies with red broad-band colors at similar stellar masses: we demonstrate in §\[ssec\_environ\] that these are dust-reddened star-forming galaxies.
The absence of isolated quenched galaxies below $10^{9}$provides strong constraint on the internal feedback processes regulating star formation. We find that [*all*]{} galaxies below this stellar mass threshold are forming stars in the field: 99.6% of isolated field galaxies have formed stars within the past 50Myr, while the remaining galaxies have had star formation with the past few million years. A future paper will explore the properties of these star forming field dwarf galaxies (Blanton et al. in prep). In @geha06b, we presented HI follow-up for SDSS dwarf galaxies, concluding that external processes were required to fully remove gas from a dwarf galaxy. Exploring the HI and other properties of isolated dwarf galaxies above and below our stellar mass threshold will provide insight into the internal physical mechanisms, such as heating from supernova or active galactic nuclei, operating to quench galaxies at higher masses. Our stellar mass threshold provides a strong boundary condition for any of these mechanisms to completely shut off star formation in low mass galaxies.
MG acknowledges support from NSF grant AST-0908752 and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. We acknowledge R.Davé, J.Moustakas, F.van den Bosch, R.Wechsler, A.Wetzel and B.Willman for productive discussions. Funding for the NASA-Sloan Atlas has been provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data Analysis Program (08-ADP08-0072). This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
[59]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, H. [et al.]{} 2011, , 193, 29
, I. K., [Balogh]{}, M. L., [Bower]{}, R. G., [Glazebrook]{}, K., [Nichol]{}, R. C., [Bamford]{}, S. P., & [Budavari]{}, T. 2006, , 373, 469
, M. L., [Morris]{}, S. L., [Yee]{}, H. K. C., [Carlberg]{}, R. G., & [Ellingson]{}, E. 1999, , 527, 54
, P. S., [Conroy]{}, C., & [Wechsler]{}, R. H. 2010, , 717, 379
, E. F., [Wolf]{}, C., [Meisenheimer]{}, K., [Rix]{}, H.-W., [Borch]{}, A., [Dye]{}, S., [Kleinheinrich]{}, M., [Wisotzki]{}, L., & [McIntosh]{}, D. H. 2004, , 608, 752
, B., [Sandage]{}, A., & [Tammann]{}, G. A. 1985, , 90, 1681
, M. R. 2006, , 648, 268
, M. R., [Eisenstein]{}, D., [Hogg]{}, D. W., [Schlegel]{}, D. J., & [Brinkmann]{}, J. 2005, , 629, 143
, M. R., [Kazin]{}, E., [Muna]{}, D., [Weaver]{}, B. A., & [Price-Whelan]{}, A. 2011, , 142, 31
, M. R. & [Moustakas]{}, J. 2009, , 47, 159
, M. R. & [Roweis]{}, S. 2007, , 133, 734
, M. R. [et al.]{} 2005, , 129, 2562
Blanton, M. R. [et al.]{} 2005, , 631, 208
, T. M., [Tumlinson]{}, J., [Geha]{}, M., [Kirby]{}, E. N., [VandenBerg]{}, D. A., [Mu[ñ]{}oz]{}, R. R., [Kalirai]{}, J. S., [Simon]{}, J. D., [Avila]{}, R. J., [Guhathakurta]{}, P., [Renzini]{}, A., & [Ferguson]{}, H. C. 2012, , 753, L21
, G. & [Charlot]{}, S. 2003, , 344, 1000
, G. L. & [Norman]{}, M. L. 1998, , 495, 80
, G. 2003, , 115, 763
, M. [et al.]{} 2001, , 328, 1039
, M. C., [Newman]{}, J. A., [Coil]{}, A. L., [Croton]{}, D. J., [Gerke]{}, B. F., [Yan]{}, R., [Davis]{}, M., [Faber]{}, S. M., [Guhathakurta]{}, P., [Koo]{}, D. C., [Weiner]{}, B. J., & [Willmer]{}, C. N. A. 2007, , 376, 1445
, D. J. [et al.]{} 2006, , 365, 11
, A. & [Birnboim]{}, Y. 2008, , 383, 119
, J., [Saar]{}, E., [Kaasik]{}, A., & [Chernin]{}, A. D. 1974, , 252, 111
, H. C. & [Sandage]{}, A. 1991, , 101, 765
, F., [Tolstoy]{}, E., [Irwin]{}, M. J., & [Cole]{}, A. A. 2009, , 499, 121
, J. M. & [Dav[é]{}]{}, R. 2012, astro-ph/1202.5315
, M., [Blanton]{}, M. R., [Masjedi]{}, M., & [West]{}, A. A. 2006, , 653, 240
, N. 1986, , 303, 336
, R. [et al.]{} 2005, , 130, 2598
, J. & [Putman]{}, M. E. 2009, , 696, 385
, C. P., [Gargiulo]{}, A., [La Barbera]{}, F., [Mercurio]{}, A., [Merluzzi]{}, P., & [Busarello]{}, G. 2007, , 381, 7
, C. P., [Gargiulo]{}, A., & [Merluzzi]{}, P. 2008, , 385, 1201
, D. H. [et al.]{} 2004, , 355, 747
, V. E., [Karachentsev]{}, I. D., & [Sharina]{}, M. E. 2011, astro-ph/1104.2506
, G., [Heckman]{}, T. M., [White]{}, S. D. M., [Charlot]{}, S., [Tremonti]{}, C., [Peng]{}, E. W., [Seibert]{}, M., [Brinkmann]{}, J., [Nichol]{}, R. C., [SubbaRao]{}, M., & [York]{}, D. 2003, , 341, 54
, G., [White]{}, S. D. M., [Heckman]{}, T. M., [M[é]{}nard]{}, B., [Brinchmann]{}, J., [Charlot]{}, S., [Tremonti]{}, C., & [Brinkmann]{}, J. 2004, , 353, 713
, D., [Katz]{}, N., [Weinberg]{}, D. H., & [Dav[é]{}]{}, R. 2005, , 363, 2
, L. J., [Dopita]{}, M. A., [Sutherland]{}, R. S., [Heisler]{}, C. A., & [Trevena]{}, J. 2001, , 556, 121
, T., [Somerville]{}, R. S., [Yi]{}, S. K., [van den Bosch]{}, F. C., [Salim]{}, S., [Fontanot]{}, F., [Monaco]{}, P., [Mo]{}, H., [Pasquali]{}, A., [Rich]{}, R. M., & [Yang]{}, X. 2009, , 394, 1131
, T., [Grebel]{}, E. K., [Binggeli]{}, B., & [Glatt]{}, K. 2007, , 660, 1186
, A. D., [Navarro]{}, J. F., [Springel]{}, V., [Jenkins]{}, A., [Frenk]{}, C. S., & [Helmi]{}, A. 2009, , 692, 931
, M. L. 1998, , 36, 435
, Y., [Lilly]{}, S. J., [Renzini]{}, A., & [Carollo]{}, M. 2011, astro-ph/1106.2546
, Y. [et al.]{} 2010, , 721, 193
, S. [et al.]{} 2007, , 173, 267
, M., [Kodama]{}, T., [Arimoto]{}, N., [Okamura]{}, S., [Umetsu]{}, K., [Shimasaku]{}, K., [Tanaka]{}, I., & [Yamada]{}, T. 2005, , 362, 268
, J., [Wetzel]{}, A., & [Conroy]{}, C. 2011, astro-ph/1107.5046
, F. C., [Aquino]{}, D., [Yang]{}, X., [Mo]{}, H. J., [Pasquali]{}, A., [McIntosh]{}, D. H., [Weinmann]{}, S. M., & [Kang]{}, X. 2008, , 387, 79
, S. M., [Willman]{}, B., & [Jerjen]{}, H. 2009, , 137, 450
, Y., [Yang]{}, X., [Mo]{}, H. J., [van den Bosch]{}, F. C., [Katz]{}, N., [Pasquali]{}, A., [McIntosh]{}, D. H., & [Weinmann]{}, S. M. 2009, , 697, 247
, D. R., [Dalcanton]{}, J. J., [Williams]{}, B. F., [Gilbert]{}, K. M., [Skillman]{}, E. D., [Seth]{}, A. C., [Dolphin]{}, A. E., [McQuinn]{}, K. B. W., [Gogarten]{}, S. M., [Holtzman]{}, J., [Rosema]{}, K., [Cole]{}, A., [Karachentsev]{}, I. D., & [Zaritsky]{}, D. 2011, , 739, 5
, A. R., [Tinker]{}, J. L., & [Conroy]{}, C. 2011, astro-ph/1107.5311
, J. A., [Strauss]{}, M. A., [Dekel]{}, A., & [Kolatt]{}, T. 1997, , 486, 629
, J., [Dekel]{}, A., [Faber]{}, S. M., [Noeske]{}, K., [Koo]{}, D. C., [Gerke]{}, B. F., [Cooper]{}, M. C., [Salim]{}, S., [Dutton]{}, A. A., [Newman]{}, J., [Weiner]{}, B. J., [Bundy]{}, K., [Willmer]{}, C. N. A., [Davis]{}, M., & [Yan]{}, R. 2012, astro-ph/1203.1625
, S. [et al.]{} 2011, , 742, 96
, R. 2011, , 142, 153
, R. & [Blanton]{}, M. R. 2012, , 747, 61
, R., [Newman]{}, J. A., [Faber]{}, S. M., [Coil]{}, A. L., [Cooper]{}, M. C., [Davis]{}, M., [Weiner]{}, B. J., [Gerke]{}, B. F., & [Koo]{}, D. C. 2009, , 398, 735
, X., [Mo]{}, H. J., [van den Bosch]{}, F. C., [Pasquali]{}, A., [Li]{}, C., & [Barden]{}, M. 2007, , 671, 153
, I., [Zheng]{}, Z., [Weinberg]{}, D. H., [Blanton]{}, M. R., [Bahcall]{}, N. A., [Berlind]{}, A. A., [Brinkmann]{}, J., [Frieman]{}, J. A., [Gunn]{}, J. E., [Lupton]{}, R. H., [Nichol]{}, R. C., [Percival]{}, W. J., [Schneider]{}, D. P., [Skibba]{}, R. A., [Strauss]{}, M. A., [Tegmark]{}, M., & [York]{}, D. G. 2011, , 736, 59
[lcccccc]{} \[table\_mask\] 9.9 & 238 & 2843 & 0.000070 & 0.000826 & 0.084 & 0.0052\
9.7 & 71 & 2910 & 0.000027 & 0.000900 & 0.031 & 0.0032\
9.5 & 24 & 2620 & 0.000017 & 0.000991 & 0.017 & 0.0023\
9.3 & 5 & 2071 & 0.000007 & 0.001148 & 0.007 & 0.0016\
9.1 & 1 & 1594 & 0.000003 & 0.001397 & 0.002 & 0.0014\
8.9 & 0 & 999 & 0.000000 & 0.001435 & 0.000 & 0.0019\
8.7 & 0 & 686 & 0.000000 & 0.001653 & 0.000 & 0.0028\
8.5 & 0 & 448 & 0.000000 & 0.001803 & 0.000 & 0.0043\
8.3 & 0 & 296 & 0.000000 & 0.002142 & 0.000 & 0.0065\
8.1 & 0 & 215 & 0.000000 & 0.003076 & 0.000 & 0.0091\
7.8 & 0 & 210 & 0.000000 & 0.006973 & 0.000 & 0.0093\
7.3 & 0 & 105 & 0.000000 & 0.016505 & 0.000 & 0.0193
[^1]: http://www.nsatlas.org
[^2]: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/$\sim$dfabricant/huchra/zcat/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Gas accretion is a key process in star formation. However, the gas infall detections in high-mass star forming regions with high-spatial resolution observations are rare. Here we report the detection of gas infall towards a cometary ultracompact H[ii]{} region “C” in G34.26+0.15 complex. The hot core associated with “C” has a mass of $\sim$76 M$_{\sun}$ and a volume density of 1.1$\times$10$^{8}$ cm$^{-3}$. The HCN (3–2), HCO$^{+}$ (1–0) lines observed by single-dishes and the CN (2–1) lines observed by the SMA show redshifted absorption features, indicating gas infall. We found a linear relationship between the line width and optical depth of the CN (2–1) lines. Those transitions with larger optical depth and line width have larger absorption area. However, the infall velocities measured from different lines seem to be constant, indicating the gas infall is uniform. We also investigated the evolution of gas infall in high-mass star forming regions. At stages prior to hot core phase, the typical infall velocity and mass infall rate are $\sim$ 1 km s$^{-1}$ and $\sim10^{-4}$ M$_{\sun}\cdot$yr$^{-1}$, respectively. While in more evolved regions, the infall velocity and mass infall rates can reach as high as serval km s$^{-1}$ and $\sim10^{-3}-10^{-2}$ M$_{\sun}\cdot$yr$^{-1}$, respectively. Accelerated infall has been detected towards some hypercompact H[ii]{} and ultracompact H[ii]{} regions. However, the acceleration phenomenon becomes inapparent in more evolved ultracompact H[ii]{} regions (e.g. G34.26+0.15).'
author:
- 'Tie Liu, Yuefang Wu, Huawei Zhang'
title: 'Uniform Infall toward the Cometary H II Region in the G34.26+0.15 Complex?'
---
Introduction
============
Our understandings towards high-mass star formation are still sketchy due to the difficulties in observations caused by their large distance, large extinction, clustering forming behaviors as well as the strong interactions between the forming young stars and their surroundings [@zin07]. Is high-mass star formation merely a scaled-up version of low-mass star formation with higher accretion rates or does high-mass star formation owe particular properties which are dramatically different from low-mass star formation? There are two most promising models to form high-mass stars (M $>$8 M$_{\sun}$). One is called “monolithic collapse and disk accretion” [@york02; @mck03], and the other “competitive accretion” [@bonn02; @bonn04]. The former suggests that high-mass stars form directly from isolated massive gas clumps as do low-mass stars, but with a much larger accretion rate. The latter claims that high-mass stars form in the center of a cluster through competing for cloud gas with the other off-center protostars. To distinguish different models, detailed observations of gas accretion in high-mass star forming regions are needed.
So far, several surveys of gas infall have been carried out with single-dishes and gas infall is found to be common in high-mass star forming regions [@ful05; @wu03; @wu07]. However, due to the poor spatial resolution, single-dish observations can not resolve individual cores or protostars. Thus it is hard to investigate the accretion mode in high-mass star formation with single-dish observations. In recent years, high spatial resolution observations of infall in high-mass star forming regions with interferometers have been boomed [@solho05; @zap08; @wu09; @gir09; @shi10; @Liu11a; @Liu11b; @zhu11; @qiu11; @qiu12]. Infall was detected in high-mass star forming regions at various evolutionary stages. Towards those at early evolutionary phases (prior to hot core phase), optically thick lines often show blue profile plus an inverse P-cygni profile with a small infall velocity ($\sim$ 1 km s$^{-1}$) and a shallow absorption dip [@zhu11; @Liu11a]. However, towards those more evolved regions with bright continuum emission, where the protostars have gained more mass and the UV radiation becomes strong to resist gravity, inverse P-cygni profiles were often detected in lines [@zap08; @wu09; @gir09; @shi10; @Liu11b; @qiu11; @qiu12]. The infall velocities (several km s$^{-1}$) and mass infall rates ($\sim10^{-3}$ M$_{\sun}\cdot$yr$^{-1}$) in these regions are pretty high and the core even collapse faster inside than outside [@wu09; @qiu11]. However, such high spatial resolution studies are still rare. More samples are needed to constrain the properties of gas infall in high-mass star forming regions.
In this paper, we report the results of a high spatial resolution study with the SMA towards a cometary ultracompact H[ii]{} region G34.26+0.15. Locating at a distance of 3.7 kpc [@ku94], G34.26+0.15 is a high-mass star forming complex. Previous centimeter observations [@reid85] have detected a shell-like H[ii]{} region (“D”), a cometary ultracompact H[ii]{} region (“C”), and two hypercompact H[ii]{} region (“A” and “B”) in G34.26+0.15 complex. A hot core with a kinetic temperature of 160$\pm$30 K was also detected towards the cometary ultracompact H[ii]{} region “C” [@moo07]. In previous works, gas infall towards the hot core associated with the cometary ultracompact H[ii]{} region “C” was never reported. Here we report the first detection of gas infall in this region with line observations from both single-dish and interferometer observations.
Observations
============
The observations of G34.26+0.15 with the IRAM 30 m telescope at Pico Veleta, Spain were carried out in August 2005. The detail of the observations can be found in [@wu07]. In this paper, C$^{34}$S(5–4), C$^{17}$O (1–0) and HCO$^{+}$ (1–0) lines were used.
The single-pointing observation of HCN (3–2) was carried out in April 2005 with the JCMT telescope in Hawaii. The JCMT beam size for HCN (3–2) was 18$\arcsec$.3, and the main beam efficiency was 0.69. During the observation, the weather is pretty good with $\tau$=0.045. The system temperature is 271 K. The noise level of the line is about 0.15 K.
The SMA data were obtained from SMA raw data archive. The observations of G34.26+0.15 were carried out with the SMA in April 2011 in its compact configuration. The phase reference center was R.A.(J2000) = 18$^{\rm h}$53$^{\rm m}$18.573$^{\rm s}$ and DEC.(J2000) = $01\arcdeg14\arcmin58.3\arcsec$. The 1 receiver 4 GHz mode with uniform spectral resolution of $\sim$0.8125 MHz (128 channels per chunk) was adopted. The 230 GHz receivers were tuned to 227.5 GHz for the lower sideband (LSB) and 239.5 GHz for the upper sideband (USB).
In the observations, Saturn and QSO 3c279 were observed for antenna-based bandpass correction. QSOs 1741-038 and 1911-201 were employed for antenna-based gain correction. Neptune was observed for flux-density calibration.
Miriad was employed for calibration and imaging [@sau95]. The 1.3 mm continuum data were acquired by averaging all the line-free channels over both 4 GHz sidebands. MIRIAD task “selfcal” was employed to perform self-calibration on the continuum data. The gain solutions from the self-calibration were applied to the line data. The synthesized beam size and 1 $ \sigma$ rms of the dust emission observed in the compact configuration is $2\arcsec.90\times2\arcsec.39$ (PA=-47$\arcdeg$.1) and 25 mJy beam$^{-1}$, respectively.
Spitzer/IRAC data were also retrieved from the database of GLIMPSE [^1].
Results
=======
Overall picture of G34.26+0.15 complex
--------------------------------------
G34.26+0.15 is a star forming complex composed of four H[ii]{} regions (“A”, “B”, “C” and “D”) at different evolutionary stages [@reid85]. As shown in Figure 1, the PAH emission (pink contours) revealed by Spitzer/IRAC 8 $\micron$ band forms a shell-like structure, which shows the boundary of the expanding H[ii]{} region “D”. The SCUBA 850 $\micron$ emission (red contours) reveals a compact clump, which harbors two hypercompact H[ii]{} regions (“A” & “B”) and one ultracompact H[ii]{} region (“C”). The sequential star formation in this region seems to be induced by the expansion of the H[ii]{} region “D”.
The strong, extended emission in the 4.5 $\micron$ band of Spitzer/IRAC is usually thought to be produced by shock-excited molecular H$_{2}$ and CO in protostellar outflows [@nor04; @rea06; @smi06; @dav07; @tak10]. To reduce the contamination from the stellar emission, we present the IRAC \[4.5\]/\[3.6\] flux ratio image in color in Figure 1. The flux ratio is comparable or higher than $\sim$1.5 in the jets in contrast to the stars (flux ratio $\ll$1.5) [@tak10]. As depicted by the long white dashed lines, one can identify several elongated structures (jets?) from the ratio image, especially at the NW and SW of the dust core. If the large \[4.5\]/\[3.6\] ratio can reveal the distribution of shocked gas, there seems to exist multiple jets generated from the G34.26+0.15 complex. As shown in Figure 2, one can identify broad line wings from HCN (3–2) line. The terminal velocity of the red wing even reaches as high as 40 km s$^{-1}$, indicating energetic outflow motions.
1.3 mm dust emission obtained from the SMA observations
-------------------------------------------------------
As shown in grey scale in Figure 3, the 1.3 mm continuum emission from SMA observations reveals a dense core. The positions of two hypercompact H[ii]{} regions (“A” & “B”) and one ultracompact H[ii]{} region (“C”) are marked with “stars”. The expanding shell-like H[ii]{} region “D” is located to the southeast of “B”, which is not marked in the Figure 3. The emission peak of the 1.3 mm continuum emission coincides with the cometary ultracompact H[ii]{} region “C”. The peak flux of the 1.3 mm emission is 8.31$\pm$0.38 Jy beam$^{-1}$. The total integrated flux and deconvolved size of the core are 11.41 Jy and 1$\arcsec.74\times1\arcsec.29$ (P.A.=-50.5$\arcdeg$), respectively. Since the integrated flux densities at 1.3 cm and 2.8 mm are as high as 5 Jy and 6.7$\pm$0.4 Jy [@moo07], respectively, the free-free contribution to the 1.3 mm emission can not be ignored. Adopting a spectral index of 0.2 [@moo07], the expected free-free emission at 1.3 mm is 7.8 Jy. Therefore the dust contribution at 1.3 mm is 3.6 Jy.
Assuming that the dust emission is optically thin and the dust temperature equals the kinetic temperature 160 K [@moo07], the total gas mass of the dust core can be obtained with the formula $M=S_{\nu}D^{2}/\kappa_{\nu}B_{\nu}(T_{d})$, where $S_{\nu}$ is the flux of the dust emission at 1.3 mm, D is the distance, and $B_{\nu}(T_d)$ is the Planck function. The dust opacity at 1300 $\micron$ derived from a gas/dust model with thin ice mantles [@oss94] is $\kappa_{\nu}=0.009$ cm$^{2}$g$^{-1}$. Here the ratio of gas to dust is taken as 100. Thus the mass and volume density of the envelope within the inner $\sim$0.01 pc radius are 76 M$_{\sun}$ and 1.1$\times$10$^{8}$ cm$^{-3}$, respectively.
Gas infall towards the dust core
--------------------------------
As shown in Figure 2, both of the optically thin C$^{34}$S (5–4) and C$^{17}$O (1–0) lines at the dust core are single-peaked. From gaussian fit, the peak velocities of the C$^{34}$S (5–4) and C$^{17}$O (1–0) lines are 57.9 and 58.2 km s$^{-1}$, respectively. Here we take the average value of 58.05 km s$^{-1}$ as the systemic velocity of the dust core. In contrast, both the HCN (3–2) and HCO$^{+}$ (1–0) show a redshifted absorption dip at around 61 km s$^{-1}$, indicating gas infall towards the dust core.
All the spectra of the CN (2–1) transitions from the SMA observations show redshifted absorption features. Figure 4 presents the spectra of four CN (2–1) transitions, all of which show redshifted absorption. The parameters of the unblended CN (2–1) lines are summarized in Table 1.
The redshifted absorption of the lines (inverse P-cygni profile) is regarded as the evidence of a cold infalling layer in front of a bright continuum background. The redshifted absorption feature of the HCN (3–2), HCO$^{+}$ (1–0) and CN (2–1) lines indicates that gas is still falling down to the dense inner part of the cometary H[ii]{} region “C”.
Discussion
==========
Uniform infall towards the cometary H[ii]{} region “C”
------------------------------------------------------
Infall motion has been identified towards the hyper/ultra compact H[ii]{} regions [@wu09; @qiu11]. The dust/gas cores associated with these H[ii]{} regions always collapse faster inside than outside [@wu09; @qiu11]. While towards the cometary H[ii]{} region “C” in G34.26+0.15 complex, the HCN (3–2) and HCO$^{+}$ (1-0) from single-dish observations and the CN (2–1) lines from the SMA observations all show a redshifted absorption dip around 61 km s$^{-1}$, which is $\sim$ 3 km s$^{-1}$ away from the systemic velocity. This indicates that the infall motion is uniform at different spatial scale.
The critical densities $n_{crit}$ of different transitions of CN (2–1) lines can be calculated as: $$n_{crit}=\frac{A_{ij}}{K_{ij}}$$ where $A_{ij}$ and $K_{ij}$ are the Einstein coefficients and collisional rate coefficients. We adopted the collisional rate coefficients at 100 K from LAMDA [^2] in calculations. The calculated critical densities are listed in the fifth column of Table 1. The critical densities of CN (2–1) lines varies from 7.4$\times10^{5}$ to 1.4$\times10^{7}$ cm$^{-3}$, indicating the various transitions of CN (2–1) can be used to trace different layers of the gas core. In Figure 3, we plot the contours of the absorption of various CN (2–1) transitions. One can find that various transitions of CN (2–1) do trace different layers of the gas core. The optical depth of each CN (2–1) line can be estimated from: $$\tau_{L}=-\textrm{ln}(\frac{I_{L}}{I_{C}})=-\textrm{ln}(1+\frac{\Delta I_{L}}{I_{C}})$$ where $\Delta I_{L}=I_{L}-I_{C}$ is the observed line intensity at the continuum peak and the $I_{C}$ is the observed peak continuum intensity. The optical depth is listed in the last column of Table 1. From Figure 3, we noticed that the transitions of CN (2–1) with larger optical depth also have larger absorption area.
The line widths of various CN (2–1) transitions are listed in the 8th column of Table 1. We found that the transitions with smaller line widths also have smaller absorption area in Figure 3. This phenomenon is quite similar to the “Larson relationship” found in molecular clouds [@lar81]. It seems that the non-thermal motion in the outer part of the core is more active than that in the inner part. As shown in Figure 5, there exists a linear relationship between the line width and optical depth of CN (2–1) lines. Thus the optical depth and line width can be used to distinguish different layers of the core. The infall velocities were measured from various CN (2–1) transitions with $V_{in}=V_{obs}-V_{sys}$. The absorption velocity $V_{obs}$ of each line was obtained from gaussian fit and listed in the 6th column of Table 1. While the infall velocities are listed in the 7th column. As shown in Figure 5, The infall velocity seems to be constant for various optical depth and line width, indicating the infall motion is uniform in this region. The average infall velocity measured from CN (2–1) lines is 3.25 km s$^{-1}$.
The evolution of gas infall in high-mass star forming regions
-------------------------------------------------------------
In table 2, we summarized the parameters of 11 high-mass star forming regions with infall detections by (sub)millimeter interferometer observations. The infall velocities were measured with $V_{in}=V_{obs}-V_{sys}$. The mass accretion rates, $\dot{M}_{in}$, can be estimated using the simple expression: $$\dot{M}_{in}=4\pi r_{in}^{2}\mu m_{H}nV_{in}$$ where $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight and $m_{H}$ is the mass of hydrogen. Assuming that the infall speeds $V_{in}$ arise from the velocity gain of gas free-falling from rest at $r=\infty$ to $r_{in}$, thus $r_{in}$ can be calculated as: $$r_{in}=\frac{2GM}{V_{in}^{2}}$$ The mean volume density n within $R_{in}$ is estimated as: $$n=\frac{M}{4/3\cdot\pi r_{in}^{3}\mu m_{H}}$$
The calculated mass accretion rates are listed the fifth column of Table 2. We also summarized the parameters of two low-mass star forming regions for comparison. From Table 2, one can find that the infall velocities and mass accretion rates in high-mass star forming regions are much larger than those in low-mass star forming regions. The typical infall velocity and mass accretion rate in low-mass star forming regions are $\sim$0.5 km s$^{-1}$ and $\sim10^{-5}$ M$_{\sun}\cdot$yr$^{-1}$, respectively. While in high-mass star forming regions, the infall velocity and mass accretion rate can reach as high as several km s$^{-1}$ and $\sim10^{-3}$ M$_{\sun}\cdot$yr$^{-1}$, respectively.
However, the infall velocity and mass accretion rate change with time in high-mass star forming regions. At evolutionary stages earlier than hot core phase (e.g. W3SE-SMA1 and JCMT 18354-0649S), the typical infall velocity and mass accretion rate are $\sim$ 1 km s$^{-1}$ and $\sim10^{-4}$ M$_{\sun}\cdot$yr$^{-1}$, respectively. At hot core phase (including hypercompact and early phases of ultracompact H[ii]{} regions), the infall velocity and mass infall rates can reach as high as serval km s$^{-1}$ and $\sim10^{-3}-10^{-2}$ M$_{\sun}\cdot$yr$^{-1}$, respectively. But even more amazing is that during this stage accelerated gas infall was often revealed (e.g. NGC 7538 IRS 1, G10.6-0.4 and G19.61-0.23). In other words, with different molecular tracers, the infall velocities inferred in the inner layers are larger than the infall velocities in the outer layers. However, the infall acceleration phenomenon becomes inapparent in more evolved ultracompact H[ii]{} regions (e.g. G34.26+0.15 “C”).
In Figure 6, we found a tight relationship between the infall velocity and the total dust/gas mass. The relationship can be depicted with a power-law equation. If taking the low-mass star forming regions into account, the power index is 0.34. While the power index becomes 0.36 if we only consider the high-mass star forming regions. This tight relationship indicates that gravity plays the dominated role in gas accretion.
Whether the core collapses depends on the balance of gravity, thermal and turbulent support, magnetic filed and so on. As the protostars in the cores evolve, the internal heating and UV illumination may also play an important role in resisting gravity. More detailed observations and numerical simulations are needed to address how these factors function in the gas accretion as the protostars evolve.
Summary
=======
Here we report the detection of gas infall towards of cometary ultracompact H[ii]{} region “C” in G34.26+0.15 complex. From the 1.3 mm continuum emission, we estimated the total dust/gas of the hot core associated with the cometary ultracompact H[ii]{} region “C” is about 76 M$_{\sun}$. Both the HCN (3–2) line observed by JCMT and the HCO$^{+}$ (1–0) observed by IRAM show a redshifted absorption dip at around 61 km s$^{-1}$, indicating gas infall in this region. We also detected absorption lines of multiple CN (2–1) transitions from the SMA observations. We found a linear relationship between the line width and optical depth of the CN (2–1) lines. Those transitions with larger optical depth and line width have larger absorption area. However, the infall velocities measured from different lines seem to be constant, indicating the gas infall is uniform. The uniform infall may be due to the expansion of the cometary H[ii]{} region and the feedback from the central protostars in the form of UV radiation and stellar wind.
We also investigated the evolution of gas infall in high-mass star forming regions with the data collected from literatures. We found that the infall velocity and mass infall rate in high-mass star forming regions are much higher than those in low-mass star forming regions. However, the infall also evolves with time. At stages prior to hot core phase, the typical infall velocity and mass infall rate are $\sim$ 1 km s$^{-1}$ and $\sim10^{-4}$ M$_{\sun}\cdot$yr$^{-1}$, respectively. While in more evolved regions, the infall velocity and mass infall rates can reach as high as serval km s$^{-1}$ and $\sim10^{-3}-10^{-2}$ M$_{\sun}\cdot$yr$^{-1}$, respectively. Accelerated infall has been detected towards several hypercompact H[ii]{} and ultracompact H[ii]{} regions. However, the acceleration phenomenon becomes inapparent in more evolved ultracompact H[ii]{} regions (e.g. G34.26+0.15). As the protostars in the cores evolve, the internal heating and UV illumination may play an important role in resisting gravity. Thus gas infall in more evolved H[ii]{} regions may be decelerated or even halted eventually.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We are grateful to the SMA staff. This work was funded by China Ministry of Science and Technology under State Key Development Program for Basic Research 2012CB821800.
Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., Clarke, C. J., Pringle, J. E., 2002, , 323, 785
Bonnell, I. A., Vine, S. G., & Bate, M. R., 2004, , 349, 735
Davis, C. J., Kumar, M. S. N., Sandell, G., Froebrich, D., Smith, M. D., & Currie, M. J. 2007, , 374, 29
Di Francesco, J., Myers, P. C., Wilner, D. J., Ohashi, N., Mardones, D., 2001, , 562, 770
Fuller, G. A., Williams, S. J., Sridharan, T. K., 2005, , 442, 949
Girart, J. M., Beltrán, M. T., Zhang, Q, Rao, R., Estalella, R., 2009, Science, 324, 1408
Kuchar, T. A., & Bania, T. M. 1994, , 436, 117
Larson, R. B., 1981, , 194, 809
Liu, T., Wu, Y., Zhang, Q., Ren, Z., Guan, X., et al., 2011a, , 728, 91
Liu, T., Wu, Y., Liu, S.-Y., Qin, S.-L., Su, Y.-N., et al., 2011b, , 730, 102
McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C., 2003, , 585, 850
Mookerjea, B., Casper, E., Mundy, L. G., Looney, L. W., 2007, , 659, 447
Noriega-Crespo, A., et al. 2004, , 154, 352
Ossenkopf, V., & Henning, T. 1994, , 291, 943
Pineda, J. E., Maury, A. J., Fuller, G. A., et al., 2012, , 544, L7
Qiu, K., Zhang, Q., Menten, K. M., 2011, , 728, 6
Qiu, K., Zhang, Q., Beuther, H., Fallscheer, C., 2012, , 756, 170
Reach, W. T., et al. 2006, , 131, 1479
Reid, M. J., & Ho, P. T. P. 1985, , 288, L17
Sault, R. J., Teuben, P. J., & Wright, M. C. H. 1995, in ASP Conf. Ser. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 433
Shi, H., Zhao, J.-H., Han, J. L., 2010, , 710, 843
Smith, H. A., Hora, J. L., Marengo, M., & Pipher, J. L. 2006, , 645, 1264
Sollins, P. K. & Ho, P. T. P. 2005, , 630, 987
Takami, M., Karr, J. L., Koh, H., Chen, H.-H., Lee, H.-T., 2010, , 720, 155
Wu, J. & Evans, N. J., II., 2003, , 592, L79
Wu, Y., Henkel, C., Xue, R., Guan, X., Miller, M., 2007, , 669, L37
Wu, Y., Qin, S.-L., Guan, X., Xue, R., Ren, Z., et al., 2009, , 697, L116
Yorke, H. W. & Sonnhalter, C., 2002, , 569, 846.
Zapata, L. A., Palau, A., Ho, P. T. P., Schilke, P., Garrod, R. T., Rodr¨ªguez, L. F., Menten, K., 2008, , 479, L25
Zapata, L. A., Loinard, L., Rodr¨ªguez, L. F., 2013, , 764, L14
Zinnecker, H., & Yorke, H. W., 2007, , 45, 481
Zhu, L., Zhao, J.-H., Wright, M. C. H., 2011, , 740, 114
[c]{}
[c]{}
[c]{}
[c]{}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[c]{}
[ccccccccccccccc]{} N=2-1, J=3/2-3/2, F=3/2-3/2 & 226.315 & -5.00 & 16.31 & 1.62 & 61.22(0.08) & 3.17(0.08) & 3.51(0.19) & 0.20(0.05)\
N=2-1, J=3/2-3/2, F=3/2-5/2 & 226.333 & -5.34 & 16.31 & 0.74 & 61.54(0.11) & 3.49(0.11) & 2.59(0.25) & 0.13(0.05)\
N=2-1, J=3/2-3/2, F=5/2-5/2 & 226.360 & -4.79 & 16.31 & 2.63 & 61.39(0.03) & 3.34(0.03) & 4.13(0.08) & 0.68(0.09)\
N=2-1, J=3/2-1/2, F=1/2-3/2 & 226.617 & -4.97 & 16.31 & 1.55 & 61.47(0.18) & 3.42(0.18) & 3.10(0.42) & 0.08(0.05)\
N=2-1, J=3/2-1/2, F=3/2-3/2 & 226.632 & -4.37 & 16.31 & 6.15 & 61.20(0.03) & 3.15(0.03) & 3.86(0.06) & 0.85(0.10)\
N=2-1, J=3/2-1/2, F=5/2-3/2 & 226.660 & -4.02 & 16.31 & 13.66 & 61.12(0.04) & 3.07(0.04) & 5.22(0.09) & 1.68(0.24)\
N=2-1, J=3/2-1/2, F=3/2-1/2 & 226.679 & -4.28 & 16.31 & 7.60 & 61.13(0.03) & 3.08(0.03) & 4.36(0.06) & 1.00(0.12)\
[ccccccccccccccc]{}\
IRAS 16293-2422B & 0.12 & 2 & 0.49 & 0.04 & CH$_{3}$OCHO-E ($17_{4,13}-16_{4,12}$) & Class0 & 1\
& & & 0.49 & 0.04 & CH$_{3}$OCHO-A ($17_{4,13}-16_{4,12}$) & & 1\
& & & 0.51 & 0.05 & H$_{2}$CCO ($11_{1,11}-10_{1,10}$) & & 1\
& & & 0.7 & 0.12 & CH$_{3}$OH (9$_{3,6}-8_{2,7}$) & & 2\
NGC 1333 IRAS 4A & 0.35 & 1.1 & 0.68 & 0.11 & H$_{2}$CO ($3_{1,2}-2_{1,1}$) & Class0 & 3\
NGC 1333 IRAS 4B & 0.35 & 0.48 & 0.47 & 0.04 & H$_{2}$CO ($3_{1,2}-2_{1,1}$) & Class0 & 3\
\
\
W3SE-SMA1 & 2 & 32 & 0.9 & 0.26 & HCN (3-2) & HMPO? & 4\
JCMT 18354-0649S & 5.7 & 42 & 1.3 & 0.78 & HCN (3-2) & HMPO & 5\
W51e2-E & 5.1 & 140 & 2.5 & 5.57 & HCN (4-3) & HMC? & 6\
G31.41+0.31 & 7.0 & 577 & 3.1 & 10.62 & C$^{34}$S (7-6) & HMC & 7\
W51 IRS2 & 7 & 90 & 4 & 22.81 & CN (2-1) & HMC & 8\
IRAS 18360-0537 MM1 & 6.3 & 13 & 1.5 & 1.20 & CN (2-1) & HMC & 9\
NGC 7538 IRS 1 & 2.65 & 20.1 & 2 & 2.85 & C$^{18}$O (2-1) & HC H[ii]{} & 10\
& & & 2 & 2.85 & $^{13}$CO (2-1) & &\
& & & 3 & 9.62 & SO ($5_{6}-4_{5}$) & &\
& & & 4 & & HNCO (10$_{0,10}-9_{0,9}$) & &\
& & & 6 & & CH3OH (8$_{-1,8}-7_{0,7}$) & &\
G10.6-0.4 & 6 & 200 & 4 & 22.81 & HCN (3-2) & HC H[ii]{} & 11\
& & & 6 & & NH$_{3}$ (3,3) & & 12\
G9.62+0.19 E & 5.7 & 30 & 0.9 & 0.26 & CS (7-6) & HC H[ii]{} & 13\
G19.61-0.23 & 12.6 & 415 & 3.5 & 15.28 & $^{13}$CO (3-2) & UC H[ii]{} & 14\
& & & 6 & & CN (3-2) & &\
G34.26+0.15 & 3.7 & 76 & 3 & 12.23 & CN (2-1),HCN (3-2) & cometary UC H[ii]{} & 15\
[^1]: http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/SPITZER/GLIMPSE/
[^2]: http://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/ moldata/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Self-assembly of proteins is a biological phenomenon which gives rise to spontaneous formation of [*amyloid fibrils*]{} or [*polymers*]{}. The starting point of this phase, called *nucleation* exhibits an important variability among replicated experiments. To analyse the stochastic nature of this phenomenon, one of the simplest models considers two populations of chemical components: monomers and polymerised monomers. Initially there are only monomers. There are two reactions for the polymerization of a monomer: either two monomers collide to combine into two polymerised monomers or a monomer is polymerised after the encounter of a polymerised monomer. It turns out that this simple model does not explain completely the variability observed in the experiments. This paper investigates extensions of this model to take into account other mechanisms of the polymerization process that may have impact an impact on fluctuations. The first variant consists in introducing a preliminary conformation step to take into account the biological fact that, before being polymerised, a monomer has two states, regular or misfolded. Only misfolded monomers can be polymerised so that the fluctuations of the number of misfolded monomers can be also a source of variability of the number of polymerised monomers. The second variant, based on numerical considerations, represents the reaction rate $\alpha$ of spontaneous formation of a polymer as of the order of $N^{-\nu}$, for some large scaling variable $N$ representing the reaction volume and $\nu$ some positive constant. Asymptotic results involving different time scales are obtained for the corresponding Markov processes. First and second order results for the starting instant of nucleation are derived from these limit theorems. The proofs of the results rely on a study of a stochastic averaging principle for a model related to an Ehrenfest urn model, and also on a scaling analysis of a population model.'
address:
- 'INRIA Paris, 2 rue Simone Iff, F-75012 Paris, France'
- 'Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Université Pierre et Marie Curie, UMR 7598, Laboratoire Jacques-Louis Lions, F-75005, Paris, France'
author:
- Marie Doumic
- Sarah Eugène
- Philippe Robert
title: Asymptotics of Stochastic Protein Assembly Models
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
============
Self-assembly of proteins is an important biological phenomenon, on the one hand associated with human diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s diseases and still many others, and on the other hand involved in industrial processes, see McManus et al. [@McManus_2016] and Ow and Dustan [@Ow_Protein2014]. The initial step of the chain reactions giving rise to amyloid fibrils consists in the spontaneous formation of a so-called *nucleus*, that is, the simplest possible polymer able to ignite the reaction. This early phase is called *nucleation*, and is still far from being understood. As underlined by previous studies Szavits-Nossan et al. [@Szavits], the nucleation step is intrinsically stochastic, leading to an important variability among replicated experiments, not only in small volumes but even in relatively large ones, see Xue et al. [@Radford]. The question of building convenient stochastic models, able to render out the heterogeneity observed, and even to predict it, has recently raised much interest in the biological and biophysical community, see Szavits-Nossan et al. [@Szavits], Yvinec et al. [@yvinec2016], Pigolotti et al. [@Pigolotti2013] and Eden et al. [@Eden2015].
We start with a simple stochastic model, proposed and studied in Eugène et al. [@EXRD] for which we consider extensions to get a deeper understanding on the intricate influence of each reaction considered. In Eugène et al. [@EXRD], rigorous asymptotics of the simple model were proved, and it was fitted to the experimental data published in Xue et al [@Radford]. It was shown that the predicted variability was much smaller by the model than what was experimentally obtained. One of the conclusions of this work is that other mechanisms had to be taken into account to explain the variability observed in the experiments. We thus propose here two ways to complement the basic model. Let us first recall its definition.
The Basic Model
---------------
One of the simplest models to describe the nucleation process considers two populations of chemical components: (regular) monomers and polymerised monomers. Initially there are only monomers. There are two reactions for the polymerization of a monomer: either two monomers collide to combine into two polymerised monomers or a monomer is polymerised after the encounter of a polymerised monomer. The chemical reactions associated with the basic model can then be described as follows: $$\label{ChemBas}
\begin{cases}
{{\mathcal}X}_1+{{\mathcal}X}_1 \stackrel{{\alpha}}{\underset{}{\longrightarrow}} 2 {{\mathcal}X}_2,\\
{{\mathcal}X}_1+{{\mathcal}X}_2 \stackrel{{\beta}}{\underset{}{\longrightarrow}} 2 {{\mathcal}X}_2.
\end{cases}$$ These reactions can be represented by the sample paths of a Markov process $(X_1^N(t),X_2^N(t))$, where $X_1^N(t)$ \[resp. $X_2^N(t)$\] is the number of regular \[resp. polymerised\] monomers at time $t\geq 0$. The scaling variable $N$ which will be used should be thought of as the reaction volume. In particular $X_2^N(t)/N$ is the concentration of polymerised monomers at time $t$. If $M_N$ is the initial number of monomers, it is assumed that the following regime $$\label{scaling}
\lim_{N\to+\infty}\frac{M_N}{N}=m$$ holds for some $m>0$. The quantity $M_N/N$ is in fact the initial concentration of monomers.
The transition rates of $(X_1^N(t),X_2^N(t))$ are given by, for $x=(x_1,x_2)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}^2$, $$\label{RateTM}
x \mapsto
\begin{cases}
x{+}({-}2,2) &\text{ at rate } \quad \alpha (x_1/N)^2\\
x{+}({-}1,1) &\phantom{ at rate } \quad \beta x_1/N\times x_2/N.
\end{cases}$$ The second coordinate $x_2$ is in fact the polymerized mass which explains the jumps of size $2$ in the reactions. Note that the conservation of mass implies that the quantity $X_1^N(t){+}X_2^N(t)$ is constant and equal to $M_N$, the total number of initial monomers.
1. The first reaction of converts two monomers into two polymerised monomers. In our model, due to thermal noise in particular, these reactions will occur in a stochastic way. Following the principles of the law of mass action, the encounter of two chemical species occurs at a rate proportional to the product of the *concentrations* of each species. Therefore two given monomers disappear to produce two polymerised monomers at a rate $\alpha (x_1/N)^2$.
2. The second reaction can be seen as an auto-catalytic process. Here, given a monomer at the contact of a polymerised monomer, the monomer is converted into a polymerised monomer at a rate ${\beta}$. Again, by the law of mass action, regular monomers disappear at the rate $\beta(x_1/N)(x_2/N)$.
See Eugène et al. [@EXRD], Szavits-Nossan et al. [@Szavits] and Xue et al. [@Radford] for a general presentation of these phenomena in a biological context. For more discussion and results on stochastic models associated to chemical reactions, see for example Anderson and Kurtz [@AndersonKurtz] and Higham [@Higham] and references therein.
This simple, intuitive model of polymerisation has the advantage of having only two parameters to determine. It can be analyzed mathematically by standard tools of probability theory, see Eugène et al. [@EXRD]. It has been shown that if $X_2^N(t)$ is the number of polymerised monomers at time $t$, then the polymerisation process can be described via the following convergence in distribution $$\label{TMCV}
\lim_{N\to+\infty}\left(\frac{X_2^N(Nt)}{N}\right)=(x_2(t))$$ holds, where $(x_2(t))$ is the non-trivial solution of the following simple ordinary differential equation $$\label{eq:simple}
\dot{x}_2 (t) =\alpha \big(m-x_2(t)\big)^2 + \beta \big(m-x_2(t)\big)x_2(t)$$ converging to $m$ has $t$ goes to infinity.
By using these simple mathematical results and the data from experiments with 17 different concentrations of monomers (the value of $m$) and 12 experiments for each concentration, Table I of Eugène et al. [@EXRD] shows that, in this setting, the estimation of $\beta$ is reasonably robust. This is unfortunately not the case for the numerical estimation of $\alpha$ which is varying from $1.68{\cdot}10^{-2}$ to $9.57{\cdot}10^{-8}$. An additional difficulty with this simple model comes from the small values of $\alpha$ obtained. Indeed, for the experiments, the value of the volume $N$ is in the order of $10^{15}$, some of the estimated values of $\alpha$ in $10^{-8}$ are therefore, numerically, of the order of $1/\sqrt{N}$. The asymptotic results are obtained when $N$ gets large and $\alpha$ [*fixed*]{}. For this reason, one may suspect a problem of convergence speed in Relation when these parameters are used. It turns out that our simulations confirm that the asymptotic regime does not seem to represent accurately the system when $\alpha$ is too small.
The purpose of the present paper is to refine this basic model in two different ways.
1. The model can be improved by introducing a key feature of the polymerisation process: the misfolding of monomers. Experiments show that monomers can be polymerised only if their $3$-D structure has been modified by some events. Such monomers are called misfolded monomers, see Dobson [@Dobson; @Dobson:2], Knowles et al. [@Knowles:2]. It turns out that, at a given time, only a small fraction of monomers are misfolded which may also explain that the polymerisation process starts very slowly. In biological cells, this phenomenon of misfolding is reversible, dedicated proteins may “correct” the misfolded monomers. A misfolded monomer can be turned into a “regular” monomer and vice-versa. See Bozaykut et al. [@Boza] and Lanneau et al. [@Lanneau] for example. Section \[AlpSec\] is devoted to the mathematical analysis of these models.
2. Another approach is to keep the basic model but with the parameter $\alpha$ being of the order of $1/N^\nu$ for some positive $\nu$ to take into account that, in practice, the values of this parameter can be very small. Note that this is only a numerical observation, the value of $\alpha$ has no reason to depend on the volume. This model is analyzed in Section \[AlpSec\].
The rest of the section is devoted to a brief sketch of the mathematical aspects of these two classes of models. As it will be seen, the models are more challenging from a mathematical point of view, the model with misfolded monomers in particular.
Models with Misfolding Phenomena
--------------------------------
The chemical reactions associated with this simple model are as follows: $${{\mathcal}X}_0 \stackrel{\gamma}{\underset{\displaystyle\stackrel{\longleftarrow}{\gamma^*}}{\longrightarrow}} {{\mathcal}X}_1,\qquad
\begin{cases}
{{\mathcal}X}_1+{{\mathcal}X}_1 \stackrel{{\alpha}}{\underset{}{\longrightarrow}} 2 {{\mathcal}X}_2,\\
{{\mathcal}X}_1+{{\mathcal}X}_2 \stackrel{{\beta}}{\underset{}{\longrightarrow}} 2 {{\mathcal}X}_2.
\end{cases}$$ At time $t\geq 0$, $X^N_0(t)$ denotes the number of regular monomers, $X^N_1(t)$ the number of misfolded monomers. As before the last coordinate $X^N_2(t)$ is the polymerized mass. As a Markov process, $(X^N(t))=(X^N_0(t),X^N_1(t),X^N_2(t))$ has the following transitions, for an element $x=(x_0,x_1,x_2)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}^3$, $$\label{RateMF}
x \mapsto
\begin{cases}
x{+}(1,{-}1,0) \text{ at rate } \gamma^*\,x_1\\
x{+}({-}1,1,0) \phantom{ atsa rate } \gamma\,x_0,
\end{cases}
x \mapsto
\begin{cases}
x{+}(0,{-}2,2) & \alpha\,(x_1/N)^2\\
x{+}(0,{-}1,1) & \beta\,x_1/N\times x_2/N.
\end{cases}$$ It is important to note that the transition between state “0”, regular monomer, and state “1”, misfolded monomer, is spontaneous. Consequently, as it can be seen, the corresponding transition rates [*do not*]{} depend on the volume $N$ but simply on the numbers of components and not on their concentrations. An important consequence of this observation is that the system exhibits a two time scales behavior that we will investigate.
An informal description of the asymptotic behavior of $(X_2^N(t))$ {#an-informal-description-of-the-asymptotic-behavior-of-x_2nt .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------------------
The first two coordinates can be seen as an Ehrenfest process with two urns $0$ and $1$ where each particle in urn $0$ (resp. $1$) goes to urn $1$ (resp. $0$) at rate $\gamma$ (resp. $\gamma^*$). See Bingham [@Bingham] and Karlin and McGregor [@Karlin] for example. Particles in urn $1$ can also go to the urn $2$ corresponding to the polymerized mass but this phenomenon occurs at a much slower rate so that, locally, it does not change the orders of magnitude in $N$ of $X_2^N$.
When $X_2^N{\sim}x_2N$, there is a total of $(m{-}x_2)N$ particles in the urns $0$ or $1$. The components $(X_0^N(t),X_1^N(t))$ are both of the order of $N$ and are moving on a fast time scale, proportional to $N$. The transition rates of the process $(X_2^N(t))$ are slower, bounded with respect to $N$. Because of the fast transition rates of the first two coordinates, the Ehrenfest urn process should reach quickly an equilibrium for which $X_0^N$ has a binomial distribution with parameter $(m-x_2)N$ and $r$ with $r={\gamma}/{(\gamma{+}\gamma^*)}$, in particular $$\frac{X_0^N}{N}\sim (1-r) (m-x_2)\text{ and } \frac{X_1^N}{N}\sim r(m-x_2).$$ This suggests that,
1. to see an evolution of $X_2^N$ of the order of $N$, one has to be on the linear time scale $t\mapsto N t$: transition rates of the process $X_2^N$ are $O(1)$),
2. if $X_2^N(Nt)\sim x_2(t)N$, in view of transition rates of $(X_2^N(t))$ of Relation , then $(x_2(t))$ should satisfy the following ordinary differential equation $$\label{eq:intermediaire}
\dot{x}_2(t)=\alpha r^2(m-x_2(t))^2+\beta r(m-x_2(t))x_2(t).$$
We recognize the limit equation of the simple model, where $\alpha$, $\beta$ are respectively replaced by $\alpha r^2$ and $\beta r$. This result is also true when considering the second order fluctuations of the number of polymers, see Theorem \[CLTMF\]. The proof of the convergence of the process of the concentration of polymerized monomers to the solution of the ODE use standard arguments of convergence of a sequence of stochastic processes, see the supplementary material of Eugène et al. [@EXRD]. The proof of the corresponding result with misfolding phenomena for the ODE is, as we shall see, more delicate to handle.
Stochastic Averaging Phenomenon {#stochastic-averaging-phenomenon .unnumbered}
-------------------------------
To summarize these observations, the coordinates $(X_0^N(t),X_1^N(t))$ form a “fast” process and $(X_2^N(t))$ is a “slow” process when the scaling parameter $N$ goes to infinity. This suggests a stochastic averaging principle (SAP) in a fully coupled context.
1. The stochastic evolution of $(X_2^N(Nt))$ is driven by the invariant distribution of an “instantaneous” associated Ehrenfest process.
2. The parameters of the Ehrenfest process depend on the macroscopic variable $(X_2^N(Nt))$.
see Papanicolaou et al. [@PSV] and Chapter 8 of Freidlin and Wentzell [@Freidlin] for example, see also Kurtz [@Kurtz].
A stochastic averaging principle is indeed proved as well as a corresponding central limit theorem (CLT). In our cases there are some differences with the “classical” framework of stochastic averaging principles. The state space of the fast process depends on the scaling parameter $N$, and is not in particular a “fixed” process (with varying parameters) as it is usually the case. See Hunt and Kurtz [@Hunt] or Sun et al. [@Sun] for example. A law of large numbers with respect to $N$ for the invariant distribution of the fast process is driving the evolution of the slow process. The approach used in the paper relies on the use of occupation measures on a continuous state space instead of a discrete space, this leads to some technical complications as it will be seen. Concerning central limit theorems in a SAP context, there are few references available for jump processes. The methods presented in Kang et al. [@KKP] or in Sun et al. [@Sun] do not seem to be helpful in our case. Instead, an ad-hoc estimation, Proposition \[propclt\], gives the main ingredient to derive a central limit theorem, see Section \[AVGsec\].
Models with Scaled Reaction Rates
---------------------------------
Again, $X_1^N(t)$ (resp. $X_2^N(t)$) is the number of regular (resp. polymerised) monomers at time $t\geq 0$. The transition rates of the Markov process $(X^N(t)){=}(X_1^N(t),X_2^N(t))$ associated to these models are the same, except that the parameter $\alpha$ is replaced by $\alpha/N^\nu$ with $0<\nu.$ For $x=(x_1,x_2)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}^2$, the rates are given by $$\label{RateSM}
x \mapsto
\begin{cases}
x{+}({-}2,2) &\text{ at rate } \quad \alpha/N^\nu\,(x_1/N)^2\\
x{+}({-}1,1) &\phantom{ at rate } \quad \beta\,x_1/N\times x_2/N.
\end{cases}$$ Convergence shows that the polymerisation occurs on the linear time scale $t\mapsto Nt$ for the basic model. It will be shown that the phenomenon does not start on this time scale. A slightly more rapid time scale is necessary for this purpose, it is shown that it is on the time scale $t\mapsto N\log N{\cdot}t$ for $0<\nu\leq 1$ and $t\mapsto N^\nu t$ when $\nu{>}1$. See Section \[AlpSec\].
Stochastic Models with Misfolding Phenomena {#AVGsec}
===========================================
The following notations will be used throughout the paper. For $\xi\geq 0$, $\mathcal{N}_{\xi}({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}t)$ denotes a Poisson process with parameter $\xi$ and $(\mathcal{N}_{\xi}^i({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}t))$ an i.i.d. sequence of such processes. All the Poisson processes are defined on a probability space $(\Omega,{{\mathcal}F},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}})$. If $f$ is a real valued function on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+$, $f(t{-})$ denotes its limit on the left of $t{\geq}0$ when it exists. Finally, $m^*$ denotes an upper bound for the sequence $(M_N{/}N)$ which converges to $m>0$ by Relation .
Recall that, at time $t\geq 0$ , $(X^N(t)){=}(X^N_0(t),X^N_1(t),X^N_2(t))$ where $X^N_0(t)$ is the number of monomers, $X^N_1(t)$ is the number of misfolded monomers and $X^N_2(t)$ is the polymerized mass. It is not difficult to see that these processes can be seen as the solution of the following stochastic differential equations, $$\label{SDEMF}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}X_0^N(t) = \sum_{i=1}^{X_1^N(t{-})} \mathcal{N}_{\gamma^*}^i({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}t){-}\sum_{i=1}^{X_0^N(t{-})} \mathcal{N}_{\gamma}^i({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}t), \\
\displaystyle{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}X_2^N(t) = 2 \sum_{i=1}^{{X_1^N(t-)(X_1^N{-}1)(t{-})}/{2}} \mathcal{N}_{{\alpha}/{N^2}}^i({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}t){+}\sum_{i=1}^{X_1^N(t{-})X_2^N(t-)} \mathcal{N}_{{\beta}/{N^2}}^i({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}t),
\end{cases}$$ with the relation of conservation of mass $M_N{=}X_0^N(t){+}X_1^N(t){+}X_2^N(t)$ and initial condition $X^N(0){=}(M_N,0,0)$.
Equation gives in particular that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{SDEX2}
X_2^N(t)=X_2^N(0)+\frac{\alpha}{N^2}\int_0^t X_1^N(s)(X_1^N(s){-}1)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\+\frac{\beta}{N^2}\int_0^t X_1^N(s) X_2^N(s)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s+M_2^N(t),\end{gathered}$$ where $(M_2^N(t))$ is a martingale whose previsible increasing process is given by $$\label{X2croc}
{\left\langle M_2^N\right\rangle}(t)=2\frac{\alpha}{N^2}\int_0^t X_1^N(s)(X_1^N(s){-}1)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s+\frac{\beta}{N^2}\int_0^t X_1^N(s) X_2^N(s)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s$$
For $i=0$, $1$, $2$ and $t\geq 0$, denote $$\overline{X}_i^N(t)=\frac{X_i^N(Nt)}{N},$$ the main goal of this section is to prove that the process $(\overline{X}_2^N(t))$ is converging in distribution to the solution $(x_2(t))$ of a non-trivial ordinary differential equation. It will show in particular that the polymerization process is occurring on the linear time scale $t\mapsto N t$.
Random Measures Associated to Occupation Times
----------------------------------------------
Define $\mu_N$ the random measure on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+^3$ by $${\left\langle \mu_N,g\right\rangle}=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+} g\left(\overline{X}_0^N(Nu),\overline{X}_1^N(Nu),u\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u.$$
\[propmu\] The sequence $(\mu_N)$ is tight. Any limiting point $\mu_\infty$ of this sequence is such that $$\label{eqrep}
{\left\langle \mu_\infty,g\right\rangle}=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+^3} g\left(x,y,u\right)\,\pi_u({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y){\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u,$$ for any continuous function $g$ on $[0,m^*]^2\times [0,T]$, where for each $u\geq 0$, $\pi_u$ is a random Radon measure on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+^2$.
Since $\overline{X}_0^N(t)$ and $\overline{X}_1^N(t)$ are bounded, for any $T>0$, the measure $\mu_N$ restricted to the set ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+^2\times[0,T]$ has a compact support. Lemma 3.2.8 page 44 of Dawson [@Dawson] gives directly that the sequence $(\mu_N)$ of random measure on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+^3$ is tight.
Let $(\mu_{N_k})$ be a convergent subsequence with limit $\mu_\infty$. By using Skorohod’s representation theorem, one can assume that there exists a negligible measurable set ${{\mathcal}A}$ of the probability space such that, outside this subset, the convergence of the sequence $(\mu_{N_k})$ of Radon measures towards $\mu_\infty$, that is $$\lim_{k\to+\infty} {\left\langle \mu_{N_k},g\right\rangle} ={\left\langle \mu_\infty,g\right\rangle} \text{ for all } g\in C([0,m^*]^2\times[0,T]),$$ holds.
Let $h\in C([0,m^*]^2)$ and $f\in C([0,T]$, denoting $h\otimes f (x,y,u)=h(x,y)f(u)$, for $(x,y)\in[0,m^*]^2$ and $u\in[0,T]$, then, as a limit of the sequence $(\mu_{N_k})$, the Radon measure $$f\mapsto {\left\langle \mu_N,h\otimes f\right\rangle}$$ is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue’s measure. Consequently, for any $h\in C([0,m^*]^2)$, there exists some function $(\tilde{\pi}_u(h),0\leq u\leq T)$ such that $${\left\langle \mu_\infty,h\otimes f\right\rangle}=\int_0^T\tilde{\pi}_u(h)f(u)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u.$$ By the differentiation theorem, see Theorem 7.10 in Rudin [@Rudin], the function $(\tilde{\pi}_u(h))$ can be represented as $$\tilde{\pi}_u(h)=\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} {\left\langle \mu_\infty,h\otimes {\ensuremath{\mathbbm{1}_{\{[u-{\varepsilon}/2,u+{\varepsilon}/2]\}}}}\right\rangle}, \quad u\in[0,T],$$ consequently, the mapping $(\omega,u)\mapsto \tilde{\pi}_u(h)(\omega)$ is ${{\mathcal}F}\otimes {{\mathcal}B}([0,T])$-measurable.
Let ${{\mathcal}S}$ be a countable dense subset of $C([0,m^*]^2)$, then there exists a subset $E_0$ of $[0,T]$ negligible for the Lebesgue measure such that, for all $u\in[0,T]\setminus E_0$ and $\phi_1$, $\phi_2\in {{\mathcal}S}$,
1. $\tilde{\pi}_u(p_1\phi_1 + p_2\phi_2)=p_1\tilde{\pi}_u(\phi_1) + p_2\tilde{\pi}_u(\phi_2)$, $\forall p_1$, $p_2\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}$,
2. $\tilde{\pi}_u(\phi_1)\leq \tilde{\pi}_u(\phi_2)$ if $\phi_1\leq \phi_2$,
3. $\tilde{\pi}_u(1)=1$.
With the same method as in Section II.88 of Rogers and Williams [@Rogers], for any $u\in[0,T]\setminus E_0$ , one gets the existence of a Radon measure $\pi_u$ on $[0,m^*]^2$ such that $\tilde{\pi}_u(h)=\pi_u(h)$ for any $h\in {{\mathcal}S}$. By density of ${{\mathcal}S}$, the mapping $(\omega,u)\mapsto {\pi}_u(h)(\omega)$ is also ${{\mathcal}F}\otimes {{\mathcal}B}([0,T])$-measurable and the relation $${\left\langle \mu_\infty,h\otimes f\right\rangle}=\int_0^T{\pi}_u(h)f(u)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u.$$ holds for all $h\in C([0,m^*]^2)$ and $f\in C([0,T]$. The proposition is therefore proved.
Representation is related to Lemma 1.4 of Kurtz [@Kurtz]. Our proof relies on classical arguments of measure theory, a functional version of Carathéodory’s extension theorem in particular which is described in Section II.88 of Rogers and Williams [@Rogers]. In Kurtz [@Kurtz], a more sophisticated result, see Morando [@Morando], on the extension of bi-measures is the key ingredient. The notion of bi-measure goes back to Kingman, see Dellacherie and Meyer [@DM] for example. It should be mentioned that Lemma 1.4 of Kurtz [@Kurtz] gives also additional measurability properties of the family $(\pi_u)$ which are of no use in our case.
\[proppi\] If $\mu_\infty$ is a limiting point of $(\mu_N)$ with the representation then, for any ${{\mathcal}C}^1$-function $f$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+^2$, almost surely $$\label{idav}
\int_0^t \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+^2} \left(\gamma^*y-\gamma x\right)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}f(x,y)-\frac{\partial}{\partial y}f(x,y)\right) \pi_u({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u=0, \quad \forall t\geq 0,$$ in particular, almost surely, $$\label{idSAP}
\int_0^t \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+^2}\left(\gamma^*y-\gamma x\right)^2 \pi_u({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u=0, \quad \forall t\geq 0.$$
Relation just says that almost surely and for almost all $u$, the measure $\pi_u$ is degenerated on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+^2$ and carried by the subset$\{(x,\gamma x/\gamma^*):0\leq x\leq m\}$.
for $(i,j)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$, one denotes by $\Delta_{ij}$ the discrete differential operator $$\Delta^N_{ij}(f)(x,y)= f(x+i/N,y+j/N)-f(x,y), \quad (x,y)\in[0,m^*]^2.$$ After some trite calculations, the stochastic differential equations give the relation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqaux1}
f\left(\overline{X}^N(t/N)\right) =f\left(\overline{X}^N(0)\right)+ \gamma\int_0^t X_0^N(s) \Delta^N_{-1,1}(f)\left(\overline{X}^N(s/N)\right) \,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
+ \gamma^*\int_0^t X^N_1(s) \Delta^N_{1,-1}(f)\left(\overline{X}^N(s/N)\right)\, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
+ \alpha \int_0^t \frac{X^N_1(s)(X^N_1(s)-1)}{2N^2} \Delta^N_{0,-2}(f)\left(\overline{X}^N(s/N)\right)\, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
+\beta \int_0^t \frac{X^N_1(s)}{N}\frac{X^N_2(s)}{N} \Delta^N_{0,-1}(f)\left(\overline{X}^N(s/N)\right)\, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s+M_f^N(t),\end{gathered}$$ where $(\overline{X}^N(t))=({{X}_0^N(Nt)/N},{{X}_1^N(Nt)/N})$ and $(M_f^N(t))$ is the associated martingale. Its previsible increasing process is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqaux2}
{\left\langle M_f^N\right\rangle}(t)=\gamma\int_0^t X_0^N(s) \Delta^N_{-1,1}(f)^2\left(\overline{X}^N(s/N)\right) \,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
+ \gamma^*\int_0^t X_1(s) \Delta^N_{1,-1}(f)^2\left(\overline{X}^N(s/N)\right)\, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
+ \alpha \int_0^t \frac{X_1^N(s)(X_1^N(s)-1)}{2N^2}\Delta^N_{0,-2}(f)^2\left(\overline{X}^N(s/N)\right)\, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
+\beta \int_0^t \frac{X^N_1(s)}{N}\frac{X^N_2(s)}{N}\Delta^N_{0,-1}(f)^2\left(\overline{X}^N(s/N)\right)\, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s.\end{gathered}$$ Note that, for $i$, $j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ $$\Delta_{i,j}^N(f)(x,y)=\frac{1}{N}\left(i\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(x,y)+j\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}(x,y)\right)+o(1/N),$$ by changing the time variable in $Nt$ in Equation and by dividing by $N$ one gets the relation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqaux3}
\frac{1}{N}\left(f\left( \overline{X}^N(t)\right) -f\left( \overline{X}^N(0)\right)\right)\\
= \int_0^t\left[ \gamma^*\overline{X}_1^N(s)-\gamma \overline{X}_0^N(s) \right] \left[\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\right]\left(\overline{X}^N(s)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
- \frac{\alpha}{N} \int_0^t \overline{X}^N_1(s)\left(\overline{X}^N_1(s)-1/N\right) \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\left(\overline{X}^N(s)\right)\, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
-\frac{\beta}{N} \int_0^t \overline{X}^N_1(s)\overline{X}^N_2(s) \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\left(\overline{X}^N(s)\right)\, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s+\frac{M_f^N(Nt)}{N}+o(1/N),\end{gathered}$$ with $(\overline{X}^N(t)=(\overline{X}^N_0(t),\overline{X}^N_1(t))$. The previsible increasing process of the martingale $(M_f^N(Nt)/N)$ in the above expression is $(\langle M_f^N\rangle(Nt)/N^2)$. By using Equation and the fact that $(\overline{X}_i^N(t))$ is bounded for $i=0$ and $1$, it is not difficult to show that its expected value converges to $0$ as $N$ gets large and, by Doob’s Inequality, that the martingale converges in distribution to $0$. With similar arguments, from Equation , one gets therefore the following convergence in distribution $$\label{eqaux4}
\lim_{N\to+\infty} \left(\int_0^t\left[ \gamma^*\overline{X}_1^N(s)-\gamma \overline{X}_0^N(s) \right] \left[\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\right]\left(\overline{X}^N(s)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\right)=0.$$ For $t\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t\left[ \gamma^*\overline{X}_1^N(s)-\gamma \overline{X}_0^N(s) \right]&\left[\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\right]\left(\overline{X}^N(s)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
&=\int \left[ \gamma^*y-\gamma x \right] \left[\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\right]\left(x,y\right){\ensuremath{\mathbbm{1}_{\{s\leq t\}}}}\,\mu_N({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s),\end{aligned}$$ and this last term converges in distribution to $$\begin{gathered}
\int \left[ \gamma^*y-\gamma x \right] \left[\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\right]\left(x,y\right){\ensuremath{\mathbbm{1}_{\{u\leq t\}}}}\,\mu_\infty({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u)
\\=\int_0^t \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+^2} \left(\gamma^*y-\gamma x\right)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}f(x,y)-\frac{\partial}{\partial y}f(x,y)\right) \pi_s({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s.\end{gathered}$$ This convergence in distribution also holds for any finite marginals of this process. The convergence of processes gives therefore the desired identity in distribution. The last assertion of the proposition is proved by taking the function $f(x,y)=\gamma^*y^2-\gamma x^2$.
A Stochastic Averaging Principle
--------------------------------
Relation gives the following integral equation for $(\overline{X}_2^N(t))$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{SDEX22}
\overline{X}_2^N(t))=\overline{X}_2^N(0)+\alpha\int_0^t \overline{X}^N_1(s)\left(\overline{X}_1^N(s){-}1/N\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\+\beta\int_0^t \overline{X}_1^N(s) \overline{X}_2^N(s)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s+\frac{M_2^N(Nt)}{N},\end{gathered}$$ The expected value of the previsible increasing process of the martingale converges ${M_2^N(Nt)}{N})$ is vanishing as $N$ gets large by Equation . Doob’s Inequality shows that the martingale converges in distribution to $0$. The criteria of the modulus of continuity, see Billingsley [@Billingsley], gives therefore that the sequence of processes $(\overline{X}_2^N(t))$ is tight. It can therefore be assumed, for some subsequence $(N_k)$, that the following convergence holds, $$\lim_{k\to+\infty}\left(\mu_{N_k},\left(\overline{X}_2^{N_k}(t)\right)\right)=(\mu_\infty,(x_2(t)))$$ for a random measure $\mu_\infty$ as in Proposition \[propmu\] and some continuous stochastic process $(x_2(t))$. The rest of the section is devoted to the identification of $(x_2(t))$.
For any continuous function $g$ on $[0,m^*]^2$, the relation $$\left(\int_0^t g(x,y)\mu_\infty({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u\right)\stackrel{\text{dist.}}{=}\left(\int_0^t g\left((m{-}x_2(u))(1{-}r,r)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u\right)$$ holds, with $r=\gamma/(\gamma+\gamma^*)$.
One concludes that the measure $\pi_u({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y)$ of Proposition \[propmu\] is simply the Dirac measure at $[m-x_2(u)](1-r,r)$. This is the rigorous description of the fact described at the beginning of this section that if the fraction of polymerized mass is $x_2(u)$ then the fraction of regular \[resp. misfolded\] monomers is $(1-r)(m-x_2(u))$ \[resp. $r(m-x_2(u))$\].
The criteria of the modulus of continuity shows that the sequence of processes $$\left( \int_0^t g\left(\overline{X}_0^{N_k}(u), \overline{X}_1^{N_k}(u)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u \right)$$ is tight. By convergence in distribution of $(\mu_{N_k})$, one has, for $t\geq 0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqaux5}
\lim_{k\to +\infty} \int_0^t g\left(\overline{X}_0^{N_k}(u), \overline{X}_1^{N_k}(u)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u \\
\int_0^t g(x,y)\pi_u({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u =
\int_0^t g\left(x,\frac{\gamma}{\gamma^*}x\right)\pi_u({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u\end{gathered}$$ by Proposition \[proppi\]. The same convergence in distribution also holds for finite marginals. One has to identify the first marginal of $(\pi_u)$. If $f$ is a continuous function on $[0,m^*]$, by conservation of mass, one has the relation $$\left(\int_0^t f\left(\overline{X}_0^{N_k}(u)+\overline{X}_1^{N_k}(u)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u\right)=
\left(\int_0^t f\left(\frac{M_{N_k}}{N_k} - \overline{X}_2^{N_k}(u)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u\right).$$ Relation and the convergence properties of the right hand side of this identity give the following identity of processes $$\left(\int_0^t f\left(x/r \right)\pi_u({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u\right)=
\left(\int_0^t f\left(m -x_2(u)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u\right).$$ The proposition is proved.
\[ThMF\] Under the scaling condition and if the initial state of the solution $(X^N(t))$ of the SDE is $X^N(0)=(M_N,0,0)$ then, for the convergence in distribution, $$\label{limMF}
\lim_{N\to+\infty} \left(\frac{X_2^N(Nt)}{N}\right)= (x_2(t))\stackrel{\text{def.}}{=} \left( \frac{1-e^{-\beta r m t }}{1 + (\beta/\alpha r-1) e^{-\beta r m t }}m\right),$$ with $r=\gamma/(\gamma+\gamma^*)$.
By using Relation , Proposition \[propmu\] and the above proposition, one gets that any limiting point $(x_2(t))$ of $({X_2^N(Nt)}/{N})$ satisfies necessarily the following integral equation (integral form of the equation ) $$\label{eqaux7}
x_2(t)=\alpha r^2\int_0^t (m-x_2(s))^2\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s+\beta r\int_0^t (m-x_2(s))x_2(s)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s.$$ By uniqueness of the solution of this equation, one gets the convergence in distribution of the sequence of processes $({X_2^N(Nt)}/{N})$. Its explicit expression is easily obtained.
The following corollary gives the asymptotics of the first instant when a fraction $\delta\in(0,1)$ of monomers has been polymerized. This is a key quantity that can be measured with experiments.
\[lagLLN\] \[Asymptotics of Lag Time\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[ThMF\], if for $\delta\in(0,1)$, $$\label{Tdelta}
T^N(\delta)=\inf\{t\geq 0: X_2^N(t)/M_N\geq \delta \},$$ then, for the convergence in distribution $$\label{tdelta}
\lim_{N\to+\infty} \frac{T^N(\delta)}{N} = t_\delta\stackrel{\text{def.}}{=}\frac{1}{rm\beta}\log\left(1+\frac{\delta \beta}{\alpha r(1-\delta)}\right).$$
Central Limit Theorem
---------------------
From Proposition \[proppi\], it has been proved that if $f:[0,m^*]^2$ is a ${{\mathcal}C}^1$-function then, for the convergence in distribution $$\lim_{N\to+\infty} \left(\int_0^t \left(\gamma^*y{-}\gamma x\right)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}f(x,y){-}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}f(x,y)\right)\, \mu_N({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s)\right)=(0),$$ with the above notations, The following proposition is an extension of this result. This is the key ingredient to prove the central limit result of this section.
\[propclt\] If $g:[0,m^*]^2\times{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+$ is a ${{\mathcal}C}^1$-function then, for the convergence in distribution, $$\lim_{N\to+\infty} \left(\int_0^t \left(\gamma^*y{-}\gamma x\right)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}g(x,y,u){-}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}g(x,y,u)\right)\,\sqrt{N}\mu_N({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}u)\right)=(0).$$
We follow the same lines as in the proof of Proposition \[proppi\]. The analogue of Relation is $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqaux6}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\left(g\left( \overline{X}^N(t),t\right) -g\left( \overline{X}^N(0),0\right)\right)\\
=\sqrt{N}\int_0^t \left(\gamma^*y{-}\gamma x\right)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}g(x,y,s){-}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}g(x,y,s)\right)\,\mu_N({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s)\\
- \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{N}} \int_0^t \overline{X}^N_1(s)\left(\overline{X}^N_1(s)-1/N\right) \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\left(\overline{X}^N(s)\right)\, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
-\frac{\beta}{\sqrt{N}} \int_0^t \overline{X}^N_1(s)\overline{X}^N_2(s) \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\left(\overline{X}^N(s)\right)\, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \int_0^t \frac{\partial f}{\partial z}\left(\overline{X}^N(s),s\right)\, {\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s +\frac{M_g^N(Nt)}{\sqrt{N}}+o(1/\sqrt{N}),\end{gathered}$$ It is not difficult to check with the analogue of Relation for the previsible increasing process of the martingale $({M_g^N(Nt)}/{\sqrt{N}})$ that, for $t\geq 0$, $$\lim_{N\to+\infty} {\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}}\left({\left\langle \frac{M_g^N(Nt)}{\sqrt{N}}\right\rangle}\right)=
\lim_{N\to+\infty} \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}}\left({\left\langle M_g^N\right\rangle}(Nt)\right)}{N}=0.$$ Consequently, by Doob’s Inequality, the martingale of Relation vanishes when $N$ gets large. The desired convergence of the proposition is then easily derived.
\[CLTMF\] Under Condition and if $(x_2(t))$ is the function defined by Relation then, for the convergence in distribution, $$\lim_{N\to+\infty} \left(\frac{X_2^N(Nt)-Nx_2(t)}{\sqrt{N}}\right)= (U(t)),$$ where $(U(t))$ is the solution of the stochastic differential equation $$\label{U}
{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}U(t) = \sqrt{\sigma(t)}{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}B(t)+h(t) U(t)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}t,$$ and $(B(t))$ is a standard Brownian motion and $$\begin{cases}
\sigma(t)= 2\alpha r^2 (m{-}x_2(t))^2{+}\beta r(m{-}x_2(t))x_2(t) \\
h(t)=r(\beta-2\alpha r)(m-x_2(t))-\beta r x_2(t).
\end{cases}$$
The corresponding result of Eugène et al. [@EXRD] when there is no misfolding phenomenon shows that the functions $\sigma$ and $h$ are similar if $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are respectively replaced by $\alpha r^2$ and $\beta r$.
Denote $$U^N(t)=\frac{X_2^N(Nt)-Nx_2(t)}{\sqrt{N}}=\sqrt{N}\left(\overline{X}_2^N(t))-x_2(t)\right).$$ By combining Equation , $$\overline{X}_2^N(t))=\alpha\int_0^t \overline{X}^N_1(s)^2\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\+\beta\int_0^t \overline{X}_1^N(s) \overline{X}_2^N(s)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s+\frac{M_2^N(Nt)}{N}+O(1/N)$$ and Relation , $$\label{eqaux8}
x_2(t)=\alpha r^2\int_0^t (m-x_2(s))^2\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s+\beta r\int_0^t (m-x_2(s))x_2(s)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s,$$ one gets $$\begin{gathered}
U^N(t)= \alpha\sqrt{N}\int_0^t \left(\overline{X}^N_1(s)^2-r^2(m-x_2(s))^2\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\+\beta\sqrt{N}\int_0^t \left(\overline{X}_1^N(s) \overline{X}_2^N(s)-r(m-x_2(s))x_2(s)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s+\frac{M_2^N(Nt)}{\sqrt{N}}+O(1/\sqrt{N}).\end{gathered}$$ Concerning the martingale term, Relation gives, for $t\geq 0$, $${\left\langle \frac{M_2^N}{\sqrt{N}}\right\rangle}(Nt)=2\alpha\int_0^t \overline{X}_1^N(s)^2\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s+\beta \int_0^t \overline{X}_1^N(s) \overline{X}_2^N(s)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s+O(1/N).$$ With the same method as in the proof of Theorem \[ThMF\], one gets the following convergence in distribution $$\lim_{N\to+\infty} \left({\left\langle \frac{M_2^N}{\sqrt{N}}\right\rangle}(Nt)\right)
{=}\left(2\alpha r^2\int_0^t (m{-}x_2(s))^2\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s{+}\beta r \int_0^t x_2(s)(m{-}x_2(s))\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\right)$$ by Relation .
Note also that, for $s\geq 0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\sqrt{N}\left(\overline{X}_1^N(s) \overline{X}_2^N(s)-r(m-x_2(s))x_2(s)\right)\\=
U^N(s)\overline{X}_1^N(s)+\sqrt{N}\left(\overline{X}_1^N(s)-r(m-x_2(s))\right)x_2(s)\end{gathered}$$ and $$\label{eqaux10}
\sqrt{N}\left(\overline{X}^N_1(s)-r(m-x_2(s)\right)=-\frac{\sqrt{N}}{\gamma+\gamma^*}\left(\gamma \overline{X}^N_0(s)-\gamma^* \overline{X}^N_1(s)\right)
-rU^N(t).$$ The above relation for $(U^N(t))$ can then be rewritten as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqaux9}
U^N(t)= \int_0^t U^N(s)\left( (\beta-\alpha r)\overline{X}^N_1(s)-\alpha r^2(m-x_2(s))-\beta r x_2(s)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
{-}\frac{1}{\gamma+\gamma^*} \int_0^t \left(\gamma^*y{-}\gamma x\right)\left[\alpha (y{+}r(m{-}x_2(s))){+}\beta x_2(s)\right]\,\sqrt{N}\mu_N({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s)\\
+\frac{M_2^N(Nt)}{\sqrt{N}}+O(1/\sqrt{N}).\end{gathered}$$ The convergence in distribution of the martingale, Proposition \[propclt\] and the criterion of the modulus of continuity give easily the tightness of the sequence $(U^N(t))$. Let $(U(t))$ be a limit of some subsequence $(U^{N_k}(t))$.
A close look at Relation shows that the theorem will be proved, with standard arguments, if the following convergence in distribution is proved $$\lim_{k\to+\infty} \left(\int_0^t U^{N_k}(s)\overline{X}^{N_k}_1(s)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\right) = \left(r \int_0^t U(s)(m-x_2(s))\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\right).$$ For $k\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t& U^{N_k}(s)\overline{X}^{N_k}_1(s)-rU(s)(m-x_2(s))\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
&{=}\int_0^t U^N(s)\left(\overline{X}^N_1(s){-}r(m{-}x_2(s))\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s{+}\int_0^t r(m{-}x_2(s))\left(U^N(s){-}U(s)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s,\end{aligned}$$ the process associated to the last term of the second part of this identity converges in distribution to $0$. By Relation , the first term can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
-\int_0^t \left(\overline{X}^{N_k}_2(s)-x_2(s)\right)\left(\frac{\sqrt{{N_k}}}{\gamma+\gamma^*}\left(\gamma^* \overline{X}^{N_k}_0(s)-\gamma \overline{X}^{N_k}_1(s)\right)+rU^{N_k}(t)\right)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\
= -r\int_0^t \left(\overline{X}^{N_k}_2(s)-x_2(s)\right)U^{N_k}(s)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s\\ -\frac{1}{\gamma+\gamma^*} \int_0^t \left(\frac{M_{N_k}}{{N_k}}-x-y-x_2(s)\right)\left(\gamma x-\gamma^* y\right)\,\sqrt{{N_k}}\mu_{N_k}({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}y,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s).\end{gathered}$$ the first term of the right hand side converges in distribution to $0$ due to Theorem \[ThMF\] and the same property also holds for the second term by Proposition \[propclt\]. The theorem is proved.
As a consequence, one gets the following central limit theorem for the lag time. The notations of Corollary \[lagLLN\] and Theorems \[ThMF\] and \[CLTMF\] are used.
Under the scaling regime , for $\delta\in(0,1)$, the convergence in distribution $$\label{eqVT}
\lim_{N\to+\infty} \frac{T^N(\delta)-N t_\delta}{\sqrt{N}} =
\frac{\delta\eta-U(t_\delta)}{r m^2(1-\delta)(\beta+\alpha r(1-\delta))}$$ holds, where the variables $T^N(\delta)$ and $t_\delta$ are defined by and and $(U(t))$ by , and $r=\gamma/(\gamma+\gamma^*)$.
For $z\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ note that, since $(X_2^N(t))$ is a non-decreasing process, $$\begin{gathered}
\left\{\frac{T^N(\delta)-N t_\delta}{\sqrt{N}} \geq z\right\}=
\left\{X_2^N\left(s_N\right) <\delta M_N\right\}\\
=\left\{\frac{\overline{X}_2^N\left(s_N\right)-Nx_2(s_N/N)}{\sqrt{N}} <\frac{\delta M_N -Nx_2(s_N/N)}{\sqrt{N}}\right\},\end{gathered}$$ with $s_N=N t_\delta+z\sqrt{N}$. From Theorem \[CLTMF\] one gets the convergence in distribution $$\lim_{N\to+\infty} \frac{\overline{X}_2^N\left(s_N\right)-Nx_2(s_N/N)}{\sqrt{N}}=U(t_\delta)$$ and the expansion of $(x_2(t))$ at $t_\delta$ gives $$\lim_{N\to+\infty} \frac{\delta M_N -Nx_2(s_N/N)}{\sqrt{N}}=\delta\eta -z r m^2(1-\delta)(\beta+\alpha r(1-\delta)).$$ This completes the proof of the corollary.
Equation shows that the variance of the lag time is inversely proportional to $\gamma/\gamma^*$, a low misfolding rate will thus increase the variability of the polymerisation process.
Models with Scaled Reaction Rates {#AlpSec}
=================================
For $t\geq 0$, $X^N_1(t)$ is the number of monomers at time $t$ and $X^N_2(t)$ is the number of polymerized monomers. The initial condition is $X_1^N(0)=M_N$ and $X_2^N(0)=0$. Because of the relation of conservation of mass, one has $M_N=X_1^N(t)+X_2^N(t)$.
It is not difficult to see that the process $(X_2^N(t))$ can be represented as the solution of the following stochastic differential equations, $$\label{SDEAlp}
{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}X_2^N(t) = 2 \sum_{i=1}^{{X_1^N(X_1^N{-}1)(s{-})}/{2}} \mathcal{N}_{{\alpha}/{N^{\nu+2}}}^i({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}t){+}\sum_{i=1}^{X_1^N(s-)X_2^N(s{-}))} \mathcal{N}_{{\beta}/{N^2}}^i({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}t).$$ By integrating this equation, one gets the relation $$\label{eqa1}
X_2^N(t) = \frac{\alpha}{N^{2+\nu}}\int_0^t X_1^N(s)(X_1^N(s){-}1)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s +\frac{\beta}{N^2}\int_0^t X_1^N(s)X_2^N(s)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s+M^N(t),$$ where $(M^N(t))$ is a martingale whose previsible increasing process is given by $$\label{eqa2}
{\left\langle M\right\rangle}_N(t)=2\frac{\alpha}{N^{2+\nu}}\int_0^t X_1^N(s)(X_1^N(s){-}1)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s +\frac{\beta}{N^2}\int_0^t X_1^N(s)X_2^N(s)\,{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{d}}s.$$ The following proposition shows that, on the time scale $t\mapsto Nt$, the polymerised mass is for this model in the order of $N^{1-\nu}$.
Under the scaling condition , for the convergence in distribution, the relation $$\lim_{N\to+\infty} \left(\frac{X_2^N(Nt)}{N^{1-\nu}}\right)=\left(\frac{\alpha m}{\beta}\left(e^{\beta m t} -1\right)\right)$$ holds.
The proof is standard by using the identities and , and the relation $X_1^N(t){+}X_2^N(t){=}M_N$. See Eugène et al. [@EXRD] for example.
The following lemma introduces a branching process which will be helpful to estimate the order of magnitude in $N$ of the lag time $$T^N(\delta)=\inf\{t\geq 0: X_2^N(t)/M_N\geq \delta \},$$ for $0<\delta<1$.
For $a$, $b>0$, let $(W_{a,b}^N(t))$ be a pure birth process with birth rate $$\frac{a}{N^\nu}+ \frac{b}{N}x$$ in state $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, with $W(0)=0$ and $0<\nu\leq 1$. If $$\tau_{a,b}^N(\delta)\stackrel{\text{def.}}{=}\inf\left\{t>0: W_{a,b}^N(t)\geq \delta N\right\},$$ then the sequence $({\tau_{a,b}^N(\delta)}/{(N\log N)})$ converges in distribution to $\nu/b$.
As it can be seen $(W_{a,b}^N(t))$ is a branching process with immigration. Immigration rate is $a/N^{\nu}$ and the reproduction rate is given by $b/N$. See Harris [@Harris] for example.
Let, for $x\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, $E_x^N$ denotes an exponential random variable with parameter $a/N^\nu+x b/N$, assuming that the random variables $E_x^N$, $x\geq 0$ are independent, then clearly $$\tau_{a,b}^N(\delta)\stackrel{\text{dist}}{=} \sum_{x=0}^{\lfloor \delta N\rfloor} E_x^N.$$ hence after some simple estimations $$\lim_{N\to+\infty} \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}}(\tau_{a,b}^N(\delta))}{N\log N}= \frac{\nu}{b}.$$ In the same way, one checks that the sequence $({\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{Var}}(\tau_{a,b}^N(\delta)/N))$ is bounded $$\label{var}
{\mathop{}\mathopen{}\mathrm{Var}}\left(\frac{\tau_{a,b}^N(\delta)}{N} \right) \leq \sum_{x=0}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{(a N^{1-\nu}+x b)^2}.$$ The convergence in distribution follows , by using Chebishev’s Inequality.
![In blue, $20$ simulations of $(W_{\bar{a},\bar{b}}/M_N)$ and in green, $20$ simulations of $(X_2^N/M_N)$ on the time scale $t\mapsto N \log N t$.[]{data-label="Fig"}](bdVSpoly.pdf)
Let $0<\delta<1$ and fix some $\underline{\kappa}<1<\overline{\kappa}$, one can assume that $N$ is sufficiently large so that $\underline{\kappa}{\leq}M_N/(mN){\leq }\overline{\kappa}$ holds. Recall that $T^N(\delta)$ is the first time that the fraction of the number of polymerised monomers $X_2^N(t)/M_N$ is greater than $\delta$. The transition rates of $(X_2^N(t))$ are given by $$\label{eqaux11}
x \mapsto
\begin{cases}
x{+}2\text{ at rate } \quad \alpha/N^\nu\,[(M_N-x)/N]^2\\
x{+}1\phantom{ at rate } \quad \beta\,x /N\times (M_N-x)/N.
\end{cases}$$ By comparing the transition rates, we see that, for $x<\delta M_N$ one has $$\begin{cases}
\alpha/N^\nu\,((M_N-x)/N)^2\ge \alpha/N^\nu\, (\underline{\kappa} m)^2(1-\delta)^2,\\ \beta\,x /N\times (M_N-x)/N \ge \beta \underline{\kappa} m (1-\delta). \end{cases}$$ One can therefore construct a coupling such that, on the event $\{T^N(\delta)>t\}$, the relation $X_2^N(t){\geq} W_{\underline{a},\underline{b}}(t)$ holds with $\underline{a}{=}\alpha \underline{\kappa} m^2(1{-}\delta)^2$ and $\underline{b}{=}\beta \underline{\kappa} m(1{-}\delta)$. One obtains the relation $\tau_{\underline{a},\underline{b}}^N(\delta m){\geq}_{st} T^N(\delta)$, where $\geq_{st}$ denotes the stochastic order: if $U$ and $V$ are two real valued random variables $$U\geq_{st} V \text{ if } {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(V\geq x)\leq {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(U\geq x) \qquad \forall x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}.$$ Since $X_2^N(t){\leq} 2 W_{\bar{a},\bar{b}}(t)$, with $\bar{a}{=}\alpha(\overline{\kappa}m)^2$ and $\bar{b}{=}\beta\overline{\kappa} m $, one has $\tau_{\bar{a},\bar{b}}^N(\delta m /2){\leq}_{st} T^N(\delta)$. One gets therefore $$\label{EQ}
\displaystyle\tau_{\bar{a},\bar{b}}^N(\delta m /2)\leq_{st} T^N(\delta) \leq_{st} \tau_{\underline{a},\underline{b}}^N(\delta m).$$ Since the constants $\underline{\kappa}$ and $\overline{\kappa}$ can be chosen arbitrarily close to $1$, the following proposition has therefore been proved.
For $\delta>0$ and $ 0{<}\nu{\leq}1$, $$\lim_{N\to+\infty}
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}\left(\frac{\nu}{\beta m }\leq \frac{T^N(\delta)}{N\log N}\leq \frac{\nu}{\beta m (1-\delta)}\right)=1.$$
[**Remark**]{}. It is very likely that, to reach the state $\delta N$, only the second reaction has a real impact as soon as the variable $X_2^N$ is not $0$. If true, simple calculations, as in the proof of the above lemma, would then give that the variable $T^N(\delta)/(N\log N)$ is converging in distribution to $\nu/(\beta m)$ as $N$ get large. Note that the limit in this asymptotic result does not depend on $\delta$ which suggests a sharp transition for the polymerisation process.
The birth process $(W_{\bar{a},\bar{b}}(t))$ seems to be close to $(X_2^N(t))$ during the initiation of the polymerisation, as the simulations of Figure \[Fig\]. This suggests that, for $\delta$ small, the variables $\tau_{\bar{a},\bar{b}}^N(\delta m)$ and $T^N(\delta)$ are very close. We conclude this part by considering the case $\nu>1$.
A Very Slow Nucleation Step {#a-very-slow-nucleation-step .unnumbered}
---------------------------
Now we assume that $\nu>1$, in this regime, the first reaction, the nucleation step, is then significantly slowed.
For any ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $0<\delta<1$, there exist $0<K_1<K_2$ such that $$\liminf_{N\to+\infty}
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}\left(K_1\leq \frac{T^N(\delta)}{N^\nu}\leq K_2\right)\geq 1-{\varepsilon}.$$
By using Relation , it is enough to derive a corresponding limit theorem for $\tau_{a,b}^N(\delta)/{N^{\nu}}$ for some $a{>}0$ and $b{>}0$. Let $(E^1_x)$ be a sequence of i.i.d. exponential random variables with parameter $1$, then $$\label{bignu}
\frac{\tau_{a,b}^N(\delta)}{N^{\nu}}= \sum_{x=0}^{\lfloor \delta N\rfloor} \frac{E^1_x}{a +x b N^{\nu-1}} = \frac{E^1_0}{a} + \sum_{x=1}^{\lfloor \delta N\rfloor} \frac{E^1_x}{a +x b N^{\nu-1}}.$$ The expected value of the last term of the right hand side of the above relation is bounded by $K\log(N)/N^{\nu-1}$ for some constant $K{>}0$. Consequently, this term becomes negligible in distribution for $N$ large. One gets that the variable ${\tau_{a,b}^N(\delta)}/{N^{\nu}}$ converges in distribution to an exponential random variable. The proposition is proved.
As we have seen in the proof, the only term that matters in the series in Relation is the first one: the time to reach one polymerised monomer. It characterises the order of magnitude of the lag time. This variable has been analysed in Szavits-Nossan et al. [@Szavits] and Yvinec et al. [@yvinec2016].
We thank W.F. Xue (University of Kent) for inspiring discussions. M. Doumic and S. Eugène’s research was supported by ERC Starting Grant SKIPPER$^{AD}$ No. 306321.
[10]{}
David F. Anderson and Thomas G. Kurtz, *Continuous time [M]{}arkov chain models for chemical reaction networks*, Design and Analysis of Biomolecular Circuits (Heinz Koeppl, Gianluca Setti, Mario di Bernardo, and Douglas Densmore, eds.), Springer New York, 2011, pp. 3–42.
P. Billingsley, *Convergence of probability measures*, second ed., Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: Probability and Statistics, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1999, A Wiley-Interscience Publication.
N. H. Bingham, *Fluctuation theory for the [E]{}hrenfest urn*, Advances in Applied Probability **23** (1991), no. 3, 598–611.
Perinur Bozaykut, Nesrin Kartal Ozer, and Betul Karademir, *Regulation of protein turnover by heat shock proteins*, Free Radic Biol Med. **77** (2014), 195–209.
Donald A. Dawson, *Measure-valued [M]{}arkov processes*, École d’Été de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXI—1991, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1541, Springer, Berlin, 1993, pp. 1–260.
Claude Dellacherie and Paul-Andr[é]{} Meyer, *Probabilities and potential*, North-Holland Mathematics Studies, vol. 29, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-New York; North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-New York, 1978.
Christopher M. Dobson, *Protein folding and misfolding*, Nature **426** (2003), 884–890.
ChristopherM. Dobson, *The generic nature of protein folding and misfolding*, Protein Misfolding, Aggregation, and Conformational Diseases (VladimirN. Uversky and AnthonyL. Fink, eds.), Protein Reviews, vol. 4, Springer US, 2006, pp. 21–41 (English).
Kym Eden, Ryan Morris, Jay Gillam, Cait E. MacPhee, and Rosalind J. Allen, *Competition between primary nucleation and autocatalysis in amyloid fibril self-assembly*, Biophysical Journal **108** (2015), no. 3, 632 – 643.
Sarah Eugène, Wei-Feng Xue, Philippe Robert, and Marie Doumic, *Insights into the variability of nucleated amyloid polymerization by a minimalistic model of stochastic protein assembly*, Submitted to Journal of Chemical Physics, September 2015.
M. I. Freidlin and A. D. Wentzell, *Random perturbations of dynamical systems*, second ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998, Translated from the 1979 Russian original by Joseph Szücs.
Theodore E. Harris, *The theory of branching processes*, Dover Phoenix Editions, Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY, 2002, Corrected reprint of the 1963 original.
Desmond J. Higham, *Modeling and simulating chemical reactions*, SIAM Review **50** (2008), no. 2, 347–368.
P.J. Hunt and T.G Kurtz, *Large loss networks*, Stochastic Processes and their Applications **53** (1994), 363–378.
Hye-Won Kang, Thomas G. Kurtz, and Lea Popovic, *Central limit theorems and diffusion approximations for multiscale [M]{}arkov chain models*, The Annals of Applied Probability **24** (2014), no. 2, 721–759.
Samuel Karlin and James McGregor, *Ehrenfest urn models*, Journal of Applied Probability **2** (1965), 352–376.
Tuomas P. J. Knowles, Michele Vendruscolo, and Christopher M. Dobson, *The amyloid state and its association with protein misfolding diseases*, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology **15** (2014), 384–396.
T.G. Kurtz, *Averaging for martingale problems and stochastic approximation*, Applied Stochastic Analysis, US-French Workshop, Lecture notes in Control and Information sciences, vol. 177, Springer Verlag, 1992, pp. 186–209.
David Lanneau, Guillaume Wettstein, Philippe Bonniaud, and Carmen Garrido, *Heat shock proteins: cell protection through protein triage*, ScientificWorldJournal **10** (2010), 1543–1552.
Jennifer J. McManus, Patrick Charbonneau, Emanuela Zaccarelli, and Neer Asherie, *The physics of protein self-assembly*, preprint, February 2016.
Philippe Morando, *Mesures aléatoires*, Séminaire de Probabilités de Strasbourg **III** (1969), 190–229.
Sian-Yang Ow and Dave E. Dunstan, *A brief overview of amyloids and alzheimer’s disease*, Protein Science **23** (2014), no. 10, 1315–1331.
G. C. Papanicolaou, D. Stroock, and S. R. S. Varadhan, *Martingale approach to some limit theorems*, Papers from the [D]{}uke [T]{}urbulence [C]{}onference ([D]{}uke [U]{}niv., [D]{}urham, [N]{}.[C]{}., 1976), [P]{}aper [N]{}o. 6, Duke Univ., Durham, N.C., 1977, pp. ii+120 pp. Duke Univ. Math. Ser., Vol. III.
Simone Pigolotti, Ludvig Lizana, Daniel Otzen, and Kim Sneppen, *Quality control system response to stochastic growth of amyloid fibrils*, {FEBS} Letters **587** (2013), no. 9, 1405 – 1410.
L. C. G. Rogers and David Williams, *Diffusions, [M]{}arkov processes, and martingales. [V]{}ol. 1: Foundations*, second ed., John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 1994.
Walter Rudin, *Real and complex analysis*, third ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1987.
Wen Sun, Mathieu Feuillet, and Philippe Robert, *Analysis of large unreliable stochastic networks*, Annals of Applied Probability (2015), To Appear.
Juraj Szavits-Nossan, Kym Eden, Ryan J. Morris, Cait E. MacPhee, Martin R. Evans, and Rosalind J. Allen, *Inherent variability in the kinetics of autocatalytic protein self-assembly*, Physical Review Letters **113** (2014), 098101.
W-F Xue, S W Homans, and S E Radford, *Systematic analysis of nucleation-dependent polymerization reveals new insights into the mechanism of amyloid self-assembly*, PNAS **105** (2008), 8926–8931.
Romain Yvinec, Samuel Bernard, Erwan Hingant, and Laurent Pujo-Menjouet, *First passage times in homogeneous nucleation: Dependence on the total number of particles*, The Journal of Chemical Physics **144** (2016), no. 3, 034106.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Beyond the simplest case of bipartite qubits, the composite Hilbert space of multipartite systems is largely unexplored. In order to explore such systems, it is important to derive analytic expressions for parameters which characterize the system’s state space. Two such parameters are the degree of genuine multipartite entanglement and the degree of mixedness of the system’s state. We explore these two parameters for an $N$-qubit system whose density matrix has an $X$ form. We derive the class of states that has the maximum amount of genuine multipartite entanglement for a given amount of mixedness. We compare our results with the existing results for the $N=2$ case. The critical amount of mixedness above which no $N$-qubit $X$-state possesses genuine multipartite entanglement is derived. It is found that as $N$ increases, states with higher mixedness can still be entangled.'
author:
- 'S. Agarwal and S.M. Hashemi Rafsanjani'
title: Maximizing genuine multipartite entanglement of $N$ mixed qubits
---
Introduction
============
Quantification of entanglement of a bipartite state with arbitrary dimensions is a challenging problem and solutions are known only for some special cases with systems consisting of two qubits [@Wootters-98], a qubit and a qutrit [@Peres-96; @Horodecki-96], two qudits in a highly symmetric state [@Horodecki-99; @Vollbrecht-01], a double gaussian state [@Simon-00], a pure bipartite state [@Ekert-95; @Grobe-etal-94], etc. Beyond the bipartite case, quantifying the entanglement of a system consisting of three or more parties becomes even more challenging. For such systems, it becomes important to distinguish between genuinely multipartite entangled states, for which all the parties are entangled with every other party, from the bi-separable states for which some parties might be entangled with each other while being separable from the rest [@Guhne-10; @Ma-11; @Jungnitsch-11].
In [@Ma-11] it was shown that a generalization of Wootters concurrence, which was derived for the two-qubit case [@Wootters-98], is a good measure to quantify genuine multipartite entanglement. Although various witness operations to verify genuine multipartite entanglement existed [@Toth-05; @Villar-06; @Toth-09; @Gao-10; @Bancal-11; @Huber-11], it was not until recently that an analytic expression for $C_{GM}$ was derived [@Hashemi-12]. It was shown in [@Hashemi-12] that if a state of an $N$-qubit system has an $X$ form [@Yu-07], one can get $C_{GM}$ analytically.
The $X$-states are density matrices whose only non-zero elements are the diagonal or the anti-diagonal elements when written in an orthonormal product basis of the $N$-qubit system. Although the properties of $X$ density matrices for two-qubit systems are extensively studied in the literature [@Yu-07; @Quesada-12; @Hashemi-12Ap], the properties of $N$-qubit $X$ density matrices are still largely unexplored. In this report, we investigate the properties of these $X$-states of $N$-qubit systems. In general, an $X$-state of $N$-qubits has $(2^{N+1}-1)$ independent real parameters. Instead of addressing this exponentially growing parameter space, we restrict our attention only to two fundamental quantities, genuine multipartite concurrence and linear entropy. Linear entropy is a measure of mixedness and for a given state, say $\rho$, linear entropy is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e.S}
S(\rho)=\frac{d}{d-1}(1-\mathrm{Tr}(\rho^2)),\end{aligned}$$ where $d$ is the dimensionality of $\rho$. The linear entropy ranges from $0$ to $1$ with $0$ indicating $\rho$ to be a pure state and $1$ indicating $\rho$ to be completely mixed. In [@Munro-01; @Wei-03], Munro *et al.* explored the concurrence-entropy relations for all physically allowed two-qubit states. They found the class of states that has the maximum amount of entanglement for a given degree of entropy. It was shown that as the entropy increases, the maximum achievable amount of entanglement by any possible bipartite qubit state decreases. It was also shown in [@Munro-01; @Wei-03; @Zyczkowski-98] that beyond a critical value of $S_{cr}=8/9$, no two-qubit state could possibly be entangled. The class of states that have the maximum amount of entanglement for a given degree of entropy is referred to as *maximally entangled mixed states* (MEMS) [@Munro-01]. For the two-qubit case, the MEMS class happens to be of the $X$ form. This fact suggests that even for an $N$-qubit system, they may be of the $X$ form.
Here, restricting our analysis to the class of $X$-states, we will generalize the two-qubit results to a general $N$-qubit setup. In particular, we find the class of $X$ density matrices that, for a given amount of entropy, has the maximum amount of genuine $N$-qubit entanglement (see Eq. (\[e.MEMXS\])). We find that the critical amount of entropy, as a function of $N$, above which no $X$ density matrix can possibly exhibit genuine multipartite entanglement is $$\begin{aligned}
S_{cr}(N)=\frac{2^{2N-1}}{(2^N-1)(2^{N-1}+1)}.\end{aligned}$$ We see that this critical entropy increases as a function of $N$. This indicates that in the limit of a large number of qubits, it is possible to find highly mixed states that can still possess entanglement. The dependence of various physical parameters on the entropy of a bipartite system state and the scaling of these dependences on the dimensionality of the two parties involved can be found in [@Zyczkowski-98; @Bose-00; @Adesso-04; @Qasimi-11].
In Section \[s.X-Matrices\], we briefly explain the concept of genuine multipartite entanglement. In this section, we also describe the $X$ density matrices of $N$ qubits and the genuine multipartite concurrence that quantifies the entanglement for these states. In Section \[s.MEMXS\], we derive the maximally entangled mixed $X$ states (X-MEMS) for $N$ qubits. We conclude in Section \[s.Conclusion\].
Genuine multipartite concurrence of $N$-qubit $X$ density matrices {#s.X-Matrices}
==================================================================
A system consisting of $N$ qubits is said to possess genuine multipartite entanglement if each qubit is entangled with every other qubit and not only to some of them [@Toth-09]. To make this statement more explicit, we first define what is meant by a bi-separable state: A pure $N$-qubit state, say ${|\psi\rangle}$, is said to be bi-separable if it can be written as a product of two multi-qubit states: ${|\psi_{bs}\rangle}={|\psi_1\rangle}\otimes{|\psi_2\rangle}$ (the subscript stands for bi-separable). A mixed state is bi-separable if it can be written as a mixture of bi-separable pure states: $\rho_{bs}=\sum_ip_{i}{|\psi^{i}_{bs}\rangle}{\langle\psi^{i}_{bs}|}$. If an $N$-qubit state is not bi-separable, it is genuinely $N$-partite entangled [@Guhne-10; @Ma-11; @Jungnitsch-11].
One of the proposed measures to quantify genuine multi-partite entanglement is genuine multi-partite concurrence [@Ma-11]. For a pure state, ${|\psi\rangle}$, genuine multi-partite concurrence is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{GM}({|\psi\rangle}):=\min_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\sqrt{2(1-\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_{A_{\gamma}}^2))},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma$ represents the set of all possible bi-partitions, $\left\{A_\gamma|B_\gamma\right\}$, of the $N$ parties and $\rho_{A_{\gamma}}$ is the reduced density matrix: $\rho_{A_{\gamma}}=\mathrm{Tr}_{B_{\gamma}}\left({|\psi\rangle}{\langle\psi|}\right)$. For a mixed state, $\rho$, the concept of $C_{GM}$ can be formally generalized to $$\begin{aligned}
C_{GM}(\rho)=\inf_{\left\{p_i,{|\psi^i\rangle}\right\}}\sum_ip_i\,C_{GM}({|\psi^i\rangle}),\end{aligned}$$ where the minimization has to be carried out over all possible pure state decompositions of the density matrix: $\rho=\sum_ip_i{|\psi^i\rangle}{\langle\psi^i|}$. This minimization procedure renders analytic or even numerical parameterization of $C_{GM}$ infeasible in general.
For some cases, lower bounds on $C_{GM}$ are available for analysis [@Toth-05; @Villar-06; @Toth-09; @Gao-10; @Bancal-11; @Huber-11]. Only recently, by generalizing the result for the two-qubit case [@Wootters-98], an exact analytic expression for $C_{GM}$ was derived for an $N$-qubit system whose density matrix has an $X$ form [@Hashemi-12]. To briefly elaborate on the result in [@Hashemi-12], let us look at an $N$-qubit $X$ density matrix. Arranging the rows and columns in an orthonormal product basis, ${|1,1,\cdots,1,1\rangle}$, ${|1,1,\cdots,1,0\rangle}$, $\cdots$, ${|0,0,\cdots,0,0\rangle}$, the $X$ density matrices have the general structure of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e.X}
X=
\begin{pmatrix}
a_1&&&&&&&z_1\\
&a_2&&&&&z_2&\\
&&\ddots&&&\reflectbox{$\ddots$}&&\\
&&&a_n&z_n&&&\\
&&&z_n^*&b_n&&&\\
&&\reflectbox{$\ddots$}&&&\ddots&&\\
&z_2^*&&&&&b_2&\\
z_1^*&&&&&&&b_1\\
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $n=2^{N-1}$. For the $X$ matrix to be a valid density matrix, one must have $\sum_i (a_i+b_i)=1$ and $|z_i|\leq\sqrt{a_ib_i}$. These conditions are necessary and sufficient for the $X$ matrix to have unit trace and positive eigenvalues. In [@Hashemi-12], it was shown that the $C_{GM}$ for the above $N$-qubit state is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e.C_gm}
C_{GM}(X)=2\,\max\left\{0,|z_i|-\sum_{j\neq i}^n\sqrt{a_jb_j}\right\}, \quad i=1,2,\cdots,n.\end{aligned}$$ Note that for the two-qubit case, this result reduces to the previously known result derived by Wootters [@Wootters-98].
If any one of the qubit’s state is traced out from the $X$-matrix, the rest of the qubits become separable. This fact can be understood by noticing that if one traces any of the qubits from Eq. (\[e.X\]), one gets a diagonal and hence separable reduced density matrix. An example of $X$-states is the class of well known GHZ states. The GHZ states have theoretical and practical importance. In [@Mermin-90], it was shown that there are no bounds to the amount by which the GHZ states can violate the limits imposed by a Bell’s inequality. In the context of trapped ions, it has been possible to experimentally create GHZ states of up to fourteen qubits [@Monz-11]. With the advances in experimental circuit QED, it is predicted that large number of qubits can be initialized in the GHZ states [@Bishop-09]. For two-qubit systems, the $X$-states are central to understanding the relations between fully entangled fractions and entanglement [@Grondalski-02].
Several important remarks may be made about the experimentally common action of uncontrolled environmental influences on the system. The possibility that an arbitrary initial pure state de-cohering into an $X$-state was studied in [@Quesada-12]. Further we can rely on the fact that the $X$-state form itself is robust in the sense that states initially in the $X$ form remain in the $X$ form if local damping channels act on the various non-interacting qubits [@Yu-07; @Hashemi-12]. Another key point is that decoherence processes that add additional non-$X$ elements cannot decrease the degree of entanglement. That is, the $X$ part alone of a general density matrix provides a lower bound of genuine multipartite entanglement [@Ma-11; @Hashemi-12Ap]. Thus, we see that $X$-states are an important and experimentally viable class of physically allowed $N$-qubit states.
Maximally entangled mixed $X$-states for $N$-qubits {#s.MEMXS}
===================================================
In this section, we explore the entropy verses genuine multipartite entanglement properties of $N$-qubit $X$-states. For concreteness, we begin by considering a three-qubit system (The two-qubit system was studied in [@Munro-01]). We randomly generate a million $X$-density matrices of three qubits and determine their linear entropy and genuine multi-partite concurrence using Eqs. (\[e.S\]) and (\[e.C\_gm\]) respectively. The entanglement-entropy plane for the three-qubit $X$-states is shown in Fig. \[fig.3qubit\] where we have plotted $C_{GM}$ and $S$ for each of the randomly generated $X$ matrices.
![(Color online) Genuine multipartite entanglement and entropy plane for three-qubit $X$-states. Each of the million points corresponds to the $C_{GM}(X)$ and $S(X)$ calculated for a randomly generated $X$-density matrix. We are interested in the class of states that lies at the boundary. We also want to know what the critical entropy, $S_{cr}$, is as a function of $N$. Critical entropy is the entropy above which no possible system state in the $X$ form possesses genuine multipartite entanglement.[]{data-label="fig.3qubit"}](f.3qubit.eps){width="8cm" height="4cm"}
We notice two qualitative trends from Fig. \[fig.3qubit\]. First is that as the entropy increases, the maximum amount of achievable genuine multi-partite entanglement decreases. The second important thing to notice is that beyond a critical amount of entropy (close to 0.9 in this case), no state possesses genuine multipartite entanglement. These qualitative features can be quantitatively captured by knowing the class of states that lies at the boundary of the entanglement-entropy plane. These are the states that have the maximum entropy for a given amount of entanglement or said in a different way, has the maximum amount of entanglement for a given amount of entropy. We will refer to this class of states as *maximally entangled mixed $X$-states* (X-MEMS). The purpose of this report is to find X-MEMS for an $N$-qubit system.
Without loss of generality, we assume that for a genuinely multi-partite entangled state the concurrence is given by, $C_{GM}(X)=2(|z_1|-\sum_{j\neq 1}^n\sqrt{a_jb_j})$. We now prove that for every density matrix of the form given in Eq. (\[e.X\]), we can find another density matrix, $\bar{X}$, that has the same $C_{GM}$ as the density matrix $X$ but has a higher entropy. The density matrix elements of $\bar{X}$ in terms of the matrix elements of $X$ are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e.matel_barX}
\bar{a}_1&=a_1,\nonumber\\
\bar{a}_i&=a_i+b_i,\quad\quad 2\leq i\leq n,\nonumber\\
\bar{b}_1&=b_1,\nonumber\\
\bar{b}_i,\bar{z}_i&=0,\qquad\quad\quad 2\leq i\leq n,\nonumber\\
\bar{z}_1&=|z_1|-\sum_{j\neq 1}^n\sqrt{a_jb_j}.\end{aligned}$$ The $b_i$’s are added to the $a_i$’s to ensure that the trace of $\bar{X}$ is one. It is clear that the genuine multi-partite entanglement of $X$ and $\bar{X}$ is the same: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{GM}(\bar{X})=C_{GM}(X). \end{aligned}$$ In order to prove that the entropy of $\bar{X}$ is more than the entropy of $X$, we note that for $|z_1|\geq\sum_{i}^n\sqrt{a_ib_i}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
S(\bar{X})-S(X)&=\left(\frac{2^{N+1}}{2^N-1}\right)\sum_{i\neq 1}^n \Big(|z_{i}|^2+2\sqrt{a_ib_i}(|z_{1}|-\sqrt{a_ib_i}-\sum_{j\neq 1,i}^n\sqrt{a_jb_j})\Big),\nonumber\\
&\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ The facts that $C_{GM}(\bar{X})=C_{GM}(X)$ and $S(\bar{X})\geq S(X)$ imply that the maximally entangled mixed $X$ states have to be of the $\bar{X}$ form for which all the lower diagonal elements except $b_1$ are zero.
To reduce mathematical complications while deriving the form of X-MEMS, we redefine the following matrix elements of $\bar{X}$ which were previously defined in Eq. (\[e.matel\_barX\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{a}_1&=\alpha+|\gamma|,\nonumber\\
\bar{b}_1&=\beta+|\gamma|,\nonumber\\
\bar{z}_1&=\gamma.\end{aligned}$$ To ensure the positivity and unit trace properties of the density matrix $\bar{X}$, the following conditions must be satisfied: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e.constraints}
\alpha+|\gamma|&\geq0,\nonumber\\
\beta+|\gamma|&\geq0,\nonumber\\
\alpha\beta+(\alpha+\beta)|\gamma|&\geq0,\nonumber\\
\alpha+\beta+2|\gamma|+\sum_{i=2}^n \bar{a}_i&=1.\end{aligned}$$ With this redefinition, the density matrix, $\bar{X}$, takes the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{X}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha+|\gamma|&&&&&&&\gamma\\
&\bar{a}_2&&&&&0&\\
&&\ddots&&&\reflectbox{$\ddots$}&&\\
&&&\bar{a}_n&0&&&\\
&&&0&0&&&\\
&&\reflectbox{$\ddots$}&&&\ddots&&\\
&0&&&&&0&\\
\gamma^*&&&&&&&\beta+|\gamma|\\
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ For the above form of the density matrix, the genuine multipartite concurrence is simply given by $C_{GM}(\bar{X})=2|\gamma|$. Keeping $|\gamma|$ fixed, we now need to figure out the expressions for $\bar{a}_i$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ that would maximize the entropy, $S(\bar{X})$. To this end, we note that because of the presence of the off-diagonal element $\gamma$, the diagonal matrix elements $\alpha$ and $\beta$ have to be treated separately than all other diagonal entries, $\bar{a}_i$ for $2\leq i\leq n$. We also note that keeping the off-diagonal element constant, entropy or mixedness is maximized if all the possible diagonal elements are equally populated, i.e. when $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e.ax}
\alpha&=\beta=x,\nonumber\\
\bar{a}_2&=\bar{a}_3=\cdots=\bar{a}_n=y,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined two new variables, $x$ and $y$. Using the constraint that the sum of the diagonal terms should sum to one, the variable $y$ can be eliminated from the expression of the linear entropy of the density matrix $\bar{X}$ to get: $$\begin{aligned}
S(\bar{X})&= \frac{2^N}{2^N-1}\left(A\left(x+|\gamma|\right)^2+B\left(x+|\gamma|\right)+C\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A&=-2\left(\frac{n+1}{n-1}\right),\nonumber\\
B&=\frac{4}{n-1},\nonumber\\
C&=\left(1-\frac{1}{n-1}-2|\gamma|^2\right).\end{aligned}$$ We now need to maximize the linear entropy, $S(\bar{X})$, for a given amount of $C_{GM}(\bar{X})=2|\gamma|$. While doing so, we have to remember the constraints in Eq. (\[e.constraints\]). According to Eq. (\[e.constraints\]), one must have $x,y>0$ and $2(x+|\gamma|)+(n-1)y=1$, which implies that $(x+|\gamma|)\leq1/2$. Keeping these constraints in mind, we plot $S(\bar{X})$ in Fig. \[fig.max\_S\] as a function of $x+|\gamma|$ for four different values of $|\gamma|$.
![(Color online) Maximizing the entropy, $S(\bar{X})$. The solid lines correspond to $S(\bar{X})$ for different values of $|\gamma|$ over the allowed range of $(x+|\gamma|)$. According to Eqs. (\[e.constraints\]) and (\[e.ax\]), the allowed range of $(x+|\gamma|)$ is $|\gamma|\leq (x+|\gamma|)\leq 1/2$. The solid dots correspond to the respective maximas of the various curves. We see that the maximum of $S(\bar{X})$ occurs at $(x+|\gamma|)=1/(n+1)$ if $|\gamma|\leq 1/(n+1)$ and at $(x+|\gamma|)=|\gamma|$ if $|\gamma|\geq 1/(n+1)$.[]{data-label="fig.max_S"}](f.max_S.eps){width="8cm" height="4cm"}
We note that when $|\gamma|\leq1/(n+1)$ the maximum of $S(\bar{X})$ occurs at $(x+|\gamma|)=1/(n+1)$, which according to the trace condition means that $y=1/(n+1)$. On the other hand, when $|\gamma|\geq1/(n+1)$, the maximum of $S(\bar{X})$ occurs at $(x+|\gamma|)=|\gamma|$, which in turn implies that $y=(1-2|\gamma|)/(n-1)$. With these considerations, we finally get the following form of the $X$-density matrices that has the maximum amount of entropy for a given amount of genuine multipartite entanglement: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e.MEMXS}
\tilde{X}=
\begin{pmatrix}
f(\gamma)&&&&&&&\gamma\\
&g(\gamma)&&&&&0&\\
&&\ddots&&&\reflectbox{$\ddots$}&&\\
&&&g(\gamma)&0&&&\\
&&&0&0&&&\\
&&\reflectbox{$\ddots$}&&&\ddots&&\\
&0&&&&&0&\\
\gamma^*&&&&&&&f(\gamma)\\
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f(\gamma) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
1/(n+1) & \quad \text{$0\leq|\gamma|\leq1/(n+1)$}\\
|\gamma| & \quad \text{$1/(n+1)\leq|\gamma|\leq1/2$,}\\
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
g(\gamma) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
1/(n+1) & \quad \text{$0\leq|\gamma|\leq1/(n+1)$}\\
(1-2|\gamma|)/(n-1) & \quad \text{$1/(n+1)\leq|\gamma|\leq1/2$.}\\
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ As noted earlier, these are also the states that have the maximum amount of entanglement for a given amount of entropy. The degree of genuine multipartite entanglement corresponding to these states is $C_{GM}(\tilde{X})=2|\gamma|$ and the corresponding linear entropy is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e.Sf}
S(\tilde{X})&= \frac{2^N}{2^N-1}\left(A f^2(\gamma)+B f(\gamma)+C\right).\end{aligned}$$ The form of the matrix $\tilde{X}$ derived in Eq. (\[e.MEMXS\]) in terms of the concurrence, $C_{GM}=2|\gamma|$, is the main result of this report. This class of states is the maximally entangled mixed $X$-states (X-MEMS). To illustrate our analytically derived results, we plot in Fig. \[fig.5qubit\] the entanglement versus entropy of a million randomly generated three-qubit and five-qubit $X$-density matrices. The analytical bound found in Eq. (\[e.Sf\]) is plotted as a solid line. In clear agreement with the analytic bound imposed in Eq. (\[e.Sf\]), we see that all the randomly generated points lie inside the solid line.
![(Color online) Entanglement and entropy of randomly generated three-qubit and five-qubit $X$-density matrices. The solid lines correspond to Eq. (\[e.Sf\]) which analytically gives the maximum entropy for a given amount concurrence. We see that in agreement with the analytical results derived in this report, all the random points lie inside the solid line. Note that as the number of qubits increases from $N=3$ to $N=5$, the critical amount of entanglement beyond which no state is entangled also increases.[]{data-label="fig.5qubit"}](f.3qubitBound.eps "fig:"){width="8cm" height="4cm"} ![(Color online) Entanglement and entropy of randomly generated three-qubit and five-qubit $X$-density matrices. The solid lines correspond to Eq. (\[e.Sf\]) which analytically gives the maximum entropy for a given amount concurrence. We see that in agreement with the analytical results derived in this report, all the random points lie inside the solid line. Note that as the number of qubits increases from $N=3$ to $N=5$, the critical amount of entanglement beyond which no state is entangled also increases.[]{data-label="fig.5qubit"}](f.5qubit.eps "fig:"){width="8cm" height="4cm"}
It should be noted that the general results derived here for the $N$-qubit case reduces correctly to the results derived by Munro et al. for $N=2$ [@Munro-01]. We reiterate the fact that the analysis in this report was restricted to a special form of $N$-qubit density matrices that have the $X$ form as given in Eq. (\[e.X\]). On the other hand, the results of [@Munro-01] were valid for all physically allowed two-qubit states and not just for $X$-matrices.
Putting $|\gamma|=0$ in the Eq. (\[e.Sf\]), we can get the critical amount of entropy beyond which no $X$-states can exhibit entanglement. This critical entropy as a function of $N$ turns out to be: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e.S_cr}
S_{cr}(N)=\frac{2^{2N-1}}{(2^N-1)(2^{N-1}+1)},\end{aligned}$$ which for $N=2$ correctly gives $S_{cr}(2)=8/9$ [@Munro-01]. In Fig. \[fig.Scr\], we plot $S_{cr}(N)$ as a function of the number of participating qubits, $N$. We see that $S_{cr}(N)$ is an increasing function of $N$ and approaches unity asymptotically. This implies that as the number of qubits increases, we can have states that are more mixed and still exhibit genuine multipartite entanglement.
![(Color online) Critical entropy, $S_{cr}(N)$, as a function of the number of participating qubits, $N$. We see that the critical entropy increases as the number of qubits increases and asymptotically approaches unity.[]{data-label="fig.Scr"}](f.Scr.eps){width="6cm" height="4cm"}
Conclusion {#s.Conclusion}
==========
In this report, we found the class of $N$-qubit $X$-states that has the maximum amount of genuine multipartite entanglement for a given amount of mixedness. This class of states derived here, referred to as maximally entangled mixed $X$-states (X-MEMS), is an extension to the ones derived for the two-qubit case in [@Munro-01]. We find that the critical amount of entropy, $S_{cr}(N)$, above which no $X$-state possesses genuine multipartite entanglement increases as a function of the number of participating qubits, $N$. As the derived class of states has the maximum amount of entanglement for a given amount of entropy, they might have practical utility in cases that require entanglement as a resource but are influenced by unavoidable sources of noise.
The entire analysis in this report was restricted only to density matrices that have an $X$ form. This restriction was primarily because of the fact that a computable measure which captures genuine multipartite entanglement of an $N$-qubit system exists only for $X$-density matrices. The results in [@Munro-01] for the two qubit case were more general. In [@Munro-01], maximally entangled mixed states (MEMS) were found out of all possible two-qubit density matrices and the analysis was not just restricted to density matrices of the $X$ form. The MEMS found in [@Munro-01] happens to be of the $X$ form. This fact suggests that the MEMS of an $N$-qubit system might also be of the $X$-form. If this happens to be true, the MEMS of an $N$-qubit system will be the same as the X-MEMS found in this report. Since an analytic form of $C_{GM}$ for an arbitrary $N$-qubit density matrix is yet to emerge, a connection between MEMS and X-MEMS of an $N$-qubit system remains an open question.
For the two-qubit case, it was shown that the maximally entangled mixed states depend upon the measures used to quantify mixedness and entanglement. In this report, the measure of mixedness was chosen to be linear entropy (see Eq. (\[e.S\])), and the measure chosen to quantify entanglement was genuine multipartite concurrence (see Eq. (\[e.C\_gm\])). Since $C_{GM}$ is the only computable measure available to quantify $N$-qubit entanglement, the dependence of X-MEMS on different measures of entanglement is still an open question.
We are thankful to J.H. Eberly for his encouragement and insightful comments. Financial support was received from NSF PHY-1203931.
[99]{}
W.K. Wootters, , 2245 (1998).
A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 1413 (1996).
M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A **223**, 1 (1996).
M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A **59**, 4206 (1999).
K.G.H. Vollbrecht and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A **64**,062307 (2001).
R. Simon, , 2726 (2000).
R. Grobe, K. Rzazewski and J.H. Eberly, , L503 (1994).
A. Ekert and P.L. Knight, , 415 (1995).
O. Gühne and M. Seevinck, New J. Phys. **12**, 053002 (2010).
Z.H. Ma, Z.H. Chen, J.L. Chen, C. Spengler, A. Gabriel, and M. Huber, , 062325 (2011).
B. Jungnitsch, T. Moroder, and O. Gühne, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 190502 (2011).
G. Tóth and O. Gühne, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 060501 (2005).
A.S. Villar, M. Martinelli, C. Fabre, and P. Nussenzveig, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 140504 (2006).
G. Tóth, W. Wieczorek, R. Krischek, N. Kiesel, P Michelberger, and H. Weinfurter, New J. Phys. **11** 083002 (2009).
T. Gao and Y. Hong, Phys. Rev. A **82**, 062113 (2010).
J-D. Bancal, N. Gisin, Y-C. Liang, and S. Pironio, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 250404 (2011).
M. Huber, P. Erker, H. Schimpf, A. Gabriel, and B. Hiesmayr, Phys. Rev. A **83**, 040301(R) (2011).
S.M. Hashemi Rafsanjani, M. Huber, C.J. Broadbent, J.H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. A **86**, 062303 (2012).
T. Yu and J.H. Eberly, Quant. Info. and Comp. **7**, 459 (2007).
N. Quesada, A. Al-qasimi and D.F.V. James, , 1322 (2012).
S. M. Hashemi Rafsanjani, S. Agarwal, arXiv:1204.3912 \[quant-ph\].
W.J. Munro, D.F.V. James, A.G. White, and P.G. Kwiat, , 030302 (2001).
T-C. Wei, K. Nemoto, P.M. Goldbart, P.G. Kwiat, W.J. Munro, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. A **67**, 022110 (2003).
K. Życzkowski, P. Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A **58**, 883 (1998).
S. Bose and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 040101(R) (2000).
G. Adesso, A. Serafini, and F. Illuminati, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 087901 (2004).
A. Al-Qasimi and D.F.V. James, Phys. Rev. A **83**, 032101 (2011).
N.D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **65**, 1838 (1990).
T. Monz, P. Schindler, J.T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W.A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. Hänsel, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 130506 (2011).
L.S. Bishop, L. Tornberg, D. Price, E. Ginossar, A. Nunnenkamp, A.A. Houck, J.M. Gambetta, J. Koch, G. Johansson, S.M. Girvin, and R.J. Schoelkopf, New J. Phys. **11**, 073040 (2009).
J. Grondalski, D. M. Etlinger, D. F. V. James, Physics letters A **300**, 573 (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Lattice matched GaAs/AlGaAs epitaxial structures with quantum dots are studied under static uniaxial stress applied either along the $[001]$ or $[110]$ crystal directions. We conduct simultaneous measurements of the spectral shifts in the photoluminescence of the bulk GaAs substrate, which relate to strain via deformation potentials $a$ and $b$, and the quadrupolar shifts in the optically detected nuclear magnetic resonance spectra of the quantum dots, which relate to the same strain via the gradient-elastic tensor $S_{ijkl}$. Measurements in two uniaxial stress configurations are used to derive the ratio $b/a=0.241\pm0.008$ in good agreement with previous studies on GaAs. Based on the previously estimated value of $a\approx-8.8$ eV we derive the product of the nuclear quadrupolar moment $Q$ and the $S$-tensor diagonal component in GaAs to be $QS_{11}\approx+0.76\times10^{-6}$ V for $^{75}$As and $QS_{11}\approx-0.37\times10^{-6}$ V for $^{69}$Ga nuclei. In our experiments the signs of $S_{11}$ are directly measurable, which was not possible in the earlier nuclear acoustic resonance studies. Our $QS_{11}$ values are a factor of $\sim$1.4 smaller than those derived from the nuclear acoustic resonance experiments \[Phys. Rev. B 10, 4244 (1974)\]. The gradient-elastic tensor values measured in this work can be applied in structural analysis of strained III-V semiconductor nanostructures via accurate modelling of their magnetic resonance spectra.'
author:
- 'E. A. Chekhovich'
- 'I. M. Griffiths'
- 'M. S. Skolnick'
- 'H. Huang'
- 'S. F. Covre da Silva'
- 'X. Yuan'
- 'A. Rastelli'
title: 'Cross-calibration of GaAs deformation potentials and gradient-elastic tensors using photoluminescence and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in GaAs/AlGaAs quantum dot structures.'
---
Introduction
============
Electronic and optical properties of semiconductors depend strongly on the symmetry of the underlying crystal structure [@ChuangBook; @SunBook]. Many technologically important semiconductors, such as Si, Ge, GaAs, InP have high crystal symmetry belonging to the cubic crystal system. Elastic deformation (strain) induced by external stress or internal morphology leads to reduction of the crystal symmetry, resulting in significant modification of the optical and electronic properties. Strain-induced effects not only serve as a tool in studying the physics and structure of semiconductors, but have already found several important applications, including pressure sensors and transducers, as well as MOSFET transistors and semiconductor lasers with improved performance. Semiconductor technologies under development also involve strain effects. One example is quantum information technologies based on semiconductor quantum dots, where strain is used both in self assembly growth of the quantum dot nanostructures and for tuning their properties [@PhysRevLett.104.067405; @doi:10.1063/1.1566463; @doi:10.1063/1.2204843; @doi:10.1002/adma.201200537; @doi:10.1002/pssb.201100775].
The changes in semiconductor electronic properties induced by strain originate from the changes in orientations and overlaps of the electronic orbitals. One manifestation of these changes is in the shifts of the energies of the electronic bands, and in lifting of their degeneracies. In GaAs the strain-induced modification of the electronic structure can be described by four parameters – the deformation potentials $a_c$ and $a_v$ describe the overall shift of the conduction and valence bands respectively, while $b$ and $d$ describe lifting of degeneracy and splitting in the valence band. Deformation potentials of GaAs have been measured[@PhysRevLett.16.942; @PhysRev.161.695; @BENDORIUS19701111; @PhysRevB.15.2127; @QIANG19901087; @MAIR1998277] using photoluminescence, photoreflectance, and electroreflectance techniques. The most consistent experimental and theoretical[@PhysRevB.37.8519; @PhysRevB.39.1871; @PhysRevB.60.5404; @PhysRevB.84.035203; @0022-3727-49-8-085104] results are available for the combination $a=a_c+a_v$, which describes the change of the direct band gap in a deformed crystal [@Vurgaftman2001; @Adachi2009]. The largest uncertainty is associated with the individual values of $a_c$ and $a_v$. The $b$ and $d$ have been measured as well, although the values quoted in different reports vary by as large as a factor of $\sim$2.
The same strain-induced changes of the electronic bonds are responsible for non-zero electric field gradients (EFGs) at the sites of the atomic nuclei (EFGs vanish in an unstrained crystal with cubic symmetry). This effect can be observed as quadrupolar splitting of the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectra of the nuclei with spin $I>1/2$. The relation between strain and EFG is described by a fourth rank ”gradient-elastic” tensor $S_{ijkl}$, which can be parameterized by two components $S_{11}$ and $S_{44}$ in case of cubic crystal symmetry. The need for accurate $S_{ijkl}$ values have reemerged recently in view of using NMR for non-destructive structural analysis of nanoscale semiconductor structures [@chekhovich2012; @MunschNMR; @PhysRevB.82.081308; @PhysRevB.93.045301; @PhysRevB.89.125304; @PhysRevB.85.115313; @PhysRevB.90.205425] as well as exploring the effect of nuclear quadrupolar interaction on coherent electron-nuclear spin dynamics in solid state qubits[@chekhovich2015; @wust2016; @botzem2016].
The initial measurements of $S_{ijkl}$ in various crystal materials used static straining, but their accuracy suffered since quadrupolar spectral shifts were not resolved and could only be observed as broadening of the NMR spectra [@PhysRev.107.953]. In later experiments more reliable measurements were achieved as NMR spectra with resolved quadrupolar satellites could be obtained under static strain [@PhysRev.150.546; @Bogdanov1967], but in the particular case of GaAs, no accurate estimates of $S_{ijkl}$ could be derived [@Bogdanov1968]. Sundfors et. al. have derived $S_{ijkl}$ for a wide range of materials[@PhysRev.177.1221; @PhysRevB.10.4244; @PhysRevB.12.790; @PhysRevB.13.4504] including GaAs and other III-V semiconductors. The experiments in these studies relied on measuring absorbtion of the acoustic waves rather than direct detection of the quadrupolar shifts in NMR spectra. In a more recent study optically detected NMR was measured in a GaAs/AlGaAs quantum well under static bending strain [@Guerrier1997]. Quadrupolar shifts were resolved for $^{75}$As and were found to be consistent with the results of acoustic resonance measurement[@PhysRev.177.1221; @PhysRevB.10.4244]. However, the induced deformation was comparable to the built-in strain, the accuracy of strain measurement was limited, and oblique magnetic field configuration meant that individual $S_{ijkl}$ components were not derived explicitly.
Here we study GaAs/AlGaAs quantum dot (QD) structures and perform simultaneous measurements of optically detected NMR on individual QDs and photoluminescence of free excitons in bulk GaAs substrate in a sub-micrometer vicinity of the QD. Large elastic deformations exceeding built-in strains by more than an order of magnitude are induced by stressing the samples mechanically. Optically detected NMR reveals spectra with well-resolved quadrupolar satellites, so that quadrupolar shifts are measured with an accuracy of $\pm1\%$. Using the commonly accepted value for deformation potential $a$, the energy shifts in the free exciton photoluminescence of the GaAs substrate are used to measure the magnitude of the same strain field that is probed via QD NMR. From these dual measurements we are able to relate elastic strain to the directly measured nuclear spin quadrupolar shifts and deduce the $S_{11}$ components of the gradient-elastic tensor of $^{75}$As and $^{69}$Ga in GaAs. Our accurate measurements reveal $S_{11}$ that are $\sim$30% smaller than the only direct measurement based on nuclear acoustic resonance [@PhysRevB.10.4244]. The $S_{11}$ constants derived in this work can be used directly in analysing and predicting the nuclear quadrupolar effects in GaAs-based semiconductor nanostructures. Furthermore, since gradient-elastic tensors describe modification of the electronic orbitals in the vicinity of the nucleus, the accurate experimental $S_{11}$ values can be used as a reference in fitting the calculated parameters in electronic band-structure modelling.
Strain effects in $GaAs$: definitions
=====================================
The electronic band structure of a bulk crystal can be described by the Luttinger model where the effects of strain are taken into account by the Bir-Pikus Hamiltonian [@SunBook; @ChuangBook]. The optical recombination properties of GaAs are determined mainly by the states with momentum $k\approx0$ corresponding to the centre of the Brilluoin zone which simplifies the analysis. The bottom of the conduction band is two-fold degenerate due to the electron spin, and as such remains degenerate under strain. The only effect of strain on the conduction band is an overall energy shift $a_c\epsilon_h$, which depends only on the hydrostatic part of the strain tensor $\epsilon_h=\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy}+\epsilon_{zz}$ (here, and throughout the text we use coordinate frame aligned with the cubic crystal axes $x\parallel[100]$, $y\parallel[010]$, $z\parallel[001]$). In case of GaAs $a_c<0$, so that under compressive strain ($\epsilon_h<0$) the conduction band energy increases.
Without strain, the cubic symmetry of GaAs results in a four-fold degeneracy at the top of the valence band. At small strains the energies of the valence band at $k=0$ can be adequately described without coupling to the split-off band, which reduces the model to a 4$\times$4 Hamiltonian with a straightforward analytical solution. Strain does not break time reversal symmetry, and thus at most can split the valence band into two states each with a two-fold degeneracy. The valence band energy shifts are $-a_v\epsilon_h\pm\sqrt{b^2\epsilon_b^2+\frac{3}{4}b^2\epsilon_{\eta}^2+d^2\epsilon_s^2}$, where $\epsilon_{b}=\epsilon_{zz}-(\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy})/2$ is the ”biaxial” component of the shear strain, and we denote $\epsilon_{\eta}=\epsilon_{xx}-\epsilon_{yy}$ and $\epsilon_{s}^2=\epsilon_{xy}^2+\epsilon_{yz}^2+\epsilon_{xz}^2$. It is commonly accepted that under compressive hydrostatic strain ($\epsilon_h<0$) the valence band moves to lower energy, corresponding to $a_v<0$ with the sign convention used here[@Vurgaftman2001]. The energy of the photoluminescence photons (measurable experimentally) is the difference of the conduction and valence band energies and can be written as $$\begin{split}
E_\textrm{PL}=E_g+a\epsilon_h\pm\sqrt{b^2\epsilon_b^2+\frac{3}{4}b^2\epsilon_{\eta}^2+d^2\epsilon_s^2},
\end{split}
\label{Eq:EPL}$$ where $E_g$ is the direct bandgap energy of unstrained GaAs. Under uniaxial compressive strain along $z$ (characterized by $\epsilon_{zz}<0$ and $\epsilon_{xx}=\epsilon_{yy}>0$) the transition with lower PL energy corresponds to the valence band light holes (LH) with momentum $j_z=\pm1/2$, while higher PL energy corresponds to the heavy holes with momentum $j_z=\pm3/2$.
In any crystal in equilibrium the electric field at the atomic nucleus site is zero. However the gradients of the electric field components are not necessarily zero and are described by a symmetric second rank tensor $V_{ij}$ of the second spatial derivatives of the electrostatic potential $V$. In a crystal with cubic symmetry $V_{ij}$ vanishes at the nuclear sites, but when the crystal is strained, electric field gradients arise and in linear approximation are related to the strain tensor $\epsilon_{kl}$ via $V_{ij}=S_{ijkl}\epsilon_{kl}$. A nucleus with a non-zero electric quadrupolar moment $Q$ interacts with the electric field gradients. In a simplest case of high static magnetic field the effect of the quadrupolar interaction is to split the NMR transition into a multiplet of transitions between the states whose spin projections onto magnetic field differ by $\pm1$. In case of spin $I=3/2$ nuclei and static magnetic field directed along the $z$ axis a triplet of equidistant NMR frequencies is observed with splitting [@Volkoff1952; @PhysRev.107.953; @Guerrier1997]: $$\begin{split}
\nu_{Q}=\frac{eQ}{2 h}S_{11}\epsilon_{b},\\
\end{split}
\label{Eq:nuQ}$$ where $e>0$ is the elementary charge, $h$ is the Planck constant and we used Voigt notation for the component of the gradient elastic tensor $S_{11}=S_{xxxx}=S_{yyyy}=S_{zzzz}$. (For a detailed derivation see Appendix \[Appendix:QNuc\]). Unlike the free exciton energies measured in PL spectroscopy (Eq. \[Eq:EPL\]), the shifts measured in NMR spectra (Eq. \[Eq:nuQ\]) are not sensitive to the hydrostatic strain and depend only on shear strains of a particular symmetry (described by $\epsilon_{b}$). This property is exploited in this work to cross-calibrate the magnitudes of $S_{11}$ and deformation potentials.
Samples and experimental techniques
===================================
The structure studied in this work was grown using molecular beam epitaxy. The schematic cross section is shown in Fig. \[Fig:FigSamples\](a). The first step in the growth is the deposition of a 350 nm thick buffer GaAs layer onto an undoped $\sim$0.35 mm thick $(001)$-oriented GaAs wafer. This is followed by the growth of a 100 nm thick bottom barrier Al$_{0.5}$Ga$_{0.5}$As layer. Aluminium droplets are then grown and used to etch nanoholes in the bottom barrier [@Atkinson2012]. A typical nanohole is $\sim$40 nm in diameter and $\sim$5 nm deep. A layer of GaAs with a nominal thickness of 3.5 nm is then deposited, resulting in formation of quantum dots (QDs) due to filling up of the nanoholes, as well as formation of a quantum well (QW) layer. A 100 nm thick top Al$_{0.5}$Ga$_{0.5}$As barrier layer is then grown, followed by a 7 nm thick cap layer.
![\[Fig:FigSamples\] (a) Sample structure showing the sequence of GaAs and Al$_{0.5}$Ga$_{0.5}$As epitaxial layers. (b) Schematic of the experiment geometry showing orientation of a sample, direction of the static magnetic field $B_z$, radio frequency field $B_{rf}$, and the direction of the photoluminescence excitation and collection. External stress is applied either along the $[001]$ direction or the $[110]$ direction. (c) Typical photoluminescence spectrum at $B_z=0$ showing emission from the quantum well (QW), a single quantum dot (QD), as well as emission from the GaAs substrate which includes free exciton emission and impurity-induced recombination. Square-root vertical scale is used to reveal weak spectral features.](FigSamples.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
The structure was cleaved into small parallelepiped pieces with dimensions of $\sim0.9\times1.5\times0.35$ mm along the $[110]$, $[1\bar{1}0]$ and $[001]$ directions respectively. Three samples were prepared. The first sample was as grown (unstressed). The second sample was glued between two flat titanium surfaces and stressed compressively along the $[110]$ direction using titanium screw and nut that press the two titanium surfaces towards each other. The third sample was glued between the bottom titanium flat surface and the top sapphire flat surface to be stressed compressively along the $[001]$ growth direction. All of the samples were studied in a configuration shown in Fig. \[Fig:FigSamples\](b). Magnetic field up to 10 T was aligned along the $z$-axis ($[001]$) within $\pm2^{\circ}$, which is also the direction of the laser excitation and photoluminescence (PL) collection. For the sample stressed along the $[001]$ direction, optical excitation and PL propogated through the sapphire glass.
All experiments are conducted in a helium bath cryostat at a sample temperature $\sim$4.2 K. A small copper coil is mounted close to the sample and is used to generate radiofrequency magnetic field $B_{rf}$ along the $[1\bar{1}0]$ direction in the NMR experiments. Quantum dot NMR spectra are measured using optical hyperpolarization of the nuclear spins (via circularly polarized laser excitation) and optical detection of the electron hyperfine shifts. The signals of the quadrupolar nuclei are enhanced using ”inverse” NMR technique [@chekhovich2012]. A detailed description and analysis of the relevant NMR methods has been reported previously [@chekhovich2012], and is not repeated here: in this work we use these techniques as a tool that gives an accurate spectral distribution of the resonant frequencies of the nuclei within the volume of an individual quantum dot. The excitation laser is focused into a spot of $\sim$1 $\mu$m in diameter, so that carriers are generated simultaneously in the QW, the GaAs buffer layer, and the QDs within the area of the laser spot. The photoluminescence signal is collected and analyzed with a grating spectrometer and a charge coupled device (CCD) camera.
A typical broadband PL spectrum measured under HeNe laser excitation ($632.8$ nm) is shown in Fig. \[Fig:FigSamples\](c). Spectral features observed include emission from the QW ($\sim$1.85 eV), free exciton emission of the bulk GaAs buffer and substrate layers ($\sim$1.515 eV), impurity-induced PL of bulk GaAs ($\sim$1.48-1.51 eV) including bound excitons as well as recombination involving donor and acceptor states [@PhysRevB.58.R13403; @PhysRev.184.811; @doi:10.1063/1.336559; @doi:10.1063/1.372104; @PhysRevB.73.035205; @PhysRevB.7.4568]. Quantum dot emission is observed at $\sim$1.60-1.63 eV and consists of several narrow spectral lines corresponding to different exciton states of a single QD. Since photoluminescence is excited only in a small area of the sample, the spectrum of GaAs free exciton can be used to probe local strain fields in a $\sim$1 $\mu$m sized spot. Moreover, NMR is detected from the spectral shifts in the QD emission and thus samples an even smaller nanometer-sized part of the optically excited area. In this way it is ensured that GaAs PL spectroscopy and QD NMR sample the same strain field.
Experimental results and analysis
=================================
Effect of strain on GaAs photoluminescence and nuclear magnetic resonance spectra\[SubSec:RawData\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[Fig:FigRawData\](a) shows GaAs free exciton PL spectra measured in three different samples at $B_z$=0, while Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](b) shows $^{75}$As NMR spectra measured at $B_z$=8 T from the QDs in the same optically excited spots as in (a). Since the size of the optically excited spot is much smaller than the size of the sample, and the stiffness tensors of GaAs and AlAs are very similar [@Vurgaftman2001] all significant variations of strain induced by external stress occur on length scales that are much larger than the studied spot size. As a result the two types of spectroscopy probe the same strain field.
Bulk GaAs PL is measured with laser excitation intensity $\sim$5$\times10^6$ W/m$^2$. On the one hand it is high enough to saturate the impurity-induced PL and make free exciton emission dominant, while on the other hand it is low enough to avoid excessive spectral broadening. In an unstressed sample PL is detected with a variable orientation of linear polarization: the top two spectra in Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](a) are measured along the orthogonal polarization axes and reveal very small polarization degree and a negligible splitting. This is expected for unstrained GaAs PL, since the valence band state at $k=0$ is four-fold degenerate. The corresponding NMR spectrum (Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](b), top) reveals a triplet of lines with a small quadrupolar splitting $|\nu_Q|\approx$26.2 kHz, most likely related to the strain arising from the residual lattice mismatch of the GaAs and Al$_{0.5}$Ga$_{0.5}$As layers. Each line of the triplet corresponds to an individual dipolar nuclear spin transition $I_z\leftrightarrow I_{z+1}$ as labeled in Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](b).
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
For the sample stressed along $[001]$, GaAs free exciton PL is split into two non-polarized lines (Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](a), middle). This is expected, since deformation along $[001]$ lifts the degeneracy and splits the state at the top of the valence band into a two-fold degenerate state with momentum projection $j=\pm1/2$ corresponding to the light holes (LH), and a two-fold degenerate state with $j=\pm3/2$ corresponding to the heavy holes (HH). The effect of strain is also manifested in NMR through a significantly larger triplet splitting $|\nu_Q|\approx$219.8 kHz (Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](b), middle).
The stress along $[110]$ also splits the four-fold degenerate top of the valence band into two doublets. These however are no longer pure heavy and light hole states, and their recombination results in a linearly polarized PL (Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](a), bottom). The peak at $\sim$1.518 eV is partially linearly polarized and corresponds to the state with predominantly heavy hole character ($\sim$HH). By contrast, the peak at $\sim$1.525 eV is strongly polarized and corresponds to a predominantly light hole state ($\sim$LH). The intensity of the $\sim$LH peak is reduced due to the relaxation into the $\sim$HH state. The NMR triplet splitting (Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](b), bottom) is also significantly larger than in an unstressed sample with $|\nu_Q|\approx$141.7 kHz.
The measurements of GaAs free exciton PL and $^{75}$As NMR were repeated on multiple spots in all three samples and spectra similar to those shown in Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](a,b) were observed. For each spot PL energies and NMR frequencies were derived by fitting the spectral peaks. The resulting summary in Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](c) shows PL energies of $\sim$HH/HH (solid symbols) and $\sim$LH/LH (open symbols) excitons as a function of the quadrupolar splitting $\nu_Q$ in an unstressed (circles), $[001]$-stressed (triangles), and $[110]$-stressed (squares) samples. It can be seen that in the unstressed sample $\nu_Q$ varies in a small range between 15 and 30 kHz, due to the differences in the residual strains in the individual quantum dots, while GaAs PL peak energy varies in a small range between 1.5145 and 1.5155 eV, most likely due to the local residual strains arising from crystal imperfections. The spectral shifts in the stressed samples are significantly larger than the random variations in the unstressed sample. There is a clear trend in Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](c) that larger quadrupolar shifts are correlated with larger GaAs PL energy shifts. On the other hand, the stress-induced spectral shifts (both in PL and NMR) vary across the surface area of the sample, since non-uniform contact between the sample and the titanium stress mount leads to spatial non-uniformity of the stress and strain fields. However, these non-uniformities have characteristic lengths much larger than the laser excitation spot, so that the strain detected in optical PL and NMR spectra can be treated as constant for each individual spot.
For the purpose of quantitative analysis it is convenient to re-plot the data of Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](c) in a different form. This is shown in Fig. \[Fig:FigEPLMeanDiff\] where the average energy of LH and HH (solid symbols, left scales) as well as the splitting of the LH and HH (open symbols, right scales) are plotted as a function of $\nu_Q$ for the $[001]$-stressed (a) and $[110]$-stressed (b) samples.
In case of the $[001]$-stressed sample \[Fig. \[Fig:FigEPLMeanDiff\](a)\], the average energy of LH and HH shows significant random variations. By contrast, the LH-HH splitting is very well described by a linear dependence on $\nu_Q$. The best fit is shown by a dashed line in Fig. \[Fig:FigEPLMeanDiff\](a) and the slope is $k_{[001]}^-=46.5\pm0.8 \mu$eV/kHz (95% confidence interval). The situation is reversed for the sample stressed along $[110]$ as shown in Fig. \[Fig:FigEPLMeanDiff\](b). While the LH-HH splitting shows variations, the dependence of the average LH and HH recombination energies is well described by a linear function (solid line) with a fitted slope $k_{[110]}^+=55.1\pm1.5
\mu$eV/kHz. As we show below, such a difference between the cases of $[001]$-stressed and $[110]$-stressed samples is not a coincidence. With some basic assumptions about the spatial distribution of strain in the stressed samples the measured $k_{[001]}^-$ and $k_{[110]}^+$ values are used to derive the gradient elastic tensor component $S_{11}$ as show in Sec. \[Subsec:SDerivation\]. Prior to this derivation, in the next subsections we present analysis of the properties of the gradient-elastic tensor that require no assumptions about strain configuration.
It is worth noting that rigorous analysis of bulk GaAs PL spectra requires taking into account electron-hole exchange interaction and polariton effects. However, these effects are of the order of $\sim$0.25 meV, which is significantly smaller than the strain induced spectral shifts observed here. More importantly, it has been shown that the strain-induced spectral shifts of all the PL components are well described by the free electron and hole deformation potentials [@PhysRevB.7.4568]. Since our subsequent analysis relies only on the ratios of the strain-induced PL and NMR spectral shifts (rather than absolute GaAs PL energies), it is sufficient to use a simplified ”free-exciton” description of the GaAs PL ignoring polariton effects.
![\[Fig:FigEPLMeanDiff\] Data of Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](c) plotted in terms of the arithmetic average PL energy of the LH and HH excitons (solid symbols, left scales) and the difference of the LH and HH exciton PL energies (open symbols, right scales) as a function of $^{75}$As quadrupolar shift $\nu_Q$. (a) Results for the unstressed (circles) and $[001]$-stressed (triangles) samples. LH-HH splitting is well described by a linear function with a slope $k_{[001]}^-=46.5\pm0.8~\mu$eV/kHz (dashed line). (b) Results for the unstressed (circles) and $[110]$-stressed (squares) samples. The average LH-HH PL energy is well described by a linear function with a slope $k_{[110]}^+=55.1\pm1.5~\mu$eV/kHz (solid line).](FigEPLMeanDiff.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Measurement of the sign of the $S$-tensor components\[Subsec:SSign\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We now show how the sign of the gradient-elastic tensor can be determined directly, if it is possible to identify spin projections of the nuclear spin states corresponding to each NMR transitions. The nuclear spin states can be identified from the hyperfine interaction effects, if the sing of the electron spin polarization is known. In order to define the sign of the electron spin polarization we start by considering the signs of the carrier $g$-factors. The electron $g$-factor in the studied QDs [@PhysRevB.93.165306] as well as in thin GaAs/AlGaAs quantum wells [@PhysRevB.45.3922] is small and the shifts of the excitonic levels induced by magnetic field along the growth axis are dominated by the hole Zeeman effect. The sign of the hole $g$-factor [@PhysRevB.45.3922; @PhysRevB.93.165306] is such that at positive magnetic field $B_z>0$ the exciton with a positive (negative) hole momentum projection $j_z$=$+3/2$ ($-3/2$) labeled $\Uparrow$ ($\Downarrow$) has higher (lower) energy. In order to be optically active the high- (low-) energy exciton must have electron spin projection $s_z$=$-1/2$ ($+1/2$) denoted $\downarrow$ ($\uparrow$). Figure \[Fig:FigSSign\](a) shows PL spectra of a neutral exciton in a typical QD at $B_z=8$ T measured under $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ optical excitation at $\sim$1.65 eV. Each PL spectrum is a doublet of optically allowed (”bright”) excitons, with high- (low-) energy Zeeman component corresponding to recombination of a $\Uparrow\downarrow$ ($\Downarrow\uparrow$) exciton.
![\[Fig:FigSSign\] Derivation of the sign of the gradient elastic tensor. (a) Photoluminescence spectra of a QD neutral exciton measured at $B_z$=8 T under $\sigma^+$ (solid line) and $\sigma^-$ (dashed line) polarized excitation at 1.65 eV. The $\sigma^+$ excitation predominantly populates the exciton state with hole spin $s_z=+3/2$ ($\Uparrow$) and electron spin $s_z=-1/2$ ($\downarrow$), while $\sigma^-$ excitation predominantly populates the $\Downarrow\uparrow$ exciton. Electron spin $\mathbf{s}$ can be transferred to a nuclear spin $\mathbf{I}$ via hyperfine interaction (inset) resulting in dynamic nuclear polarization, which in turn leads to hyperfine shifts of the exciton transitions. (b) Schematic of spin effects under $\sigma^+$ excitation which increases population of the $s_z=-1/2$ excitons (thicker horizontal line) and reduces population of the $s_z=+1/2$ exciton (thinner line). Dynamic nuclear polarization enhances the population of the $I_z=-3/2$ nuclear spin states. This is observed as a hyperfine shift of the $s_z=-1/2$ excitons to higher energy and enhanced amplitude of the $-3/2\leftrightarrow-1/2$ NMR transition with frequency $\frac{\gamma B_z}{2 \pi}+\frac{eQ}{2 h}S_{11}\epsilon_{b}$. (c) Excitation with $\sigma^-$ light leads to the opposite sign of electron and nuclear spin polarizations, enhancing the $+1/2\leftrightarrow+3/2$ NMR transition at frequency $\frac{\gamma B_z}{2 \pi}-\frac{eQ}{2 h}S_{11}\epsilon_{b}$. By matching the signs of the exciton spectral shifts in (a) and the sign of the NMR spectral shifts \[cf. Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](b)\] it is possible to deduce the sign of the gradient elastic tensor component $S_{11}$ (see Sec. \[Subsec:SSign\]).](FigSSign.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Two effects are observed under circularly polarized excitation in Fig. \[Fig:FigSSign\](a): (i) the emission intensity of the high-(low-) energy Zeeman component is enhanced under $\sigma^+$ ($\sigma^-$) excitation, and (ii) the Zeeman splitting increases (decreases) under $\sigma^+$ ($\sigma^-$) excitation due to the buildup of nuclear spin polarization. These two effects are related: to understand their origin we first consider the case of $\sigma^+$ excitation \[Fig. \[Fig:FigSSign\](b)\], which generates predominantly $\Uparrow\downarrow$ excitons. During repeated optical excitation the $s_z=-1/2$ electrons transfer their polarization to the nuclei of the dot via the flip-flop process [@chekhovich2017] enabled by the hyperfine interaction. Since the flip-flops are spin-conserving, the nuclei become predominantly polarized into the states with negative spin $I_z<0$. The net nuclear spin polarization back-acts on the electron spin via hyperfine interaction, described by the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{hf}=A(\hat{s} \cdot \hat{I})$. The hyperfine constant $A$ is positive for Ga and As nuclei due to their positive gyromagnetic ratios $\gamma>0$. As a result the $\Uparrow\downarrow$ exciton shifts to higher energy under $\sigma^+$ excitation. In a similar manner, under $\sigma^-$ excitation \[Fig. \[Fig:FigSSign\](c)\] the population of the $\Downarrow\uparrow$ exciton is enhanced, and it also shifts to higher energy since now both $s_z$ and $I_z$ are positive. This is indeed observed in Fig. \[Fig:FigSSign\](a): the Zeeman component whose intensity is enhanced by circularly polarized excitation always shifts to higher energy. This observation confirms the positive sign of $A$ and that the spin flip-flops are the source of dynamic nuclear spin polarization. Taking also into account the signs of the electron and hole $g$-factors, we conclude that circularly polarized excitation that enhances the high- (low-) energy exciton population and labeled here $\sigma^+$($\sigma^-$), populates predominantly nuclear spin states with negative (positive) projection $I_z$.
For the NMR spectra measured with $\sigma^+$ optical excitation the population of the $I_z=-3/2$ and $I_z=-1/2$ states is enhanced as discussed above. As a result the amplitude of the $-3/2\leftrightarrow-1/2$ satellite NMR peak exceeds the amplitude of the $+1/2\leftrightarrow+3/2$ satellite [@STsAsymmetry]. The spectra of Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](b) were measured under $\sigma^+$ optical excitation (i.e., excitation that enhances the intensity of the high energy Zeeman exciton component). For the case of compressive stress along $[001]$ the $-3/2\leftrightarrow-1/2$ NMR peak has a lower frequency than the $-1/2\leftrightarrow+1/2$ central peak \[middle spectrum in Fig. \[Fig:FigRawData\](b)\], corresponding to $\nu_Q<0$. The quadrupolar shift $\nu_Q$ is related to strain via Eqs. \[Eq:nuNMR32\], \[Eq:nuQAppendix\] and we find that $\nu_Q=\frac{eQ}{2 h}S_{11}\epsilon_{b}<0$ in this experiment. In case of $[001]$ compression $\epsilon_{b}<0$, and since the quadrupolar moment of $^{75}$As is positive[@STONE20161] $Q>0$, we concluded that $S_{11}>0$ for $^{75}$As.
While in the above calculations we assumed $B_z>0$, the opposite assumption $B_z<0$ leads to the same conclusions about the signs of the gradient elastic tensor components $S_{11}$. Finally, we note that in previous work on InGaAs/GaAs[@chekhovich2012] and GaAs/AlGaAs[@PhysRevB.93.165306] QDs, the shift of the $-3/2\leftrightarrow-1/2$ satellite peak to lower frequency was arbitrarily assigned a positive $\nu_Q$ value since the sign of $S_{11}$ was undefined. By contrast, in the present work the sign of $\nu_Q$ is strictly determined by Eqs. \[Eq:nuQ\], \[Eq:nuNMR32\], \[Eq:nuQAppendix\] and the signs of $S_{11}$ and $Q$.
Measurement of the ratio of the electric field gradients on $As$ and $Ga$ lattice sites\[SubSec:GavsAs\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement of NMR via optical detection of the hyperfine shifts in the PL spectra of a quantum dot guarantees that only the nuclei of a single quantum dot contribute to the NMR spectrum. Thus if NMR spectrum is measured on As and Ga nuclei of the same quantum dot, one can ensure that the nuclei of the two isotopes belong to the same nanoscale volume and probe the same strain field. Then, according to Eq. \[Eq:nuQ\], the ratio of the quadrupolar shifts of the two isotopes is simply $\nu_Q^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}/\nu_Q^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}=(Q^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}S_{11}^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}})/(Q^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}S_{11}^{^{75}\mathrm{As}})$ and does not depend on the actual strain magnitude $\epsilon_b$. Figure \[Fig:FigGavsAs\](a) shows NMR spectra of $^{69}$Ga (top) and $^{75}$As (bottom) measured on the same quantum dot at $B_z=$5.5 T using $\sigma^+$ optical excitation. Both isotopes have spin $I=$3/2 giving rise to the well resolved NMR triplets with different quadrupolar splittings $\nu_Q$. We note that the satellite peak with higher amplitude, corresponding to the $-3/2\leftrightarrow-1/2$ transition, appears on the low (high) frequency side for Ga (As) implying opposite signs of $\nu_Q$ and hence opposite signs of $QS_{11}$ for the two isotopes. Since $S_{11}>0$ for $^{75}$As and $Q>0$ for all stable Ga and As isotopes we conclude that $S_{11}<0$ for $^{69}$Ga and $^{71}$Ga. Similar measurements of $^{69}$Ga and $^{75}$As NMR were conducted on several quantum dots in an unstressed and stressed samples and are summarized in Fig. \[Fig:FigGavsAs\](b) where $\nu_Q^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}$ is shown as a function of $\nu_Q^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}$ by the symbols. The linear fit is shown by the line and yields the slope $k_{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}/^{75}\mathrm{As}}=(Q^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}S_{11}^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}})/(Q^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}S_{11}^{^{75}\mathrm{As}})=-0.495\pm0.012$. Taking the values of quadrupolar moments [@STONE20161] $Q^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}=0.171\times10^{-28}$ m$^2$ and $Q^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}=0.314\times10^{-28}$ m$^2$ we calculate for the ratio of the components of the gradient elastic tensors: $S_{11}^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}/S_{11}^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}=-0.909$ so that the magnitude of the strain-induced EFG is smaller at the gallium sites.
![\[Fig:FigGavsAs\] (a) NMR spectra of a single quantum dot measured at high magnetic field $B_z\approx5.5$ T on $^{75}$As nuclei ($\nu_0\approx$40.27 MHz, dashed line) and $^{69}$Ga nuclei ($\nu_0\approx$56.46 MHz, solid line). Both isotopes are spin-3/2 and exhibit well resolved quadrupolar triplets with different splittings $\nu_Q$. (b) Dependence of the $^{69}$Ga quadrupolar splitting $\nu_Q^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}$ on the $^{75}$As splitting $\nu_Q^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}$ measured on different individual quantum dots in an unstressed sample as well as in samples stressed along $[001]$ or $[110]$ crystal axes (symbols). Linear fitting is shown by the solid line and its slope $k_{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}/^{75}\mathrm{As}}=-0.495\pm0.012$ gives an estimate of the ratio $(Q^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}S_{11}^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}})/(Q^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}S_{11}^{^{75}\mathrm{As}})$ between the products of gradient elastic tensor components $S_{11}$ and quadrupolar moments $Q$ of $^{69}$Ga and $^{75}$As in GaAs.](FigGavsAs.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Derivation of the gradient-elastic tensor component $S_{11}$ in GaAs\[Subsec:SDerivation\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now discuss how simultaneous measurements of GaAs free exciton PL and QD NMR presented in Section \[SubSec:RawData\] can be used to calibrate the fundamental material parameters of GaAs. First we consider the case of a sample stressed along the $[001]$ direction. If the stress is produced by applying a uniform $z$-oriented pressure to the top and bottom $(001)$ surfaces of the sample, the resulting strain has a very simple configuration where $\epsilon_h$ and $\epsilon_b$ are finite, while $\epsilon_\eta$ and $\epsilon_s$ vanish for symmetry reasons ($\epsilon_{xx}=\epsilon_{yy}$ and $\epsilon_{xy}=\epsilon_{yz}=\epsilon_{zx}=0$). In this case according to Eq. \[Eq:EPL\] the splitting between the LH and HH PL transition energies is simply $2|b\epsilon_b|$. Since both the LH-HH exciton splitting and the NMR shift now depend only on $\epsilon_b$, their ratio can be taken to eliminate $\epsilon_b$ and we find: $$\begin{split}
k_{[001]}^-=-\frac{4hb}{eQS_{11}},
\end{split}
\label{Eq:k001-}$$ where the minus sign is added to account for the fact that the PL of the predominantly LH exciton has a lower energy at $\epsilon_b<0$. The $k_{[001]}^-$ has been measured experimentally for $^{75}$As (see Fig. \[Fig:FigEPLMeanDiff\](a) and Section \[SubSec:RawData\]).
In a real sample, the pressure on the surfaces of the sample is not necessarily uniform and aligned to the $z$ axis. In this case Eq. \[Eq:k001-\] holds only at the geometrical centre of the top $(001)$ surface (for symmetry reasons), while away from the centre the non-diagonal strain components may arise leading e.g. to $\epsilon_s\ne0$. According to Eqs. \[Eq:EPL\], \[Eq:nuQ\] the effect of the finite $\epsilon_s$ or $\epsilon_\eta$ is to induce an additional splitting of the heavy and light hole excitons without affecting the NMR spectral splitting $\nu_Q$, in which case the dependence of the LH-HH splitting on $\nu_Q$ would no longer be linear when measured over the surface of the sample. In experiment, multiple spots of the $[001]$-stressed sample, both at the centre of the sample surface and close to the edges were investigated. The strain can be seen to vary significantly across the sample surface: $\nu_Q$ is found to range between $-$400..$-$180 kHz \[Fig. \[Fig:FigEPLMeanDiff\](a)\] indicating variation of $\epsilon_b$, while the spread in the average GaAs PL energies \[full triangles in Fig. \[Fig:FigEPLMeanDiff\](a)\] indicates variation of $\epsilon_h$. On the other hand the resulting dependence of the LH-HH splitting on $\nu_Q$ is still well described by a linear function \[open triangles and dashed line in Fig. \[Fig:FigEPLMeanDiff\](a)\]. This can only be if $\epsilon_s$ and $\epsilon_\eta$ are small in the studied sample and thus the experimentally measured ratio $k_{[001]}^-=46.5\pm0.8
\mu$eV/kHz describes the relation of the fundamental parameters $b$ and $S_{11}$ of GaAs according to Eq. \[Eq:k001-\].
We now consider the case of a sample stressed along the $[110]$ direction. If the stress is produced by applying a uniform pressure along $[110]$ to the $(110)$ surfaces of the sample the resulting strain will have non-zero $\epsilon_h$, $\epsilon_b$, as well as $\epsilon_s$ arising from the $\epsilon_{xy}$ component. (Recall that $x$ and $y$ axes are aligned along $[100]$ and $[010]$ respectively, so that $\epsilon_{xy}=\epsilon_{xx}=\epsilon_{yy}$ under uniform stress along $[110]$). Even in an ideal case the GaAs PL energies (Eq. \[Eq:EPL\]) under $[110]$ stress involve the $d^2\epsilon_s^2$ term, making it difficult to relate to the NMR shifts given by Eq. \[Eq:nuQ\]. In a real sample, the non-diagonal shear strain $\epsilon_{xy}$ is not necessarily constant and $\epsilon_\eta$ is not necessarily zero due to the inevitable non-uniformities of the stress induced by the titanium strain mount. This is evidenced in Fig. \[Fig:FigEPLMeanDiff\](b) where the LH-HH splitting (open squares) is seen to deviate considerably from a linear dependence on $\nu_Q$, which is proportional only to $\epsilon_b$.
However, it is possible to eliminate the effect of the unknown shear strain components $\epsilon_s$, $\epsilon_\eta$ in a $[110]$-stress configuration. For that we notice that the top $(001)$ surface of the sample which is studied optically is free from external stress (traction free). As a result, the boundary conditions dictate[@BarberBook] that three of the components of the mechanical stress tensor vanish $\sigma_{zx}=\sigma_{zy}=\sigma_{zz}=0$, and the only non-zero components are $\sigma_{xx}$, $\sigma_{yy}$, $\sigma_{xy}$. Writing down the strain-stress relation one can easily verify that in a GaAs crystal (cubic symmetry), the ratio of the biaxial and hydrostatic strains at the free $(001)$ surface does not depend on the actual $\sigma_{xx}$, $\sigma_{yy}$, $\sigma_{xy}$ values and equals $\epsilon_b/\epsilon_h=\frac{\sigma_{xx}+\sigma_{yy}}{2c_{12}+c_{11}}/\frac{\sigma_{xx}+\sigma_{yy}}{2c_{12}-2c_{11}}=\frac{2c_{12}+c_{11}}{2c_{12}-2c_{11}}\approx-1.742$, where $c_{11}$ and $c_{12}$ are the stiffness constants of GaAs[@Adachi2009]. Now we use this relation to express $\epsilon_b$ through $\epsilon_h$ in Eq. \[Eq:nuQ\] to make quadrupolar shift $\nu_Q$ depend only on $\epsilon_h$. Since the average LH-HH shift of the GaAs PL energy $a\epsilon_h$ also depends only on $\epsilon_h$ (Eq. \[Eq:EPL\]) it can be related to $\nu_Q$ by eliminating the strain to find: $$\begin{split}
k_{[110]}^+=\frac{4ha}{eQS_{11}}\frac{c_{12}-c_{11}}{2c_{12}+c_{11}},
\end{split}
\label{Eq:k110+}$$ The solid symbols and the line in Fig. \[Fig:FigEPLMeanDiff\](b) demonstrate that the average GaAs PL energy is indeed a linear function of $\nu_Q$, confirming the invariance of $\epsilon_b/\epsilon_h$ at the surface of the studied sample. Thus Eq. \[Eq:k110+\] relates the $a$ and $S_{11}$ parameters through the experimentally measured value $k_{[110]}^+=55.1\pm1.5~\mu$eV/kHz.
Parameter Units Previous work This work
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
$a=a_c+a_v$ eV $-8.7$ [@PhysRevLett.16.942]; $-8.9$ [@PhysRev.161.695]; $-8.7$ [@BENDORIUS19701111]; $-8.93$ [@PhysRevB.15.2127]; $-8.72$ [@QIANG19901087]; $-10.19$ [@MAIR1998277]; $-8.5$ [@Vurgaftman2001]; $-8.8$ [@Adachi2009]
$b$ eV $-2.1$ [@PhysRevLett.16.942]; $-1.96$ [@PhysRev.161.695]; $-1.76$ [@PhysRevB.15.2127]; $-2.00$ [@QIANG19901087]; $-2.00$ [@MAIR1998277]; $-2.0$ [@Vurgaftman2001]; $-1.85$ [@Adachi2009]
$b/a$ $0.24$ [@PhysRevLett.16.942]; $0.22$ [@PhysRev.161.695]; $0.20$ [@PhysRevB.15.2127]; $0.23$ [@QIANG19901087]; $0.20$ [@MAIR1998277]; $0.24$ [@Vurgaftman2001]; $0.21$ [@Adachi2009] ${0.241\pm0.008}$
$c_{11}$ GPa $122.1$ [@Vurgaftman2001]; $118.8$ [@Adachi2009]
$c_{12}$ GPa $56.6$ [@Vurgaftman2001]; $53.8$ [@Adachi2009]
$c_{44}$ GPa $60.0$ [@Vurgaftman2001]; $59.4$ [@Adachi2009]
$\frac{2c_{12}+c_{11}}{2c_{12}-2c_{11}}$ $-1.796$ [@Vurgaftman2001]; $-1.742$ [@Adachi2009]
$\frac{Q^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}S_{11}^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}}{Q^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}S_{11}^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}}$ $-0.508$ [@PhysRevB.10.4244] ${-0.495\pm0.012}$
$Q^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}S_{11}^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}$ $10^{-6}$ V $\pm1.06$ [@PhysRevB.10.4244] ${+0.76}$
$Q^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}S_{11}^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}$ $10^{-6}$ V $\mp0.543$ [@PhysRevB.10.4244] ${-0.37}$
$Q^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}$ $10^{-28}$ m$^2$ $0.171$ [@STONE20161]
$Q^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}$ $10^{-28}$ m$^2$ $0.314$ [@STONE20161]
$S_{11}^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}$ $10^{21}$ V/m$^2$ $\pm34.0$ [@PhysRevB.10.4244] ${+24.1}$
$S_{11}^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}$ $10^{21}$ V/m$^2$ $\mp31.7$ [@PhysRevB.10.4244] ${-21.9}$
Since the absolute values of stress and strain are not measured in our experiment, the results presented above can be used to estimate the ratios of the GaAs parameters. The absolute value of a parameter can then be estimated by taking the values of other parameters from the previous studies.
The elementary charge $e$ and the Planck constant $h$ are known with very high accuracy. The stiffness constants of GaAs $c_{11}$ and $c_{12}$ are also known with a good accuracy. While $c_{11}$ and $c_{12}$ in GaAs exhibit some temperature dependence, the ratio $c_{11}/c_{12}$ used in our analysis is reported to be nearly invariant from cryogenic to room temperature [@Cottam1973]. Here we use the $c_{11}$, $c_{12}$ values at 300 K from Ref. [@Adachi2009]. This leaves three GaAs parameters: the deformation potentials $a=(a_c+a_v)$, $b$ and the $QS_{11}$ product of $^{75}$As. Since there are two experimentally measured ratios (Eqs. \[Eq:k001-\], \[Eq:k110+\]), these three parameters can be linked by two independent relations.
One of the relations can be obtained by dividing Eqs. \[Eq:k001-\] and \[Eq:k110+\] to eliminate $QS_{11}$ which gives the ratio of the deformation potentials: $$\begin{split}
&\frac{b}{a}=\frac{k_{[100]}^-}{k_{[110]}^+}\frac{c_{12}-c_{11}}{2c_{12}+c_{11}}=\\
&\quad\quad=(0.841\pm0.027)\frac{c_{12}-c_{11}}{2c_{12}+c_{11}}=0.241\pm0.008,
\end{split}
\label{Eq:bVSa}$$ where the error estimate is purely due to the experimental uncertainty in $k_{[100]}^-$ and $k_{[110]}^+$ and there can be an additional error due to the $\sim\pm$2% uncertainty in the $c_{11}$, $c_{12}$ values. Our estimate of $b/a$ is in excellent agreement with the ratio derived from the recommended [@Vurgaftman2001; @Adachi2009] values of $a$ and $b$ based on a number of independent experimental and theoretical studies. Such agreement supports the validity of our experimental method based on relating PL and NMR spectral shifts. The estimates derived in this work are summarized in Table \[Tab:GaParams2\] together with the results of the earlier work.
For the second relation we use Eq. \[Eq:k110+\] to link the deformation potential $a$ with the component of the gradient elastic tensor $S_{11}$. The variation of the GaAs fundamental gap under hydrostatic strain characterized by $a=a_c+a_v$ has been studied experimentally by several authors[@PhysRevLett.104.067405; @doi:10.1063/1.1566463; @doi:10.1063/1.2204843; @doi:10.1002/adma.201200537; @doi:10.1002/pssb.201100775]. There is some variation, but most experiments as well as calculations [@PhysRevB.39.1871] are consistent and it is commonly accepted[@Vurgaftman2001; @Adachi2009] that $a\approx-8.8$ eV. By contrast there are only few reports on experimental gradient-elastic tensors in GaAs [@PhysRevB.10.4244; @Bogdanov1968; @Guerrier1997] with only one series of experiments where $S_{11}$ and $S_{44}$ were measured directly [@PhysRev.177.1221; @PhysRevB.10.4244]. Thus we use $a\approx-8.8$ eV (Ref.[@Adachi2009]) to evaluate $Q^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}S_{11}^{^{75}\mathrm{As}}\approx+0.76$ $\mu$V. The uncertainty of this estimate arising from the experimental uncertainty in $k_{[110]}^+$ is only $\pm3\%$, so the main error is likely to arise from the uncertainty in $a$, which is approximately $\pm5\%$ based on the spread of the values derived in different independent studies. Using the $k_{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}/^{75}\mathrm{As}}$ ratio measured in Sec. \[SubSec:GavsAs\] we also estimate $Q^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}S_{11}^{^{69}\mathrm{Ga}}\approx-0.37$ $\mu$V for $^{69}$Ga with a similar relative uncertainty. These values are $\sim$30% smaller than those derived by Sundfors[@PhysRevB.10.4244] from the nuclear acoustic resonance measurements (Table \[Tab:GaParams2\]). We point out here that normally it is the $QS_{11}$ product and not $S_{11}$ that is measured in NMR experiments and is used to predict the NMR spectra in strained semiconductor structures – the individual values for $S_{ijkl}$ and $Q$ are not accessible in conventional NMR measurements. Nonetheless, for the reference, we quote in Table \[Tab:GaParams2\] the $S_{11}$ values derived in this work and reported in Ref.[@PhysRevB.10.4244], where in both case we divided the measured $QS_{11}$ products by the most recent recommended values[@STONE20161] of quadrupolar moments $Q$. For practical applications, it is preferable to use the $QS_{11}$ product values, or when using $S_{ijkl}$ and $Q$ separately, take their values from the same source. We also note that the $S_{11}$ values in Ref.[@PhysRevB.10.4244] are in the c.g.s. units of $\times10^{15}$ statcoulomb/cm$^3$ and are multiplied here by 2997924.580 to convert them to the V/m$^2$ SI units.
Discussion and conclusion
=========================
An important feature of this work is that elastic strain is probed optically through the spectral shifts the free exciton PL in bulk GaAs. This method offers certain advantages: there is no need to measure the stress or control precisely the size and the shape of the sample, moreover the strain can be probed locally on a micrometer scale, so that modest strain inhomogeneities across the sample are not a limitation. The downside is that the accuracy of the measured strain is limited by the current uncertainty in the deformation potentials. On the other hand, the detection of the nuclear quadrupolar effects in this work is achieved in a most straightforward way – by measuring the quadrupolar splitting of the NMR spectral triplet. This is different from the previous studies on GaAs [@PhysRev.177.1221; @PhysRevB.10.4244] where detection was rather indirect and relied on measuring the changes of the quality factors of mechanical resonances.
The $\sim30$% difference in the measured $S_{11}$ values between this work and the work of Sundfors [@PhysRev.177.1221; @PhysRevB.10.4244] appears to be too large to be attributed to the uncertainty in deformation potentials of GaAs. On the other hand we note that the ratio of $S_{11}$ for Ga and As is in remarkably good agreement. Moreover, it was pointed out by Sundfors [@PhysRev.177.1221] that his room temperature acoustic resonance measurements of $S_{11}$ for $^{115}$In in InSb were notably larger than the corresponding $S_{11}$ values obtained in two independent studies using static strain [@PhysRev.107.953; @Bogdanov1968] at 77 K. One possibility, is that all of the $S_{ijkl}$ values reported in Refs.[@PhysRev.177.1221; @PhysRevB.10.4244] had a systematic offset arising from a number of parameters that needed to be calibrated for acoustic resonance measurements. Moreover, the deviation in the results may arise from the fundamental differences in how nuclear spin system responds to static and dynamic (acoustic wave) strain, as well as from the temperature dependence – these aspects remain unexplored and would require further work.
The PL/NMR method for derivation of the gradient-elastic tensor reported here have potential to be extended further. For example the $S_{44}$ component of GaAs that was not probed here, can be measured. Such a measurement would require shear strain and magnetic field which is not parallel to one of the cubic axes (e.g. $[001]$). The GaAs/AlGaAs pair is unique since it permits nearly lattice matched epitaxial growth. As a result external stress can induce deformations significantly exceeding the built-in strain, making it possible to use bandgap shifts to gauge the strain. Application to other materials, e.g. InAs/GaAs quantum wells and dots may require alternative methods for probing the strain, such as X-ray diffraction.
For practical applications the $QS_{11}$ for GaAs can be taken directly from the values measured here (Table \[Tab:GaParams2\]). For the $QS_{44}$ parameters that were not measured here, we recommend taking the values from Ref.[@PhysRevB.10.4244] and rescaling by a factor of $0.7$, which is the ratio of the $QS_{11}$ values measured here and in Ref.[@PhysRevB.10.4244]. Since GaAs and InAs were found to have very similar gradient elastic tensors[@PhysRevB.10.4244], similar scaling by a factor of $0.7$ can be applied to the $S$-tensor values for InAs.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors are grateful to Ceyhun Bulutay and Yongheng Huo for fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the EPSRC Programme Grant EP/N031776/1, the Linz Institute of Technology (LIT) and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P 29603. E.A.C. was supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship.
Relation between strain and nuclear quadrupolar effects\[Appendix:QNuc\]
========================================================================
The second spatial derivatives of the electrostatic potential $V(x,y,z)$ at the nuclear sites form a second rank symmetric tensor $V_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial\alpha\partial\beta}$ ($\alpha,\beta=x,y,z$). Small deformation of a solid body is described via the second rank elastic strain tensor $$\begin{split}
\epsilon_{ij}=\frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j} \quad(i,j=x,y,z),
\end{split}
\label{Eq:epsilon}$$ where $u_i$ are the components of the vector field of displacements $\vec{u}(x,y,z)$ characterizing the deformation. In the limit of small deformation $V_{ij}$ is related to $\epsilon_{kl}$ via: $$\begin{split}
V_{ij}=\sum_{k,l}S_{ijkl}\epsilon_{kl} \quad(i,j,k,l=x,y,z),
\end{split}
\label{Eq:V=Se}$$ where $S_{ijkl}$ is a fourth rank ”gradient-elastic” tensor. Not all of its 81 components are independent, and the number of independent parameters is greatly reduced further in crystal structures with high symmetry. In case of a zinc-blend crystal (cubic symmetry group $T_d$) the non-vanishing elements of $S_{ijkl}$ are [@PhysRev.107.953]: $$\begin{split}
&S_{xxxx}=S_{yyyy}=S_{zzzz}\\
&S_{yzyz}=S_{zxzx}=S_{xyxy}\\
&S_{xxyy}=S_{yyzz}=S_{zzxx}=S_{xxzz}=S_{zzyy}=S_{yyxx}\\
\end{split}$$ Moreover, since $V_{ij}$ and $\epsilon_{ij}$ are both symmetric, the gradient elastic tensor has an additional symmetry with respect to the pari of the first and second indices as well as the pair of the third and fourth indices ($S_{ijkl}=S_{jikl}=S_{ijlk}=S_{jilk}$). Thus in a coordinate frame aligned with the crystal axes $x\parallel[100]$, $y\parallel[010]$, $z\parallel[001]$ there are in total 21 non-zero components and the tensor is fully characterized by 3 independent parameters $S_{xxxx}$, $S_{xxyy}$ and $S_{yzyz}$. Taking into account the symmetries of $S_{ijkl}$ we can evaluate Eq. \[Eq:V=Se\] to find the explicit expression for the electric field gradients: $$\begin{split}
&V_{1}=V_{xx}=S_{xxxx}\epsilon_{xx}+S_{xxyy}(\epsilon_{yy}+\epsilon_{zz})=\\
&\quad=S_{xxxx}(\epsilon_{xx}-(\epsilon_{yy}+\epsilon_{zz})/2)\\
&V_{2}=V_{yy}=S_{xxxx}\epsilon_{yy}+S_{xxyy}(\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{zz})=\\
&\quad=S_{xxxx}(\epsilon_{yy}-(\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{zz})/2)\\
&V_{3}=V_{zz}=S_{xxxx}\epsilon_{zz}+S_{xxyy}(\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy})=\\
&\quad=S_{xxxx}(\epsilon_{zz}-(\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy})/2)\\
&V_{4}=V_{yz}=V_{zy}=2S_{yzyz}\epsilon_{yz}\\
&V_{5}=V_{xz}=V_{zx}=2S_{yzyz}\epsilon_{xz}\\
&V_{6}=V_{xy}=V_{yx}=2S_{yzyz}\epsilon_{xy}
\end{split}
\label{Eq:VCubic}$$ where the right hand side parts of the first three equations were obtained by setting $S_{xxyy}=-S_{xxxx}/2$, which is a common convention to take into account the fact that only the traceless part of $V_{ij}$ is observable in NMR [@PhysRev.128.1630]. We have also introduced EFG components $V_{m}\quad(m=1..6)$ in Voigt notation, using which we can rewrite Eq. \[Eq:VCubic\] as: $$\begin{split}
&V_{1}=S_{11}(\epsilon_{1}-(\epsilon_{2}+\epsilon_{3})/2)\\
&V_{2}=S_{11}(\epsilon_{2}-(\epsilon_{1}+\epsilon_{3})/2)\\
&V_{3}=S_{11}(\epsilon_{3}-(\epsilon_{1}+\epsilon_{2})/2)\\
&V_{4}=S_{44}\epsilon_{4}\\
&V_{5}=S_{44}\epsilon_{5}\\
&V_{6}=S_{44}\epsilon_{6},
\end{split}
\label{Eq:VCubicVoigt}$$ where $S_{11}=S_{xxxx}$ and $S_{44}=S_{yzyz}$. While Voigt notation simplifies the equations and is commonly accepted it needs to be used with care. Unlike $S_{ijkl}$, the 2$\times$2 matrix $S_{mn}$ is not a tensor and does not follow the tensor transformation rules. One of the consequences of this is that the definition of the non-diagonal components of strain should include an additional factor of $2$, so that $\epsilon_{4}=2\epsilon_{yz}$, $\epsilon_{5}=2\epsilon_{xz}$, $\epsilon_{6}=2\epsilon_{xy}$, while this factor of 2 is not needed in the definition of $V_{4}$, $V_{5}$, $V_{6}$ (see Eq. \[Eq:VCubic\]). A similar situation is encountered in the strain-stress relation $\sigma_{ij}=c_{ijkl}\epsilon_{kl}$ expressed in Voigt notation where the shear strains $\epsilon_{4}$, $\epsilon_{5}$, $\epsilon_{6}$ require a factor of 2 in their definition, while there is no such factor for the stress components $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ (see Ch. 10 in Ref. [@NewnhamBook]).
The Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{Q}$ describing the interaction of the nucleus with spin $I$ and quadrupolar moment Q with the electric field gradients is[@SlichterBook]: $$\begin{split}
\hat{H}_{Q}=\frac{eQ}{6I(2I-1)h}\sum_{i,j=x,y,z}V_{ij}\left(\frac{3}{2}(\hat{I}_i\hat{I}_j+\hat{I}_j\hat{I}_i)-\delta_{ij}I^2\right),
\end{split}
\label{Eq:HQ}$$ where $e>0$ is the elementary charge, $h$ is the Planck constant, $\delta_{ij}$ is Kronecker’s delta, $\hat{I_i}$ are spin operator components in Cartesian coordinates and the Hamiltonian is in frequency units (Hz). Static magnetic field gives rise to the Zeeman Hamiltonian $$\begin{split}
\hat{H}_{Z}=-\frac{\gamma B_{z}}{2\pi}\hat{I}_z,
\end{split}
\label{Eq:HZ}$$ where $\gamma$ is the nuclear gyromagnetic ratio, and we explicitly consider the case of the field $B_z$ aligned along the $z$ axis. For the spin-3/2 nuclei the total Hamiltonian $H_Z+H_Q$ is a 4$\times$4 matrix and can in principle be diagonalised analytically to find the eigenstates.
A much simpler approximate solution can be found for the case of large magnetic field. In our experiments the effects induced by magnetic field (characterized by Larmor frequency $>$40 MHz) are at least two orders of magnitude larger than the quadrupolar effects (characterized by quadrupolar shifts $<$0.4 MHz). Thus with good accuracy quadrupolar effects can be treated as a perturbation, and to the first order we can omit all off-diagonal terms of the total Hamiltonian[@PhysRev.79.685]. The resulting eigenstates are the eigenstates of the $\hat{I}_z$ operator with eigenenergies (in Hz units): $$\begin{split}
&E_{-3/2}=\frac{3\gamma B_{z}}{4\pi}+\frac{eQ}{4h}S_{11}\epsilon_{b}\\
&E_{-1/2}=\frac{\gamma B_{z}}{4\pi}-\frac{eQ}{4h}S_{11}\epsilon_{b}\\
&E_{+1/2}=-\frac{\gamma B_{z}}{4\pi}-\frac{eQ}{4h}S_{11}\epsilon_{b}\\
&E_{+3/2}=-\frac{3\gamma
B_{z}}{4\pi}+\frac{eQ}{4h}S_{11}\epsilon_{b},
\end{split}
\label{Eq:En32}$$ where we have substituted the EFG values from Eq. \[Eq:VCubic\], the energies are indexed by their corresponding $\hat{I}_z$ eigenvalue, and the effect of elastic deformation on the nuclear spin states is manifested only via the ”biaxial” part of strain $\epsilon_{b}=\epsilon_{zz}-(\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy})/2$. The dipolar transitions are allowed for the pairs of states where $I_z$ changes by $\pm$1, and the NMR frequencies are obtained by taking the differences of the corresponding energies in Eq. \[Eq:En32\]: $$\begin{split}
&\nu _{-3/2\leftrightarrow -1/2}=\frac{\gamma B_z}{2 \pi}+\frac{eQ}{2 h}S_{11}\epsilon_{b}\\
&\nu _{-1/2\leftrightarrow +1/2}=\frac{\gamma B_z}{2 \pi}\\
&\nu _{+1/2\leftrightarrow +3/2}=\frac{\gamma
B_z}{2\pi}-\frac{eQ}{2 h}S_{11}\epsilon_{b}.\\
\end{split}
\label{Eq:nuNMR32}$$ Equation \[Eq:nuNMR32\] describes a triplet of NMR transitions with a central transition $-1/2\leftrightarrow +1/2$ unaffected by strain and two satellite transitions on either side of the central transition, separated by the quadrupolar shift $$\begin{split}
\nu_{Q}=\frac{eQ}{2 h}S_{11}\epsilon_{b},\\
\end{split}
\label{Eq:nuQAppendix}$$ which is the same as Eq. \[Eq:nuQ\].
[58]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.067405) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.1566463) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.2204843) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/adma.201200537) [****, ](\doibase 10.1002/pssb.201100775) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.16.942) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.161.695) [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(70)90007-4) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.15.2127) [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(90)90970-M) [****, ()](\doibase
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(98)00036-X) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.37.8519) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.39.1871) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.60.5404) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.035203) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0022-3727/49/i=8/a=085104) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1368156) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nnano.2012.142) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nnano.2014.175) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.82.081308) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.93.045301) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.125304) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.115313) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.205425) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms7348) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nnano.2016.114) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/ncomms11170) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.107.953) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.150.546) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.177.1221) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.10.4244) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.12.790) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.13.4504) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.118686) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1139/p52-026) [****, ()](\doibase ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4748183) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.58.R13403) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.184.811) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.336559) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.372104) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.73.035205) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.7.4568) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.93.165306) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.45.3922) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nmat4959) @noop [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adt.2015.12.002) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0022-3719/6/i=13/a=011) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.128.1630) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.79.685)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study on transport and magnetic properties of hydrated and lithium-intercalated $\alpha$-[RuCl$_3$]{}, [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, for investigating the effect on mobile-carrier doping into candidate materials for a realization of a Kitaev model. From thermogravitometoric and one-dimensional electron map analyses, we find two crystal structures of this system, that is, mono-layer hydrated [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} $(x\approx0.56, y\approx1.3)$ and bi-layer hydrated [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} $(x\approx0.56, y\approx3.9)$. The temperature dependence of the electrical resistivity shows a temperature hysteresis at 200-270 K, which is considered to relate with a formation of a charge order. The antiferromagnetic order at 7-13 K in pristine $\alpha$-[RuCl$_3$]{} is successfully suppressed down to 2 K in bi-layer hydrated [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, which is sensitive to not only an electronic state of Ru but also an interlayer distance between Ru-Cl planes.'
author:
- Yoshinori Imai
- Katsuya Konno
- Yoshinao Hasegawa
- Takuya Aoyama
- Kenya Ohgushi
title: 'Hydrated lithium intercalation into the Kitaev spin liquid candidate material $\alpha-$RuCl$_3$'
---
composition form solvent post process $c^*$ (Å) $a$ (Å) $b$ (Å) $c$ (Å) $\beta$ (deg.) $T_\mathrm{N}$ (K)
---------- -------------------------------------- ---------------- ------------ -------------- ----------- --------- --------- --------- ---------------- --------------------
sample A [RuCl$_3$]{} polycrystal - - 5.72 5.98 10.36 6.04 108.9 13.2 K
sample B BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} polycrystal ethanol - 11.12 6.04 10.43 11.16 90.1 $< 2$ K
sample C BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} polycrystal 2-propanol - 10.95 6.04 10.48 11.02 90.1 $< 2$ K
sample D MLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} polycrystal ethanol method1 8.17 6.03 10.35 8.25 98.3 3.6 K
sample E BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} polycrystal ethanol method2 11.22 6.03 10.42 11.27 90.0 $< 2$ K
sample F [RuCl$_3$]{} single crystal - - 5.73 - - - - $7.5$ K, $13.2$ K
sample G MLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} single crystal ethanol method1 8.23 - - - - $3.6$ K
sample H BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} single crystal ethanol method2 10.98 - - - - $< 2$ K
\[tab:spec\]
![ X-ray diffraction patterns for (a) polycrystals of samples A-E and (b) single crystals of samples F-H. The vertical axis is in a logarithmic scale. The Miller indexes on the basis of the monoclinic $C2/m$ are also shown. []{data-label="fig:xrd"}](190419_xrd_04-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\linewidth"}\
![ X-ray diffraction patterns for (a) polycrystals of samples A-E and (b) single crystals of samples F-H. The vertical axis is in a logarithmic scale. The Miller indexes on the basis of the monoclinic $C2/m$ are also shown. []{data-label="fig:xrd"}](190419_xrd_05-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\linewidth"}
![ Thermogravimetric (TG) analysis for samples A, B, and D in the heating process up to $600^\circ \mathrm{C}$ at $1^\circ \mathrm{C} /\mathrm{min.}$. Temperature dependence of weight loss is shown.[]{data-label="fig:tg"}](190418_tg_04-crop.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
![ One-dimensional electron density map, $\rho_z$, and the structural model of $ac$-plane for single crystals of (a) [RuCl$_3$]{} (sample F), (b) MLH- and (c) BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} (samples G, H). []{data-label="fig:ed"}](edmapv7-crop.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
![ Arrhenius plot of the in-plane resistivity, $\rho$, for single crystals of [RuCl$_3$]{}, MLH- and BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} (samples F-H). The inset shows the resistivity in cooling and warming cycles, which are represented by closed and open symbols, respectively, in the vicinity of the phase transition temperature, [$T^*$]{}. []{data-label="fig:rho"}](rhot-v6.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
![ Temperature dependences of magnetic susceptibility, $\chi$, of single crystals of (a) [RuCl$_3$]{}, (b) MLH-, and (c) BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} at a magnetic field of $\mu_0 H = 1$ T parallel to the $ab$-plane (open symbols) and the $c$-axis (closed symbols). Insets are enlarged plots at low temperatures. (d) Curie-Weiss plot of $\chi$ under the magnetic fields parallel to $ab$-plane. The inset of (d) is a dependence of an antiferromagnetic transition temperature, [$T_\mathrm{N}$]{}, on an interlayer distance, $c^*$. []{data-label="fig:chi"}](190418_chi_v05-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="0.78\linewidth"}\
![ Temperature dependences of magnetic susceptibility, $\chi$, of single crystals of (a) [RuCl$_3$]{}, (b) MLH-, and (c) BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} at a magnetic field of $\mu_0 H = 1$ T parallel to the $ab$-plane (open symbols) and the $c$-axis (closed symbols). Insets are enlarged plots at low temperatures. (d) Curie-Weiss plot of $\chi$ under the magnetic fields parallel to $ab$-plane. The inset of (d) is a dependence of an antiferromagnetic transition temperature, [$T_\mathrm{N}$]{}, on an interlayer distance, $c^*$. []{data-label="fig:chi"}](190418_chi_v10-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="0.78\linewidth"}\
![ Temperature dependences of magnetic susceptibility, $\chi$, of single crystals of (a) [RuCl$_3$]{}, (b) MLH-, and (c) BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} at a magnetic field of $\mu_0 H = 1$ T parallel to the $ab$-plane (open symbols) and the $c$-axis (closed symbols). Insets are enlarged plots at low temperatures. (d) Curie-Weiss plot of $\chi$ under the magnetic fields parallel to $ab$-plane. The inset of (d) is a dependence of an antiferromagnetic transition temperature, [$T_\mathrm{N}$]{}, on an interlayer distance, $c^*$. []{data-label="fig:chi"}](190418_chi_v11-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="0.78\linewidth"}\
![ Temperature dependences of magnetic susceptibility, $\chi$, of single crystals of (a) [RuCl$_3$]{}, (b) MLH-, and (c) BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} at a magnetic field of $\mu_0 H = 1$ T parallel to the $ab$-plane (open symbols) and the $c$-axis (closed symbols). Insets are enlarged plots at low temperatures. (d) Curie-Weiss plot of $\chi$ under the magnetic fields parallel to $ab$-plane. The inset of (d) is a dependence of an antiferromagnetic transition temperature, [$T_\mathrm{N}$]{}, on an interlayer distance, $c^*$. []{data-label="fig:chi"}](190418_chi_v12-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="0.78\linewidth"}
Introduction
============
Triggered by a proposal of new quantum model called the Kitaev model [@Kitaev], the tremendous numbers of studies have been performed on a quantum spin liquid, especially a Kitaev quantum spin liquid [@JPCM.29.493002; @ARCMP.9.17; @NRP.1.264; @ARCMP.10.451]. The Kitaev model is a very simple model where $S=1/2$ spins are placed on a honeycomb lattice and are coupled with a nearest-neighbor bond-dependent interactions. The most remarkable feature of the Kitaev model is that this is an exactly solvable model, which shows that the ground state is the Kitaev quantum spin liquid and that Majorana fermions emerge as excitations [@PRL.112.207203; @PRL.113.187201; @PRB.92.115122]. Since bond-dependent interactions naturally exist in materials with strong spin-orbit couplings [@PTPS.160.155; @PRL.102.017205], some compounds with an unfilled $4d/5d$ orbitals have been attracting intensively [@NRP.1.264]. Especially, $\alpha$-[RuCl$_3$]{} is the most probable candidate material for the Kitaev quantum spin liquid, since $J_{eff}=1/2$ spins are coupled with each other through the Kitaev-type ferromagnetic interactions [@PRB.90.041112].
The space group of [RuCl$_3$]{} is $C2/m$ [@PRB.92.235119], and honeycomb lattices of octahedrally coordinated Ru$^{3+}$ ions are stacked via a van der Waals interaction. The Ru$^{3+}$ ions have low-spin configuration of $(t_{2g})^5$, bearing effective $J_{eff}=1/2$ spins. Contrary to expectations from the Kitaev model, [RuCl$_3$]{} shows an antiferromagnetic (AF) transition around an AF transition temperature, $T_\mathrm{N}=7-13$ K, which is considered to be due to non-Kitaev interactions, such as direct exchange interactions and next-nearest neighbor superexchange interactions. Recent investigations assigned the phase with $T_\mathrm{N} \sim 7$ K to an $ABC$ stacking order and that with $T_\mathrm{N} \sim 13$ K to an $AB$ stacking fault [@PRB.92.235119; @PRB.93.134423]. However, upon the application of in-plane magnetic fields, an antiferromagnetic order is fully suppressed down to the lowest temperature, and the half-integer quantization is observed in the thermal Hall conductance measurement, which provides a direct evidence for capturing Majorana fermions [@Nat.559.227].
The study on the substitution effect for [RuCl$_3$]{} is intriguing to reveal the role of impurities for a realization of Kitaev model, and earlier studies on (Ru$_{1-x}$Ir$_x$)Cl$_3$ clarified that the spin liquid like state appears in the wide range of an electronic phase diagram [@PRL.119.237203; @PRB.98.014407]. Introduction of not localized impurities but rather mobile charge carriers into [RuCl$_3$]{} is a more challenging issue [@PRL.119.237203; @PRB.98.014407; @PRM.1.052001; @JACS.122.6629; @nanolett.16.3578], because some theoretical studies predict an emergence of novel superconductivity in the carrier-doped Kitaev material [@PRB.85.140510; @PRB.86.085145; @PRL.108.227207; @PRL.110.066403; @PRB.87.064508; @PRB.90.024404; @PRB.91.220501; @PRB.97.014504]. In an electron-doped material K$_{0.5}$RuCl$_3$ (a formal valence is Ru$^{2.5+}$ with the $(4d)^{5.5}$ electron configuration), which are prepared by K-coating on a [RuCl$_3$]{} single crystal cleaved in a vacuum chamber, a charge order of $(4d)^5$ and $(4d)^6$ states is proposed at low temperatures [@PRM.1.052001]. Li-intercalated material [Li$_x$RuCl$_3$]{} prepared by using LiBH$_4$ reveals that the antiferromagnetic order is suppressed below 2 K, and that the electrical resistivity still remains an insulating behavior [@JACS.122.6629; @nanolett.16.3578]. In the study, the Li content, $x$, is as low as $x=0.2$, which is smaller than the honeycomb-lattice percolation threshold, $x_p=0.303$. Therefore, the studies over a wide carrier concentration range are highly expected for understanding the doping effect on Kitaev materials.
Here, we report on the successful preparation of hydrated and Li-intercalated [RuCl$_3$]{}, in which electron carriers are doped into [RuCl$_3$]{} by using a soft-chemical method, and the investigation of their electronic properties. In [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, there are two kinds of crystal structures, $i.e.$, mono-layer hydrate (MLH) and bi-layer hydrate (BLH). The AF state is completely suppressed down to 2 K in BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}. It turned out that [$T_\mathrm{N}$]{} depends on an electronic state of Ru as well as the distance between Ru-Cl layers.
Experimental
============
We prepare 8 samples of $\alpha$-[RuCl$_3$]{}, and hydrated and Li-intercalated [RuCl$_3$]{}, whose detailed specifications are summarized in Table \[tab:spec\]. Commercially available $\alpha$-[RuCl$_3$]{} polycrystalline powders (3N, Mitsuwa Chemicals) were used as a pristine sample in this study, which is represented as sample A in Table \[tab:spec\]. Hydrated Li-intercalated samples are prepared as follows. [RuCl$_3$]{} powders of 0.3 g were soaked in 1.5 mol$/l$ LiI solution of ethanol (2-propanol), which contain a few percents of water, at their boiling point for 2 hours. This reaction can be described by the following chemical reaction formula, $
\mathrm{RuCl}_3 + x\mathrm{LiI} + y\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O} \to \mathrm{Li}_x\mathrm{RuCl}_3 \cdot y \mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O} + \frac{x}{2}\mathrm{I}_2.
$ Then, the samples are washed by the same liquid as a solvent, and dried at room temperature, which are “sample B” (“sample C”). For clarifying whether [H$_2$O]{} is actually intercalated into samples, we tried two kinds of post process for sample B. At first, powders of sample B are kept with silica gel in a sealed vessel for 1 day; this process is called as “method 1”. The obtained sample is named as “sample D” in Table \[tab:spec\]. Next, we store sample D with a wet cotton in a sealed vessel for 1 day; this process is called “method 2”. The product is named as “sample E” in Table \[tab:spec\]. [RuCl$_3$]{} single crystals (Sample F) were prepared by the chemical vapor transport method as described elsewhere [@hase17; @PRB.95.245104]. Some pieces of [RuCl$_3$]{} single crystals (typical size: $2\times2\times0.1$ mm$^3$) were soaked in 1.5 mol$/l$ LiI solution of ethanol at room temperature for 24 hours, and then washed by ethanol before drying at room temperature. After then, intercalated crystals were kept in a sealed vessel with silica gel or a wet cotton for 1 day, which are “sample G” and “sample H” in Table \[tab:spec\], respectively.
All the products were characterized by the powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) using the Cu $K\alpha$ radiation at room temperature. The chemical composition was determined by the inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) and thermogravimetry (TG) analysis. The electrical resistivity, $\rho$, was measured by the four-terminal method over the temperature range of 77 to 300 K. The current direction is along the $ab$-plane. Magnetic susceptibility measurements were performed using a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer.
Results
=======
Figure \[fig:xrd\](a) shows XRD patterns for polycrystalline samples A-E. All peaks can be indexed on the basis of a monoclinic space group (No. 12, $C2/m$) [@PRB.92.235119], and calculated lattice parameters are summarized in Table \[tab:spec\]. The peak positions of $00l$ peaks for intercalated samples shift toward smaller $2\theta$ values than those for a pristine sample (sample A), indicating the successful intercalation. It is highly unlikely that this considerable increase in the interlayer distance, $c^*$, between Ru-Cl layers results from the intercalation of only Li ions, because in the other Li-intercalated materials such as Li$_{x}$TaS$_2$ and Li$_{x}$NbS$_2$, the increase of interlayer distance is known to be as small as 1 Å [@IC.16.2950; @MRB.14.797]. Thus, it is quite reasonable that some kinds of molecules are co-intercalated with Li ions. Here, it should be noted that the peak positions of samples B and C, which are respectively synthesized in the ethanol and 2-propanol as solvents, are almost the same, indicating that the intercalated molecule is the same one in samples B and C. The most probable candidate of the intercalated molecule in both sample B and sample C is [H$_2$O]{}, which is included in both of ethanol and 2-propanol. For clarifying whether [H$_2$O]{} molecule is actually co-intercalated with Li ions in samples B and C, we tried two kinds of post process described above for sample B. In XRD patterns of sample D, which had been kept with silica gel through the post process of method 1, the positions of $00l$ peaks shift towards larger $2\theta$ values; the $c^*$ value decreases by $\sim 3$ Å from $c^*$ of sample B. Interestingly, when sample D is kept under high humidity for 1 day through the post process of method 2, the positions of $00l$ shift towards smaller $2\theta$ values again, and the resultant XRD pattern of sample E is the same as that of sample B. This shows that the intercalated molecules exist not only in the solvent but also in air, which indicates that the co-intercalated molecule is [H$_2$O]{}. We can then conclude that there are two types of structure forms with the chemical formula [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} with the same $x$ value and the distinct $y$ values. The crystal structure with a larger (smaller) $y$ value has a longer (shorter) interlayer distance. Comparing the lattice constants between pristine and intercalated samples, the interesting changes are observed in the parameter of $\beta$. The angle of $\beta$ becomes close to the value of 90 degrees with increasing $c^*$, which indicates that the monoclinic distortion is relaxed by the intercalation of Li and [H$_2$O]{}. Therefore, it is expected that the ideal honeycomb lattice with smaller distortion is realized in the intercalated samples compared to a pristine [RuCl$_3$]{}.
In order to determine the chemical compositions $x$ and $y$ for two structural forms, we first performed the ICP analysis for sample B with a longer interlayer distance $c^*$. This reveals that the ratio of Li and Ru is $0.56\pm0.02:1~(x=0.56)$. Since it is likely that there is no difference in Li concentration, $x$, between two crystal forms, we can postulate $x=0.56$ for sample D with a smaller $c^*$ value. We then perform thermogravimetric analysis for samples A, B, and D on heating at $1^\circ$C/min in air, as shown in Fig. \[fig:tg\]. The weight of samples B and D decreases from room temperature to $\sim220^\circ$C, while sample A remains unchanged up to $\sim300^\circ$C. The observed decrease in weight of samples B and D likely corresponds to a reaction of [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}$\to$ [Li$_x$RuCl$_3$]{}, and one can estimate [H$_2$O]{} content, $y=3.9 \pm 0.1$ for sample B and $y=1.3 \pm 0.1$ for sample D. The weight loss at temperatures higher than $\sim300^\circ$C observed in samples A, B, and D is resulting from the decomposition and oxidization of [RuCl$_3$]{} into Ru oxides and Cl$_2$. We consider that the intercalated single crystals (sample G, and H) take the same compositions. Here, it should be noted that the pristine [RuCl$_3$]{} itself is stable in air. The recent Raman spectroscopy measurements for exfoliated [RuCl$_3$]{} single crystals revealed that the Raman spectra for mono-layer single crystals of [RuCl$_3$]{} was reproducible after months of exposure to air, and that [H$_2$O]{} molecule was not intercalated into [RuCl$_3$]{}[@JPCS.2019.Henriksen]. In addition, we confirm that soaking [RuCl$_3$]{} in ethanol does not change the lattice constant. This is in sharp contrast to the hydrated and Li-intercalated [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} which changes its water content $y$ in response to changes in humidity even at room temperature. The moisture-sensitive behavior, which is similar to the cobalt oxyhydrate superconductor, Na$_x$CoO$_2 \cdot y$H$_2$O[@Nat.422.53; @JSSC.177.372], is observed only in [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}.
For obtaining information on the location of Li and [H$_2$O]{}, we perform a detailed analysis of XRD patterns for single crystalline samples (Fig. \[fig:xrd\] (b)), where only $00l$ peaks are observed. We obtain one-dimensional electron density (1D ED) map profiles projected along the stacking axis (defined as the $c^*$-axis). The methodology for a calculation of 1D ED map in this study is described in details elsewhere [@JACS.122.6629; @PRB.24.3505]. When one considers $00l$ reflections only, the distribution of scattering density projected on the $c^*$-axis, $\rho_z$, is calculated by the Fourier summation $$\rho_z = \frac{1}{c^*} \sum_l{F_{00l} \exp \left ( - i 2\pi l z \right )},$$ in which $F_{00l}$ is the structure factor for $00l$ peaks. For calculating $\rho_z$, the phase of $F_{00l}$ is necessary, while the absolute value of $F_{00l}$ can be estimated from the integrated intensity of $00l$ peak, $I_{00l}$, in the XRD patterns. The phases are constrained to one of two values, that is, 0 or $\pi$, because of the centrosymmetric projection in this study, and these values are determined based on the phases of structural factors for [RuCl$_3$]{}[@PRB.92.235119; @vesta]. This estimation is reasonable under the assumption that the contribution for the scattering from the intercalated ions or molecules is smaller than that from the [RuCl$_3$]{} component. After the estimation of the structural model from 1D ED map, the sign of $F_{00l}$ is checked by recalculating the structural factors from the scattering of all components including intercalated atoms and molecules [@vesta].
Figure \[fig:ed\] shows the 1D ED map of [RuCl$_3$]{} (sample F), [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} with $x\approx0.56,~y\approx1.3$ (sample G) and $x\approx0.56,~y\approx3.9$ (sample H). In spite of constraint on values of phases for $F_{00l}$, 1D ED map profile of [RuCl$_3$]{} (Fig. \[fig:ed\](a)) is consistent with the atomic position of [RuCl$_3$]{}, which indicates that the calculation method is reliable. The 1D ED map profile for [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} with $x\approx0.56,~y\approx1.3$ (sample G) shows that the electron density due to guest atoms and molecules forms a single peak around the center of the gallery. On the other hand, for [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} with $x\approx0.56,~y\approx3.9$ (sample H), the contributions of the intercalated atoms and molecules are observed as a small hump at the center part and two broad peaks placed 1.2 Å below and above the center of the gallery. Here, we recall that there are many layered hydrates with the general formula $A_{x} \left ( MX_2 \right ) \cdot y$H$_2$O ($A=$Alkali metal, $M=$ transition metals, and $X=$O, S). These layered hydrates generally have two kinds of crystal structures, $i.e.$, mono- and bi- layer hydrates (MLH and BLH), where a single cation and [H$_2$O]{} layer or a sequence of [H$_2$O]{}-cation-[H$_2$O]{} layers separates the electron-doped two-dimensional $MX_2$ layers by distances of $\sim7$ Å or $\sim10$ Å, respectively. Na$_x$CoO$_2 \cdot y$H$_2$O with a triangular Co sublattice is a typical material in above series: BLH-Na$_x$CoO$_2 \cdot y$H$_2$O$(x \approx 0.35,~y \approx 1.3)$ shows superconductivity with a superconducting temperature of $\sim5$ K [@Nat.422.53], while a superconductivity is not observed in MHL-Na$_x$CoO$_2 \cdot y$H$_2$O$(x\approx0.35,~y\approx0.7)$ [@JSSC.177.372]. We note that 1D ED maps for samples G and H in Fig.\[fig:ed\] are similar to the electron density for MLH- and BLH- Na$_x$CoO$_2 \cdot y$H$_2$O. In addition, the variations in $c^*$ for samples F-H shown in Table \[tab:spec\] are similar to those in the anhydrous Na$_x$CoO$_2$, MLH- and BLH- Na$_x$CoO$_2 \cdot y$H$_2$O whose interlayer distances are 5.5, 6.9, and 9.8 Å, respectively [@Nat.422.53; @JSSC.177.372]. Therefore, we conclude that sample G is MLH-Li$_{0.56}$RuCl$_3 \cdot 1.3$H$_2$O where Ru-Cl layers are separated by a single layer of Li and [H$_2$O]{}, and that sample H is BLH-Li$_{0.56}$RuCl$_3 \cdot 3.9$H$_2$O where Ru-Cl layers are separated by layers of [H$_2$O]{}-Li-[H$_2$O]{}. Schematic pictures of crystal structures for these materials are shown in Fig. \[fig:ed\].
Figure \[fig:rho\] shows the temperature dependence of resistivity, $\rho$, for single crystals of [RuCl$_3$]{}, MLH- and BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} (samples F-H). Pristine [RuCl$_3$]{} single crystal, which is a strongly spin-orbital coupled Mott insulator, shows a thermally-activated-type temperature dependence and the activation energy is $E_g \sim 0.093$ eV. This value is lower than that reported in polycrystalline [RuCl$_3$]{}[@JACS.122.6629]. The resistivity for MLH- and BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} at room temperature is $\sim2$ orders of magnitude smaller than that of pristine [RuCl$_3$]{}. The intercalation of lithium ions makes the formal valence of Ru ions smaller than $+3$, so that the electron carriers are introduced into the material. These electron carriers are the origin for the decrease in $\rho$ around room temperature. The activation energy around room temperature is $E_g \sim 0.12 $ eV for MHL- and $E_g \sim 0.092 $ eV for BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, which are comparable with or slightly larger than that of pristine [RuCl$_3$]{}. On cooling intercalated materials, the electrical resistivity shows an anomalous hysteresis at $T^* = 260-270$ K for MHL-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} and $T^* = 200-220$ K for BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, indicating the presence of the first-order transitions. On further cooling below [$T^*$]{}, the resistivity rapidly increases and the activation energy increases up to $\sim 0.13-0.16$ eV, which is larger than [$E_g$]{} of [RuCl$_3$]{}.
Figure \[fig:chi\] shows the temperature dependence of magnetic susceptibility, $\chi$, for single crystals of [RuCl$_3$]{}, and MLH- and BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} (samples F-H) under the magnetic field of $\mu_0 H = 1$ T parallel to the $ab$-plane and the $c$-axis. As reported previously [@PRB.91.144420], in [RuCl$_3$]{} single crystals, $\chi$ for $H // ab$ is much larger than that for $H//c$, which emerges the so-called $\Gamma$ term of the spin-orbital coupling origin [@JPCM.29.493002]. One can also find two magnetic transitions at $T_\mathrm{N1} \sim 7.5$ K and $T_\mathrm{N2} \sim 13.2$ K in the in-plane measurement. Recent investigations reveal that $T_\mathrm{N1}$ is characteristics of an $ABC$ stacking ordered system, while $T_\mathrm{N2}$ is induced by the $AB$ stacking faults [@PRB.92.235119; @PRB.93.134423]. For $\chi$ of [RuCl$_3$]{} under $H//ab$, we perform a Curie-Weiss fit with a fitting function of $\chi = C/(T-\theta_\mathrm{CW})$ with $C=N_\mathrm{A} \mu_{eff}^2 /3 k_\mathrm{B}$ where $\theta_\mathrm{CW}$, $C$, $\mu_{eff}$, $N_\mathrm{A}$, and $k_\mathrm{B}$ are the Weiss temperature, the Weiss constant, the effective magnetic moment, the Avogadro constant, and the Boltzmann constant, respectively. They are estimated to be $\theta_\mathrm{CW} = 25$ K and $\mu_{eff} = 2.3~\mu_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{Ru}$, which are consistent with previous report [@PRB.91.144420]. The intercalation of Li ions and [H$_2$O]{} molecules results in a drastic change in magnetic properties. The anisotropy of $\chi$ in [RuCl$_3$]{} is greatly reduced by the intercalation. The magnitude relationship of $\chi$ is reversed, and $\chi$ for $H//c$ is slightly larger than $\chi$ for $H//c$. In MLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, a magnetic susceptibility shows a broad peak around $T_\mathrm{N} \sim 3.6$ K, which is considered to be an AF transition. Surprisingly, an AF transition is fully suppressed at least down to 2 K in BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}. From a Curie-Weiss fit for intercalated samples with a function of $\chi = \left ( 1-x \right ) C/(T-\theta_\mathrm{CW})$, the $\theta_\mathrm{CW}$ and $\mu_{eff}$ values are $\theta_\mathrm{CW} = 16$ K and $\mu_{eff} = 1.4~\mu_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{Ru}^{3+}$ for MLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} and $\theta_\mathrm{CW} = -15$ K and $\mu_{eff}=1.6~\mu_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{Ru}^{3+}$ for BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, respectively, which indicates that the ferromagnetic interaction in [RuCl$_3$]{} is changed to a weak AF interaction owing to the intercalation.
Discussion
==========
We now discuss electronic states realized in the Li- and [H$_2$O]{}- intercalated [RuCl$_3$]{}. The formal valence of Ru in MLH- and BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} $(x\approx0.56)$ is +2.44, so that there are roughly equal number of Ru$^{3+}$ ions with the $(4d)^{5}$ electron configuration $(J_{eff}=1/2)$ and Ru$^{2+}$ ions with the $(4d)^{6}$ electron configuration $(J_{eff}=0)$. In terms of the band picture, this correspond to the quarter-filled $J_{eff} =1/2$ bands, which is in stark contrast to the half-filled $J_{eff}= 1/2$ bands in [RuCl$_3$]{}. The doped electron carriers are expected to conduct smoothly in the system; however, this is not the case. The reasons why MLH- and BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} does not show a metallic behavior is likely related to the first-order transition at [$T^*$]{}. Taking into account that the number of populated Ru$^{2+}$ and Ru$^{3+}$ ions is almost equal on the bipartite honeycomb lattice, we consider that a charge order with the alternate arrangement of Ru$^{2+}$ and Ru$^{3+}$ ions occurs below [$T^*$]{}. The rapid increase of $\rho$ below [$T^*$]{} is consistent with a formation of a charge order. If there are relevant fluctuations far above [$T^*$]{}, a non-metallic behavior of intercalated samples at room temperature is also well accounted for. We note that the similar scenario is also proposed for K-coated [RuCl$_3$]{}, where photoemission spectra exhibit a gap-like feature at low temperatures [@PRM.1.052001]. In the charge ordered state, one set of Ru$^{2+}$ and Ru$^{3+}$ ions forms a triangular lattice, and the inversion symmetry is broken. Comparing to [$T^*$]{} for MLH- and BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, the former is $\sim 50$ K higher than the latter. That is, the temperature where a charge order occurs is greatly different between MLH- and BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} in spite of the fact that these two samples have the same electron configuration. In BLH-system, Li ions are sandwiched between neutral [H$_2$O]{} layers, which results in the shielding of Coulomb potential of Li ions. This may relate with the lower [$T^*$]{} in BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} than that in MLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}.
We next discuss the mechanism of the suppressed AF order in the intercalated [RuCl$_3$]{}. Because Ru$^{2+}$ ions with $(4d)^6$ electron configurations are nonmagnetic, and the doping level exceeds a percolation limit of a honeycomb lattice 0.303, it is quite reasonable to expect the suppression of the AF order. More importantly, in the charge-ordered state, magnetic interactions across the nearest-neighbor Ru sites does not work, since one of two adjacent Ru sites is occupied by a nonmagnetic Ru$^{2+}$ ion. As a consequence, not only Kitaev-type ferromegneic interaction but also the so-called $\Gamma$ term as a source of magnetic anisotropy does not work effectively, leading to an isotropic spins. Instead, the next-nearest-neighbor interactions are expected to be dominant in the charge ordered state. Therefore, the AF transition at low temperatures in MLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} is originating from exchange interactions on a Ru$^{3+}$ triangular lattice. One plausible candidate of the AF structure in MLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} is the $120^\circ$ structure, which hosts the left-handed and right-handed chirality. It should be noted that [$T_\mathrm{N}$]{} for BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} is lower than that for MLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, while the Li contents are the same in these two samples. This indicates that [$T_\mathrm{N}$]{} depends on not only electronic states among honeycomb layer of Ru ions but also interlayer distances. As shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:chi\](d), the longer the interlayer distance is, the lower magnetic transition temperature is; this suggests that the interaction between Ru-Cl layers is a origin of the AF transition in MLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, and well explains the absence of the magnetic order in BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}. For realizing the electron-doped Kitaev spin liquid, it is important to control the Li content precisely and clarify whether the Kitaev-like correlations remain or not in such a system.
Summary
=======
In summary, we successfully prepare hydrated and Li-intercalated $\alpha$-[RuCl$_3$]{}, [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, by using a soft chemical technique. We found two kinds of crystal structures; one is MLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, the other is BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}. The interlayer distance between Ru-Cl layers for MLH- and BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3$]{} is 1.4-1.9 times larger than that for pristine [RuCl$_3$]{}. MLH- and BLH- [Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} do not show a metallic behavior in the resistivity curves, while a roughly half of Ru sites changes from Ru$^{3+}$ to Ru$^{2+}$. We consider that this is due to a formation of a charge order at [$T^*$]{} where a temperature hysteresis in resistivity curves and a rapid increase of the resistivity are observed. The magnetic susceptibility measurements reveal that MLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{} shows an antiferromagnetic transition at $T_\mathrm{N}=3.61$ K and that an antiferromagnetic order is suppressed at least down to 2 K in BLH-[Li$_x$RuCl$_3 \cdot y$H$_2$O]{}, which suggests that the antiferromagnetic transition is sensitive for an electronic state of Ru and an interlayer distance.
[37]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1361-648x/aa8cf5) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-033117-053934) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/s42254-019-0038-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218-013401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.207203) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.187201) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.115122) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1143/PTPS.160.155) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.017205) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.90.041112) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.235119) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.93.134423) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/s41586-018-0274-0) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.237203) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.014407) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.1.052001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ja9944610) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b00701) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.140510) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.085145) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.227207) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.066403) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.064508) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.90.024404) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.220501) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.014504) [****, ()](\doibase 10.7566/JPSJ.86.123709) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.95.245104) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ic50177a057) [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-5408(79)90140-5) [****, ()](\doibase
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpcs.2018.01.026) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature01450) [****, ()](\doibase
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4596(03)00336-0) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.24.3505) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1107/S0021889811038970) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.144420)
\
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Fuyuki Sakamoto at Tohoku University for his help in the ICP analysis, and Yukitoshi Motome at the University of Tokyo and Joji Nasu at Yokohama National University for fruitful discussions.
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 16K17732, 17H05474, 18H01159, 18H04302, 18K03531, and 19H04685.\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we discuss several heuristic strategies which allow one to solve the Whitehead’s minimization problem much faster (on most inputs) than the classical Whitehead algorithm. The mere fact that these strategies work in practice leads to several interesting mathematical conjectures. In particular, we conjecture that the length of most non-minimal elements in a free group can be reduced by a Nielsen automorphism which can be identified by inspecting the structure of the corresponding Whitehead Graph.'
author:
- 'R.M. Haralick, A.D. Miasnikov and A.G. Myasnikov'
title: Heuristics for The Whitehead Minimization Problem
---
Introduction to Whitehead method {#sub-sec:WminProb}
================================
\[sec:WDA\]
Let $X = \{x_1, \ldots, x_m\}$ be a finite alphabet, $X^{-1} =
\{x^{-1} \mid x \in X\}$ be the set of formal inverses of letters from $X$ and $X^{\pm 1} = X \cup X^{-1}$. A word $w = y_1 \ldots
y_n $ in the alphabet $X^{\pm 1}$ is called [*reduced*]{} if $y_i
\neq y_{i+1}$ for $i = 1, \ldots, n-1$ (here we assume that $(x^{-1})^{-1} = x$). Applying reduction rules $xx^{-1}
\rightarrow \varepsilon, x^{-1}x \rightarrow \varepsilon$ (where $\varepsilon$ is the empty word), one can reduce each word $w$ in the alphabet $X^{\pm 1}$ to a reduced word $\overline {w}$. The word $\overline {w}$ is uniquely defined and does not depend on a particular sequence of reductions. Denote by $F = F(X)$ the set of reduced words over $X^{\pm 1}$. The set $F$ forms a group with respect to the multiplication $u \cdot v = \overline{uv}$, which is called a [*free* ]{} group with [*basis*]{} $X$. The cardinality $|X|$ is called the [*rank*]{} of $F(X)$. Sometimes we write $F_n$ instead of $F$ to indicate that the rank of $F$ is equal to $n$.
A bijection $\phi: F \rightarrow F$ is called an [*automorphism*]{} of $F$ if $\phi(uv) = \phi(u)\phi(v)$ for every $u,
v \in F$. The set $Aut(F)$ of all automorphisms of $F$ forms a group with respect to composition of maps. Every automorphism $\phi \in Aut(F)$ is completely determined by the images $\phi(x)$ of elements $x \in X$. The following two subsets of $Aut(F)$ play an important part in group theory and topology.
An automorphism $t \in Aut(F)$ is called a [*Nielsen automorphism*]{} if for some $x \in X$ $t$ fixes all elements $y \in X, y \neq x$ and maps $x$ to one of the elements $x^{-1}$, $y^{\pm 1}x$, $xy^{\pm 1}$. By $N(X)$ we denote the set of all Nielsen automorphisms of $F$.
An automorphism $t \in Aut(F)$ is called a [*Whitehead automorphism*]{} if either $t$ permutes elements of $X^{\pm 1}$ or $t$ fixes a given element $a \in X^{\pm 1}$ and maps each element $x
\in X^{\pm 1}, x \neq a^{\pm 1}$ to one of the elements $x$, $xa$, $a^{-1} x$, or $a^{-1} x a$. Obviously, every Nielsen automorphism is also a Whitehead automorphism. By $W(X)$ we denote the set of non-trivial Whitehead’s automorphisms of the second type.
Observe that $$|N(X)| = 4n(n-1), \ \ \ |W(X)| = 2n4^{(n-1)} - 2n$$ where $n = |X|$ is the rank of $F$.
It is known [@Lyndon77compbgt] that every automorphism from $Aut(F)$ is a product of finitely many Nielsen (hence Whitehead) automorphisms.
The automorphic orbit $Orb(w)$ of a word $w \in F$ is the set of all automorphic images of $w$ in $F$: $$Orb(w) = \{ v \in F \mid \exists \varphi \in Aut(F) \mathrm{\; such \;that}\; w^\varphi =
v\}.$$ A word $w \in F$ is called [*minimal*]{} (or [*automorphically minimal*]{}) if $|w| \leq |w^\varphi|$ for any $\varphi \in Aut(F)$. By $w_{min}$ we denote a word of minimal length in $Orb(w)$. Notice that $w_{min}$ is not unique.
\[RP\] For a word $u \in F$ find an automorphism $\varphi \in
Aut(F)$ such that $u\varphi = u_{min}$.
In 1936 J. H. C. Whitehead proved the following result which gives a solution to the minimization problem [@Whitehead36equivsets].
\[thm:T1\] Let $u,v \in F_n(X)$ and $v \in Orb(u)$. If $|u|>|v|$, then there exists $t \in W(X)$ such that $$|u|>|ut|.$$
An automorphism $\phi \in Aut(F)$ is called [a length-reducing]{} automorphism for a given word $u \in F$ if $|u\phi| < |u|$. The theorem above claims that the finite set $W(X)$ contains a length-reducing automorphism for every non-minimal word $u \in F$. This allows one to design a simple search algorithm for (MP).
Let $u \in F$. For each $t \in W(X)$ compute the length of the tuple $ut$ until $|u|
> |ut|$, then put $t_1 = t, u_1 = ut_1$. Otherwise stop and output $u_{min} = u$. The procedure above is called the [*Whitehead Length Reduction*]{} routine (WLR). Now Whitehead Reduction Algorithm (WRA) proceeds as follows. Repeat WLR on $u$, and then on $u_1$, and so on, until on some step $k$ WRL gives an output $u_{min}$. Then $ut_1 \ldots t_{k-1} = u_{min}$, so $\phi = t_1
\ldots t_{k-1}$ is a required automorphism.
Notice, that the iteration procedure WRA simulates the classical greedy descent method ($t_1$ is a successfull direction from $u$, $t_2$ is a successfull direction from $u_1$, and etc.). Theorem \[thm:T1\] guarantees that the greedy approach will always converge to the global minimum.
Clearly, there could be at most $|u|$ repetitions of WLR on an input $u \in F$ $$|u| > |ut_1|>...>|ut_1 ... t_l| = u_{min}, \ \ \ l \leq |u|.$$ Hence the worst case complexity of the algorithm WRA is bounded from above by $$cA_n|u|^2,$$ where $A_n = 2n4^{(n-1)} - 2n$ is the number of Whitehead automorphisms in $W(X)$. Therefore, in the worst case scenario, the algorithm seems to be impractical for free groups with large ranks. One can try to improve on the number of steps which takes to find a length-reducing automorphism for a given non-minimal element from $F$. In this context the main question of interest is the complexity of the following
For a given non-minimal element $u \in F$ find a length-reducing automorphism.
We refer to [@MM03wga] for a general discussion on this problem.
In the next section we give some empirical evidence that using smart strategies in selecting Whitehead automorphisms $t \in W(X)$ one can dramatically improve the average complexity of WRA in terms of the rank of a group.
Heuristics for Length Reduction Problem {#sec:Strategies}
=======================================
Nielsen first
-------------
The first heuristic comes from a very naive approach: replace $W(X)$ by $N(X)$ in the Whitehead length reduction routine WLR and denote the resulting routine by NLR. Since the size of $N(X)$ is quadratic and the size of $W(X)$ is exponential in the rank of $F$, the algorithm NRA may give a real speedup in computations. However, it is known (see [@Lyndon77compbgt]) that the Whitehead theorem above does not hold after replacement of $W(X)$ by $N(X)$. Therefore, the algorithm NRA will not give the correct answer at least on some inputs. But this is not the end of the story. Now the question is [*how often the length reduction routine NLR gives the correct answer?*]{}
To get some insights, we perform a simple experiment. For free groups $F_3$, $F_4$ and $F_5$ we generate test sets of non-minimal elements of Whitehead Complexity 1 (see definitions in [@MM03wga]), described in Table \[tab:data\_non-min\]. For a detailed description of the data generation procedures we refer to [@HMM03pr].
Dataset Group Dataset Size Min. length Avg. length Max. length
--------- ------- -------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
$D_3$ $F_3$ 10143 3 558.2 1306
$D_4$ $F_4$ 10176 4 570.9 1366
$D_5$ $F_5$ 10165 5 581.3 1388
: Statistics of sets of non-minimal elements. []{data-label="tab:data_non-min"}
For each set $D_n$ we compute the fraction of elements from $D_n$ which have length-reducing Nielsen automorphisms. The results of the computations together with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals are given in Table \[tab:frac\_non-min\]. We can see that most of the words have been reduced by Nielsen automorphisms. We would like to mention here, that it can be shown statistically that increasing the length of elements in the datasets does not significantly change the results of experiments.
Dataset $D_3$ $D_4$ $D_5$
-------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
Fraction 0.998 0.997 0.998
95% Conf. Interval \[0.9970,0.9988\] \[0.9957,0.9979\] \[0.9970,0.9988\]
: Fraction of elements in the sets $D_3$, $D_4$ and $D_5$ with length-reducing Nielsen automorphisms.[]{data-label="tab:frac_non-min"}
Based on these experiments one can speculate that with very high probability Nielsen automorphisms reduce the length of a given non-minimal element in $F$. More precisely, we state the following
\[conj:NielsenFirst\] Let $U_n$ be the set of all non-minimal elements in $F$ of length $n$ and $NU_n \subset U_n$ the subset of elements which have Nielsen length-reducing automorphisms. Then $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{|NU_n|}{|U_n|} = 1.$$
Our first heuristic is based on this conjecture and simply suggests to try Nielsen automorphisms first in the routine WLR, i.e., in this case we assume that in the fixed listing of automorphisms of $W(X)$ the automorphism from $N(X)$ come first. We refer to this heuristic as to *Nielsen First* and denote the corresponding Length Reduction Routine and the Whitehead Reduction algorithm (with respect to this ordering of $W(X)$) by $\mathrm{WLR}_{NF}$ and $\mathrm{WRA}_{NF}$.
The expected value of the number of steps for the routine $\mathrm{WLR}_{NF}$ to find a length-reducing automorphism on an input $u \in F$ of length $n$ is equal to $$P_n|N(X)| + (1-P_n)(|W(X)| - |N(X)|),$$ where $P_n = NU_n / U_n$.
Given that Conjecture \[conj:NielsenFirst\] is true, we expect $\mathrm{WRA}_{NF}$ to perform much better on average. In the next section we describe experimental results supporting this strategy.
Cluster analysis
----------------
According to the heuristic NF one has to apply Nielsen automorphisms to a given input $w$ in some fixed order, which is independent of the word $w$. Intuitively, we expect some automorphisms to be more likely to reduce the length of a given word than the others. It suggests that the conditional probabilities $$Prob( |w t| < |w| \mid w), \ t \in N(X)$$ may not be equal for different non-minimal words $w \in F$, so the order in which Nielsen automorphisms are applied to an input $w$ should depend on the word $w$ itself.
The question we would like to address next is whether it is possible to find a dependence between a non-minimal word $w$ and its length-reducing Nielsen automorphisms. For this purpose we employ methods from *Statistical Pattern Recognition*.
Briefly, Pattern Recognition aims to classify a variety of given objects into categories based on the existing statistical information. The objects are typically presented by collections of measurements or observations (called *features*) which are real numbers. In this event the tuple of features that corresponds to a given object is called a *feature vector*, it can be viewed as a point in the appropriate multidimensional vector space $\mathbb{R}^d$. Most of the approaches in Statistical pattern recognition are based on statistical characterizations of features, assuming that objects are generated by a probabilistic system. The detailed description of Pattern Recognition methods is out of scope of this report. We refer interested readers to [@Duda00patternclass; @Fukunaga90PR; @theodoridis99pattern] for general introduction to the subject, and [@HMM03pr] for applications of pattern recognition methods in groups.
Unsupervised learning or *clustering* methods of pattern recognition are used when no a priori information about the objects is available. In this case there are general algorithms to group the feature vectors of objects into some “natural classes” (called *clusters*) relative to the specified similarity assumptions. Intuitively, the objects whose feature vectors belong to the same cluster are more similar to each other than the objects with the feature vectors in different clusters.
The most simple and widely used clustering scheme is called [*$K$-means*]{}. It is an iterative method. Let $D = \{{\mathbf{x}}_1,
\ldots, {\mathbf{x}}_N\}$ be a set of given objects, represented by the corresponding feature vectors ${\mathbf{x}} \in \mathbb{R}^d$. $K$-means begins with a set of $K$ randomly chosen cluster centers $\mu^0_1,\ldots, \mu^0_K \in \mathbb{R}^d$. At iteration $i$ each feature vector is assigned to the nearest cluster center (in some metric $||\ ||$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$). This forms the cluster sets $C^i_1,\ldots, C^i_K$, where
$$C^i_j = \{ {\mathbf{x}} \mid ||{\mathbf{x}} - \mu^i_j|| \le ||{\mathbf{x}} - \mu^i_m||,\ {\mathbf{x}} \in D, \ m=1,\ldots,K \}.$$
Then each cluster center is redefined as the mean of the feature vectors assigned to the cluster:
$$\mu^{i+1}_k = \frac{1}{\ |C^i_k| } \sum_{{\mathbf{x}} \in C^i_k} {\mathbf{x}}.$$
Each iteration reduces the criterion function $J^i$ defined as $$J^i = \sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{{\mathbf{x}}\in C^i_k} ||{\mathbf{x}} - \mu^i_k||.$$
As this criterion function is bounded below by zero, the iterations must converge. This method works well when clusters are mutually exclusive and compact around their center means.
Here we claim that $K$-means algorithm allows one to discover some natural classes of non-minimal words. We show below that analysis of the corresponding cluster structures sheds some light on the relation between non-minimal words and their length-reducing automorphisms.
We define features of elements $w \in F(X)$ as follows. Recall that the Labelled Whitehead Graph $WG(w) = (V,E)$ of an element $w \in F(X)$ is a weighted non-oriented graph, where the set of vertices $V$ is equal to the set $X^{\pm
1}$, and for $x_i, x_j \in X^{\pm 1}$ there is an edge $(x_i,x_j) \in E$ if the subword $x_i x_j^{-1}$ (or $x_jx_i^{-1}$) occurs in the word $w$ viewed as a cyclic word. Every edge $(x_i,x_j)$ is assigned a weight $l_{ij}$ which is the number of times the subwords $x_ix_j^{-1}$ and $x_jx_i^{-1}$ occur in $w$.
Let $l(w)$ be a vector of edge weights in the Whitehead Graph $WG(w)$ with respect to a fixed order. We define a feature vector $f(w)$ by $$f(w) = \frac{1}{|w|}l(w).$$
To execute the $K$-means algorithm one has to define in advance the expected number of clusters $K$. Since we would like these clusters to be related to the set of Nielsen automorphisms $N(X)$ we put $K = | N(X)|$.
To evaluate usefulness of the clustering we use the goodness measure $R_{max}$ defined below. Let ${\mathcal{C}}\subset D$ be a cluster of the data set $D \subset F_n = F(X)$. For $t \in N(X)$ define $$R(t,{\mathcal{C}}) = \frac{| \{ w \in {\mathcal{C}}\mid |w t |<| w | \}}{|{\mathcal{C}}|}.$$ The number $R(t,{\mathcal{C}})$ shows how many elements in ${\mathcal{C}}$ are reducible by $t$. Now put $$R_{max}({\mathcal{C}}) = \max \{R(t,{\mathcal{C}}) \mid t \in N(X) \}$$ and denote by $t_{{\mathcal{C}}}$ a Nielsen automorphism $t \in N(X)$ such that $ R(t_{\mathcal{C}},{\mathcal{C}}) = R_{max}({\mathcal{C}})$. The number $R_{max}({\mathcal{C}})$ shows how many elements in ${\mathcal{C}}$ can be reduced by a single automorphism, in this case by $t_{{\mathcal{C}}}$. We also define the average value of the goodness measure $$avg(R_{max}) = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{i=1}^K R_{max}({\mathcal{C}}_i),$$ where $K$ is the number of clusters.
The results of $K$-mean cluster analysis of sets of randomly generated non-minimal elements in free groups $F_3$, $F_4$, $F_5$ are given in Table \[tab:clust\_eval\]. It shows that more that 70% of elements in every cluster can be reduced by the same Nielsen automorphism. In the free group $F_3$, where the number of clusters is significantly smaller, the corresponding percentage is over 98%. Moreover, our experiments show that $t_{{\mathcal{C}}_i} \neq t_{C_j}$ for $i\neq j$. In other words there are no two distinct clusters such that one and the same Nielsen automorphism reduces most of the elements in both clusters.
Free group $F_3$ $F_4$ $F_5$
--------------------------- ------- ------- ------- --
number of clusters, $K$ 24 48 80
$avg(R_{max})$, $K$-means 0.985 0.879 0.731
: Average values of the goodness measure $R_{max}$ for $K$-means clustering. []{data-label="tab:clust_eval"}
The discovered cluster structure gives rise to the following strategy in solving the Length Reduction Problem for a given word $w$. Let $\mu_1, \ldots, \mu_K$ be the centers of clusters ${\mathcal{C}}_1, \ldots, {\mathcal{C}}_K$ computed by the $K$-means procedure. We compute the distance $||f(w) - \mu_i||$ for each $i = 1, \ldots, K$. Now we list the Nielsen automorphisms in $N(X)$ in the order $t_{i_1}, t_{i_2}, \ldots, t_{i_K}$ with respect to the distances $$||f(w) - \mu_{i_1}|| \leq ||f(w) - \mu_{i_2}|| \leq \ldots \leq ||f(w) - \mu_{i_K}||.$$
To find a length reducing automorphism for a given word $w$ we subsequently apply automorphisms from $N(X)$ in the prescribed order until we find an automorphism $t_i \in N(X)$ which reduces the length of $w$. If such an automorphism does not exist we proceed with the remaining automorphisms from $W(X) - N(X)$ as in the NF heuristic.
From the description of the $K$-means method we know that clusters are characterized by the center means of the feature vectors of elements in the same cluster. The observations above lead us to the following vaguely stated conjecture, which gives a model to describe behavior of non-minimal elements from $F$ in terms of their feature vectors.
\[conj:hypersurf\] The feature vectors of weights of the Whitehead Graphs of elements from $F$ are separated into bounded regions in the corresponding space. Each such region can be bounded by a hypersurface and corresponds to a particular Nielsen automorphism in a sense that all elements in the corresponding class can be reduced by that automorphism.
Improvement on the clustering
-----------------------------
Experiments with $K$-means clustering algorithm show that clustering is a useful tool in solving the length reduction problem. Now, the goal is to make clustering more effective. The further analysis of the clusters suggests that to some extent they correspond to partitions of elements in $F$ which can be reduced by one and only one Nielsen automorphism. To verify this conjecture we perform the following experiment.
Let $S \subset F_n = F(X)$ be a set of randomly generated non-minimal elements and $D$ the set used for cluster analysis in the previous section. Note that $S$ is generated independently from the set $D$. For each automorphism $t \in N(X)$ put $$O_t = \{ w \in S \mid \forall r \in N(X) (|wr| < |w|
\Longleftrightarrow r = t) \}$$ and define new cluster centers by $$\label{eq:centers}
\lambda_t = \frac{1}{|O_t|} \sum_{w \in O_t} f(w)$$ as the mean feature vector of the elements from $S$ that can be reduced only by $t$ and no other automorphisms.
We cluster elements from $D$ based on the distance between the corresponding feature vector and centers $\lambda_t$: $${\mathcal{C}}_t = \{ w \in D \mid \forall r \in N(X) (||f(w) - \lambda_t|| \le
||f(w) - \lambda_r||) \}.$$
The results of evaluation of the clusters ${\mathcal{C}}_t$ are given in Table \[tab:clust\_eval-2\]. One can see that the goodness measure is improved and is close to 1 in every case.
Free group $F_3$ $F_4$ $F_5$
----------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- --
number of clusters, $K$ 24 48 80
$avg(R_{max})$, distance to $\lambda_t$ 0.998 0.993 0.991
: Average values of the goodness measure $R_{max}$ for the clustering based on the distance to the estimated centers $\lambda_t$. []{data-label="tab:clust_eval-2"}
Similar to the strategy based on the centers of the $K$-means clusters, we define a new search procedure $\mathrm{WRA}_{C}$ which employs a heuristic based on the distances to centers $\lambda_t$. Let $w$ be a word and $<\lambda_{t_1}, \ldots, \lambda_{t_K}>$ be the centers corresponding to each of the Nielsen automorphisms $t_i \in N(X)$. Put $d(i) = ||f(w) - \lambda_{t_i}||$ and construct a vector $$<d(m_1), d(m_2), \ldots, d(m_K)>,$$ where $$d(m_1) \leq d(m_2) \leq \ldots \leq d(m_K).$$
To find a length reducing automorphism for a given word $w$, the algorithm $\mathrm{WRA}_{C}$ applies Whitehead automorphisms to $w$ in the following order. First, Nielsen automorphisms $t_{m_1},
\ldots, t_{m_K}$ are applied subsequently. If none of the Nielsen automorphisms reduces the length of $w$ the algorithm $\mathrm{WRA}_{C}$ proceed with the remaining automorphisms $W(X) - N(X)$ in some fixed order.
Based on the results of the cluster analysis from Table \[tab:clust\_eval-2\], we expect the algorithm $\mathrm{WRA}_C$ to reduce a non-minimal word $w$ using very few elementary automorphisms on average.
Maximal weight edges
--------------------
Now we would like to take a closer look at the edges’ weight distributions at the cluster centers. First, observe that every edge in the Whitehead graph $WG$, except for the ones which correspond to subwords of type $x^2$, $x \in X^{\pm 1}$, will correspond to subwords reducible by two particular Nielsen transformations. For example, edge connecting nodes $a$ and $b$ corresponds to subwords $(ab^{-1})^{\pm 1}$ both of which are reduced by automorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
(a \rightarrow a b, b \rightarrow b), \\
(a \rightarrow a, b \rightarrow b a).\end{aligned}$$ In fact there is no other Nielsen transformation that will reduce the length of words $(a b^{-1})^{\pm 1}$.
To generalize, let $WG(w)$ be a Whitehead graph of a word $w$ with the vertex set $V$ and the set of edges $E$. Let $e = (x, y^{-1})$, $x, y^{-1} \in V$, be an edge in $E$. By construction $e$ corresponds to subwords $s_e = (x y)^{\pm 1}$ of the word $w$. The only Nielsen automorphisms which reduce length of the subwords $s_e$ are $$\psi^x_e: x \rightarrow x y^{-1},\ z \rightarrow z, \ \forall z \neq x,\ z \in X$$ and $$\psi^y_e: y \rightarrow x^{-1} y,\ z \rightarrow z, \ \forall z \neq y,\ z \in X.$$ We will call automorphisms $\psi^x_e, \psi^y_e$ the length reducing Nielsen automorphisms with respect to the edge $e=(x,y^{-1})$ and denote $\psi_e=\{\psi^x_e, \psi^y_e\}$.
The following phenomenon has been observed for all clusters in free groups $F_3$, $F_4$, and $F_5$. Let ${\mathcal{C}}_t$ be a cluster of a test set $D_n$, $n=3,4,5$, then for all $t \in N(X)$, $$t \in \psi_{e_{max}},$$ where $e_{max}$ is the edge having the maximal weight in the cluster center $\lambda_t$. It suggests that at least in the case of free groups $F_3$, $F_4$, $F_5$ one can try to estimate a length-reducing automorphism for given word $w$ by taking the length-reducing Nielsen automorphisms of the highest weight edge in the Whitehead graph $WG(w)$.
To evaluate the goodness of the heuristic based on the maximal edge weight in the Whitehead graph we compute the fraction of elements in the sets $D_3$, $D_4$ and $D_5$, reducible by the Nielsen automorphisms corresponding to the maximal weight edge. The corresponding goodness measure, evaluated on a set $D$, is given by $$\mathcal{G}_{MAX} = \frac{1}{|D|}|\{ w \in D \mid \exists t \in
\psi_{e_{max}(w)}, \ \mathrm{s.t.}\ |wt| < |w|\}|.$$
Dataset $D_3$ $D_4$ $D_5$
--------------------- ------- ------- ------- --
$\mathcal{G}_{MAX}$ 0.991 0.986 0.986
: Values of the goodness measure $\mathcal{G}_{MAX}$ for sets of non-minimal elements in free groups $F_3$, $F_4$ and $F_5$. []{data-label="tab:max_weight_eval"}
Values of the goodness measure $\mathcal{G}_{MAX}$ for test sets in free groups $F_3$, $F_4$ and $F_5$ are given in Table \[tab:max\_weight\_eval\]. It shows, that heuristic is surprisingly effective. Nevertheless, centroid based method still yields better results. Note that $\mathcal{G}_{MAX}$ measures success of applying two automorphisms corresponding to the maximal weight edge, where the centroid based method was evaluated by the success rate of only one automorphism which corresponds to the closest center.
The observation provides a new search procedure which we denote by $\mathrm{WRA}_{MAX}$. Let $w$ be a word and $WG(w) = (V,E)$ be the corresponding Whitehead graph. Denote by $E'$ the set of edges which do not correspond to the subwords of type $x^{\pm 2}$, $x
\in X$ $$E' = \{ e \in E \mid e \neq (v,v^{-1}), v \in V\}.$$
It has been shown above, that for each edge $e$ from $E'$ there exists two unique length reducing automorphisms. Note that $2 |E'| = |N(X)|$, where $N(X)$ is the set of Nielsen automorphisms for free group $F(X)$.
We can order Nielsen automorphisms $\psi_{e_i} \subset N(X)$: $$\label{eq:max_weight_order}
<\psi_{e_1}, \psi_{e_2}, \ldots, \psi_{e_{|E'|}}>$$ such that edges $e_1, \ldots , e_{|E'|}$ are chosen according to the decreasing order of the values of the corresponding weights $$\omega_{e_1} \geq \omega_{e_2} \geq \ldots \geq \omega_{e_{|E'|}}.$$ Note that $\psi_e$ is not a single automorphism, but a pair of Nielsen length reducing automorphisms with respect to the edge $e$. Here we do not give any preference in ordering automorphisms in $\psi_e$.
To find a length-reducing automorphism for $w$ procedure $\mathrm{WRA}_{MAX}$ first applies Nielsen automorphisms in the order given by (\[eq:max\_weight\_order\]). If none of the Nielsen automorphisms reduces the length of $w$, $\mathrm{WRA}_{MAX}$ proceeds with the remaining automorphisms from $W(X) - N(X)$.
Comparison of the strategies
============================
In this section we describe experiments designed to compare the performance of WRA implemented with different search strategies. We compare four variations of the algorithm. $\mathrm{WRA}_R$ is the variation of WRA, where a random order of the elements from $W_n$ is used when searching for a length reducing automorphisms. $\mathrm{WRA}_{NF}$ and $\mathrm{WRA}_C$ correspond to the implementations with Nielsen First and Centroid based heuristics respectively. The algorithm $\mathrm{WRA}_{MAX}$ employs strategy which applies automorphisms corresponding to the largest edge weights of the Whitehead Graph. The algorithms were compared on randomly generated sets of primitive elements $S_3$, $S_4$, $S_5$ in free groups $F_3$, $F_4$, and $F_5$, respectively. Some descriptive statistics of the test sets $S_n$ are given in Table \[tab:prim\_datasets\].
Dataset Group Dataset Size Min. length Avg. length Max. length
--------- ------- -------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
$S_3$ $F_3$ 5645 3 1422.1 143020
$S_4$ $F_4$ 5241 4 2513.1 168353
$S_5$ $F_5$ 3821 5 2430.5 160794
: Statistics of the test sets of primitive elements. []{data-label="tab:prim_datasets"}
Let ${\mathcal A}$ be one of the variations $\mathrm{WRA}_R$, $\mathrm{WRA}_{NF}$, $\mathrm{WRA}_C$, and $\mathrm{WRA}_{MAX}$ of the Whitehead Reduction Algorithm. By an elementary step of the algorithm ${\mathcal{A}}$ we mean one application of a Whitehead automorphism to a given word. Below we evaluate the performance of ${\mathcal{A}}$ with respect to the number of elementary steps that are required by ${\mathcal{A}}$ to execute a particular routine.
Let $N_{total} = N_{total}({\mathcal{A}},S_n)$ be the average of the total number of elementary steps required by ${\mathcal{A}}$ to reduce a given primitive element $w \in S_n$ to a generator.
By $N_{red} = N_{red}({\mathcal{A}},S_n)$ we denote the average number of elementary length-reducing steps required by ${\mathcal{A}}$ to reduce a given primitive element $w \in S_n$ to a generator, so $N_{red}$ is the average number of “productive” steps performed by ${\mathcal{A}}$. It follows that if $t_1, \ldots, t_l$ are all the length reducing automorphisms found by ${\mathcal{A}}$ when executing its routine on an input $w \in S_n$ then $|w t_1 \ldots
t_l| = 1$ and the average value of $l$ is equal to $N_{red}$.
Finally, denote by $N_{LRP} = N_{LRP}({\mathcal{A}},S_n)$ the average number of elementary steps required by ${\mathcal{A}}$ to find a length-reducing automorphism for a given non-minimal input $w$.
Strategy $N_{total}$ $N_{red}$ $N_{LRP}$
---------------------- ------------- ----------- -----------
$\mathrm{WRA}_C$ 19.9 18.4 1.1
$\mathrm{WRA}_{MAX}$ 47.1 23.9 1.9
$\mathrm{WRA}_{NF}$ 207.8 28.2 7.37
$\mathrm{WRA}_{R}$ 374.8 29.8 12.6
: Results of experiments with sets of primitive elements in free groups $F_3$,$F_4$ and $F_5$. Counts are averaged over all inputs. []{data-label="tab:res"}
a\) $F_3$;
Strategy $N_{total}$ $N_{red}$ $N_{LRP}$
---------------------- ------------- ----------- -----------
$\mathrm{WRA}_C$ 58.8 34.1 1.4
$\mathrm{WRA}_{MAX}$ 152.8 42.5 3.0
$\mathrm{WRA}_{NF}$ 1052.6 56.2 18.7
$\mathrm{WRA}_{R}$ 2610.4 58.8 44.4
: Results of experiments with sets of primitive elements in free groups $F_3$,$F_4$ and $F_5$. Counts are averaged over all inputs. []{data-label="tab:res"}
b\) $F_4$;
Strategy $N_{total}$ $N_{red}$ $N_{LRP}$
---------------------- ------------- ----------- -----------
$\mathrm{WRA}_C$ 162.0 50.9 2.4
$\mathrm{WRA}_{MAX}$ 342.2 58.8 4.5
$\mathrm{WRA}_{NF}$ 2307.6 75.4 30.6
$\mathrm{WRA}_{R}$ 15939.6 78.8 202.0
: Results of experiments with sets of primitive elements in free groups $F_3$,$F_4$ and $F_5$. Counts are averaged over all inputs. []{data-label="tab:res"}
c\) $F_5$.
In Table \[tab:res\] we present results of our experiments on performance of the algorithms $\mathrm{WRA}_R$, $\mathrm{WRA}_{NF}$, $\mathrm{WRA}_C$ and $\mathrm{WRA}_{MAX}$ on the test sets $S_n$, $n = 3,4,5$. The algorithms compare as expected. The algorithms $\mathrm{WRA}_C$ and $\mathrm{WRA}_{MAX}$ perform very efficiently with the numbers $N_{LRP}$ and $N_{red}$ being small. Algorithm $\mathrm{WRA}_C$ based on the centroid approach shows best over all performance. The growth of the numbers $N_{LRP}$ with the rank could be explained by occasional occurrence of non-minimal words that cannot be reduced by Nielsen automorphisms. In this event the algorithm tries Whitehead automorphisms from $W(X)-
N(X)$ the number of which growth exponentially with the rank. Notice that in every our experiment the number $N_{red}$ of length reductions performed by $\mathrm{WRA}_C$ is less than the corresponding number in the other approaches.
In Table \[tab:corr\] we give the correlation coefficients showing dependence of the number of elementary steps required by a particular algorithm to find a length-reducing automorphism with respect to the length of the input words. The coefficients are negative in all cases which indicates that the values of $N_{LRP}$ do not increase when the words’ length increases.
Strategy $F_3$ $F_4$ $F_5$
---------------------- -------- -------- -------- --
$\mathrm{WRA}_C$ -0.008 -0.001 -0.006
$\mathrm{WRA}_{MAX}$ -0.024 -0.023 -0.038
$\mathrm{WRA}_{NF}$ -0.009 -0.022 -0.022
$\mathrm{WRA}_{R}$ -0.038 -0.014 -0.035
: Correlation coefficients between words length and values of $N_{LRP}$. Negative coefficients indicate that $N_{LRP}$ does not increase when length increases. []{data-label="tab:corr"}
Conclusions
===========
The experimental results presented in this paper show that using appropriate heuristics in the algorithm WRA, one can significantly reduce the complexity of the Whitehead minimization problem on most inputs with respect to the group rank. Suggested heuristics reduce the average number of Whitehead automorphisms required to find a length-reducing automorphism for a given word. The performance of heuristic algorithms tested on the sets of randomly generated primitive elements shows robust behavior and does not deteriorate when the length of the input words increases.
One of the interesting contributions of this paper is the empirically discovered properties of non-minimal elements of free groups formulated in Conjectures \[conj:NielsenFirst\] and \[conj:hypersurf\]. These conjectures suggest that the length of a “generic” non-minimal elements in a free group can be reduced by a Nielsen automorphism. Moreover, the feature vectors of the weights of the Whitehead’s Graphs of non-minimal elements are divided into “compact” regions in the corresponding vector space. Each such region is related to a particular Nielsen automorphism, that reduces the length of all elements in the region. We believe this is one of those few cases when a meaningful rigorous, but not intuitively clear conjecture, in group theory was obtained by using experimental simulations and statistical analysis of the problem.
It remains to be seen why the algorithm $\mathrm{WRA}_C$ is able to find minimal elements using a smaller number of length reductions on average. We are going to address this issue in the subsequent paper.
[1]{} R.O. Duda, P.E. Hart, and D.G. Stork, *Pattern classification*, 2nd ed., Wiley-Interscience, 2000.
K. Fukunaga, *Introduction to statisical pattern recognition*, Academic Press Inc., 1990.
R.M. Haralick, A.D. Miasnikov, and A.G. Myasnikov, *Pattern recognition approaches to solving combinatorial problems in free groups*, Contemporary Mathematics, v. 349, 2004, p. 197-213.
R. Lyndon and P. Schupp, *Combinatorial group theory*, Series of Modern Studies in Math. 89. Springer-Verlag, 1977.
A.D. Miasnikov and A.G. Myasnikov, *Whitehead method and genetic algorithms*, Contemporary Mathematics, Contemporary Mathematics, v. 349, 2004, p. 89-114.
S. Theodoridis and K. Koutroumbas, *[Pattern Recognition]{}*, Academic Press, 1999.
J. H. C. Whitehead, *On equivalent sets of elements in a free group*, Annals of Mathematics **37** (1936), no. 4, p. 782–800.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this article, we presented some properties of the Katugampola fractional integrals and derivatives. Also we studied the fractional calculus properties involving Katugampola Fractional integrals and derivatives of generalized $k-$Wright function $_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}(z).$\
**AMS classifications: 33B15; 33C20; 26A33.**
address:
- 'Ahmad Y. A. Salamooni School of Mathematical Sciences, Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded-431606, India'
- 'D. D. Pawar School of Mathematical Sciences, Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded-431606, India'
author:
- 'Ahmad Y. A. Salamooni, D. D. Pawar'
title: 'Katugampola Fractional Calculus With Generalized $k-$Wright Function'
---
\[section\] \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Example]{}
\[theorem\][Remark]{}
Introduction and Preliminaries
==============================
In recent years, researchers and authors have introduced a new fractional integrators operators and fractional derivatives operators which are generalizations of the famous Riemann-Leuville and the Hadamard-type, for more details see \[1-5\] and references therein.\
** Definition 1.\[5\]** Let $\Omega=[a,b],$ the Katugampola fractional integrals $_{\rho}I_{0+}^{\gamma}\varphi~and~_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}\varphi$ of order $\gamma\in\mathbb{C}(\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)>0)$ are defined for $\rho>0,~a=0~and~b=\infty$ as $$\begin{aligned}
(_{\rho}I_{0+}^{\gamma}\varphi)(s)=\frac{\rho^{1-\gamma}}{\Gamma(\gamma)}
\int_{0}^{s}\frac{\tau^{\rho-1}\varphi(\tau)}{(s^{\rho}-\tau^{\rho})^{1-\gamma}}d\tau,\quad(s>0),\label{e1.1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}\varphi)(s)=\frac{\rho^{1-\gamma}}{\Gamma(\gamma)}
\int_{s}^{\infty}\frac{\tau^{\rho-1}\varphi(\tau)}{(\tau^{\rho}-s^{\rho})^{1-\gamma}}d\tau,\quad(s>0),\label{e1.2}\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding Katugampola fractional derivatives $_{\rho}D_{0+}^{\gamma}\varphi~and~_{\rho}D_{-}^{\gamma}\varphi$ are defined with $\big(n=1+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]\big)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
(_{\rho}D_{0+}^{\gamma}\varphi)(s)&:=\big(s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{1+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]}
\big(_{\rho}I_{0+}^{1-\gamma+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]}\varphi\big)(s)\nonumber\\&
=\frac{\rho^{\gamma-[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]}}{\Gamma(1-\gamma+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)])}\big(s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{1+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]}
\int_{0}^{s}\frac{\tau^{\rho-1}\varphi(\tau)}{(s^{\rho}-\tau^{\rho})^{\gamma-[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]}}d\tau,\quad(s>0),\label{e1.3}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(_{\rho}D_{-}^{\gamma}\varphi)(s)&:=\big(-s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{1+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]}
\big(_{\rho}I_{-}^{1-\gamma+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]}\varphi\big)(s)\nonumber\\&
=\frac{\rho^{\gamma-[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]}}{\Gamma(1-\gamma+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)])}
\big(-s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{1+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]}
\int_{s}^{\infty}\frac{\tau^{\rho-1}\varphi(\tau)}{(\tau^{\rho}-s^{\rho})^{\gamma-[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]}}d\tau,\quad(s>0).\label{e1.4}\end{aligned}$$\
** Definition 2.\[6\]** The generalized $K-$Gamma function $\Gamma_{k}(y)$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{k}(y)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{n!k^{n}(nk)^{\frac{y}{k}-1}}{(y)_{n,k}},
\quad(k>0;~y\in\mathbb{C}\setminus k\mathbb{Z^{-}}),\label{e1.5}\end{aligned}$$ where $(y)_{n,k}$ is the $k-$Pochhammer symbol given as $$\begin{aligned}
(y)_{n,k}:=\left\{\begin{matrix}\frac{\Gamma_{k}(y+nk)}{\Gamma_{k}(y)}
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad(k\in\mathbb{R};~y\in\mathbb{C}\setminus \{0\})\\\\
y(y+k)(y+2k)...(y+(n-1)k)\quad\quad(n\in\mathbb{N^{+}};~y\in\mathbb{C})\end{matrix}\right.\label{e1.6}\end{aligned}$$ and for $\mathfrak{R}(y)>0,$ the $K-$Gamma function $\Gamma_{k}(y)$ defined by the integral $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{k}(y)=\int_{0}^{\infty}x^{y-1}e^{-\frac{x^{k}}{k}}dx\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\label{e1.7}\end{aligned}$$ this given relation with Euler’s Gamma function as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{k}(y)=k^{\frac{y}{k}-1}\Gamma(\frac{y}{k}).\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\label{e1.8}\end{aligned}$$ Also \[7\], $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(1-y)\Gamma(y)=\frac{\pi}{\sin(y\pi)}.\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\label{e1.9}\end{aligned}$$\
** Definition 3. \[8\]** The Beta function $B(\upsilon,\omega)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
B(\upsilon,\omega)&= \int_{0}^{1}z^{\upsilon-1}(1-z)^{\omega-1}dz,\quad\mathfrak{R}(\upsilon)>0,\quad\mathfrak{R}(\omega)>0,\\&
=\frac{\Gamma(\upsilon)\Gamma(\omega)}{\Gamma(\upsilon+\omega)}\label{e1.10}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&\int_{\hat{x}}^{\infty}(z-\hat{x})^{\upsilon-1}(z-\hat{y})^{\omega-1}dz=
(\hat{x}-\hat{y})^{\upsilon+\omega-1} B(\upsilon,1-\upsilon-\omega), \\&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \hat{x}>\hat{y},\quad0<\mathfrak{R}(\upsilon)<1-\mathfrak{R}(\omega).\label{e1.11}\end{aligned}$$\
Recently the Generalized $K-$Wright function introduced by (Gehlot and Prajapati \[9\]) which is defined as following:\
** Definition 4.** For $k\in\mathbb{R^{+}};~z\in\mathbb{C};~p_{i},q_{j}\in\mathbb{C},
~\alpha_{i},\beta_{j}\in\mathbb{R}~(\alpha_{i},\beta_{j}\neq0;~i=1,2,...,n;~j=1,2,...,m)$ and $(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r),~(q_{j}+\beta_{j}r)\in\mathbb{C}\setminus k\mathbb{Z^{-}},$ the generalized $k-$Wright function $_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}(z)=~_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}\Bigg[\begin{matrix}(p_{i},\alpha_{i})_{1,n}\\(q_{j},\beta_{j})_{1,m}
\end{matrix}\Big|z\Bigg]=\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{n}~\Gamma_{k}(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r)}{\prod_{j=1}^{m}\Gamma_{k}(q_{j}+
\beta_{j}r)}\frac{z^{r}}{r!},\label{e1.12}\end{aligned}$$ with the convergence conditions describing as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Delta=\sum_{j=1}^{m}\big(\frac{\beta_{j}}{k}\big)-\sum_{i=1}^{n}
\big(\frac{\alpha_{i}}{k}\big);\mu=\prod_{i=1}^{n}\big|\frac{\alpha_{i}}{k}\big|^{-\frac{\alpha_{i}}{k}}
\prod_{j=1}^{m}\big|\frac{\beta_{j}}{k}\big|^{\frac{\beta_{j}}{k}};\nu=
\sum_{j=1}^{m}\big(\frac{q_{j}}{k}\big)-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\big(\frac{p_{i}}{k}\big)+\frac{n-m}{2}\end{aligned}$$\
** Lemma 1. \[9\]** For $k\in\mathbb{R^{+}};~z\in\mathbb{C};~p_{i},q_{j}\in\mathbb{C},~\alpha_{i},
\beta_{j}\in\mathbb{R}~(\alpha_{i},\beta_{j}\neq0;~i=1,2,...,n;~j=1,2,...,m)$ and $(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r),~(q_{j}+\beta_{j}r)\in\mathbb{C}\setminus k\mathbb{Z^{-}}$
$(1)$ If $\Delta>-1,$ then series $(1.12)$ is absolutely convergent for all $z \in\mathbb{C}$ and
$~~~\quad$ generalized $k-$Wright function $_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}(z)$ is an entire function of $z.$
$(2)$ If $\Delta=-1,$ then series $(1.12)$ is absolutely convergent for all $|z| < \mu$ and of $$|z| = \mu,\mathfrak{R}(\mu)>\frac{1}{2}.$$
Properties of Katugampola Fractional integral and derivative
============================================================
In this section, we investigated some properties of the Katugampola fractional integrals and derivatives $(1.1),(1.2)~and~(1.3),(1.4)$ for the power function $\varphi(s)=s^{\alpha-1}$ and the exponential function $e^{-\lambda~s^{\rho}}.$\
** Lemma 2.** Let $\rho>0,\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)\geqq0~~ and~~ n=1+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]$
$(1)~~If~\mathfrak{R}(\alpha)>0,$ then $$\begin{aligned}
(_{\rho}I_{0+}^{\gamma}\tau^{\alpha-1})(s)=
\frac{\rho^{-\gamma}\Gamma(1+\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho})}{\Gamma(1+\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho}+\gamma)}s^{\rho\gamma+(\alpha-1)}
\quad(\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)\geq0;~\mathfrak{R}(\alpha)>0)\label{e2.1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\quad\quad(_{\rho}D_{0+}^{\gamma}\tau^{\alpha-1})(s)=
\frac{\rho^{\gamma-n}\Gamma(1+\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho})}{\Gamma(1+\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho}-\gamma)}s^{(\alpha-1)-\rho\gamma}
\quad(\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)\geqq0;~\mathfrak{R}(\alpha)>0).\label{e2.2}\end{aligned}$$
$(2)~~If~\alpha\in\mathbb{C},$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\quad\quad(_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}\tau^{\alpha-1})(s)=
\frac{\rho^{-\gamma}\Gamma(\frac{1-\alpha}{\rho}-\gamma)}{\Gamma(\frac{1-\alpha}{\rho})}s^{\rho\gamma+(\alpha-1)}
\quad(\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)\geq0;~\mathfrak{R}(\gamma+\alpha)<1)\label{e2.3}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\quad\quad\quad(_{\rho}D_{-}^{\gamma}\tau^{\alpha-1})(s)=
\frac{\rho^{\gamma-n}\Gamma(\frac{1-\alpha}{\rho}+\gamma)}{\Gamma(\frac{1-\alpha}{\rho})}s^{(\alpha-1)-\rho\gamma}
\quad(\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)\geqq0;~\mathfrak{R}(\gamma+\alpha-[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)])<1).\label{e2.4}\end{aligned}$$
$(3)~~If~\mathfrak{R}(\lambda)>0,$ then $$\begin{aligned}
(_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}e^{-\lambda\tau^{\rho}})(s)=(\lambda\rho)^{-\gamma}e^{-\lambda~s^{\rho}}
\quad\quad(\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)\geq0)\label{e2.5}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
(_{\rho}D_{-}^{\gamma}e^{-\lambda\tau^{\rho}})(s)=(\lambda\rho)^{\gamma}e^{-\lambda~s^{\rho}}
\quad\quad(\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)\geqq0).\label{e2.6}\end{aligned}$$\
** Proof.** To prove this Lemma, let the substitution $x=\frac{\tau^{\rho}}{s^{\rho}},$ in parts (1) and (2).
$(1)$ Firstly, by the equation (1.1) and the given substitution we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
(_{\rho}I_{0+}^{\gamma}\tau^{\alpha-1})(s)&=\frac{\rho^{-\gamma}s^{\rho\gamma+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\gamma)}
\int_{0}^{1}\frac{x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho}}}{(1-x)^{1-\gamma}}dx\\&\nonumber
=\frac{\rho^{-\gamma}s^{\rho\gamma+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\gamma)}~B\big(\gamma,1+\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho}\big),\end{aligned}$$ now, using equation (1.10), we obtain the result (2.1). $\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\Box$\
Secondly, by the equation (1.3), the given substitution and by using the result (2.1), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\quad\quad(_{\rho}D_{0+}^{\gamma}\tau^{\alpha-1})(s)&=
\big(s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{n}\big(_{\rho}I_{0+}^{n-\gamma}\tau^{\alpha-1}\big)(s)
\\&\nonumber
=\frac{\rho^{\gamma-n}\Gamma(1+\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho})}{\Gamma(1+\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho}+n-\gamma)}
\big(s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{n}s^{\rho(n-\gamma)+\alpha-1}
\\&\nonumber
=\frac{\rho^{\gamma-n}\Gamma(1+\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho})}{\Gamma(1+\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho}-\gamma)}s^{(\alpha-1)-\rho\gamma}\quad\quad\quad
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\Box\end{aligned}$$
$(2)$ Firstly, by the equation (1.2) and the given substitution we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\quad\quad\quad(_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}\tau^{\alpha-1})(s)=\frac{\rho^{-\gamma}s^{\rho\gamma+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\gamma)}
\int_{1}^{\infty}x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho}}(x-1)^{\gamma-1}dx,\end{aligned}$$ now, using the equation (1.11), with $\hat{x}=1~~and~~\hat{y}=0,$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
(_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}\tau^{\alpha-1})(s)=\frac{\rho^{-\gamma}s^{\rho\gamma+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\gamma)}
B\big(\gamma,1-\gamma-(1+\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho})\big),\end{aligned}$$ by using equation (1.10), we obtain the result (2.3). $\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\Box$\
\
Secondly, by the equation (1.4), the given substitution and by using the result (2.3), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
(_{\rho}D_{-}^{\gamma}\tau^{\alpha-1})(s)&=
\big(-s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{n}\big(_{\rho}I_{-}^{n-\gamma}\tau^{\alpha-1}\big)(s)
\\&\nonumber
=\frac{(-1)^{n}\rho^{\gamma-n}\Gamma(\frac{1-\alpha}{\rho}+\gamma-n)}
{\Gamma(\frac{1-\alpha}{\rho})}\big(s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{n}
s^{\rho(n-\gamma)+\alpha-1}
\\&
=\frac{(-1)^{n}\rho^{\gamma-n}}{\Gamma(\frac{1-\alpha}{\rho})}\frac{\Gamma(\frac{1-\alpha}{\rho}+\gamma-n)
\Gamma(1-[\frac{1-\alpha}{\rho}+\gamma-n])}{\Gamma(1-[\gamma-\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho}])}\label{e2.7}\end{aligned}$$ Also, by using (1.9), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\quad&\Gamma(\frac{1-\alpha}{\rho}+\gamma-n)\Gamma(1-[\frac{1-\alpha}{\rho}+\gamma-n])=
\frac{\pi}{\sin([\frac{1-\alpha}{\rho}+\gamma-n]\pi)}=
\frac{(-1)^{n}\pi}{\sin([\gamma-\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho}]\pi)}\label{e2.8}
\\&\nonumber and
\\&\frac{1}{\Gamma(1-[\gamma-\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho}])}=
\frac{\Gamma(\gamma-\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho})}{\Gamma(\gamma-\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho})
\Gamma(1-[\gamma-\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho}])}=
\frac{\Gamma(\gamma-\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho})}{\pi}\sin([\gamma-\frac{\alpha-1}{\rho}]\pi)\label{e2.9}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting relations (2.8) and (2.9) in (2.7), we obtain (2.4). $\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\Box$
$(3)$ For this part let the substitution $x=\tau^{\rho}-s^{\rho}.$\
\
Firstly, by the equation (1.2) and the given substitution in this part we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
(_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}e^{-\lambda\tau^{\rho}})(s)=
\frac{\rho^{-\gamma}}{\Gamma(\gamma)}e^{-\lambda~s^{\rho}}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\lambda~x}x^{\gamma-1}dx,\end{aligned}$$ then use the substitution $\vartheta=\lambda~x,$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
(_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}e^{-\lambda\tau^{\rho}})(s)=\frac{\rho^{-\gamma}}{\Gamma(\gamma)}e^{-\lambda~s^{\rho}}\lambda^{-\gamma}
\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\vartheta}\vartheta^{\gamma-1}d\vartheta,\end{aligned}$$ since $~~\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\vartheta}\vartheta^{\gamma-1}d\vartheta=\Gamma(\gamma)~~~[7],$ then the result is satisfy.$\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\Box$\
\
Secondly, by the equation (1.4) and by using the result (2.5), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
(_{\rho}D_{-}^{\gamma}e^{-\lambda\tau^{\rho}})(s)&=
\big(-s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{n}\big(_{\rho}I_{-}^{n-\gamma}e^{-\lambda\tau^{\rho}}\big)(s)
\\&\nonumber
=(-1)^{n}\big(s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{n}\big((\lambda\rho)^{\gamma-n}e^{-\lambda~s^{\rho}}\big)
\\&\nonumber
=(-1)^{n}~s^{(1-\rho)n}~(\lambda\rho)^{\gamma-n}\big(\frac{d^{n}}{ds^{n}}e^{-\lambda~s^{\rho}}\big)
\\&\nonumber
=(\lambda\rho)^{\gamma}e^{-\lambda~s^{\rho}}\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\Box\end{aligned}$$\
** Remark 1.** $(a)$ In Lemma 2, if the power function is $\varphi(s)=\big(\frac{s^{\rho}}{\rho}\big)^{\alpha-1},$ then
$(1)~~If~\mathfrak{R}(\alpha)>0,$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\bigg(~_{\rho}I_{0+}^{\gamma}\big(\frac{\tau^{\rho}}{\rho}\big)^{\alpha-1}\bigg)(s)=
\frac{\Gamma(\alpha)}{\Gamma(\alpha+\gamma)}\big(\frac{s^{\rho}}{\rho}\big)^{\alpha+\gamma-1}
\quad(\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)\geq0;~\mathfrak{R}(\alpha)>0)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\quad\quad\bigg(~_{\rho}D_{0+}^{\gamma}\big(\frac{\tau^{\rho}}{\rho}\big)^{\alpha-1}\bigg)(s)=
\frac{\Gamma(\alpha)}{\Gamma(\alpha-\gamma)}\big(\frac{s^{\rho}}{\rho}\big)^{\alpha-\gamma-1}
\quad(\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)\geqq0;~\mathfrak{R}(\alpha)>0).\end{aligned}$$
$(2)~~If~\alpha\in\mathbb{C},$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\quad\quad\bigg(~_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}\big(\frac{\tau^{\rho}}{\rho}\big)^{\alpha-1}\bigg)(s)=
\frac{\Gamma(1-\gamma-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}\big(\frac{s^{\rho}}{\rho}\big)^{\alpha+\gamma-1}
\quad(\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)\geq0;~\mathfrak{R}(\gamma+\alpha)<1)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\quad\quad\quad\bigg(~_{\rho}D_{-}^{\gamma}\big(\frac{\tau^{\rho}}{\rho}\big)^{\alpha-1}\bigg)(s)=
\frac{\Gamma(1+\gamma-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}\big(\frac{s^{\rho}}{\rho}\big)^{\alpha-\gamma-1}
\quad(\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)\geqq0;~\mathfrak{R}(\gamma+\alpha-[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)])<1).\end{aligned}$$\
$(b)$ If $\mathfrak{R}(\alpha)>\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)>0,$ then $$\begin{aligned}
(_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}\tau^{-\alpha})(s)=\frac{\rho^{-\gamma}\Gamma(\frac{\alpha}{\rho}-\gamma)}{\Gamma(\frac{\alpha}{\rho})}s^{\rho\gamma-\alpha}\end{aligned}$$
Katugampola Fractional integration for Generalized $k-$Wright Function
======================================================================
In this section, we established the Katugampola fractional integration for generalized $k-$Wright function (1.12).\
** Theorem 1.** Let $\gamma,~ \alpha\in\mathbb{C}$ such that $\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)>0,~ \mathfrak{R}(\alpha)>0;~ \lambda\in\mathbb{C},~ \rho>0,~\nu>0,$ then for $\Delta>-1,$ the Katugampola fractional integration $_{\rho}I_{0+}^{\gamma}$ for generalized $k-$Wright function $_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}(z)$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Bigg(~_{\rho}I_{0+}^{\gamma}&\Bigg(\tau^{\frac{\alpha}{k}-1}~_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}
\Bigg[\begin{matrix}(p_{i},\alpha_{i})_{1,n}\\(q_{j},\beta_{j})_{1,m}
\end{matrix}\Big|~\lambda~\tau^{\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\Bigg) \Bigg)(s)\\&
=(\frac{k}{\rho})^{\gamma}~s^{\frac{\alpha}{k}+\rho\gamma-1}
~_{n+1}\Phi_{m+1}^{k}\Bigg[\begin{matrix}\big(p_{i},\alpha_{i}\big)_{1,n},~\big(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho-1)k),\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)\quad \\
\big(q_{j},\beta_{j}\big)_{1,m},~\big(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho(\gamma+1)-1)k),\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)
\end{matrix}\Bigg|~\lambda~s^{\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\label{e3.1}\end{aligned}$$\
** Proof.** According to Lemma 1, a generalized $k-$Wright functions in both side of the equation (3.1), exist for $s>0.$ We consider that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
M\equiv\Bigg(~_{\rho}I_{0+}^{\gamma}\Bigg(\tau^{\frac{\alpha}{k}-1}~_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}
\Bigg[\begin{matrix}(p_{i},\alpha_{i})_{1,n}\\(q_{j},\beta_{j})_{1,m}
\end{matrix}\Big|~\lambda~\tau^{\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\Bigg) \Bigg)(s)\end{aligned}$$ using (1.12), we can write the above equation as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
M\equiv\Bigg(~_{\rho}I_{0+}^{\gamma}\Bigg(\tau^{\frac{\alpha}{k}-1}~\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{n}~\Gamma_{k}(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r)}{\prod_{j=1}^{m}\Gamma_{k}(q_{j}+
\beta_{j}r)}\frac{(\lambda~\tau^{\frac{\nu}{k}})^{r}}{r!}\Bigg) \Bigg)(s)\end{aligned}$$ now, using the integration of the series term- by term we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
M\equiv~\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{n}~\Gamma_{k}(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r)}{\prod_{j=1}^{m}\Gamma_{k}(q_{j}+
\beta_{j}r)}\frac{(\lambda)^{r}}{r!}\Big(~_{\rho}I_{0+}^{\gamma}\Big(\tau^{\frac{\alpha}{k}+\frac{\nu r}{k}-1}\Big) \Big)(s)\end{aligned}$$ applying (2.1), the above equation reduces to, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
M\equiv~\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{n}~\Gamma_{k}(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r)}{\prod_{j=1}^{m}\Gamma_{k}(q_{j}+
\beta_{j}r)}\frac{(\lambda)^{r}}{r!}\frac{\rho^{-\gamma}\Gamma(1+\frac{\frac{\alpha}{k}+
\frac{\nu r}{k}-1}{\rho})}{\Gamma(1+\frac{\frac{\alpha}{k}+\frac{\nu r}{k}-1}{\rho}+\gamma)}
s^{\frac{\alpha+\nu r}{k}+\rho\gamma-1}\end{aligned}$$ using (1.8), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
M\equiv~(\frac{k}{\rho})^{\gamma}~s^{\frac{\alpha}{k}+\rho\gamma-1}
~_{n+1}\Phi_{m+1}^{k}\Bigg[\begin{matrix}\big(p_{i},\alpha_{i}\big)_{1,n},~\big(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho-1)k),\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)\quad \\
\big(q_{j},\beta_{j}\big)_{1,m},~\big(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho(\gamma+1)-1)k),\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)
\end{matrix}\Bigg|~\lambda~s^{\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\quad\quad\quad\Box\end{aligned}$$\
** Theorem 2.** Let $\gamma,~ \alpha\in\mathbb{C}$ such that $\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)>0,~ \mathfrak{R}(\alpha)>0;~ \lambda\in\mathbb{C},~ \rho>0,~\nu>0,$ then for $\Delta>-1,$ the Katugampola fractional integration $_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}$ for generalized $k-$Wright function $_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}(z)$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Bigg(~_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}&\Bigg(\tau^{-\frac{\alpha}{k}}~_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}
\Bigg[\begin{matrix}(p_{i},\alpha_{i})_{1,n}\\(q_{j},\beta_{j})_{1,m}
\end{matrix}\Big|~\lambda~\tau^{-\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\Bigg) \Bigg)(s)\\&
=(\frac{k}{\rho})^{\gamma}~s^{\rho\gamma-\frac{\alpha}{k}}
~_{n+1}\Phi_{m+1}^{k}\Bigg[\begin{matrix}\big(p_{i},\alpha_{i}\big)_{1,n},~\big(\frac{\alpha}{\rho}-k\gamma,\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)\quad \\
\big(q_{j},\beta_{j}\big)_{1,m},~\big(\frac{\alpha}{\rho},\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)
\end{matrix}\Bigg|~\lambda~s^{-\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\label{e3.2}\end{aligned}$$\
** Proof.** According to Lemma 1, a generalized $k-$Wright functions in both side of the equation (3.2), exist for $s>0.$ We consider that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
N\equiv\Bigg(~_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}\Bigg(\tau^{-\frac{\alpha}{k}}~_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}
\Bigg[\begin{matrix}(p_{i},\alpha_{i})_{1,n}\\(q_{j},\beta_{j})_{1,m}
\end{matrix}\Big|~\lambda~\tau^{-\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\Bigg) \Bigg)(s)\end{aligned}$$ using (1.12), we can write the above equation as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
N\equiv~\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{n}~\Gamma_{k}(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r)}{\prod_{j=1}^{m}\Gamma_{k}(q_{j}+
\beta_{j}r)}\frac{(\lambda)^{r}}{r!}\Big(~_{\rho}I_{-}^{\gamma}\Big(\tau^{-\frac{\alpha+\nu r}{k}}\Big) \Big)(s)\end{aligned}$$ applying (2.10), the above equation reduces to, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
N\equiv~\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{n}~\Gamma_{k}(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r)}{\prod_{j=1}^{m}\Gamma_{k}(q_{j}+
\beta_{j}r)}\frac{(\lambda)^{r}}{r!}\frac{\rho^{-\gamma}\Gamma(\frac{\frac{\alpha+\nu r}{k}}
{\rho}-\gamma)}{\Gamma(\frac{\frac{\alpha+\nu r}{k}}
{\rho})}
s^{\rho\gamma-\frac{\alpha+\nu r}{k}}\end{aligned}$$ using (1.8), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\quad\quad~N\equiv~(\frac{k}{\rho})^{\gamma}~s^{\rho\gamma-\frac{\alpha}{k}}
~_{n+1}\Phi_{m+1}^{k}\Bigg[\begin{matrix}\big(p_{i},\alpha_{i}\big)_{1,n},~\big(\frac{\alpha}{\rho}-k\gamma,\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)\quad \\
\big(q_{j},\beta_{j}\big)_{1,m},~\big(\frac{\alpha}{\rho},\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)
\end{matrix}\Bigg|~\lambda~s^{-\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\Box\end{aligned}$$
Katugampola Fractional differentiation for Generalized $k-$Wright Function
==========================================================================
This section deals with the Katugampola fractional differentiation for generalized $k-$Wright function (1.12).\
** Theorem 3.** Let $\gamma,~ \alpha\in\mathbb{C}$ such that $\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)>0,~ \mathfrak{R}(\alpha)>0;~ \lambda\in\mathbb{C},~ \rho>0,~\nu>0,$ then for $\Delta>-1,$ the Katugampola fractional integration $_{\rho}D_{0+}^{\gamma}$ for generalized $k-$Wright function $_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}(z)$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Bigg(~_{\rho}D_{0+}^{\gamma}&\Bigg(\tau^{\frac{\alpha}{k}-1}~_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}
\Bigg[\begin{matrix}(p_{i},\alpha_{i})_{1,n}\\(q_{j},\beta_{j})_{1,m}
\end{matrix}\Big|~\lambda~\tau^{\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\Bigg) \Bigg)(s)\\&
=(\frac{k}{\rho})^{-\gamma}~s^{\frac{\alpha}{k}-\rho\gamma-1}
~_{n+1}\Phi_{m+1}^{k}\Bigg[\begin{matrix}\big(p_{i},\alpha_{i}\big)_{1,n},~\big(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho-1)k),\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)\quad \\
\big(q_{j},\beta_{j}\big)_{1,m},~\big(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho(1-\gamma)-1)k),\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)
\end{matrix}\Bigg|~\lambda~s^{\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\label{e4.1}\end{aligned}$$\
** Proof.** According to Lemma 1, a generalized $k-$Wright functions in both side of the equation (4.1), exist for $s>0.$ Let $n=1+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)],$ then we consider that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
P\equiv\Bigg(~_{\rho}D_{0+}^{\gamma}\Bigg(\tau^{\frac{\alpha}{k}-1}~_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}
\Bigg[\begin{matrix}(p_{i},\alpha_{i})_{1,n}\\(q_{j},\beta_{j})_{1,m}
\end{matrix}\Big|~\lambda~\tau^{\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\Bigg) \Bigg)(s)\end{aligned}$$ using (1.3), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
P\equiv\big(s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{n}\Bigg(~_{\rho}I_{0+}^{n-\gamma}\Bigg(\tau^{\frac{\alpha}{k}-1}~_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}
\Bigg[\begin{matrix}(p_{i},\alpha_{i})_{1,n}\\(q_{j},\beta_{j})_{1,m}
\end{matrix}\Big|~\lambda~\tau^{\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\Bigg) \Bigg)(s)\end{aligned}$$ using Theorem 1, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
P\equiv\big(s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{n}\Bigg((\frac{k}{\rho})^{n-\gamma}~s^{\frac{\alpha}{k}+\rho(n-\gamma)-1}
~_{n+1}\Phi_{m+1}^{k}\Bigg[\begin{matrix}\big(p_{i},\alpha_{i}\big)_{1,n},~\big(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho-1)k),\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)\quad \\
\big(q_{j},\beta_{j}\big)_{1,m},~\big(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho(n-\gamma+1)-1)k),\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)
\end{matrix}\Bigg|~\lambda~s^{\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\Bigg)\end{aligned}$$ using (1.12), we can write the above equation as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
P\equiv~(\frac{k}{\rho})^{n-\gamma}~\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{n}~\Gamma_{k}(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r)\Gamma_{k}(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho-1)k)+\frac{\nu}{\rho}r)}
{\prod_{j=1}^{m}~\Gamma_{k}(q_{j}+\beta_{j}r)\Gamma_{k}(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho(n-\gamma+1)-1)k)+\frac{\nu}{\rho}r)}
\frac{(\lambda)^{r}}{r!}\big(s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{n}\big(~s^{\frac{\alpha}{k}+\frac{\nu}{k}+\rho(n-\gamma)-1}\big)\end{aligned}$$ we can write the above equation as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
P\equiv~k^{n-\gamma}~\rho^{\gamma}~\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}&
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{n}~\Gamma_{k}(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r)\Gamma_{k}(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho-1)k)+\frac{\nu}{\rho}r)}
{\prod_{j=1}^{m}~\Gamma_{k}(q_{j}+\beta_{j}r)\Gamma_{k}(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho(n-\gamma+1)-1)k)+\frac{\nu}{\rho}r)}
\frac{(\lambda)^{r}}{r!}\\&\nonumber\quad\quad \quad\times\frac{\Gamma(\frac{1}{\rho}(\frac{\alpha}{k}+\frac{\nu r}{k}+(n-\gamma)\rho+\rho-1)}
{\Gamma(\frac{1}{\rho}(\frac{\alpha}{k}+\frac{\nu r}{k}-\gamma\rho+\rho-1)}
~s^{\frac{\alpha}{k}+\frac{\nu}{k}-\rho\gamma-1}\end{aligned}$$ using (1.8), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
P\equiv(\frac{k}{\rho})^{-\gamma}~s^{\frac{\alpha}{k}-\rho\gamma-1}
~_{n+1}\Phi_{m+1}^{k}\Bigg[\begin{matrix}\big(p_{i},\alpha_{i}\big)_{1,n},~\big(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho-1)k),\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)\quad \\
\big(q_{j},\beta_{j}\big)_{1,m},~\big(\frac{1}{\rho}(\alpha+(\rho(1-\gamma)-1)k),\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)
\end{matrix}\Bigg|~\lambda~s^{\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\Box\end{aligned}$$\
** Theorem 4.** Let $\gamma,~ \alpha\in\mathbb{C}$ such that $\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)>0,~
\mathfrak{R}(\alpha)>1+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)]-\mathfrak{R}(\gamma);~ \lambda\in\mathbb{C},~ \rho>0,~\nu>0,$ then for $\Delta>-1,$ the Katugampola fractional integration $_{\rho}D_{-}^{\gamma}$ for generalized $k-$Wright function $_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}(z)$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Bigg(~_{\rho}D_{-}^{\gamma}&\Bigg(\tau^{-\frac{\alpha}{k}}~_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}
\Bigg[\begin{matrix}(p_{i},\alpha_{i})_{1,n}\\(q_{j},\beta_{j})_{1,m}
\end{matrix}\Big|~\lambda~\tau^{-\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\Bigg) \Bigg)(s)\\&
=(\frac{k}{\rho})^{-\gamma}~s^{-\rho\gamma-\frac{\alpha}{k}}
~_{n+1}\Phi_{m+1}^{k}\Bigg[\begin{matrix}\big(p_{i},\alpha_{i}\big)_{1,n},~\big(\frac{\alpha}{\rho}+k\gamma,\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)\quad \\
\big(q_{j},\beta_{j}\big)_{1,m},~\big(\frac{\alpha}{\rho},\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)
\end{matrix}\Bigg|~\lambda~s^{-\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\label{e4.2}\end{aligned}$$\
** Proof.** According to Lemma 1, a generalized $k-$Wright functions in both side of the equation (4.2), exist for $s>0.$ Let $n=1+[\mathfrak{R}(\gamma)],$ then we consider that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
Q\equiv\Bigg(~_{\rho}D_{-}^{\gamma}\Bigg(\tau^{-\frac{\alpha}{k}}~_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}
\Bigg[\begin{matrix}(p_{i},\alpha_{i})_{1,n}\\(q_{j},\beta_{j})_{1,m}
\end{matrix}\Big|~\lambda~\tau^{-\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\Bigg) \Bigg)(s)\end{aligned}$$ using (1.4), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
Q\equiv\big(-s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{n}\Bigg(~_{\rho}I_{-}^{n-\gamma}
\Bigg(\tau^{-\frac{\alpha}{k}}~_{n}\Phi_{m}^{k}
\Bigg[\begin{matrix}(p_{i},\alpha_{i})_{1,n}\\(q_{j},\beta_{j})_{1,m}
\end{matrix}\Big|~\lambda~\tau^{-\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\Bigg) \Bigg)(s)\end{aligned}$$ using Theorem 2, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
Q\equiv\big(-s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{n}
(\frac{k}{\rho})^{n-\gamma}~s^{\rho(n-\gamma)-\frac{\alpha}{k}}
~_{n+1}\Phi_{m+1}^{k}\Bigg[\begin{matrix}\big(p_{i},\alpha_{i}\big)_{1,n},~\big(\frac{\alpha}{\rho}-k(n-\gamma),\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)\quad \\
\big(q_{j},\beta_{j}\big)_{1,m},~\big(\frac{\alpha}{\rho},\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)
\end{matrix}\Bigg|~\lambda~s^{-\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\end{aligned}$$ using (1.12), we can write the above equation as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
Q\equiv(-1)^{n}(\frac{k}{\rho})^{n-\gamma}
\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{n}~\Gamma_{k}(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r)\Gamma_{k}(\frac{\alpha}{\rho}-(n-\gamma)k+\frac{\nu}{\rho}r)}
{\prod_{j=1}^{m}~\Gamma_{k}(q_{j}+\beta_{j}r)\Gamma_{k}(\frac{\alpha}{\rho}+\frac{\nu}{\rho}r)}
\frac{(\lambda)^{r}}{r!}\big(s^{1-\rho}\frac{d}{ds}\big)^{n}\big(~s^{\rho(n-\gamma)-\frac{\alpha}{k}-\frac{\nu}{k}}\big)\end{aligned}$$ on simplifying the above equation, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
Q\equiv(-1)^{n}k^{n-\gamma}\rho^{\gamma}
\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}&\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{n}~\Gamma_{k}(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r)\Gamma_{k}(\frac{\alpha}{\rho}-(n-\gamma)k+\frac{\nu}{\rho}r)}
{\prod_{j=1}^{m}~\Gamma_{k}(q_{j}+\beta_{j}r)\Gamma_{k}(\frac{\alpha}{\rho}+\frac{\nu}{\rho}r)}
\frac{(\lambda)^{r}}{r!}\\&\nonumber\quad\quad \quad\times
\frac{\Gamma(1+(n-\gamma)-\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}-\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r)}{\Gamma(1-\gamma-\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}-\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r)}
\big(~s^{-\rho\gamma-\frac{\alpha}{k}-\frac{\nu}{k}}\big)\end{aligned}$$ using (1.8), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
Q\equiv(-1)^{n}\rho^{\gamma}
\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}&\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{n}~\Gamma_{k}(p_{i}+\alpha_{i}r)}
{\prod_{j=1}^{m}~\Gamma_{k}(q_{j}+\beta_{j}r)\Gamma(\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}+\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r)}
\frac{(\lambda)^{r}}{r!}\\&\quad\quad \quad\times
\frac{\Gamma(\gamma-n+\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}+\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r)\Gamma(1-(\gamma-n+\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}+\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r))}
{\Gamma(1-(\gamma+\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}+\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r))}
\big(~s^{-\rho\gamma-\frac{\alpha}{k}-\frac{\nu}{k}}\big)\label{e4.3}\end{aligned}$$ using (1.9), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\quad\quad \quad
\Gamma(\gamma-n+\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}+\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r)&\Gamma(1-(\gamma-n+\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}+\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r))\\&\nonumber=
\frac{\pi}{\sin[(\gamma+\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}+\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r)\pi-n\pi]}\\&\nonumber=
\frac{\pi}{\sin[(\gamma+\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}+\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r)\pi]\cos(n\pi)}\\&=
\frac{(-1)^{n}\pi}{\sin[(\gamma+\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}+\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r)\pi]}\label{e4.4}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\Gamma(1-(\gamma+\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}+\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r))}
=\frac{\Gamma(\gamma+\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}+\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r)\sin[(\gamma+\frac{\alpha}{\rho k}+\frac{\nu}{\rho k}r)\pi]}{\pi}\label{e4.5}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (4.4) and (4.5) in (4.3), and finally using (1.8), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
Q\equiv(\frac{k}{\rho})^{-\gamma}~s^{-\rho\gamma-\frac{\alpha}{k}}
~_{n+1}\Phi_{m+1}^{k}\Bigg[\begin{matrix}\big(p_{i},\alpha_{i}\big)_{1,n},~\big(\frac{\alpha}{\rho}+k\gamma,\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)\quad \\
\big(q_{j},\beta_{j}\big)_{1,m},~\big(\frac{\alpha}{\rho},\frac{\nu}{\rho}\big)
\end{matrix}\Bigg|~\lambda~s^{-\frac{\nu}{k}}\Bigg]\end{aligned}$$\
** Remark 2.** If $\rho=1,$ then
Theorems 1, 2, 3 and 4, are reduced to Theorems 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively (see\[10\]).
[99]{}
UDITA KATUGAMPOLA,
UDITA N. KATUGAMPOLA,
UDITA N. KATUGAMPOLA,
Ricardo Almeida, Agnieszka B. Malinowska and Tatiana Odzijewicz,
D. S. OLIVEIRA1 and E. CAPELAS DE OLIVEIRA1,
R. Diaz and E. Pariguan,
A. A. Kilbas, H. M. Srivastava and J. J. Trujillo,
S. G. Samko, A. A. Kilbas and O. I. Marichev,
K. S. Gehlot and J. C. Prajapati,
K. S. Gehlot and J. C. Prajapati,
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Crater count equilibrium occurs when new craters form at the same rate that old craters are erased, such that the total number of observable impacts remains constant. Despite substantial efforts to understand this process, there remain many unsolved problems. Here, we propose an analytical model that describes how a heavily cratered surface reaches a state of crater count equilibrium. The proposed model formulates three physical processes contributing to crater count equilibrium: cookie-cutting (simple, geometric overlap), ejecta-blanketing, and sandblasting (diffusive erosion). These three processes are modeled using a degradation parameter that describes the efficiency for a new crater to erase old craters. The flexibility of our newly developed model allows us to represent the processes that underlie crater count equilibrium problems. The results show that when the slope of the production function is steeper than that of the equilibrium state, the power law of the equilibrium slope is independent of that of the production function slope. We apply our model to the cratering conditions in the Sinus Medii region and at the Apollo 15 landing site on the Moon and demonstrate that a consistent degradation parameterization can successfully be determined based on the empirical results of these regions. Further developments of this model will enable us to better understand the surface evolution of airless bodies due to impact bombardment.'
address:
- '$^1$Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051 United States'
- '$^2$NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35805 United States'
author:
- 'Masatoshi Hirabayashi$^1$, David A. Minton$^1$, Caleb I. Fassett$^2$'
title: An analytical model of crater count equilibrium
---
Cratering ,Impact processes ,Regoliths
Introduction
============
A surface’s crater population is said to be in equilibrium when the terrain loses visible craters at the same rate that craters are newly generated [e.g., @Melosh1989; @Melosh2011]. Since the Apollo era, a number of studies have been widely conducted that have provided us with useful empirical information about crater count equilibrium on planetary surfaces. In a cumulative size-frequency distribution (CSFD), for many cases, the slope of the equilibrium state in log-log space ranges from -1.8 to -2.0 if the slope of the crater production function is steeper than -2 [@Gault1970; @Hartmann1984; @Chapman1986; @Xiao2015].
When new craters form, they erase old craters. There are three crater erasure processes that primarily contribute to crater count equilibrium (Figure \[Fig:Equilibrium4\]). The first process is cookie-cutting, in which a new crater simply overlaps old craters. Complete overlap can erase the craters beneath the new crater. However, if overlapping is incomplete, the old craters may be still visible because the rim size of the new crater strictly restricts the range of cookie-cutting. Cookie-cutting is a geometric process and only depends on the area occupied by new craters.
However, since craters are not two-dimensional circles but three-dimensional depressions, cookie-cutting is ineffective when a newly-formed crater is smaller than a pre-existing crater beneath it. The second process considers this three-dimensional effect. This process is sometimes called sandblasting[^1], which happens when small craters collectively erode a large crater by inducing downslope diffusion, thus filling in the larger depression over time [@Ross1968; @Soderblom1970; @Fassett2014].
Lastly, blanketing by ejecta deposits covers old craters outside the new crater rim [e.g., @Fassett2011]. The thickness of ejecta blankets determines how this process contributes to crater count equilibrium. However, it has long been noted that they are relatively inefficient at erasing old craters [@Woronow1977]. For these reasons, this study formulates the ejecta-blanketing process as a geometric overlapping process (like cookie-cutting) and neglects it in the demonstration exercise of our model.
To our knowledge, [@Gault1970] is the only researcher known to have conducted comprehensive laboratory-scale demonstrations for the crater count equilibrium problem. In a 2.5-m square box filled 30-cm deep with quartz sand, he created six sizes of craters to generate crater count equilibrium. The photographs taken during the experiments captured the nature of crater count equilibrium (Figure 5 in [@Gault1970]). His experiments successfully recovered the equilibrium level of crater counts observed in heavily cratered lunar terrains.
Earlier works conducted analytical modeling of crater count equilibrium [@Marcus1964; @Marcus1966; @Marcus1970; @Ross1968; @Soderblom1970; @Gault1974mixing]. [@Marcus1964; @Marcus1966; @Marcus1970] theoretically explored the crater count equilibrium mechanism by considering simple circle emplacements. The role of sandblasting in crater erosion was proposed by [@Ross1968], followed by a study of sandblasting as an analog of the diffusion problem [@Soderblom1970]. Each of these models addressed the fact that the equilibrium slope was found to be 2, which does not fully capture the observed slope described above. [@Gault1974mixing] also developed a time-evolution model for geometric saturation for single sized craters.
Advances in computers have made Monte-Carlo simulation techniques popular for investigating the evolution of crater count equilibrium. Earlier works showed how such techniques could describe the evolution of a cratered surface [@Woronow1978]. Since then, the techniques have become more sophisticated and have been capable of describing complicated cratering processes [@Hartmann1997; @Marchi2014; @Richardson2009; @Minton2015]. Many of these Monte Carlo codes represent craters on a surface as simple circles or points on a rim [@Woronow1977; @Woronow1978; @Chapman1986; @Marchi2014]. The main drawback of the earlier analytical models and some Monte-Carlo techniques that simply emplaced circles was that crater erasure processes did not account for the three-dimensional nature of crater formation. As cratering proceeds, diffusive erosion becomes important [@Fassett2014]. Techniques that model craters as three-dimensional topographic features capture this process naturally [@Hartmann1997; @Minton2015]; however, these techniques are computationally expensive.
Here, we develop a model that accounts for the overlapping process (cookie-cutting and ejecta-blanketing) and the diffusion process (sandblasting) to describe the evolution of crater count equilibrium while avoiding the drawbacks discussed above. Similar to [@Marcus1964; @Marcus1966; @Marcus1970], we approach this problem analytically. In the proposed model, we overcome the computational uncertainties and difficulties that his model encountered, such as his complex geometrical formulations. Since the proposed model has an analytical solution, it is efficient and can be used to investigate a larger parameter space than numerical techniques. Although a recent study reported a model of the topographic distribution of cratered terrains, which have also reached crater count equilibrium at small crater sizes, on the Moon [@Rosenburg2015], the present paper only focuses on the population distribution of craters. We emphasize that the presented model is a powerful tool for considering the crater count equilibrium problem for any airless planets. In the present exercise, we consider a special size range between 0 and $\infty$ to better understand crater count equilibrium. Also, although the crater count equilibrium slope may potentially depend on the crater radius, we assume that it is constant.
We organize the present paper as follows. In Section \[Sec:SFD\], we introduce a mathematical form that describes the produced crater CSFD derived from the crater production function. Section \[Sec:Modelling\] provides the general formulation of the proposed model. This form will be related to the form derived by [@Marcus1964] but will be more flexible to consider the detailed erasure processes. In Section \[Sec:Generalformulation\], we derive an analytical solution to the derived equation. In Section \[Sec:Behavior\], we apply this model to the crater count equilibrium problems of the Sinus Medii region and the Apollo 15 landing site on the Moon, and demonstrate how we can use observational crater counts to infer the nature of the crater erasure processes.
![A schematic plot of the processes that make craters invisible. **a**, The cookie-cutting process, where each new crater overprints older craters. **b**, The sandblasting process, where multiple small craters collectively erode a larger crater. **c**, The blanketing process, where ejecta from a new crater buries old craters. The brown circle with the solid line shows ejecta blankets. The gray circles with the solid lines indicate fresh craters, and the gray circles with the dashed lines describe partially degraded craters.[]{data-label="Fig:Equilibrium4"}](Equilibrium4){width="\textwidth"}
The produced crater CSFD {#Sec:SFD}
========================
To characterize crater count equilibrium, we require two populations: the crater production function and the produced craters. The production function is an idealized model for the population of craters that is expected to form on a terrain per time and area. In this study, we use a CSFD to describe the produced craters. The crater production function in a form of CSFD is given as [@Crater1979standard] $$\begin{aligned}
P_{(\ge r)} = \sigma \hat x r^{-\eta}, \label{Eq:Ctl}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is the slope[^2], $\sigma$ is a constant parameter with units of m$^{\eta-2}$ s$^{-1}$, $\hat x$ is a cratering chronology function, which is defined to be dimensionless (e.g., for the lunar case, [@Neukum2001]), and $r$ is the crater radius. For notational simplification, we choose to use the radius instead of the diameter.
In contrast, the produced craters are those that actually formed on the surface over finite time in a finite area. If all the produced craters are counted, the mean of the produced crater CSFD over many samplings is obtained by factorizing the crater production function by a given area, $A$, and by integrating it over time, $t$. We write the produced crater CSFD as $$\begin{aligned}
C_{t (\ge r)} = A \sigma r^{-\eta} \int_0^{t} \hat x dt = A \xi r^{-\eta} \int_0^t x dt = A \xi X r^{-\eta},\label{Eq:C_t}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\xi &=& \sigma \int_{0}^{t_s} \hat x dt \:\: \text{[m$^{\eta-2}$}], \\
x &=& \frac{\hat x}{\int_{0}^{t_s} \hat x dt} \:\: \text{[s$^{-1}$}], \label{Eq:x} \\
X &=& \int_0^t x dt. \label{Eq:CapX}\end{aligned}$$ Consider a special case that the cratering chronology function is constant, for example, $\hat x = 1$. For this case, $x = 1/t_s$ and $X = t / t_s$. In these forms, $t_s$ can be chosen arbitrarily. For instance, it is convenient to select $t_s$ such that $A \xi r^{-\eta}$ recovers the produced crater CSFD of the empirical data at $X = 1$. Also, we set the initial time as zero without losing the generality of this problem. Later, we use $x$ and $X$ in the formulation process below.
Given the produced crater CSFD, $C_{t (\ge r)}$, the present paper considers how the visible crater CSFD, $C_{c (\ge r)}$, evolves over time. The following sections shall omit the subscript, $(\ge r)$, from the visible crater CSFD and the produced crater CSFD to simplify the notational expressions.
Development of an analytical model {#Sec:Modelling}
==================================
The concept of crater count equilibrium {#Sec:Concept}
---------------------------------------
We first introduce how the observed number of craters on a terrain subject to impact bombardment evolves over time. The most direct way to investigate this evolution would be to count each newly generated and erased craters over some interval of time. This is what Monte Carlo codes, like CTEM, do [@Richardson2009; @Minton2015]. In the proposed model, the degradation processes are parameterized by a quantity that describes how many craters are erased by a new crater. We call this quantity the degradation parameter.
Consider the number of visible craters of size $i$ on time step $s$ to be $N_i^s$. We assume that the production rate of craters of this size is such that exactly one crater of this size is produced in each time step. In our model, we treat partial degradation of the craters by introducing a fractional number. Note that since we do not account for the topological features of the cratered surface in the present version, this parameter does not distinguish degradation effects on shapes such as a rim fraction and change in a crater depth. This consideration is beyond our scope here. For instance, if $N_i^2=1.5$, this means that at time $2$, the first crater is halfway to being uncounted.[^3] If there is no loss of craters, $N_i^s$ should be equal to $s$. When old craters are degraded by new craters, $N_i^s$ becomes smaller than $s$. We describe this process as $$\begin{aligned}
N_i^s = N_{i}^{s-1} + 1 - \Omega_i k_i^s N_i^{s-1}, \label{Eq:Nij1}\end{aligned}$$ where $k_i^s$ is the degradation parameter describing how many craters of size $i$ lose their identities (either partial or in full) on time step $s$, and $\Omega_i$ is a constant factor that includes the produced crater CSFD and the geometrical limits for the $i$th-sized craters. In the analytical model, we average $k^s_i$ over the total number of the produced craters. This operation is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
k_i = \frac{\sum_{s = 1}^{s_{max}} k_i^s N_i^{s-1}}{\sum_{s = 1}^{s_{max}} N_i^{s-1}}. \label{Eq:bar_kappa}\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[Eq:bar\_kappa\]) provides the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
N_i^s = N_{i}^{s-1} + 1 - \Omega_i k_i N_i^{s-1}. \label{Eq:Nij2}\end{aligned}$$ In the following discussion, we use this averaged value, $k_i$, and simply call it the degradation parameter without confusion.
The case of a single sized crater production function. {#Sec:singleSize}
------------------------------------------------------
To help develop our model, we first consider a simplified case of a terrain that is bombarded only by craters with a single radius. This case is similar to the analysis by [@Gault1974mixing]. We consider the number of craters, instead of the fraction of the cratered area that was used by [@Gault1974mixing].
Consider a square area in which single sized craters of radius, $r_i$, are generated and erased over time. $n_i$ is the number of the produced craters, $A$ is the area of the domain, $N_i $ is the number of visible craters at a given time, and $N_{0,i}$ is the maximum number of visible craters of size $i$ that is possibly visible on the surface (geometric saturation). In the following discussion, we define the time-derivative of $n_i$ as $\dot n_i$. $N_i $ is the quantity that we will solve, and $N_{0,i}$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
N_{0,i} = \frac{A q}{\pi r_i^2}, \label{Eq:Nt_def}\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ is the geometric saturation factor, which describes the highest crater density that could theoretically be possible if the craters were efficiently emplaced onto the surface in a hexagonal configuration [@Gault1970]. For single sized circles $q=\pi / 2 \sqrt{3} \sim 0.907$.
The number of visible craters will increase linearly with time at rate, $\dot n_i $, at the beginning of impact cratering. After a certain time, the number of visible craters will be obliterated with a rate of $k_i \dot n_i N_i/N_{0,i}$, where $N_i/N_{0,i}$ means the probability that a newly generated crater can overlap old craters. For this case, $\Omega_i = \dot n_i/N_{0,i}$, and $k_i$ represents the number of craters erased by one new crater at the geometrical saturation condition. This process provides the first-order ordinal differential equation, which is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d N_i }{d t} = \dot n_i - k_i \dot n_i \frac{N_i }{N_{0,i}}. \label{Eq:eqmSingle}\end{aligned}$$ The initial condition is $N_i = 0$ at $ t = 0$. The solution of Equation (\[Eq:eqmSingle\]) is given as $$\begin{aligned}
N_i &=& \frac{N_{0,i}}{k_i} \left \{1- \exp \left( - \frac{k_i n_i}{N_{0,i}} \right) \right \}, \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{A q}{k_i \pi r_i^2} \left[ 1- \exp \left \{ - \frac{k_i \pi r_i^2 n_{i}}{A q} \right \} \right]. \label{Eq:Nsol}\end{aligned}$$
To proceed further, we must understand the physical meaning of the degradation parameter. Equation (\[Eq:eqmSingle\]) indicates that the degradation parameter represents how many old craters are erased by a new crater. Figure \[Fig:Single\] shows two examples that describe different degradation parameters in the case of a single crater-size production function. New craters are represented as gray circles, old visible craters are white circles with solid borders, and lost old craters are white circles with dashed borders. If $k_i$ is less than 1, more new craters are necessary to be emplaced to erase old craters. If $k_i$ is larger than 1, one new crater can erase more than one old crater. From Equation (\[Eq:Nsol\]), as $t \rightarrow \infty$, $N_i$ reaches $N_{0,i}/k_i$, not $N_{0,i}$. Thus, since $N_{0,i} / k_i \le N_{0,i}$, $k_i \ge 1$. This means that the case described in Figure \[Fig:Single\]a, $k_i < 1$, does not happen.
![The physical meaning of the degradation parameter for the case of a single sized crater production function. The gray circles are newly emplaced craters, while the white circles are old craters. The solid circles represent visible craters, and the dashed circles represent lost craters. **a**, The case where 2 old craters were completely lost and several ones were partially erased after 10 new craters formed ($k_i < 1$). **b**, The case where 8 old craters were completely lost and several ones were partially erased after 6 new craters formed ($k_i \ge 1$).[]{data-label="Fig:Single"}](Equilibrium1){width="\textwidth"}
The case of a multiple crater size production function. {#Sec:MultipleSize}
-------------------------------------------------------
![Schematic plot of degradation processes for a crater production function with two crater sizes, large and small. The model accounts for three different cases to describe the total effect. **a**, The effect of large craters on small craters. **b**, The effect of the same-sized craters. **c**, The effect of small craters on large craters. **d**, The total effect obtained by summing the effects given in **a** through **c**. The gray circles are new craters, the white circles with solid lines describe visible old craters, and the white circles with dashed lines indicate invisible old craters.[]{data-label="Fig:Multi"}](Equilibrium2){width="\textwidth"}
![Schematic plot for how the analytical model computes the number of visible craters for the multiple crater-size case. The model tracks the number of visible craters for each size and sums up that of all the considered sizes. In case small craters are emplaced on larger crates (e.g., the solid square), the model counts both sizes and sums it up to compute the CSFD. **a**, The number of visible craters that the model is supposed to count. **b** and **c**, The crater counting for each case. The light and dark gray circles show small and large craters, respectively.[]{data-label="Fig:Overlapping"}](Equilibrium3){width="\textwidth"}
This section extends the single crater-size case to the multiple crater-size case. In the analytical model by [@Marcus1964; @Marcus1966; @Marcus1970], complex geometric considerations were necessary, and there were many uncertainties. We will see that the extension of Section \[Sec:singleSize\] makes our analytical formulation clear and flexible so that the developed model can take into account realistic erasure processes. We create a differential equation for this case based on Equation (\[Eq:eqmSingle\]), which states that for a given radius, the change rate of visible craters is equal to the difference between the number of newly emplaced craters per time and that of newly erased craters per time.
We first develop a discretized model and then convert it into a continuous model. In the discussion, we keep using the notations defined in Section \[Sec:singleSize\]. That is, for each $i$th crater, the radius is $r_i$, the number of visible craters is $N_i$, the maximum number of visible craters in geometric saturation is $N_{0,i}$, the crater production rate is $\dot n_i $, and the total number of the produced craters is $n_i$. Craters of size $i$ are now affected by those of size $j$, and we define these quantities for craters of size $j$ in the same way.
Modeling the degradation process of differently sized craters starts from formulating how the number of visible craters of one size changes due to craters of other sizes on each step. Figure \[Fig:Multi\] shows how the number of visible craters changes based on the degradation processes that operate during the formation of new craters. In this figure, we illustrate the cratering relation between small craters and large craters to visualize the process clearly. For this case, there are three possibilities. First, new large craters erase smaller, older ones by either cookie-cutting or ejecta-blanketing (Figure \[Fig:Multi\]a). Second, new craters eliminate the same-sized craters by either cookie-cutting or ejecta-blanketing (Figure \[Fig:Multi\]b). Finally, new small craters can degrade larger ones through sandblasting or ejecta-blanketing (Figure \[Fig:Multi\]c). Figure \[Fig:Multi\]d shows the total effect when all possible permutations are considered.
Consider the change in the number of visible craters of size $i$. The $i$th-sized craters are generated with the rate, $n_i $, on every time step. This accumulation rate is provided as $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\frac{d N_i }{d t}\right|_{acc} &=& \dot n_i. \label{Eq:ith_interact}\end{aligned}$$ The present case requires consideration of differently sized craters. The degradation parameter should vary according to the degradation processes of the $j$th-sized craters. To account for them (Figure \[Fig:Multi\]), we define the degradation parameter describing the effect of the $j$th-sized craters on the $i$th-sized craters as $k_{ij}$. Given the $i$th-sized craters, we give the degradation rate due to craters of size $j$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\frac{d N_i }{d t}\right|_{deg, j} &=& - k_{ij} \dot n_j \frac{N_i }{N_{0,i}} \frac{r_j^{2}}{r_i^2}. \label{Eq:jth_interact}\end{aligned}$$ In this equation, $\Omega_i$ in Equation (\[Eq:Nij1\]) becomes dependent on craters of size $j$. By defining this function for this case as $\Omega_{ij}$, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{ij} = \frac{\dot n_j }{N_{0,i}} \frac{r_j^2}{r_i^2}. \end{aligned}$$ $k_{ij}$ is a factor describing how effectively craters of size $i$ are erased by one crater of size $j$. For example, when $k_{ij} = 1$, $r_j^2 / r_i^2$ is the total number of craters of size $i$ erased by one crater of size $j$ at the geometric saturation condition. In the following discussion, we constrain $k_{ij}$ to be continuous over the range that includes $r_i = r_j$ to account for the degradation relationships among any different sizes.
Based on Equation (\[Eq:ith\_interact\]) and (\[Eq:jth\_interact\]), we take into account both the accumulation process and the degradation process. Considering the possible range of the crater size, we obtain the first-order differential equation for the time evolution of $N_i$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d N_i }{d t} &=& \left.\frac{d N_i }{d t}\right|_{acc} + \sum_{j = i_{min}}^{i_{max}} \left.\frac{d N_i }{d t}\right|_{deg,j}, \nonumber \\
&=& \dot n_{i} - \frac{N_i }{N_{0,i}} \sum_{j = i_{min}}^{i_{max}} k_{ij} \dot n_j \frac{r_j^2}{r_i^2}. \label{Eq:N_i}\end{aligned}$$ The summation operation on the right hand side means a sum from the largest craters to the smallest craters. Similar to the single-sized case, we set the initial condition such that $N_i = 0$ at $t = 0$. The solution of this equation is written as $$\begin{aligned}
N_i = \frac{\dot n_i}{ \frac{\pi}{A q} \sum_{j = i_{min}}^{i_{max}} k_{ij} r_j^{2} \dot n_j} \left[ 1 - \exp \left( - \frac{\pi}{A q} \sum_{j = i_{min}}^{i_{max}} k_{ij} r_j^{2} n_j \right) \right]. \label{Eq:discrete}\end{aligned}$$
As discussed in Section \[Sec:SFD\], it is common to use the CSFDs to describe the number of visible craters. To enable this model directly to compare its results with the empirical data, we convert Equation (\[Eq:discrete\]) to a continuous form. $k_{ij}$ is rewritten as a continuous form, $k$. We write the continuous form of $r_i$ and that of $r_j$ as $r$ and $\check r$, respectively. We define $C_c$ as the CSFD of visible craters and rewrite $N_i$ and $n_i$ as $$\begin{aligned}
N_i \sim - \frac{d C_c }{d r} dr, \:\:\: n_i \sim - \frac{d C_t }{d r} dr,\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Substitutions of these forms into Equation (\[Eq:discrete\]) yields a differential form of the CSFD, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d C_c}{d r} = - \frac{\frac{d \dot C_t}{d r}}{\frac{\pi}{Aq} \int_{r_{min}}^{r_{max}} \frac{d \dot C_t}{d \check r} k \check r^2 d \check r} \left[ 1 - \exp \left(\frac{\pi}{A q} \int_{r_{min}}^{r_{max}} \frac{d C_t}{d \check r} k \check r^2 d \check r \right) \right], \label{Eq:C_c}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{min}$ and $r_{max}$ are the smallest crater radius and the largest crater radius, respectively. The radius of the $i_{min}$th-sized craters and that of the $i_{max}$th-sized craters correspond to $r_{min}$ and $r_{max}$, respectively. Also, $\dot C_t$ is the time-derivative of $C_t$. In the following discussion, we will consider $r_{min} \rightarrow 0$ and $r_{max} \rightarrow \infty$ after we model the $k$ parameter. Equation (\[Eq:C\_c\]) is similar to Equation (18) in [@Marcus1964], which is the key equation of his sequential studies. The crater birth rate, $\lambda$, and the crater damaging rate, $\mu$, are related to $- d \dot C_t / d r$ and $\frac{\pi}{Aq} \int_{r_{min}}^{r_{max}} \frac{d \dot C_t}{d \check r} k \check r^2 d \check r$, respectively. While his $\lambda$ and $\mu$ included a number of geometric uncertainties and did not consider the effect of three dimensional depressions on crater count equilibrium, our formulation overcomes the drawback of his model and provides much stronger constraints on the equilibrium state than his model.
Analytical solutions {#Sec:Generalformulation}
====================
Formulation of the degradation parameter
----------------------------------------
To determine a useful form of the degradation parameter, $k$, we start by discussing how this parameter varies as a function of $\check r$. If craters with a radius of $\check r$ are larger than those with a radius of $r$, cookie-cutting and ejecta-blanketing are main contributors to erasing the $r$-radius craters. In this study, we consider that cookie-cutting and ejecta-blanketing are only related to the geometrical relationship between craters with a radius of $\check r$ and those with a radius of $r$. Cookie-cutting only entails the geometric overlap of the $r$-radius craters; thus $k$ should always be one. Ejecta-blanketing makes additional craters invisible [@Pike1974; @Fassett2011; @Xie2016], so $k$ is described by some small constant, $\alpha_{eb}$. Adding these values, we obtain the degradation parameter at $\check r \ge r$ as $1 + \alpha_{eb}$.
If craters with a radius of $\check r$ are smaller than those with a radius of $r$, the possible processes that degrade the $r$-radius craters are ejecta-blanketing and sandblasting [@Fassett2014]. For simplicity, we only consider the size-dependence of sandblasting. It is reasonable that as $\check r$ becomes smaller, the timescale of degrading the $r$-radius crater should become longer [@Minton2015]. This means that with a small radius, the effect of new craters on the degradation process becomes small. To account for this fact, we assume that at $\check r < r$, $k$ increases as $\check r$ becomes large. Here, we model this feature by introducing a single slope function of $\check r/r$ whose power is a function of $r$.
Combining these conditions, we define the degradation parameter as $$\begin{aligned}
k =
\begin{cases}
(1 + \alpha_{eb}) \left( \frac{\check r}{r} \right)^{b (r)} & \quad \text{if } \check r < r, \\
1 + \alpha_{eb} & \quad \text{if } \check r \ge r, \\
\end{cases}
\label{Eq:k}\end{aligned}$$ where $b(r)$ is a positive function changing due to $r$. We multiplied $1 + \alpha_{eb}$ by the size-dependent term, $( \check r / r)^{b (r)}$, at $r < \check r$ for conveniency. This operation satisfies the continuity at $r = \check r$.
We substitute the produced crater CSFD defined by Equation (\[Eq:C\_t\]) and the degradation parameter given by Equation (\[Eq:k\]) into the integral term in Equation (\[Eq:C\_c\]). We rewrite the integral term of Equation (\[Eq:C\_c\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{r_{min}}^{r_{max}} \frac{d C_t}{d \check r} k \check r^2 d \check r
&=& - \eta A \xi X (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \nonumber \\
&& \left \{\int_{r_{min}}^{r} \left( \frac{\check r}{r} \right)^{b (r)} \check r^{-\eta + 1} d\check r + \int_{r}^{r_{max}} \check r^{-\eta + 1} d\check r \right \}, \nonumber \\
&=& - \eta A \xi X (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \nonumber \\
&& \left[ \frac{r^{ - \eta + 2}}{-\eta + 2 + b (r)} \left \{ 1 - \left(\frac{r_{min}}{r} \right)^{-\eta + 2 + b(r)} \right \} \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. + \frac{r^{-\eta + 2}}{\eta - 2} \left \{ 1 - \left(\frac{r_{max}}{r} \right)^{-\eta + 2} \right \} \right]. \label{Eq:integral}\end{aligned}$$ For the case of $\dot C_t$ that appears in the denominator of the fraction term in Equation (\[Eq:C\_c\]), we can use the derivation process above by replacing $X$ by $x$ (see Equation (\[Eq:CapX\])). We have the similar operations below and only introduce the $C_t$ case without confusion. Note that the second operation in this equation is valid under the assumption that neither $-\eta + 2$ nor $-\eta + 2 + b(r)$ is zero. Under this condition, we examine whether or not Equation (\[Eq:integral\]) has a reasonable value at $r_{min} \rightarrow 0$ and at $r_{max} \rightarrow \infty$. Later, we will show that an additional condition is necessary for $b(r)$ for $r_{min} \rightarrow 0$.
The term in the last row in Equation (\[Eq:integral\]) has $(r_{max}/r)^{-\eta +2}$. If the slope of the produced crater CSFD satisfies $\eta - 2 > 0$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{r_{max}}{r} \right)^{-\eta + 2} &<& 1. \label{Eq:cond1}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, when $r_{max} \rightarrow \infty$, this term goes to zero. The term in the second to the last row in Equation (\[Eq:integral\]) provides constraints on how the sandblasting process works to create the equilibrium states. Since $b(r) > 0$ and $\eta - 2 > 0$, the power of $r_{min}/r$, $-\eta + 2 + b(r)$, can only take one of the following cases: negative $(-\eta + 2 + b(r) < 0)$ or positive $(-\eta + 2 + b(r) > 0)$. If $-\eta + 2 + b(r) < 0$, the term, $(r_{min}/r)^{-\eta + 2 + b(r)}$, becomes $\infty$ at $r_{min} \rightarrow 0$. This condition yields $C_c \rightarrow 0$ at $r_{min} \rightarrow 0$. We rule out this condition by conducting the following thought experiment. We assume that this case is true. In nature, micrometeoroids play significant roles in crater degradation [@Melosh2011]. Because we assumed that this case is true, there should be no craters on the surface. This result obviously contradicts what we have seen on the surface of airless bodies (we see craters!).
The only possible case is the positive slope case, providing the condition that the sandblasting effect leads to crater count equilibrium as $b(r) > \eta - 2$. Since this case satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{r_{min}}{r} \right)^{-\eta + 2 + b(r)} < 1, \end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[Eq:integral\]) at $r_{min} \rightarrow 0$ and $r_{max} \rightarrow \infty$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\infty \frac{d C_t}{d \check r} k \check r^2 d \check r
&=& - \eta A \xi X (1 + \alpha_{eb}) r^{-\eta + 2}\nonumber \\
&& \left( \frac{1}{-\eta + 2 + b (r)} + \frac{1}{\eta - 2} \right). \label{Eq:lim_Integral}\end{aligned}$$
Here, we also assume a constant slope of the equilibrium state. To give this assumption, we find $b(r)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{sc} r^\beta = \frac{1}{-\eta + 2 + b (r)} + \frac{1}{\eta - 2}, \label{Eq:alphasc}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{sc}$ and $\beta$ are constant. This form yields $$\begin{aligned}
b(r) = \frac{ a_{sc} r^{\beta} (\eta - 2)^2}{\alpha_{sc} r^{\beta} (\eta - 2) -1}. \label{Eq:b(r)}\end{aligned}$$ Using this $\beta$ value, we rewrite Equation (\[Eq:lim\_Integral\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\infty \frac{d C_t}{d \check r} k \check r^2 d \check r
&=& - \eta A \xi X (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc} r^{-\eta + 2 + \beta}. \label{Eq:lim_Integral2}\end{aligned}$$
![Schematic plot of the degradation parameter in log-log space. The $x$ axis indicates $\check r$ in a log scale, while the $y$ axis shows the value of the degradation parameter in a log scale. If $\check r \ge r$, $k$ is always $1 + \alpha_{eb}$ because cookie-cutting and ejecta-blanketing are dominant. If $\check r < r$, sandblasting and ejecta-blanketing are considered to be dominant. For this case, $k$ is described as $(1 + \alpha_{eb}) (\check r/r)^{b(r)}$. The slope, $b(r)$, changes as a function of $r$.[]{data-label="Fig:AlphaBeta"}](Equilibrium6){width="3in"}
Equilibrium state
-----------------
This section introduces the equilibrium slope at $r_{min} \rightarrow 0$ and $r_{max} \rightarrow \infty$. Impact cratering achieves its equilibrium states on a surface when $t \rightarrow \infty$. Using Equations (\[Eq:C\_c\]) and (\[Eq:lim\_Integral2\]), we write an ordinal differential equation of the equilibrium state as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d C_{c}^\infty}{d r} &=& - \frac{\frac{d \dot C_t}{d r}}{\frac{\pi}{A q} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{d \dot C_t}{d \check r} k \check r^2 d \check r}, \nonumber \\
&=& - \frac{A q}{\pi (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc}} r^{-3 - \beta}. \label{Eq:Equilibrium}\end{aligned}$$ Integrating Equation (\[Eq:Equilibrium\]) from $r$ to $\infty$, we derive the visible crater CSFD at the equilibrium condition as $$\begin{aligned}
C_{c}^\infty &=& - \int_{r}^\infty \frac{d C_c}{d r} dr, \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{A q}{\pi (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc} (2 + \beta)} r^{- 2 - \beta}. \label{Eq:EqC_c}\end{aligned}$$
Equation (\[Eq:EqC\_c\]) indicates that the fraction term on the right-hand side is independent of $\xi$ and $\eta$, and the equilibrium slope is simply given as $2 + \beta$. If $\beta = 0$, the equilibrium slope is exactly 2. This statement results from a constant value of $b(r)$, the case of which was discussed by [@Marcus1970] and [@Soderblom1970]. These results indicate that the equilibrium state is independent of the crater production function and only dependent on the surface condition. Therefore, a better understanding of the degradation parameter may provide strong constraints on the properties of cratered surfaces, such as regional slope effects, material conditions, and densities.
We briefly explain the case of $\eta - 2 < 0$. This would be a “shallow-sloped” CSFD, such as seen in large crater populations on heavily-cratered ancient surfaces. For this case, cookie-cutting is the primary process that erases old craters [@Richardson2009]. Considering that $r_{min} \rightarrow 0$ and $r_{max}$ becomes quite large ($\gg r)$, we use Equation (\[Eq:integral\]) to approximately obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{r_{max} \gg r} \frac{d C_t}{d \check r} k \check r^2 d \check r \propto r_{max}^{-\eta + 2},\end{aligned}$$ which is constant. Thus, from Equation (\[Eq:EqC\_c\]), we derive $$\begin{aligned}
C_{c}^\infty \propto C_t. \end{aligned}$$ This equation means that the slope of the equilibrium state is proportional to that of the produced crater CSFD, which is consistent with the arguments by [@Chapman1986] and [@Richardson2009]. We leave detailed modeling of this case as a future work.
Time evolution of countable craters
-----------------------------------
This section calculates the time evolution of the visible crater CSFD, $C_c$. Substituting Equation (\[Eq:EqC\_c\]) into Equation (\[Eq:C\_c\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d C_c}{d r} &=& - \frac{A q}{\pi (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc}} r^{- 3 - \beta} \left[ 1 - \exp \left \{ - \frac{\pi \eta \xi X}{q} (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc} r^{-\eta + 2 + \beta} \right \} \right]. \label{Eq:partialCc_final}\end{aligned}$$ Integrating Equation (\[Eq:partialCc\_final\]) from $r$ to $\infty$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
C_{c} &=& - \int_r^\infty \frac{d C_c}{d r} dr, \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{A q}{\pi (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc} (2 + \beta)} r^{- 2 - \beta} \label{Eq:C_c_incomp} \\
&+& \frac{A q}{\pi (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc}} \int^\infty_r r^{- 3 - \beta} \exp \left \{ - \frac{\pi \eta \xi X}{q} (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc} r^{-\eta + 2 + \beta} \right \} dr. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
While the second row in this equation directly results from Equation (\[Eq:EqC\_c\]), the third row needs additional operations. To derive the analytical form of the integral term, we introduce an incomplete form of the gamma function, which is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma (a, Z) = \int_Z^\infty Z^{a - 1} \exp (-Z) dZ. \label{Eq:Gamma}\end{aligned}$$ We focus on the critical integral part of Equation (\[Eq:C\_c\_incomp\]), which is given as $$\begin{aligned}
f &=& \int_r^\infty r^{- 3 - \beta} \exp \left( - \chi r^{-\eta + 2 + \beta} \right) dr, \label{Eq:f1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\chi &=& \frac{\pi \eta \xi X}{q} (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc}. \label{Eq:chi}\end{aligned}$$
To apply Equation (\[Eq:Gamma\]) to Equation (\[Eq:f1\]), we consider the following relationships, $$\begin{aligned}
Z &=& \frac{\chi}{r^{\eta - 2 - \beta}}, \label{Eq:t} \\
r &=& \left( \frac{\chi}{Z} \right)^\frac{1}{\eta-2-\beta}. \label{Eq:rForZ}\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[Eq:rForZ\]) provides $$\begin{aligned}
dr = \frac{-1}{\eta - 2 - \beta} \left( \frac{\chi}{Z} \right)^{\frac{1}{\eta - 2 - \beta}} \frac{dZ}{Z}. \label{Eq:dr}\end{aligned}$$ Using Equations (\[Eq:t\]) through (\[Eq:dr\]), we describe $f$ as $$\begin{aligned}
f &=& - \frac{1}{\eta - 2 - \beta} \left( \frac{1}{\chi} \right)^{\frac{2 + \beta}{\eta - 2 - \beta}} \int_Z^0 Z^{\frac{2 + \beta}{\eta - 2 - \beta} - 1}\exp (- Z) dZ, \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{1}{\eta - 2 - \beta} \left( \frac{1}{\chi} \right)^{\frac{2 + \beta}{\eta - 2 - \beta}} \gamma \left( \frac{2 + \beta}{\eta - 2 - \beta}, Z \right), \end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma(\cdot, 0)$ is called a lower incomplete gamma function. For the current case, this function is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma \left( \frac{2 + \beta}{\eta - 2 - \beta}, Z \right) = \Gamma \left( \frac{2 + \beta}{\eta - 2 - \beta} \right) - \Gamma \left( \frac{2 + \beta}{\eta - 2 - \beta}, Z \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma (\cdot) = \Gamma (\cdot, 0)$. We eventually obtain the final solution as $$\begin{aligned}
C_c &=& \frac{A q}{\pi (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc}} \frac{1}{2 + \beta} r^{- 2 - \beta} \label{Dsd} \\
&+& \frac{A q}{\pi (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc}} \frac{1}{\eta - 2 - \beta} \left( \frac{1}{\chi} \right)^{\frac{2 + \beta}{\eta - 2 - \beta}} \gamma \left( \frac{2 + \beta}{\eta - 2 - \beta}, Z \right) . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ At an early stage, both the first term and the second term play a role in determining $C_c$, which should be close to the produced crater CSFD. However, as the time increases, $X$ also becomes large. From Equation (\[Eq:f1\]), when $X \gg 1$, $f \ll 1$, and thus the second term becomes negligible. This process causes $C_c$ to become close to $C^\infty_c$.
We introduce a special case of $\beta = 0$ and $\eta = 3$. From Equation (\[Eq:b(r)\]), $b(r)$ becomes constant and is given as $$\begin{aligned}
b = \frac{\alpha_{sc}}{\alpha_{sc} - 1}. \label{Eq:bsp}\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[Dsd\]) is simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
C_c &=& \frac{A q}{2 \pi (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc}} r^{- 2} + \frac{A q}{\pi (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc}} \chi^{-2} \gamma (2 , Z), \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{A q}{2 \pi (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc}} r^{- 2} + \frac{A q}{\pi (1 + \alpha_{eb}) \alpha_{sc}} \chi^{-2} \left \{ 1 - \left( 1 + \frac{\chi}{r} \right) \exp \left( - \frac{\chi}{r} \right) \right \}. \end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[Eq:bsp\]) shows that when $\alpha_{sc} \rightarrow 1$, $b \rightarrow \infty$. However, the following exercises show that $\alpha_{sc} \gg 1$.
Sample applications {#Sec:Behavior}
===================
We apply the developed model to the visible crater CSFD of the Sinus Medii region on the Moon (see the red-edged circles in Figure \[Fig:SinusMedii\]) and that of the Apollo 15 landing site (see the red-edged circles in Figure \[Fig:AP15\]). These locations are considered to have reached crater count equilibrium. In these exercises, we obtain $C_t$ by considering the crater sizes that have not researched equilibrium, yet. Then, assuming that $\alpha_{eb} = 0$, we determine $\alpha_{sc}$ such that $C_c$ matches the empirical datasets.
The Sinus Medii region
----------------------
[@Gault1970] obtained this CSFD (see Figure 14 in his paper), using the so-called nesting counting method. This method accounts for large craters in a global region, usually obtained from low-resolution images, and small craters in a small region, given from high-resolution images. In the following discussion, caution must be taken to deal with the units of the degradation constants.
Studies of the crater production function [e.g. @Neukum2001] showed that a high slope region, which usually appears at sizes $\sim 100$ m to $\sim$1 km might be similar to the produced crater CSFD. Here, we observed that such a steep slope appears between $\sim$100 m and $\sim$400 m on the Sinus Medii surface. By fitting this high slope, we obtain $C_t$ as $$\begin{aligned}
C_t = 2.5 \times 10^6 r^{-3.25}. \label{Eq:C_t_SinusMedii}\end{aligned}$$ $C_t$ for the Sinus Medii case is the produced crater CSFD for an area of 1 km$^2$ (we consider an area of 1 m$^2$ to be the unit area), and this quantity is dimensionless, and the $2.5 \times 10^6$ factor has units of m$^{3.25}$. Since $\eta = 3.25 > 2$, this case is the high-slope crater production function. Based on this fitting function, we set $X = 1$, $\xi = 2.5$ m$^{1.25}$, and $A = 1$ km$^2$. Also, we obtain the fitting function of the equilibrium slope as $$\begin{aligned}
C_c^\infty = 4.3 \times 10^3 r^{-1.8}. \label{Eq:C_c_SinusMedii}\end{aligned}$$ Similar to $C_t$, the units of the $4.3 \times 10^3$ factor are m$^{1.8}$. Figure (\[Fig:SinusMedii\]) compares the empirical data with the time evolution of $C_c$ that is given by Equation (\[Dsd\]). We describe different time points by varying $X$ without changing $\xi$ and $A$. It is found that the model captures the equilibrium evolution properly.
By fitting $C_c$ with the empirical data, the present model can provide constraints on the sandblasting exponent, $b(r)$, of the degradation parameter. To obtain this quantity, we determine $\alpha_{sc}$ and $\beta$. Since $\alpha_{eb}$ is assumed to be negligible, we write $1 + \alpha_{eb} \sim 1$. First, since $- 2 - \beta = - 1.8$, we derive $\beta = - 0.2$. Second, operating the units of the given parameters, we have the following relationship, $$\begin{aligned}
4.3 \times 10^3 \: \text{[m$^{1.8}$]} = \frac{A q}{\pi (2 + \beta) \alpha_{sc}} = \frac{10^6\: \text{[m$^2$]} \: \times 0.907}{\pi (2 - 0.2) \alpha_{sc} \: \text{[m$^{0.2}$]}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{sc} = 37.3 \: \text{[m$^{0.2}$]}. \end{aligned}$$ Since the units of $r^{\beta}$ are m$^{-0.2}$, this result guarantees that Equation (\[Eq:b(r)\]) consistently provides a dimensionless value of $b(r)$. Using these quantities, we obtain the variation in $b(r)$. Figure \[Fig:b(r)\] indicates that the obtained values of $b(r)$ for the Sinus Medii satisfy the sand-blasting condition, $b(r) > \eta - 2$. For this case, which has a constant slope index, $b(r)$ monotonically increases. As newly emplaced craters become smaller, they become less capable of erasing a crater. These results imply that for a large simple crater, it would take longer time for smaller craters to degrade its deep excavation depth and its high crater rim. These results could be used to constrain models for net downslope material displacement by craters; however, this is beyond our scope in this paper.
![Comparison of the analytical results with the empirical data of the Sinus Medii region by [@Gault1970]. The area plotted is 1 km$^2$. The red-edged circles are the empirical data. The blue and black lines show the CSFDs of the produced craters, $C_t$, and that of the visible craters, $C_c$, respectively. We plot the results at three different times: $X = 0.001$, 0.05, and 1.0. The dashed line indicates the equilibrium condition.[]{data-label="Fig:SinusMedii"}](Equilibrium7){width="4in"}
![Variation in $b(r)$ for the Sinus Medii case. The solid line shows $b(r)$, which is given in Equation (\[Eq:b(r)\]). The dotted line represents the minimum value of $b(r)$, which is $\eta - 2 = 1.25$ for the Sinus Medii case. []{data-label="Fig:b(r)"}](Equilibrium8){width="4in"}
The Apollo 15 landing site
--------------------------
We also consider the crater equilibrium state on the Apollo 15 landing site. Co-author Fassett counted craters at this area in [@Robbins2014], and we directly use this empirical result. The used image is a sub-region of M146959973L taken by Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera Narrow-Angle Camera, the image size is 4107 $\times$ 2218 pixels, and the solar incidence angle is 77$^\circ$ [@Robbins2014]. The pixel size of the used image is 0.63 m/pixel. The total domain of the counted region is 3.62 km$^2$, and the number of visible craters is 1859. We plot the empirical data in Figure \[Fig:AP15\]. To make this figure consistent with Figure \[Fig:SinusMedii\], we plot the visible crater CSFD with an area of 1 km$^2$. In the following discussion, we will show $C_t$, $C_c^\infty$, and $C_c$ by keeping this area, i.e., $A = 1$ km$^2$, to make comparisons of our exercises clear.
For the Apollo 15 landing site, the steep-slope region ranges from $\sim 50$ m to the maximum crater radius, which is 131 m. The fitting process yields $$\begin{aligned}
C_t = 2.2 \times 10^6 r^{-3.25}. \label{Eq:C_t_SinusMedii}\end{aligned}$$ This fitting process shows that $C_t$ of the Apollo 15 landing site is consistent with that of the Sinus Medii case. Then, given $A = 1$ km$^2$, we obtain $\xi = 2.2$ m$^{1.25}$. We also set $X = 1$ for the condition that fits the empirical dataset. $C_c^\infty$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
C_c^\infty = 4.6 \times 10^3 r^{-1.8}. \label{Eq:C_c_SinusMedii}\end{aligned}$$ The units of the $4.6 \times 10^3$ factor are m$^{1.8}$. Figure (\[Fig:AP15\]) shows comparisons of the analytical model and the empirical data for the Apollo 15 landing site. We also obtain $\alpha_{sc}$ and $\beta$. Again, $\alpha_{eb}$ is assumed to be zero. Since the slope of the equilibrium state is 1.8, we derive $\beta = - 0.2$. Similar to the Sinus Medii case, we calculate $\alpha_{sc}$ for the Apollo 15 case as 34.9 m$^{-0.2}$. These quantities yield the variation in $b(r)$ (Figure \[Fig:b(r)AP15\]). The results are consistent with those for the Sinus Medii case.
![Comparison of the analytical results with the empirical data of the Apollo 15 landing region over an area of 1 km$^2$. C.I.F. counted craters on this region in [@Robbins2014]. The red-edged circles are the empirical data. The definitions of the line formats are the same as those in Figure \[Fig:SinusMedii\].[]{data-label="Fig:AP15"}](Equilibrium9){width="4in"}
![Variation in $b(r)$ for the Apollo 15 landing site case.[]{data-label="Fig:b(r)AP15"}](Equilibrium10){width="4in"}
Necessary improvements
======================
Further investigations and improvements will be necessary as we made five assumptions in the present study. First, we simply considered the limit condition of the crater radius, i.e., $r_{min} \rightarrow 0$ and $r_{max} \rightarrow \infty$. However, this assumption neglects consideration of a cut-off effect on crater counting. Such an effect may happen when a local area is chosen to count craters on a terrain that reaches crater count equilibrium. Due to this effect, large craters in the area may be accidentally truncated, and the craters counted there may not follow the typical slope feature. Second, we ignored the effect of ejecta-blanketing in our exercises. However, it is necessary to investigate the details for it to give stronger constraints on the crater count equilibrium problem. Third, we assumed that the equilibrium state is characterized by a single slope. However, an earlier study has shown that the equilibrium slope could vary at different crater sizes from case to case [e.g. @Robbins2014]. To adapt such complex equilibrium slopes, we require more sophisticated forms of Equation (\[Eq:alphasc\]). Fourth, the current version of this model does not distinguish crater degradation with crater obliteration. For example, if $t \ll 1$ in Equation (\[Dsd\]), there is a chance that craters would be degraded due to sandblasting but not obliterated. At this condition, they all would be visible, while Equation (\[Dsd\]) predicts some obliteration. Fifth, the measured crater radius can increase due to sandblasting, while the current model does not account for this effect. We will attempt to solve these problems in our future works.
We finally address that although we took into account cookie-cutting, ejecta-blanketing, and sandblasting as the physical processes contributing to crater count equilibrium in this study, we have not implemented the effect of crater counting on the degradation parameter. According to [@Robbins2014], the visibility of degraded craters could depend on several different factors: sharpness of craters, surface conditions, and image qualities (such as image resolution and Sun angles). Also, purposes that a crater counter has also play a significant role in crater counting. A better understanding of this mechanism will shed light on the effect of human crater counting processes on crater count equilibrium. We will conduct detailed investigations and construct a better methodology for characterizing this effect.
Conclusion
==========
We developed an analytical model for addressing the crater count equilibrium problem. We formulated a balance condition between crater accumulation and crater degradation and derived the analytical solution that described how the crater count equilibrium evolves over time. The degradation process was modeled by using the degradation parameter that gave an efficiency for a new crater to erase old craters. This model formulated cookie-cutting, ejecta-blanketing, and sandblasting to model crater count equilibrium.
To formulate the degradation parameter, we considered the slope functions of the ratio of one crater to the other for the following cases: if the size of newly emplaced craters was smaller than that of old craters, ejecta-blanketing and sandblasting were dominant; otherwise, ejecta-blanketing and cookie-cutting mainly erased old craters. Based on our formulation of the degradation parameter, we derived the relationship between this parameter and a fitting function obtained by the empirical data. If the slope of the crater production function was higher than 2, the equilibrium state was independent of the crater production function. We recovered the results by earlier studies that the slope of the equilibrium state was always independent of the produced crater CSFD. If the physical processes were scale-dependent, the slope deviated from the slope of 2.
Using the empirical results of the Sinus Medii region and the Apollo 15 landing site on the Moon, we discussed how our model constrained the degradation parameters from observed crater counts of equilibrium surfaces. We assumed that the ejecta-blanketing process was negligible. This exercise showed that this model properly described the nature of crater count equilibrium. Further work will be conducted to better understand the slope functions of the degradation parameters, which will help us do validation and verification processes for both our analytical model and the numerical cratered terrain model CTEM [@Richardson2009; @Minton2015].
Acknowledgements
================
M.H. is supported by NASA’s GRAIL mission and NASA Solar System Workings\
NNX15AL41G. The authors acknowledge Dr. Kreslavsky and the anonymous reviewer for detailed and useful comments that substantially improved our manuscript. The authors also thank Dr. H. Jay Melosh at Purdue University, Dr. Jason M. Soderblom at MIT, Ms. Ya-Huei Huang at Purdue University, and Dr. Colleen Milbury at West Virginia Wesleyan College for useful advice to this project.
[26]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
Chapman, C. R., McKinnon, W. B., 1986. Cratering of planetary satellites. In: IAU Colloq. 77: Some Background about Satellites. pp. 492–580.
, 1979. Standard techniques for presentation and analysis of crater size-frequency data. Icarus 37 (2), 467–474.
Fassett, C. I., Head, J. W., Smith, D. E., Zuber, M. T., Neumann, G. A., 2011. Thickness of proximal ejecta from the orientale basin from lunar orbiter laser altimeter (lola) data: Implications for multi-ring basin formation. Geophysical Research Letters 38 (17).
Fassett, C. I., Thomson, B. J., 2014. Crater degradation on the lunar maria: Topographic diffusion and the rate of erosion on the moon. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 119 (10), 2255–2271.
Gault, D., H[ö]{}rz, F., Brownlee, D., Hartung, J., 1974. Mixing of the lunar regolith. In: Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Proceedings. Vol. 5. pp. 2365–2386.
Gault, D. E., 1970. Saturation and equilibrium conditions for impact cratering on the lunar surface: Criteria and implications. Radio Science 5 (2), 273–291.
Hartmann, W. K., 1984. Does crater “saturation equilibrium” occur in the solar system? Icarus 60 (1), 56–74.
Hartmann, W. K., Gaskell, R. W., 1997. Planetary cratering 2: Studies of saturation equilibrium. Meteoritics & Planetary Science 32 (1), 109–121.
Marchi, S., Bottke, W., Elkins-Tanton, L., Bierhaus, M., Wuennemann, K., Morbidelli, A., Kring, D., 2014. Widespread mixing and burial of earth/’s hadean crust by asteroid impacts. Nature 511 (7511), 578–582.
Marcus, A., 1964. [A Stochastic Model of the Formation and Survival of Lunar Craters: I. Distribution of Diameter of Clean Craters]{}. Icarus 3, 460–472.
Marcus, A., 1966. [A Stochastic Model of the Formation and Survival of Lunar Craters: II. Approximate Distribution of Diameter of All Observable Craters]{}. Icarus 5, 165–177.
Marcus, A. H., 1970. Comparison of equilibrium size distributions for lunar craters. Journal of Geophysical Research 75 (26), 4977–4984.
Melosh, H. J., 1989. Impact cratering: A geologic process. Oxford University Press.
Melosh, H. J., 2011. Planetary surface processes. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press.
Minton, D. A., Richardson, J. E., Fassett, C. I., 2015. Re-examining the main asteroid belt as the primary source of ancient lunar craters. Icarus 247, 172–190.
Neukum, G., Ivanov, B. A., Hartmann, W. K., 2001. Cratering records in the inner solar system in relation to the lunar reference system. Space Science Reviews 96 (1-4), 55–86.
Pike, R. J., 1974. Ejecta from large craters on the moon: Comments on the geometric model of mcgetchin et al. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 23 (3), 265–271.
Richardson, J. E., 2009. Cratering saturation and equilibrium: A new model looks at an old problem. Icarus 204 (2), 697–715.
Robbins, S. J., Antonenko, I., Kirchoff, M. R., Chapman, C. R., Fassett, C. I., Herrick, R. R., Singer, K., Zanetti, M., Lehan, C., Huang, D., et al., 2014. The variability of crater identification among expert and community crater analysts. Icarus 234, 109–131.
Rosenburg, M. A., Aharonson, O., Sari, R., 2015. Topographic power spectra of cratered terrains: Theory and application to the moon. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 120 (2), 177–194.
Ross, H. P., 1968. A simplified mathematical model for lunar crater erosion. Journal of Geophysical Research 73 (4), 1343–1354.
Soderblom, L. A., 1970. A model for small-impact erosion applied to the lunar surface. Journal of Geophysical Research 75 (14), 2655–2661.
Woronow, A., 1977. Crater saturation and equilibrium: A monte carlo simulation. Journal of Geophysical Research 82 (17), 2447–2456.
Woronow, A., 1978. A general cratering-history model and its implications for the lunar highlands. Icarus 34 (1), 76–88.
Xiao, Z., Werner, S. C., 2015. Size-frequency distribution of crater populations in equilibrium on the moon. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 120 (12), 2277–2292.
Xie, M., Zhu, M.-H., 2016. Estimates of primary ejecta and local material for the orientale basin: Implications for the formation and ballistic sedimentation of multi-ring basins. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 440, 71–80.
[^1]: Earlier works called this process small impact erosion [@Ross1968; @Soderblom1970]. Here, we follow the terminology by [@Minton2015].
[^2]: For notational simplification, we define the slopes as positive values.
[^3]: Because $N^0_i = 0$, at time 1 there is only one crater emplaced.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Anderson-Witting model is a relaxational model equation of the relativistic Boltzmann equation, which sees a wide application in physics. In this paper, we study the existence of classical solutions and its asymptotic behavior when the solution starts sufficiently close to a global relativistic Maxwellian.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, Republic of Korea'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, Republic of Korea'
author:
- 'Byung-Hoon Hwang'
- 'Seok-Bae Yun'
title: 'Anderson-Witting model of the relativistic Boltzmann equation near equilibrium'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we consider the Cauchy problem for Anderson-Witting model [@AW]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AWRBGK1}
\begin{split}
\partial_t F+\hat{q}\cdot\nabla_x F&=\frac{U_\mu q^\mu}{q^0}(J(F)-F),\cr
F_0(x,q)&=F(0,x,q).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The momentum distribution function $F(x^\mu,q^\mu)$ represents the number density of relativistic particles at the phase point $(x^\mu ,q^\mu)~(\mu=0,1,2,3)$ in the Minkowski space where $x^\mu=(t,x)\in \mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{T}^3$ denotes the space-time coordinate and $q^\mu=(\sqrt{1+|q|^2},q)\in \mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{R}^3$ is the energy-momentum four-vector. The normalized momentum $\hat{q}$ is defined by $q/q^0$. The relativistic Maxwellian $J(F)$ is given by $$J(F)=\frac{n }{M(\beta )} e^{-\beta U^\mu q_\mu},$$ where $M(\beta)$ denotes $$M(\beta)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} e^{-\beta\sqrt{1+|q|^2}}dq.$$ Throughout this paper, we employ the signature of the metric $\eta^{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}=\text{diag}(1,-1,-,1,-1)$, so that the Minkowski inner product $p^\mu q_\mu$ is given by $$p^\mu q_\mu =p^0 q^0-\sum_{i=1}^3 p^iq^i.$$
To define the macroscopic fields, we consider the particle four-flow $N^\mu$ and energy-momentum tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$: $$N^\mu=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^\mu F\frac{dq}{q^0},\qquad T^{\mu\nu}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^\mu q^\nu F\frac{dq}{q^0}.$$ Then, the particle density $n$ and the macroscopic velocity $U^{\mu}$ are defined by $$\label{n} n^2=N^{\mu}N_{\mu}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F\,dq\right)^2-\sum_{i=1}^3\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}Fq^i\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\right)^2,$$ and $$U^\mu=u^\mu+\frac{\mathbf{q}^\mu}{nh},$$ where the Eckart four-velocity $u^\mu$, the heat flux $\mathbf{q}^\mu$, the enthalpy function $h$, the internal energy per particle $e$ and the pressure $p$ are defined as follows (We follow the Einstein summation convention): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LLD1}
\begin{split}
u^\mu&=\frac{1}{n}N^\mu=\frac{1}{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}Fq^\mu\,\frac{dq}{q^0},\cr
\mathbf{q}^\mu&=\Delta^\mu_\gamma u_\nu T^{\nu\gamma}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F (u^\nu q_\nu)q^\mu\frac{dq}{q^0}-u^\mu \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} F(u^\nu q_\nu)^2 \frac{dq}{q^0},\cr
e&=\frac{1}{n}u^\mu u^\nu T_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{n} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F (u^\mu q_\mu)^2 \frac{dq}{q^0},\cr
p&=-\frac{1}{3}\Delta^{\mu\nu}T_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{3}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F (u^\mu q_\mu)^2 \frac{dq}{q^0}-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F \frac{dq}{q^0} \right),\cr
h&=e+\frac{p}{n}=\frac{1}{3n}\left(4\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F (u^\mu q_\mu)^2 \frac{dq}{q^0}-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F \frac{dq}{q^0} \right).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The projection operators $\Delta^{\mu\nu}$ and $\Delta^\mu_\nu$ are defined by $$\Delta^{\mu\nu}=\eta^{\mu\nu}-u^\mu u^\nu,\qquad \Delta^\mu_\nu= g^{\mu}_\nu - u^\mu u_\nu,$$ where $g^{\mu}_\nu$ denotes Kronecker delta. Note from and $\eqref{LLD1}_1$ that $$u^\mu u_\mu=\frac{1}{n^2}N^\mu N_\mu=1,$$ which implies $u^\mu$ takes the form of $$u^\mu=\left(\sqrt{1+|u|^2},u\right).$$ Finally, the equilibrium temperature $1/\beta$ is determined through the following nonlinear relation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta}
\frac{K_1}{K_2}(\beta)+\frac{3}{\beta}&=e.\end{aligned}$$ For later convenience, we denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e tilde}
\widetilde{e}(\beta)=\frac{K_1}{K_2}(\beta)+\frac{3}{\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ The unique solvability of the nonlinear relation will be considered in section 3.
The r.h.s of is called a relativistic relaxation operator that satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{properties}
U_\mu\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(J(F)-F\right)q^\mu\left(\begin{matrix}
1\\
q^\nu
\end{matrix}\right) \,\frac{dq}{q^0}=0,\qquad
U_\mu\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(J(F)-F\right)\ln Fq^\mu\,\frac{dq}{q^0}&\le 0.
\end{aligned}$$ The cancellation property $\eqref{properties}_1$ gives the conservation laws of total mass, momentum and energy $$\frac{d}{dt} \int_{\mathbb{T}^3 }\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F\left(\begin{matrix}
1\\
q^\nu
\end{matrix}\right)\,dqdx=0,$$ and $\eqref{properties}_2$ leads to the celebrated $H$-theorem: $$\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\mathbb{T}^3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F \ln F\,dqdx\le 0.$$
The classical BGK model [@BGK] is widely used in physics and engineering to understand the transport phenomena in a more simplified and numerically amenable manner. In the relativistic case, there are two such relaxational models for the Boltzmann equation. The first relaxation model was introduced by Marle [@Mar2; @Mar3]. Then Anderson and Witting [@AW] suggested another model that provides a better agreement with the relativistic Boltzmann equation in terms of the viscosity and the heat conductivity in the ultra-relativistic limit. The difference between them comes from the way in which the macroscopic fields are represented. The Marle model uses the Eckart decomposition [@CK; @E] to represent the macroscopic fields, whereas the Landau-Lifshitz decomposition [@CK; @LL] is employed for the Anderson-Witting model. The Anderson-Witting model has been fruitfully applied to a wide range of physical problems in relativistic kinetic theory [@AW2; @DHMNS; @DHMNS2; @FMRS; @FRS; @FRS2; @Jaiswal1; @Jaiswal2; @JRS; @KP; @MBHS; @MKSH; @MNR; @MW; @TZP; @ZTP]. However, the existence problems for Anderson-Witting model have never been addressed, which is the main motivation of the current work. In this paper, we establish the global in time existence of unique smooth solution and its exponential decay to the equilibration when the initial data is sufficiently close to a global equilibrium state. For this we decompose the distribution function into a global equilibrium and the perturbation around it: $$\label{decomposition}
F=J^0+f\sqrt{J^0}$$ where $J^0$ is a relativistic global Maxwellian defined by $$\label{GM}
J^0=\frac{1}{M(\beta_0)}e^{-\beta_0 q^0}.$$ Inserting , the Anderson-Witting model is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AWRBGK2}
\begin{split}
\partial_t f+\hat{q}\cdot\nabla_x f&=L(f)+\Gamma (f),\cr
f_0(x,q)&=f(0,x,q),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where the linearized relaxation operator $L$ and the nonlinear perturbation $\Gamma$ are given in Proposition \[lin3\]. The initial perturbation $f_0$ is determined by $F_0=J^0+f_0\sqrt{J^0}.$
To state our main result, we introduce the following notations and definitions:
- We define standard $L^2$ norm by $$\|f\|^{2}_{L^2_q}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}|f(q)|^2\,dq,\qquad\|f\|_{L^2_{x,q}}^{2}=\int_{\mathbb{T}^{3}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}|f(x,q)|^{2}\,dqdx.$$
- We define usual $L^2$ inner product by $$\langle f,g\rangle_q=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f(q)g(q)\, dq,\qquad\langle f,g\rangle_{x,q}=\int_{\mathbb{T}^3 }\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}f(x,q)g(x,q)\, dqdx .$$
- Multi-index $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are defined by $$\alpha=[\alpha_{0},\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3}],\ \beta=[\beta_{1},\beta_{2},\beta_{3}]$$ and $$\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}=\partial_{t}^{\alpha_{0}}\partial_{x^{1}}^{\alpha_{1}}\partial_{x^{2}}^{\alpha_{2}}\partial_{x^{3}}^{\alpha_{3}}\partial_{q^{1}}^{\beta_{1}}\partial_{q^{2}}^{\beta_{2}}\partial_{q^{3}}^{\beta_{3}}.$$
- We use $\mathbb{P}(x,y,\cdots)$ to denote a homogeneous generic polynomial: $$\mathbb{P}(x_1,x_2,\cdots, x_n)=\sum_{i}C_{i}x_1^{a_{i,1}}x_2^{a_{i,2}}\cdots x_n^{a_{i,n}}.$$ where $a_{i,j}$ are sequences of nonnegative integers. By homogeneous polynomial we mean that $\mathbb{P}(0)=0$.
- We define the energy functional $E$ by $$\begin{aligned}
E(f)(t)&=\sum_{|\alpha|+|\beta|\le N}\|\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}f\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}}.
\end{aligned}$$ When there’s no risk of confusion, we use $E(f)(t)$ and $E(t)$ interchangeably for brevity.
The main result of this paper is as follows:
\[main2\] Let $N\geq 4$. Assume $F_{0}=J^0+\sqrt{J^0}f_{0}\geq0$ and suppose $F_0$ and $J^0$ have the same total mass, momentum and energy: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conserv1}
\int_{\mathbb{T}^3 }\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}f_0\sqrt{J^0}\left(\begin{matrix}
1\\
q\\
q^0
\end{matrix}\right)\,dqdx=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, if $ E(f_0)$ is sufficiently small, there exists a unique global in time solution to satisfying
1. The momentum distribution function is non-negative: $$F(t,x,q)=J^0+\sqrt{J^0}f(t,x,q)\geq0.$$
2. The energy functional is uniformly bounded: $$\begin{aligned}
E(f)(t)+\int_0^t E(f)(s)\,ds\leq CE\big(f_0\big).
\end{aligned}$$
3. The energy functional decays exponentially fast: $$\begin{aligned}
E(f)(t)\leq Ce^{-C^\prime t}E(f_0).
\end{aligned}$$
The mathematical study of relativistic BGK models has just started and the literature is limited. For the Marle model, Bellouquid et al. [@BCNS] carried out an initial research in 2012 where the determination of equilibrium variables, asymptotic limits and linearized solution were considered. The global existence of mild solution and its asymptotic behavior in the periodic domain is studied in [@BNU]. In 2018, the authors [@HY] studied the stationary problem in a slab. To the best of our knowledge, no existence results were reported for Anderson-Witting model (\[AWRBGK1\]) so far.
The situation is far better in the case of the relativistic Boltzmann equation. The local existence and linearized solution was studied in [@B; @D; @DE]. We refer to [@GS1; @GS2; @Guo; @Strain; @Momentum; @Strain1; @Strain; @Zhu] for the global existence and asymptotic behavior in the near-equilibrium regime, and [@Dud3; @Jiang1; @Jiang2] for the existence of the general large data. For the study on the spatially homogeneous case, we refer to [@LR; @Strain; @Yun]. The propagation of the uniform upper bound was recently established in [@JSY]. Results on the regularizing effect of the gain term can be found in [@A; @JY; @W]. We refer to [@Cal; @Strain2] for the Newtonian limit and [@SS] for the hydrodynamic limit.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, various useful technical lemmas are presented. In Section 3, we study the linearization of the Anderson-Witting relaxation operator. In Section 4, we provide the estimates for the macroscopic fields and nonlinear perturbation. The proof of the main theorem is given in Section 5.
Preliminaries
=============
We record useful results for the Lorentz transformation, and the modified Bessel function of the second kind: $$\begin{aligned}
K_{i}(\beta)&=\int_{0}^{\infty}\cosh(ir)\exp\left\{-\beta \cosh(r)\right\}dr.\end{aligned}$$ Some of them can be found in [@BCNS] with or without proof. Even in the former case, we provide the proof for reader’s convenience. The following identities obtained from the use of the change of variable $y= \sinh r$ are frequently used throughout this section: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CV}
\begin{split}
K_{0}(\beta)&=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+y^{2}}}\exp\left\{-\beta
\sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy,\cr
K_{1}(\beta)&=\int_{0}^{\infty}\exp\left\{-\beta \sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy, \cr
K_{2}(\beta)&=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{2y^{2}+1}{\sqrt{1+y^{2}}}\exp\left\{-\beta
\sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The following lemma enables us to compute various quantities in the local rest frame.
[@Strain2]\[rest frame\] For $U^\mu=(\sqrt{1+|U|^2},U)$, define $\Lambda$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda=
\begin{bmatrix}
U^0 & -U^1 & -U^2 & -U^3 \cr
-U^1& 1+(U^0-1)\frac{(U^1)^2}{|U|^2}&(U^0-1)\frac{U^1U^2}{|U|^2} &(U^0-1)\frac{U^1U^3}{|U|^2} \cr
-U^2& (U^0-1)\frac{U^1U^2}{|U|^2} & 1+(U^0-1)\frac{(U^2)^2 }{|U|^2}&(U^0-1)\frac{U^2U^3}{|U|^2} \cr
-U^3& (U^0-1)\frac{U^1U^3}{|U|^2}& (U^0-1)\frac{U^2U^3}{|U|^2} & 1+(U^0-1)\frac{(U^3)^2}{|U|^2}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, $\Lambda$ transforms $U^\mu$ into the local rest frame: $$\Lambda U^{\mu}=(1,0,0,0).$$
The proof that $\Lambda$ is the Lorentz transformation can be found in [@Strain2]. The identity $\Lambda U=(1,0,0,0)$ can be verified by an explicit computation: $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda U^\mu&=
\begin{bmatrix}
(U^0)^2-(U^1)^2-(U^2)^2-(U^3)^2\cr
-U^0U^1+U^1+\frac{(U^0-1)U^1}{|U|^2}|U|^2\cr
-U^0U^2+U^2+\frac{(U^0-1)U^2}{|U|^2}|U|^2\cr
-U^0U^3+U^3+\frac{(U^0-1)U^3}{|U|^2}|U|^2
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
\big(\sqrt{1+|U|^2}\big)^2-|U|^2\cr
-U^0U^1+U^1+(U^0-1)U^1 \cr
-U^0U^2+U^2+(U^0-1)U^2 \cr
-U^0U^3+U^3+(U^0-1)U^3
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
1\cr
0 \cr
0 \cr
0
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$
[@BCNS]\[KM\] $K_i(\beta)$ $(i=1,2)$ are related to $M(\beta)$ through the following identity: $$\frac{K_{1}(\beta)}{K_{2}(\beta)}+\frac{3}{\beta}=-\frac{M^{\prime}(\beta)}{M(\beta)}.$$
Recall that $M(\beta)$ takes the form of $$M(\beta)=\int_{\mathbb R^{3}}\exp
\left\{-\beta\sqrt{1+|q|^{2}}\right\}dq.$$ Using the spherical coordinates and integration by parts, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{K_2}
\begin{split}
M(\beta) &=\int_{\mathbb R^{3}}\exp
\left\{-\beta\sqrt{1+|q|^{2}}\right\}\,dq\cr
&=4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}y^{2}\exp \left\{-\beta\sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy\cr
&=-\frac{4\pi}{\beta}\int_{0}^{\infty}y\sqrt{1+y^{2}}\frac{d}{dy}\left\{\exp
\left\{-\beta\sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\right\}\,dy\cr
&=\frac{4\pi}{\beta}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{2y^{2}+1}{\sqrt{1+y^{2}}}\exp\left\{-\beta
\sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy\cr
&=\frac{4\pi}{\beta}K_{2}(\beta).
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, differentiating $K_2(\beta)$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dK_2}
\begin{split}
\frac{d}{d\beta}\left\{K_{2}(\beta)\right\}&=-\int_{0}^{\infty}(2y^{2}+1)\exp\left\{-\beta \sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy\cr
&=\frac{2}{\beta}\int_{0}^{\infty}y\sqrt{1+y^{2}}\frac{d}{dy}\left\{\exp\left\{-\beta \sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\right\}\,dy-K_{1}(\beta)\cr
&=-\frac{2}{\beta}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{2y^{2}+1}{\sqrt{1+y^{2}}}\exp\left\{-\beta \sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy-K_{1}(\beta)\cr
&=-\frac{2}{\beta}K_{2}(\beta)-K_{1}(\beta),
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ which, together with , gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\beta}\left\{M(\beta)\right\}&=\frac{d}{d\beta}\left\{\frac{4\pi}{\beta}K_{2}(\beta)\right\}\cr
&=-\frac{4\pi}{\beta^{2}}K_{2}(\beta)+\frac{4\pi}{\beta}\frac{d}{d\beta}\left\{K_{2}(\beta)\right\}\cr
&=-\frac{3}{\beta}M(\beta)-\frac{4\pi}{\beta}K_{1}(\beta).
\end{aligned}$$ Dividing the last identity by $M(\beta)$ gives the desired result.
[@BCNS]\[relationB\] $K_i(\beta)$ $(i=0,1,2)$ satisfy the following relation: $$K_2(\beta)=\frac{2}{\beta}K_1(\beta)+K_0(\beta).$$
It is straightforward from that $$\begin{aligned}
K_{2}(\beta)&=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{2y^{2}+1}{\sqrt{1+y^{2}}}\exp\left\{-\beta \sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy\cr
&=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{2y^{2}}{\sqrt{1+y^{2}}}\exp\left\{-\beta \sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy+K_{0}(\beta).
\end{aligned}$$ Then, from simple integration by parts, the first term on r.h.s can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{2y^{2}}{\sqrt{1+y^{2}}}\exp\left\{-\beta \sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy &=\int_{0}^{\infty}-\frac{2y}{\beta}\frac{d}{dy}\left\{\exp\left\{-\beta \sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\right\}\,dy \cr
&=\frac{2}{\beta}\int_{0}^{\infty}\exp\left\{-\beta \sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy \cr
&=\frac{2}{\beta}K_{1}(\beta),\end{aligned}$$ which gives the desired result.
[@BCNS]\[Bessel2\] The following identity holds for $K_i(\beta)$ $(i=1,2)$ $$\left(\frac{K_{1}(\beta)}{K_{2}(\beta)} \right)^{\prime}=\frac{3}{\beta}\frac{K_{1}(\beta)}{K_{2}(\beta)}+\left(\frac{K_{1}(\beta)}{K_{2}(\beta)} \right)^{2}-1.$$
Differentiating $K_1(\beta)$ with respect to $\beta$, we have from that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{K_1}
\begin{split}
\frac{d}{d\beta} \left\{K_{1}(\beta)\right\}&=-\int_{0}^{\infty}\sqrt{1+y^{2}}\exp\left\{-\beta \sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy\cr
&=-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{\infty}\left(\frac{2y^2+1}{\sqrt{1+y^{2}}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+y^{2}}}\right)\exp\left\{-\beta \sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy\cr
&=-\frac{1}{2}\left(K_{2}(\beta)+K_{0}(\beta)\right).
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ We then recall from Lemma \[relationB\] that $$K_2(\beta)=\frac{2}{\beta}K_1(\beta)+K_0(\beta)$$ to express the last identity in r.h.s of as $$-\frac{1}{2}\left(K_{2}(\beta)+K_{0}(\beta)\right)=-\frac{1}{\beta}K_{1}(\beta)-K_{0}(\beta)$$ so that $$\label{K_1-1}
\frac{d}{d\beta} \left\{K_{1}(\beta)\right\}=-\frac{1}{\beta}K_{1}(\beta)-K_{0}(\beta).$$ In the same manner, we have from that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{K_1-2}
\begin{split}
\frac{d}{d\beta} \left\{K_{2}(\beta)\right\}
&=-\frac{2}{\beta}K_{2}(\beta)-K_{1}(\beta)\cr
&=\left(-\frac{4}{\beta^{2}}-1\right)K_{1}(\beta)-\frac{2}{\beta}K_{0}(\beta).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Combining and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{d}{d\beta} \left\{K_{1}(\beta)\right\}K_{2}(\beta)-K_{1}(\beta) \frac{d}{d\beta} \left\{K_{2}(\beta)\right\}\cr
&= -\frac{1}{\beta}K_{1}(\beta)K_{0}(\beta)-\left(K_{0}(\beta)\right)^{2}+\left(\frac{2}{\beta^{2}}+1\right)\left(K_{1}(\beta)\right)^{2}\cr
&=-\frac{1}{\beta}K_{1}(\beta)\left(K_2(\beta)-\frac{2}{\beta}K_1(\beta)\right)-\left(K_2(\beta)-\frac{2}{\beta}K_1(\beta)\right)^{2}+\left(\frac{2}{\beta^{2}}+1\right)\left(K_{1}(\beta)\right)^{2}\cr
&=\frac{3}{\beta}K_{1}(\beta)K_{2}(\beta)+(K_{1}(\beta))^{2}-(K_{2}(\beta))^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ We divide the both sides by $(K_2(\beta))^2$ to obtain the desired result.
Linearization
=============
In this section, we study the linearization of Anderson-Witting model around the global relativistic Maxwellian .
Unique determination of $\beta$
-------------------------------
Before we linearize the Anderson-Witting model , we need to resolve the question raised in introduction, namely, that the nonlinear relation uniquely determine $\beta$. First, we need to prove the following monotonicity result.
\[beta decreasing\] The function $\widetilde{e}(\beta)$ defined in (\[e tilde\]), satisfies the following properties:
1. $\widetilde{e}(\beta)$ is strictly decreasing on $0<\beta<\infty$.
2. $\widetilde{e}(\beta)>1$ on $0<\beta<\infty$.
$(1)$ Strict monotonicity: For $\beta\in (0,1)$, it follows from Lemma \[Bessel2\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\biggl(\frac{K_{1}(\beta)}{K_{2}(\beta)} +\frac{3}{\beta}\biggl)^{\prime}&=\frac{3}{\beta}\frac{K_1(\beta)}{K_2(\beta)} +\left(\frac{K_1(\beta)}{K_2(\beta)} \right)^2-1-\frac{3}{\beta^2}\cr
&\le \frac{3}{\beta}\left(1-\frac{1}{\beta}\right)\cr
&< 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Here we used the fact that $$0<\frac{K_1(\beta)}{K_2(\beta)}=\frac{\int_{0}^{\infty}\exp\left\{-\beta \sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy}{\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{2y^{2}+1}{\sqrt{1+y^{2}}}\exp\left\{-\beta
\sqrt{1+y^{2}}\right\}\,dy}<1.$$ For $\beta\in [1,\infty)$, we use the change of variable $z=\sinh (r/2)$ to see that $$K_0(\beta)+K_1(\beta)=\int_{0}^{\infty}\left(1+\cosh(r)\right)e^{-\beta
\cosh(r)}dr=4e^{-\beta}\int_0^\infty \frac{1+z^2}{\sqrt{1+z^2}}e^{-2\beta z^2}\, dz.$$ This together with $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+z^2}}\le 1-\frac{z^2}{2}+\frac{3}{8}z^4,\qquad \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-2\beta z^{2}}\,dz=\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{8\beta}},$$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
K_0(\beta)+K_1(\beta)&=4e^{-\beta}\int_0^\infty \frac{1+z^2}{\sqrt{1+z^2}}e^{-2\beta z^2}\, dz\cr
&\le \frac{1}{2}e^{-\beta}\int_0^\infty \left(8+4z^2-z^4+3z^6 \right)e^{-2\beta z^2}\,dz\cr
&=\frac{1}{2}e^{-\beta}\left(8+\frac{1}{\beta}-\frac{3}{16\beta^2}+\frac{45}{64\beta^3} \right)\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{8\beta}}.
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, it follows from $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+z^2}}\ge 1-\frac{z^2}{2}$$ that $$\begin{aligned}
K_0(\beta)&=2e^{-\beta}\int_0^\infty \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+z^2}}e^{-2\beta z^2}\,dz\cr
&\ge 2e^{-\beta}\int_0^\infty \left( 1-\frac{z^2}{2} \right)e^{-2\beta z^2}\,dz\cr
&=2e^{-\beta}\left(1-\frac{1}{8\beta} \right)\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{8\beta}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Combining these estimates, we have $$\frac{K_0(\beta)+K_1(\beta)}{K_0(\beta)}\le \frac{512\beta^3+64\beta^2-12\beta+45}{256\beta^3-32\beta^2},$$ which implies $$\frac{K_1(\beta)}{K_0(\beta)}\le \frac{256\beta^3+96\beta^2-12\beta+45}{256\beta^3-32\beta^2}.$$ Also, using Lemma \[relationB\] gives $$\frac{K_2(\beta)}{K_1(\beta)}\ge \frac{2}{\beta}+\frac{256\beta^3-32\beta^2}{256\beta^3+96\beta^2-12\beta+45}=\frac{256\beta^4+480\beta^3+192\beta^2-24\beta+90}{256\beta^4+96\beta^3-12\beta^2+45\beta}.$$ Therefore we have from Lemma \[Bessel2\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\biggl(\frac{K_{1}(\beta)}{K_{2}(\beta)} +\frac{3}{\beta}\biggl)^{\prime}&=\frac{3}{\beta}\frac{K_1}{K_2}(\beta)+\left(\frac{K_1}{K_2}(\beta)\right)^2-1-\frac{3}{\beta^2}\cr
&\le \frac{3}{\beta}\frac{256\beta^4+96\beta^3-12\beta^2+45\beta}{256\beta^4+480\beta^3+192\beta^2-24\beta+90}\cr
&+\left(\frac{256\beta^4+96\beta^3-12\beta^2+45\beta}{256\beta^4+480\beta^3+192\beta^2-24\beta+90}\right)^2-1-\frac{3}{\beta^2}\cr
&< 0,
\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof of $(1)$.
$(2)$ If $\beta\in (0,2)$, the desired result follows easily from the positivity of $K_i$: $$\widetilde{e}(\beta)=\frac{K_1(\beta)}{K_2(\beta)}+\frac{3}{\beta}\geq\frac{3}{\beta}>1.$$ For the case $\beta\in [2,\infty)$ We recall the following inequality from [@BCNS Appendix]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{K_1(\beta)}{K_2(\beta)} &\ge \frac{128\beta^3+48\beta^2-33\beta}{128\beta^3+240\beta^2+105\beta-66}\cr
&\ge 1+\frac{-192\beta^2-138\beta+66}{128\beta^3+240\beta^2+105\beta-66},
\end{aligned}$$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{K_1(\beta)}{K_2(\beta)} +\frac{3}{\beta}&\ge 1+\frac{192\beta^3+582\beta^2+381\beta-198}{128\beta^4+240\beta^3+105\beta^2-66\beta}\cr
&> 1.
\end{aligned}$$
In the following proposition, we show that (\[beta\]) admits a unique solution, at least, when the solution is sufficiently close to equilibrium.
\[beta decreasing2\] Suppose $E(f)(t)$ is sufficiently small. Then uniquely determines $\beta$. Therefore we can write $$\beta=(\widetilde{e})^{-1}(e).$$
Recall from that $\beta$ is determined by the nonlinear relation: $$\frac{K_1(\beta)}{K_2(\beta)} +\frac{3}{\beta}=e,$$ where $e$ is given in . First we denote $e_0$ by $$e_0=\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}+\frac{3}{\beta_0},$$ and observe from Lemma \[beta decreasing\] that $e_0>1$. Then, Lemma $\ref{lem2}$ $(1)$ implies that $$e\ge e_0-\sqrt{E(f)(t)}>1,$$ when $E(f)(t)$ is sufficiently small. We mention that the estimate in Lemma \[lem2\] depends only on the moment estimate of $f$, and it’s free from circular argument. Therefore we can conclude that $e$ lies in the range of $\widetilde{e}(\beta)$. Then the strict monotonicity of $\widetilde{e}(\beta)$ which is proved in Lemma \[beta decreasing\] gives the desired result.
Linearization of Anderson-Witting model
---------------------------------------
We start with the linearization of the relativistic Maxwellian $J(F)$. We first provide the following lemma which is frequently used throughout this paper.
\[J\^0\] $J^0$ satisfies $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1,~q,~q^0,~(q^i)^2,~qq^0,~(q^0)^2\right) J^0\,\frac{dq}{q^0}=\left(\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)},~0~,1~,\frac{1}{\beta_0},~0,~\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}+\frac{3}{\beta_0}\right).$$
We have from the spherical coordinates and integration by parts $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}J^0\,\frac{dq}{q^0}&=\frac{4\pi}{M(\beta_0)}\int_0^\infty \frac{y^2}{\sqrt{1+y^2}}e^{-\beta_0\sqrt{1+y^2}}\,dy \cr
&= \frac{4\pi}{\beta_0M(\beta_0)}\int_0^\infty e^{-\beta_0\sqrt{1+y^2}}\,dy,\end{aligned}$$ which, together with $\eqref{CV}_2$ and , gives $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}J^0\,\frac{dq}{q^0}=\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}.$$ In the same manner, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^0J^0\,dq&= \frac{1}{M(\beta_0)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\sqrt{1+|q|^2}e^{-\beta_0 \sqrt{1+|q|^2}}\,dq\cr
&=\frac{4\pi}{\beta_0 M(\beta_0)} \left(\int_0^\infty e^{-\beta_0 \sqrt{1+y^2}}\,dy+\frac{3}{\beta_0}\int_0^\infty \frac{2y^2+1}{\sqrt{1+y^2}}e^{-\beta_0 \sqrt{1+y^2}}\,dy\right)\cr
&=\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}+\frac{3}{\beta_0}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, by the spherical symmetry, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(q^i)^2J^0\,\frac{dq}{q^0}&= \frac{1}{M(\beta_0)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\frac{1}{3}\frac{|q|^2}{\sqrt{1+|q|^2}}e^{-\beta_0\sqrt{1+|q|^2}}\,dq,\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(q^i)^2J^0\,\frac{dq}{q^0}&= \frac{4\pi}{3M(\beta_0)}\int_0^\infty\frac{y^4}{\sqrt{1+y^2}}e^{-\beta_0\sqrt{1+y^2}}\,dy\cr
&=\frac{4\pi}{\beta_0M(\beta_0)}\int_0^\infty y^2e^{-\beta_0\sqrt{1+y^2}}\,dy\cr
&=\frac{1}{\beta_0}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, it is straightforward that $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(q,q^0,qq^0\right) J^0\,\frac{dq}{q^0}=\left(0,1,0\right).$$
We now linearize the relativistic Maxwellian $J(F)$.
\[lin2\] Suppose $E(f)(t)$ is sufficiently small. Then, for $F=J^0+ f\sqrt{J^0}$, we have $$\frac{J(F)-J^0}{\sqrt{J^0}}=P(f)+\sum_{i=1}^5\Gamma_i (f).$$ $\bullet$ The projection operator $P$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
P(f)&=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right)\sqrt{J^0}+\frac{\beta_0}{\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} qf\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right)\cdot q\sqrt{J^0}\cr
&-\frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_0)}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(q^0-e_0\right)f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right)\left(q^0-e_0\right)\sqrt{J^0},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{h}(\beta)$ denotes $$\widetilde{h}(\beta)=\frac{K_1(\beta)}{K_2(\beta)} +\frac{4}{\beta}.$$ $\bullet$ The nonlinear perturbations $\Gamma_i(f)$ $(i=1,\cdots, 5)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_1 (f)&=\left(\frac{\Psi_1}{2}-\frac{\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right)\sqrt{J^0},\cr
\Gamma_2 (f)&=\biggl\{\left(\frac{\Psi_1}{2}+\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right) \left(e_0 +\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq +\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2\right)F\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\right)\cr
&+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq+ \left(1+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right) \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2\right)F\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\biggl\}\cr
&\quad\times \frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_0)}\left(q^0-e_0\right)\sqrt{J^0},\cr
\Gamma_{3}(f)&=-\beta_0\left\{\frac{\Psi}{2}+\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right\}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\cdot q\sqrt{J^0}+\frac{\beta_0}{\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)}\Gamma_{3}^*(f)\cdot q\sqrt{J^0}\cr
&-\beta_0\left\{\frac{4\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2\right)J^0\frac{dq}{q^0}+4\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left( u_{\mu} q^\mu\right)^2 f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}}{3\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)(n h ) } \right\}\mathbf{q}\cdot q\sqrt{J^0},\cr
\Gamma_{4} (f)&=-\beta_0q^0(U^0-1)\sqrt{J^0},\cr
\Gamma_{5} (f)&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{J^0}}\int_0^1 (1-\theta)(n-1,U^0-1,U,e-e_0)D^2J(\theta)(n-1,U^0-1,U,e-e_0)^Td\theta,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_{3}^*$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{3}^*(f) &=-\sum_{i=1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^if\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^i qf\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \Phi_1 qF\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
&+e_0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\left\{\frac{\Psi}{2}+\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right\}\cr
& -\frac{1}{n}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0 f\sqrt{J^0} dq+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2 \right)F\frac{dq}{q^0} \right)\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0},
\end{aligned}$$ and $\Psi,\Psi_1,\Phi$ and $\Phi_1$ denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{notation2}
\begin{split}
\Psi&=2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq+\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right)^2-\sum_{i=1}^3\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f\sqrt{J^0}q^i\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\right)^2,\cr
\Psi_1&= \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right)^2-\sum_{i=1}^3\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f\sqrt{J^0}q^i\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\right)^2,\cr
\Phi&= u_{\mu} q^\mu-q^0,\cr
\Phi_1&= u_{\mu} q^\mu-q^0+\sum_{i=1}^3 q^i\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^i f\sqrt{J^0}\,\frac{dq}{q^0}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Define the transitional macroscopic fields between $F$ and $J^0$: $$\left(n_{\theta},U^0_{\theta},U_{\theta}, e_{\theta} \right) =\theta\left( n ,U^0,U , e\right) +(1-\theta)\left(1,1, 0, e_0\right),$$ and the transitional relativistic Maxwellian: $$J(\theta)=\frac{n_\theta}{M(\beta_\theta)} e^{-\beta_\theta U_\theta^\mu q_\mu},\quad \text{where}\ \beta_\theta=(\widetilde{e})^{-1}(e_\theta).$$ Then $J(F)$ and $J^0$ can be rewritten by $$J(F)=J(n,U^0,U,e )\equiv J(1), \qquad J^0=J(1,1,0,e_0 )\equiv J(0).$$ We then apply Taylor expansion to have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{taylor}
\begin{split}
J (F)-J^0&=J(1)-J(0)\cr
&=J^\prime(0)+\int_{0}^1(1-\theta)J^{\prime\prime}(\theta) \,d\theta\cr
&= \frac{\partial J(0)}{\partial n_\theta}\frac{\partial n_\theta}{\partial \theta}\bigg|_{\theta=0}+\frac{\partial J(0)}{\partial U^0_\theta}\frac{\partial U^0_\theta}{\partial \theta}\bigg|_{\theta=0}+\nabla_{U_\theta}J(0)\cdot \frac{\partial U_\theta}{\partial \theta}\bigg|_{\theta=0}+\frac{\partial J(0)}{\partial e_\theta}\frac{\partial e_\theta}{\partial \theta}\bigg|_{\theta=0}\cr
&+ \int_0^1 (1-\theta)(n -1,U ^0-1,U ,e -e_0)D^2J(\theta)(n -1,U ^0-1,U ,e -e_0)^Td\theta.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ Now, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial J(\theta)}{\partial n_\theta} =\frac{1}{n_\theta}&J(\theta),\qquad \frac{\partial J(\theta)}{\partial U^0_\theta}=-\beta_\theta q^0J(\theta), \qquad\nabla_{U_\theta}J(\theta)=\beta_\theta qJ(\theta),\cr
&\frac{\partial J(\theta)}{\partial e_\theta} =-\frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)}\left(\frac{M^\prime(\beta_\theta)}{M\left(\beta_\theta\right)}+U_\theta^\mu q_\mu \right)J(\theta),\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{derivative2}
\begin{split}
\frac{\partial J(0)}{\partial n_\theta}=&J^0,\qquad \frac{\partial J(0)}{\partial U^0_\theta}=-\beta_0 q^0J^0,\qquad \nabla_{U_\theta}J(0)=\beta_0 qJ^0,\cr
&\frac{\partial J(0)}{\partial e_\theta}=-\frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_0)}\left(q^0-e_0\right)J^0.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ In the last line, we used Lemma \[KM\]: $$\frac{M^\prime(\beta_0)}{M(\beta_0)}=-\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}-\frac{3}{\beta_0} =-e_0.$$ Inserting into , we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{J (F)-J^0}{\sqrt{J^0}}&=(n -1)\sqrt{J^0}-\frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_0)}(e -e_0)(q^0-e_0)\sqrt{J^0}+\beta_0U \cdot q\sqrt{J^0}-\beta_0q^0(U ^0-1)\sqrt{J^0}\cr
&+\frac{1}{\sqrt{J^0}}\int_0^1 (1-\theta)(n -1,U ^0-1,U ,e -e_0)D^2J(\theta)(n -1,U ^0-1,U ,e -e_0)^Td\theta\cr
&=I_1+I_2+I_3+I_4+I_5.
\end{aligned}$$ We consider each $I_i$ $(i=1,\cdots,5)$ separately. Note in the following that $I_1,I_2,I_3$ are decomposed into the linear part and the nonlinear part.
$\bullet$ Decomposition of $I_1$: Inserting $F=J^0+f\sqrt{J^0}$, a direct computation gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{n=}
\begin{split}
n&=\left\{\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} Fdq\right)^2-\sum_{i=1}^3\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}Fq^i\frac{dq}{q^0}\right)^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\cr
&=\left\{ 1+2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq+\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right)^2-\sum_{i=1}^3\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f\sqrt{J^0}q^i\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\right)^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\cr
&= \sqrt{1+\Psi}.
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ To extract the linear part from $n$, we recall the following identity [@BCNS]: $$\label{route pi}
\sqrt{1+\Psi}=1+ \frac{\Psi}{2}-\frac{\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}.$$ Using this identity together with and gives $$\begin{aligned}
(n-1)\sqrt{J^0}&=\left(\sqrt{1+\Psi}-1\right)\sqrt{J^0}\cr
&=\left( \frac{\Psi}{2}-\frac{\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}
\right)\sqrt{J^0}\cr
&= \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq+\frac{\Psi_1}{2}-\frac{\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right)\sqrt{J^0}\cr
&= \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\sqrt{J^0}+\Gamma_1(f).
\end{aligned}$$
$\bullet$ Decomposition of $I_2$: First, we consider the following identity [@BCNS]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\Psi}}=1-\frac{\Psi}{2}-\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})},\end{aligned}$$ to decompose $1/n$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1/n=}
\begin{split} \frac{1}{n}&=1-\frac{\Psi}{2}-\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\cr
&= 1-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq-\frac{\Psi_1}{2} -\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ This identity, together with $\eqref{notation2}_3$ enables one to express $e-e_0$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e-e3}
\begin{split}
e-e_0 &=\frac{1}{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (u^\mu q_\mu)^2 F\frac{dq}{q^0}-e_0\cr
&= \left\{ 1-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq-\frac{\Psi_1}{2} -\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right\}\cr
&\quad\times\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left\{ (q^0)^2+2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2\right\}F\frac{dq}{q^0}-e_0\cr
&\equiv\left\{\left( 1-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq \right)\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(q^0)^2 F\,\frac{dq}{q^0}-e_0 \right\}+R_{I_2}(f).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ We then extract the linear part from the above expression: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e-e4}
\begin{split}
&\left( 1-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right)\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (q^0)^2 F\frac{dq}{q^0}-e_0\cr
&\qquad= \left( 1-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right)\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0\left( J^0 +f\sqrt{J^0}\right)\,dq-e_0\cr
&\qquad=e_0+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0 f\sqrt{J^0} \,dq-e_0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0} \,dq-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0} \,dq\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0 f\sqrt{J^0} \,dq-e_0\cr
&\qquad=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(q^0-e_0\right) f\sqrt{J^0} \,dq-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0} \,dq\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0 f\sqrt{J^0} \,dq,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ to write as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e-e0}
e-e_0&= \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(q^0-e_0\right)f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq+\left\{-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq+R_{I_2}(f)\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we obtain the following decomposition of $I_2$: $$\begin{aligned}
I_2&=-\frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_0)}(e-e_0)\left(q^0-e_0\right)\sqrt{J^0}\cr
&=-\frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_0)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(q^0-e_0\right) f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\left(q^0-e_0 \right)\sqrt{J^0}+\Gamma_2 (f).
\end{aligned}$$
$\bullet$ Decomposition of $I_3$: We recall from that $nh$ takes the form of $$nh=\frac{4}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(u^\mu q_\mu\right)^2 F\frac{dq}{q^0}-\frac{1}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} F\frac{dq}{q^0}$$ to derive from Lemma \[J\^0\] and $\eqref{notation2}_3$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nh0}
\begin{split}
nh &=\frac{4}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left\{(q^0)^2+2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2\right\} J^0\frac{dq}{q^0}+\frac{4}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} ( u_{\mu} q^\mu)^2 f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}-\frac{1}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left( J^0+f\sqrt{J^0}\right)\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
&=\frac{4}{3}e_0+\frac{4}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2\right)J^0\frac{dq}{q^0}+\frac{4}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} ( u_{\mu} q^\mu)^2 f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}-\frac{1}{3}\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}-\frac{1}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0} \cr
&=\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)+\frac{4}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2\right)J^0\frac{dq}{q^0}+\frac{4}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} ( u_{\mu} q^\mu)^2 f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}-\frac{1}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}.
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ In the last line, we used $$\frac{4}{3}e_0-\frac{1}{3}\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}= \frac{4}{3}\left(\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}+\frac{3}{\beta_0}\right)-\frac{1}{3}\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}= \widetilde{h}(\beta_0).$$ From this, we can express $1/(nh)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{nh}&=\frac{1}{\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)}-\frac{4\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2\right)J^0\frac{dq}{q^0}+4\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} ( u_{\mu} q^\mu)^2 f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}}{3\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)(n h ) }\cr
&\equiv \frac{1}{\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)}+R_{I_3}(f).
\end{aligned}$$ This leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U_F}
\begin{split}
U&=u+\frac{\mathbf{q}}{nh}\cr
&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}-\left\{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right\}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0} + \frac{\mathbf{q}}{\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)}+R_{I_3}(f)\mathbf{q} .
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ Note that we used : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{u_F}
\begin{split}
u &=\frac{1}{n }\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} qF\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
&=\left\{1-\frac{\Psi}{2}-\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right\}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}-\left\{\frac{\Psi}{2}+\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right\}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ We now focus on $\mathbf{q}$ to extract the linear part, which is defined in $\eqref{LLD1}_2$ by $$\label{heat}
\mathbf{q}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}( u_{\mu} q^\mu) q F\,\frac{dq}{q^0}-u \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} ( u_{\mu} q^\mu)^2 F\,\frac{dq}{q^0}.$$ Recall from $\eqref{notation2}_4$ that $$u_{\mu} q^\mu=q^0-\sum_{i=1}^3 q^i\int q^i f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}+\Phi_1,$$ and insert this into the first term of to derive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{flux1}
\begin{split}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}( u_{\mu} q^\mu) q F\frac{dq}{q^0} &= \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \biggl(q^0-\sum_{i=1}^3 q^i\int q^i f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}+\Phi_1\biggl) q \left(J^0+f\sqrt{J^0}\right)\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}dq-\frac{1}{\beta_0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} qf\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
& -\sum_{i=1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^if\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^i qf\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \Phi_1 qF\frac{dq}{q^0}.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ Here we used Lemma \[J\^0\] so that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^3 \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^i f\sqrt{J^0}\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^i qJ^0\,\frac{dq}{q^0}=\frac{1}{\beta_0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} qf\sqrt{J^0}\,\frac{dq}{q^0}.
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, in view of $\eqref{notation2}_3$, we compute the second term of as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{flux2}
\begin{split}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} ( u_{\mu} q^\mu)^2F\frac{dq}{q^0} &=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left\{(q^0)^2+2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2 \right\}(J^0+f\sqrt{J^0})\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
&=e_0+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0 f\sqrt{J^0} \,dq+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2 \right)F\,\frac{dq}{q^0}.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ We now go back to with and to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{heat2}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{q} &= \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}dq-\frac{1}{\beta_0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} qf\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}-\sum_{i=1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^if\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^i qf\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \Phi_1 qF\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
&-\left\{1-\frac{\Psi}{2}-\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right\}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
&\quad\times \left(e_0+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0 f\sqrt{J^0} \,dq+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2 \right)F\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\right)\cr
&= \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}dq-\left(\frac{1}{\beta_0}+e_0\right)\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} qf\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}+\Gamma_{3}^*(f)\cr
&= \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}dq-\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} qf\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}+\Gamma_{3}^*(f).
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ Plugging into gives $$\begin{aligned}
U&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}-\left\{\frac{\Psi}{2}+\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right\}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
& + \frac{1}{\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)}\left( \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}dq-\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} qf\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}+\Gamma_{3}^*(f)\right)+R_{I_3}(f)\mathbf{q} \cr
&=\frac{1}{\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}dq -\left\{\frac{\Psi}{2}+\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right\}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
& +\frac{1}{\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)}\Gamma_{3}^*(f) +R_{I_3}(f)\mathbf{q},
\end{aligned}$$ and thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_3=\beta_0U \cdot q\sqrt{J^0}&= \frac{\beta_0}{\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)}\int qf\sqrt{J^0}\, dq\cdot q\sqrt{J^0}+\Gamma_{3}(f).
\end{aligned}$$
$\bullet$ $I_4,I_5$: We note that $I_4=\Gamma_{4}(f)$ and $I_5=\Gamma_{5}(f)$. This completes the proof.
The following proposition gives the linearized Anderson-Witting model:
\[lin3\] For the solution $F=J^0+f\sqrt{J^0}$ to the Anderson-Witting model , the perturbation $f$ verifies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LAW}\begin{split}
\partial_t f+\hat{q}\cdot\nabla_x f&=L(f)+\Gamma (f),\cr
f_0(x,q)&=f(0,x,q),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where the linearized operator $L(f)$ is defined by $P(f)-f$, and the nonlinear perturbation $\Gamma (f)$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma (f)&=\frac{U_\mu q^\mu}{q^0} \sum_{i=1}^5\Gamma_i (f)+\frac{1}{q^0}\left(\Phi+ \frac{\mathbf{q}_\mu q^\mu}{nh} \right) L(f).
\end{aligned}$$
Insert $F=J^0+f\sqrt{J^0}$ into to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t f+\hat{q}\cdot\nabla_x f&=\frac{U_\mu q^\mu}{q^0}\left(\frac{J(F)-J^0}{\sqrt{J^0}}-f\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Using $\eqref{notation2}_3$, we express $ U_\mu q^\mu/q^0$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{U_\mu q^\mu}{q^0}&=\frac{1}{q^0}\left(u_\mu q^\mu+\frac{\mathbf{q} _\mu q^\mu}{n h }\right)\cr
&=\frac{1}{q^0}\left(q^0+\Phi +\frac{\mathbf{q}_\mu q^\mu}{n h }\right)\cr
&=1+\frac{1}{q^0}\left( \Phi+ \frac{\mathbf{q}_\mu q^\mu}{nh} \right),
\end{aligned}$$ which, together with Lemma \[lin2\], gives the desired result.
Analysis of the linearized operator
-----------------------------------
Let $N$ be the five dimensional space spanned by $\{\sqrt{J^0},q^\alpha \sqrt{J^0}\}$. Denote $e_i$ $(i=1,\cdots,5)$ by $$e_1=\sqrt{J^0},\qquad e_{2,3,4}=\sqrt{\frac{\beta_0}{\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)}}q\sqrt{J^0}, \qquad e_5=\sqrt{-\frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_0)}}\left(q^0-e_0\right)\sqrt{J^0},$$ so that $P(f)$ can be written by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pf}
P(f)=\langle f,e_1\rangle_q e_1+\langle f,e_{2,3,4} \rangle_q \cdot e_{2,3,4}+ \langle f,e_{5}\rangle_q e_5.
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $e_5$ is well defined since, by Lemma \[beta decreasing\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
-\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_0)&= -\frac{d}{d\beta}\left\{\frac{K_1(\beta)}{K_2(\beta)}+\frac{3}{\beta} \right\}_{\beta=\beta_0}>0.
\end{aligned}$$
\[ortho\] $P$ is an orthonormal projection from $L_q^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ onto $N$.
It is enough to show that $\{e_i\}$ $(i=1,\cdots,5)$ forms an orthonormal basis. $\bullet$ $\|e_1\|_{L^2_q}=1$: It is straightforward from the definition of $J^0$ that $$\langle e_1,e_1\rangle_q =\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} J^0dq=1.$$ $\bullet$ $\|e_{i+1}\|_{L^2_q}=1$ $(i=1,2,3)$: A direct computation, using the spherical coordinates and integration by parts, gives $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |q|^2 J^0 dq&=\frac{1}{M(\beta_0)} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |q|^2e^{-\beta_0\sqrt{1+|q|^2}}\,dq\cr
&=\frac{4\pi}{M(\beta_0)} \int_0^\infty r^4e^{-\beta_0\sqrt{1+r^2}}dr\cr
&=\frac{4\pi}{\beta_0^2M(\beta_0)} \left(3\int_0^\infty e^{-\beta_0\sqrt{1+|r|^2}} \,dr+\frac{12}{\beta_0}\int_0^\infty e^{-\beta_0\sqrt{1+|r|^2}} \frac{2r^2+1}{\sqrt{1+r^2}} dr \right).\end{aligned}$$ This, together with and , leads to $$\label{|q|^2J0}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |q|^2 J^0 dq=\frac{12}{\beta^2_0}+\frac{3}{\beta_0}\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle e_{i+1},e_{i+1}\rangle_q&=\frac{\beta_0}{\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (q^i)^2 J^0dq\cr
&=\left(\frac{1}{\beta_0}\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}+\frac{4}{\beta_0^2}\right)^{-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \frac{1}{3}|q|^2J^0dq\cr
&=1.
\end{aligned}$$ $\bullet$ $\|e_5\|_{L^2_q}=1$: We use Lemma \[Bessel2\] to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
-\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_0)&=-\frac{d}{d\beta}\left\{\frac{K_1(\beta)}{K_2(\beta)}+\frac{3}{\beta} \right\}_{\beta=\beta_0}\cr
&=-\frac{3}{\beta_0}\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}-\left(\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}\right)^2 +1+\frac{3}{\beta_0^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, we have from Lemma \[J\^0\] and that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle e_5,e_5\rangle_q&=-\frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_0)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(q^0-e_0)^2J^0dq\cr
&=-\frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_0)}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1+|q|^2\right)J^0dq-2e_0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^0J^0dq+e_0^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}J^0dq\right)\cr
&=-\frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_0)}\left\{1+\frac{12}{\beta^2_0}+\frac{3}{\beta_0}\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}- \left(\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}+\frac{3}{\beta_0}\right)^2 \right\}\cr
&=1. \end{aligned}$$ $\bullet$ $\langle e_i,e_j\rangle_q=0$ $(i\neq j)$: The orthogonality can be proved in a similar manner. We omit the proof.
We are ready to prove the dissipative property of $L$.
\[pro\] The linearized operator $L:=P-I $ satisfies the following properties:
1. $Ker(L)=N$.
2. $L$ is dissipative in the following sense: $$\langle L(f),f\rangle_q= -\|\{I-P\}f\|^2_{L^2_q} \le 0.$$
\(1) follows from the definition of $P$. To prove (2), we use the orthonormality of $P$ to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle P(f),\{I-P\}(f)\rangle_q&= \langle P(f),f\rangle_q- \langle P(f),P(f)\rangle_q\cr
&=\sum_{i=1}^5 \left|\langle f, e_i\rangle_q\right|^2-\left\langle \sum_{i=1}^5 \langle f, e_i\rangle_qe_i,~\sum_{j=1}^5 \langle f, e_j\rangle_q e_j \right\rangle_q\cr
&=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle L(f),f\rangle_q&= -\langle \{I-P\}(f),~P(f)+\{I-P\}(f)\rangle_q\cr
&=-\langle \{I-P\}(f),~ \{I-P\}(f)\rangle_q\cr
&=-\|\{I-P\}(f)\|^2_{L^2_q}.
\end{aligned}$$
Estimates on the macroscopic fields and the nonlinear terms
===========================================================
In this section, we study the estimates on the nonlinear perturbation $\Gamma$ necessary for local in time existence and energy estimates. We start with the estimates of the macroscopic fields.
Estimates of macroscopic fields
-------------------------------
We first need to estimate $\Psi, \Psi_1,\Phi$ and $\Phi_1$ whose definition is given in .
\[lem22\] Suppose $E(f)(t)$ is sufficiently small. Then $\Psi, \Psi_1,\Phi$ and $\Phi_1$ satisfy
1. $\displaystyle |\partial^\alpha \Psi|+|\partial^\alpha \Phi|\le C(1+q^0)\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.$
2. $\displaystyle |\partial^\alpha \Psi_1|+|\partial^\alpha \Phi_1|\le C(1+q^0)\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q} .$
$\bullet$ Estimates of $\Psi$ and $\Psi_1$: From Hölder inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Psi}
\begin{split}
|\partial^\alpha \Psi|&=\left|\partial^\alpha \left\{2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq+\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right)^2-\sum_{i=1}^3\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f\sqrt{J^0}q^i\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\right)^2 \right\}\right|\cr
&\le 2\|\partial^\alpha f\|_{L^2_q}+ C\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}\|\partial^{\alpha-k}f\|_{L^2_q}.
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ Then we apply the Sobolev embedding $H^2(\mathbb{T}^{3})\subseteq L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{3})$ to lower order terms to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H}
\begin{split}
|\partial^\alpha \Psi| &\le 2\|\partial^\alpha f\|_{L^2_q}+C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}\le C\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Psi1}
\begin{split}
|\partial^\alpha \Psi_1|&=\left|\partial^\alpha \left\{\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right)^2-\sum_{i=1}^3\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f\sqrt{J^0}q^i\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\right)^2 \right\}\right|\cr
&\le C\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}\|\partial^{\alpha-k} f\|_{L^2_q}\cr
&\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ $\bullet$ Estimates of $\Phi$: We observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\Phi=u^\mu q_\mu-q^0=\frac{1}{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^\mu F\,\frac{dq}{q^0} q_\mu -q^0.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting and $F=J^0+f\sqrt{J^0}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi&=-\sum_{i=1}^3q^i \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0} q^i\,\frac{dq}{q^0}-q^0\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f\sqrt{J^0} \,dq\right)^2+\sum_{i=1}^3q^i \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0} q^i\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f\sqrt{J^0} \,dq\cr
&-\frac{1}{2}\left\{\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}dq\right)^2-\sum_{i=1}^3\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f\sqrt{J^0}q^i\frac{dq}{q^0}\right)^2
+\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})} \right\}\cr
&\quad\times\left(q^0+ q^0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f\sqrt{J^0} \,dq-\sum_{i=1}^3q^i \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0} q^i\,\frac{dq}{q^0} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Then it follows from that $$\begin{aligned}
|\Phi|&\le C(1+q^0)\left(\|f\|_{L^2_q}+\|f\|_{L^2_q}^2\right)+C\left(\|f\|_{L^2_q}^2
+\frac{\|f\|_{L^2_q}^3+\|f\|_{L^2_q}^2}{2-\|f\|_{L^2_q}-\|f\|_{L^2_q}^2}\right)q^0\left(1+\|f\|_{L^2_q}\right)\cr
&\le C(1+q^0)\|f\|_{L^2_q}.\end{aligned}$$ For $\alpha\neq0$, we observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^\alpha \Phi&= \sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\partial^k\left\{\frac{1}{n} \right\}\partial^{\alpha-k}\left\{\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^\mu F\,\frac{dq}{q^0}q_\mu\right\}\cr
&=\partial^\alpha\left\{\frac{1}{n} \right\}\left\{q^0\left(e_0+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right)+q\cdot \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}qf\sqrt{J^0}\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\right\}\cr
&+ \sum_{|k|<|\alpha|}\partial^k\left\{\frac{1}{n} \right\}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^\mu \partial^{\alpha-k}f\sqrt{J^0}\,\frac{dq}{q^0}q_\mu,
\end{aligned}$$ yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\label{partial phi}
\begin{split}
\left| \partial^\alpha \Phi\right|&\le C q^0\left|\partial^\alpha\left\{\frac{1}{n} \right\}\right|\left( 1+\|f\|_{L^2_q}\right)+ Cq^0\sum_{|k|<|\alpha|}\left|\partial^k\left\{\frac{1}{n} \right\}\right|\|\partial^{\alpha-k}f\|_{L^2_q}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ To estimate $1/n$, we recall and to write $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\Psi}}\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^k\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\Psi}}\right\}&=\frac{\mathbb{P}(\Psi,\partial \Psi,\cdots,\partial^k \Psi)}{\left(1+\Psi\right)^{2^{|\alpha|}-\frac{1}{2}}}
\end{aligned}$$ for some homogeneous generic polynomial $\mathbb{P}$. Then an explicit computation using gives $$\label{1/1+pi}
\left|\partial^k\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\Psi}}\right\}\right|\le C\sum_{|l|\le |k|}\|\partial^l f\|_{L^2_q}.$$ Substituting into leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{leads to}
|\partial^\alpha \Phi|\le Cq^0\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.\end{aligned}$$ $\bullet$ Estimates of $\Phi_1$: In the same manner with $\Phi$, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{obtain}
|\partial^\alpha \Phi_1|\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, (1) follows from , , and combining and gives (2).
The following two lemmas give the desired estimates for macroscopic fields.
\[lem2\] Suppose $E(t)$ is sufficiently small. Then we have
1. $ \displaystyle|\partial^\alpha \{n -1\}|+|\partial^\alpha u |+|\partial^\alpha \{e -e_0\}|\le C\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.$
2. $\displaystyle|\partial^{\alpha} \{u ^0-1\}|\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.$
$\bullet$ $\partial^\alpha \{n -1\}$ : It follows from , and that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|n -1\right| &= \left|\frac{\Psi}{2}-\frac{\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right|\cr
&\le C\|f\|_{L^2_q}+C\frac{\|f\|_{L^2_q}^2}{2(2-\|f\|_{L^2_q}+2\sqrt{1-\|f\|_{L^2_q}})}\cr
& \le C\|f\|_{L^2_q}.
\end{aligned}$$ For $\alpha\neq 0$, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\partial^\alpha \{n -1\}&=\partial^\alpha\left\{\sqrt{1+\Psi}\right\}=\frac{\mathbb{P}( \Psi,\partial \Psi,\cdots \partial^\alpha \Psi)}{\left(\sqrt{1+\Psi}\right)^{2^{|\alpha|}-1}}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ for some homogeneous generic polynomial $\mathbb{P}$. Then, it is straightforward from that $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \partial^\alpha \{n -1\}\right| &\le C\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\|\partial^kf\|_{L^2_q}.\end{aligned}$$ $\bullet$ $\partial^\alpha u $ : The case of $\alpha=0$ follows similarly as in the above case: $$\begin{aligned}
|u |&=\left|\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\Psi}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q F\,\frac{dq}{q^0}\right|\leq \frac{C\| f\|_{L^2_q}}{\sqrt{1-\|f\|_{L^2_q}}}\leq C\| f\|_{L^2_q}.
\end{aligned}$$ For the case $\alpha\neq 0$, we compute using as $$\begin{aligned}
|\partial^\alpha u |&= \left| \sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\partial^k\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\Psi}} \right\}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial^{\alpha-k}\{F\}q\frac{dq}{q^0} \right|\cr
&\le \sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\sum_{|l|\le |k|}\|\partial^l f\|_{L^2_q}\left| \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial^{\alpha-k}\{f\}q\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0} \right|\cr
&\le C \sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\sum_{|l|\le |k|}\|\partial^l f\|_{L^2_q}\|\partial^{\alpha-k}f\|_{L^2_q}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying $H^2(\mathbb{T}^{3})\subseteq L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{3})$ to the lower order terms gives $$\begin{aligned}
\
|\partial^\alpha u |&\le C\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^kf\|_{L^2_q}.\end{aligned}$$ $\bullet$ $\partial^\alpha \{e -e_0\}$ : We observe from that $e-e_0$ takes the form of $$e-e_0= \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(q^0-e_0\right)f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq -\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq+R_{I_2}(f) .$$ We notice that $R_{I_2}(f)$ consists entirely of the integrals for $f\sqrt{J^0}$, and can be estimated similarly as in the previous case. we omit the proof. $\bullet$ $\partial^\alpha \{u^0 -1\}$ : We use to express $u^0-1$ by $$\begin{aligned}
u ^0-1&=\sqrt{1+|u |^2}-1\cr
&=\frac{|u|^2}{2}-\frac{|u|^4}{2(2+|u|^2+2\sqrt{1+|u|^2})}.\end{aligned}$$ Then the previous result of $u$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
|u ^0-1|&=\left|\frac{|u|^2}{2}-\frac{|u|^4}{2(2+|u|^2+2\sqrt{1+|u|^2})}\right|\cr
&\le C\|f\|^2_{L^2_q}+\frac{C\|f\|_{L^2_q}^4}{8}\cr
&\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\|f\|_{L^2_q}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \partial^\alpha \{u^0 -1\}\right|&=\left|\partial^\alpha \left\{\frac{|u |^2}{2}-\frac{|u |^4}{2(2+|u |^2+2\sqrt{1+|u|^2})} \right\}\right|\cr
&\le C\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}|\partial^ku| |\partial^{\alpha-k}u| +\left|\frac{\mathbb{P}(\sqrt{1+|u ^2|},u ,\partial u ,\cdots, \partial^\alpha u )}{(2+|u |^2+2\sqrt{1+|u |^2})^{2^{|\alpha|}}(\sqrt{1+|u ^2|})^{2^{|\alpha|}-1}}\right|\cr
&\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.\end{aligned}$$
\[U<\] Suppose $E(t)$ is sufficiently small. Then we have
1. $\displaystyle|\partial^{\alpha} U|\le C\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.$
2. $\displaystyle|\partial^{\alpha}\{ U ^0-1\}|\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.$
$\bullet$ $\partial^\alpha U $: From the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{<uq<}
\begin{split}
1\le u^\mu q_\mu\le 2\sqrt{1+|u|^2}q^0.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ Using this, we get $$\begin{aligned}
|U|&=\left|u+3\frac{\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q(u^\mu q_\mu)F\frac{dq}{q^0}-u\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (u^\mu q_\mu)^2F\frac{dq}{q^0}}{4\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u^\mu q_\mu)^2F\frac{dq}{q^0}-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F\frac{dq}{q^0}}\right|\cr
&\le\left|u\right|+\frac{2\sqrt{1+|u|^2}\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} qF\,dq\right|+4(1+|u|^2)\left|u\right|\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0F\,dq}{\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F\frac{dq}{q^0}}\cr
&=\left|u\right|+\frac{2\sqrt{1+|u|^2}\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} qf\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right|+4(1+|u|^2)\left|u\right|\left(e_0+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0f\sqrt{J^0}\,dq\right)}{\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f\sqrt{J^0}\,\frac{dq}{q^0}}.\end{aligned}$$ We then apply Lemma \[lem2\] to get $$\begin{aligned}
|U|&\le C\|f\|_{L^2_q}+C\frac{\big(1+\|f\|_{L^2_q}\big)\|f\|_{L^2_q}+\big(1+\|f\|_{L^2_q}\big)^3\|f\|_{L^2_q}}{\frac{K_1(\beta_0)}{K_2(\beta_0)}-\|f\|_{L^2_q}}\le C \|f\|_{L^2_q}.\end{aligned}$$ For the case of $\alpha\neq0$, we recall from that $$\mathbf{q}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}dq-\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} qf\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}+\Gamma_{3}^*(f)$$ where $\Gamma_3^*(f)$ denotes $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{3}^*(f) &=-\sum_{i=1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^if\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^i qf\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \Phi_1 qF\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
& +e_0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\left\{\frac{\Psi}{2}+\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right\}\cr
& -\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\Psi}}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0 f\sqrt{J^0} dq+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2 \right)F\frac{dq}{q^0} \right)\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, an explicit computation with Lemma \[lem22\] and gives $$|\partial^\alpha \Gamma_{3}^*(f) |\le C\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.$$ Therefore, $$\label{q}
|\partial^\alpha \mathbf{q}|\le C\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.$$ On the other hand, we recall from that $$nh=\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)+\frac{4}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2\right)J^0\frac{dq}{q^0}+\frac{4}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} ( u_{\alpha} q^\alpha)^2 f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}-\frac{1}{3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0},$$ which, together with Lemma \[lem22\] and , leads to $$\label{nh1}
\left|nh-\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)\right|+ \left|\partial^\alpha \{nh\}\right|\le C\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.$$ Using this, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{q2}
\begin{split}
\left|\partial^{\alpha}\left\{\frac{1}{nh} \right\}\right|&=\left|\frac{\mathbb{P}\left(nh,\partial\{nh\},\cdots,\partial^{\alpha}\{nh\}\right)}{(nh)^{2^{|\alpha|}}}\right|\cr
&\le C\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\frac{\|\partial^kf\|_{L^2_q} }{\left(\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)-C\|f\|_{L^2_q}\right)^{2^{|\alpha|}}}\cr
&\le C\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|} \|\partial^kf\|_{L^2_q}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Combining and gives $$\label{q<}
\left|\partial^\alpha \left\{\frac{\mathbf{q}}{nh}\right\}\right|\le C \sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.$$ Therefore we have from Lemma \[lem2\] and that $$\begin{aligned}
|\partial^\alpha U|&=\left|\partial^\alpha u+\partial^\alpha \left\{\frac{\mathbf{q}}{nh}\right\}\right|\le C \sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}.\end{aligned}$$ $\bullet$ $\partial^\alpha \{U^0-1\}$ : For $\alpha=0$, we observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{q}^0&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (u^\mu q_\mu)Fdq-u^0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (u^\mu q_\mu)^2F\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
&=u^0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^0Fdq-u\cdot \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}qFdq-u^0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(u^0q^0-u\cdot q\right)^2F\frac{dq}{q^0}.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting $F=J^0+f\sqrt{J^0}$, a direct computation gives $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{q}^0&=u^0\left(e_0+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^0 f\sqrt{J^0}dq\right)-u\cdot \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}qf\sqrt{J^0}dq\cr
&-(u^0)^3\left(e_0+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^0f\sqrt{J^0}dq\right)+2(u^0)^2u\cdot\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}qf\sqrt{J^0}dq-u^0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot q)^2F\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
&=-e_0u^0|u|^2+u^0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^0 f\sqrt{J^0}dq-u\cdot \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}qf\sqrt{J^0}dq\cr
&-(u^0)^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}q^0f\sqrt{J^0}dq+2(u^0)^2u\cdot\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}qf\sqrt{J^0}dq-u^0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot q)^2F\frac{dq}{q^0},\end{aligned}$$ which, together with Lemma \[lem2\], gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{q0}
\begin{split}
|\mathbf{q}^0|&\le C\left(\|f\|_{L^2_q}^2+\|f\|_{L^2_q}^3+\|f\|_{L^2_q}^4\right)
\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\|f\|_{L^2_q}.
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ Combining Lemma \[lem2\], and , we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
|U^0-1|&=\left|u^0-1+\frac{\mathbf{q}^0}{nh}\right|\le C \sqrt{E(t)}\|f\|_{L^2_q}.
\end{aligned}$$ We omit the proof for $\alpha\neq 0$ to avoid the repetition.
Estimates of nonlinear perturbation $\Gamma$
--------------------------------------------
We now estimate the nonlinear term. We first need to clarify the explicit form of the nonlinear perturbation $\Gamma_5(f)$.
\[Q\] We have $$D_{n_{\theta},U_\theta^0,U_{\theta},e_{\theta}}^{2}J(\theta)=\mathcal{Q}J(\theta),$$ where $\mathcal{Q}$ is a $6\times6$ matrix whose elements are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{Q}_{1,1}=0,\quad \mathcal{Q}_{1,2}=-\frac{\beta_\theta}{n_{\theta}}q^0,\quad \mathcal{Q}_{1,i+2}=\frac{\beta_\theta}{n_{\theta}}q^i,\quad \mathcal{Q}_{1,6}=-\frac{1}{n_{\theta}\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)}\biggl(\frac{M^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)}{M(\beta_\theta)}+U_{\theta}^{\mu}q_{\mu}\biggl), \cr
&\mathcal{Q}_{2,2}= \beta_\theta^2 (q^0)^2, \quad \mathcal{Q}_{2,i+2}=-\beta_\theta^2q^0q^i,\quad \mathcal{Q}_{2,6}=-\frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)} q^0+\frac{(\widetilde{e})^{-1}(e_\theta)}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)} q^0\biggl(\frac{M^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)}{M(\beta_\theta)}+U_{\theta}^{\mu}q_{\mu}\biggl),\cr
&\mathcal{Q}_{i+2,j+2}=\beta_\theta^2q^iq^j,\quad \mathcal{Q}_{i+2,6}=\frac{1}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)} q^i-\frac{(\widetilde{e})^{-1}(e_\theta)}{\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)} q^i\biggl(\frac{M^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)}{M(\beta_\theta)}+U_{\theta}^{\mu}q_{\mu}\biggl),\cr &\mathcal{Q}_{6,6}=-\left\{(\widetilde{e})^{-1}\right\}^{\prime\prime}(e_\theta)\biggl(\frac{M^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)}{M(\beta_\theta)}+U_{\theta}^{\mu}q_{\mu}\biggl)+\frac{1}{\left(\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)\right)^2}\biggl(\frac{M^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)}{M(\beta_\theta)}+ U_{\theta}^{\mu}q_{\mu}\biggl)^{2}\cr
&\hspace{1cm} -\frac{1}{\left(\left\{\widetilde{e}\right\}^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)\right)^2}\biggl(\frac{M^{\prime\prime}(\beta_\theta)M(\beta_\theta)-\left\{M^{\prime}(\beta_\theta)\right\}^{2}}{M^{2}(\beta_\theta)}\biggl),
\end{aligned}$$ for $i,j=1,2,3$.
The proof is straightforward. We omit it.
\[nonlinear1\] Suppose $E(t)$ is sufficiently small. Then we have $$\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial^\alpha_\beta\Gamma (f) g \,dq\right|\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\|\partial^k f\|_{L^2_q}\|g\|_{L^2_q}.$$
We recall from Proposition \[lin3\] that $$\Gamma (f)=\frac{U_\mu q^\mu}{q^0} \sum_{i=1}^5\Gamma_i (f)+\frac{1}{q^0}\left(\Phi+ \frac{\mathbf{q}_\mu q^\mu}{nh} \right) L(f).$$ For brevity, and to avoid unnecessary repetition, we only deal with $$I_1:=\frac{U_\mu q^\mu}{q^0} \Gamma_{3} (f), \qquad I_2:=\frac{U_\mu q^\mu}{q^0} \Gamma_{5} (f).$$ Throughout the proof, we use the following elementary estimates without explicitly mentioning them: $$|\partial_{\beta}\hat{q}|+\left|\partial_{\beta}\left\{\frac{1}{q^{0}}\right\}\right|\le C,\quad |\partial_{\beta}\sqrt{J^0}|+\big|\partial_{\beta}\big(q^{\mu}\sqrt{J^0}\big)\big|\le C\sqrt{J^0},\quad \left|\partial_{\beta}\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{J^0}}\right\}\right|\le C\frac{1}{\sqrt{J^0}}.$$ $\bullet$ Estimate of $I_1$ : It follows from Lemma \[U<\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I1}
\begin{split}
\left|\partial^\alpha_\beta\left\{I_1\right\}\right|&=\left|\partial^\alpha_\beta\left\{\frac{U_\mu q^\mu}{q^0} \Gamma_{3} (f)\right\}\right|\cr
&\le \sum_{\substack{|k|\le |\alpha|\cr |l|\le|\beta|}}\left|\biggl(\partial^{\alpha-k} \{U^0\}-\partial^{\alpha-k}\{U\}\cdot \partial_{\beta-l}\{\hat{q}\}\biggl) \partial^k_l\Gamma_{3} (f)\right| \cr
&\le C\sum_{\substack{|k|\le |\alpha|\cr |l|\le|\beta|}}\biggl(1+\sum_{|m|\le|\alpha-k|}\|\partial^{m} f\|_{L^2_q}\biggl)\left|\partial^k_l\Gamma_{3} (f)\right|.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Gamma_3(f)$ is given in Lemma \[lin2\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{3}(f)&=-\beta_0\left\{\frac{\Psi}{2}+\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right\}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\cdot q\sqrt{J^0}\cr
&-\beta_0\left\{\frac{4\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2\right)J^0\frac{dq}{q^0}+4\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (u_\mu q^\mu)^2 f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}}{3\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)(n h ) } \right\}\cr
&\quad\times \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (u_\mu q^\mu)q F\frac{dq}{q^0}-u \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (u_\mu q^\mu)^2 F\frac{dq}{q^0}\right)\cdot q\sqrt{J^0}+\frac{\beta_0}{\widetilde{h}(\beta_0)}\Gamma_{3}^*(f)\cdot q\sqrt{J^0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_{3}^*(f)$ denotes $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{3}^*(f) &=-\sum_{i=1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^if\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^i qf\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \Phi_1 qF\frac{dq}{q^0}\cr
& +e_0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}\left\{\frac{\Psi}{2}+\frac{\Psi^3-3\Psi^2}{2(2+\Psi-\Psi^2+2\sqrt{1+\Psi})}\right\}\cr
& -\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\Psi}}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q^0 f\sqrt{J^0} dq+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(2q^0\Phi+\Phi^2 \right)F\frac{dq}{q^0} \right)\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} q f\sqrt{J^0}\frac{dq}{q^0}.\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[lem22\], and , one can derive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gamma*}
\left|\partial^k\Gamma_{3}(f)\right|&\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|l|\le |k|}\|\partial^l f\|_{L^2_q} \sqrt{J^0}.\end{aligned}$$ We go back to with to have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}\{I_1\}g\, dq\right|&\le C\sum_{\substack{|k|\le |\alpha|\cr |l|\le|\beta|}}\biggl(1+\sum_{|m|\le|\alpha-k|}\|\partial^{m} f\|_{L^2_q}\biggl)\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left|\partial^k_l\left\{\Gamma_{3} (f)\right\} g \right|dq \cr
&\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le |\alpha|}\biggl(1+\sum_{|m|\le|\alpha-k|}\|\partial^{m} f\|_{L^2_q}\biggl)\sum_{|l|\le |k|}\|\partial^l f\|_{L^2_q}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |g|\sqrt{J^0} dq \cr
&\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^{k}f\|_{L^2_q}\|g\|_{L^2_q}.
\end{aligned}$$ In the last line, we applied $H^2(\mathbb{T}^{3})\subseteq L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{3})$ to lower order terms. $\bullet$ Estimate of $I_2$ : Let $(n-1,U^0-1,U,e-e_{0})=(y_{1},y_{2},y_{3},y_{4},y_{5},y_6)$ and recall from Lemma \[Q\] that $$D_{n_{\theta},U_\theta^0,U_{\theta},\alpha_{\theta}}^{2}J(\theta)=\mathcal{Q}J(\theta).$$ We then have $$(y_{1},\cdots,y_{6})D_{n_{\theta},U_\theta^0,U_{\theta},e_{\theta}}^{2}J(\theta)(y_{1},\cdots,y_{6})^{T}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{6}y_{i}y_{j}\mathcal{Q}_{ij}J(\theta),$$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{long} \partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}\Gamma_{5}(f)=\sum_{i,j=1}^6\sum_{\substack{|\alpha_{1}|+|\alpha_{2}|+|\alpha_{3}|\cr+|\alpha_{4}|=|\alpha|}}\!\!\!\!\partial^{\alpha_{1}}y_{i}\partial^{\alpha_{2}}y_{j}
\bigg\{\sum_{\substack{|\beta_{1}|+|\beta_{2}|+|\beta_{3}|\cr=|\beta|}}
\int^1_0\partial^{\alpha_{3}}_{\beta_{1}}\mathcal{Q}_{ij}\partial^{\alpha_{4}}_{\beta_{2}}J(\theta)d\theta \partial_{\beta_{3}}\bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{J^0}}\bigg)\bigg\}.
$$ [**Claim:**]{} Assume $E(f)(t)$ is sufficiently small. Then, there exist positive constants $C$, $C^{\prime}>0$, independent of $\theta$, such that $$J(\theta)\le Ce^{-C^{\prime}\sqrt{1+|q|^{2}}}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}\mathcal{Q}_{ij}|&\le C\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^{k}f\|_{L^2_q},\cr
|\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}J(\theta)|&\le C\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^{k}f\|_{L^2_q}e^{-C^{\prime}\sqrt{1+|q|^{2}}}.\end{aligned}$$ [**Proof of the claim:**]{} We observe from Lemma \[beta decreasing\] that since $\widetilde{e}(\beta)$ is a decreasing function, its inverse $\beta_{\theta}=(\widetilde{e})^{-1}(e_\theta)$ is also decreasing. So it follows from Lemma \[lem2\] that $\beta_{\theta}$ is bounded by $$(\widetilde{e})^{-1}\left( e_0+\sqrt{E(t)}\right)\le \beta_\theta \le (\widetilde{e})^{-1}\left( e_0-\sqrt{E(t)}\right).$$ From this observation with Lemma \[U<\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{\theta}U_{\theta}^{\mu}q_{\mu}&\ge (\widetilde{e})^{-1}\left( e_0+\sqrt{E(t)}\right)\left( \min\{1,U^0\} \sqrt{1+|q|^{2}}-\max_{U}\{|U||q|\} \right)\cr
&= (\widetilde{e})^{-1}\left( e_0+\sqrt{E(t)}\right)\left\{\big(1-\sqrt{E(t)}\big)\sqrt{1+|q|^2}-\big(\sqrt{E(t)}\big)|q|\right\}\cr
&\ge (\widetilde{e})^{-1}\left( e_0+\sqrt{E(t)}\right)\big(1-2\sqrt{E(t)}\big)\sqrt{1+|q|^2}.\end{aligned}$$ When $E(t)$ is sufficiently small, we can take $C^{\prime}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta0}
(\widetilde{e})^{-1}\left( e_0+\sqrt{E(t)}\right)\big(1-2\sqrt{E(t)}\big)>C^{\prime}>\frac{3}{4}\beta_0.\end{aligned}$$ We thus have from Lemma \[lem2\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{JJ}
J(\theta)=\frac{n_{\theta}}{M(\beta_{\theta})}e^{-\beta_{\theta}U_{\theta}^{\mu}q_{\mu}}\le Ce^{-C^{\prime}\sqrt{1+|q|^{2}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This gives the first estimate.For the second estimate, we observe by an explicit, tedious computation that the derivatives of $J(\theta)$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ are expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}J(\theta) &=\sum_{\substack{|\alpha_1|+\cdots+|\alpha_4|\cr =|\alpha|}}\sum_{l} \mathbb{P}_J( n_{\theta},\cdots,\partial^{\alpha_{1}} n_{\theta},U^\mu_{\theta},\cdots,\partial^{\alpha_{2}} U_{\theta},e_{\theta},\cdots,\partial^{\alpha_{3}} e_{\theta})_l\cr
&\quad\times\biggl(\frac{\mathbb{Q}_J( q^{\mu},M(\beta_{\theta}),\cdots,\partial_{e_\theta}^{\alpha_4}M(\beta_{\theta}),\beta_{\theta},\cdots,\partial_{e_\theta}^{\alpha_4}\beta_{\theta}}{\mathbb{M}_J(n_{\theta},M(\beta_{\theta}),q^{0})}\biggl)_lJ(\theta),\cr
\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta} \mathcal{Q}_{ij}&=\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta} \mathcal{Q}_{ij}(n_{\theta},U^\mu_{\theta},e_{\theta},q^\mu)\cr
&=\biggl\{\sum_{\substack{|\alpha_1|+\cdots+|\alpha_4|\cr =|\alpha|}}\sum_{k}\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{Q}}(n_{\theta},\cdots,\partial^{\alpha_{1}} n_{\theta},U^\mu_{\theta},\cdots,\partial^{\alpha_{2}} U_{\theta}^\mu,e_{\theta},\cdots,\partial^{\alpha_{3}} e_{\theta})_{k}\cr &\quad\times\biggl(\frac{\mathbb{Q}_{\mathcal{Q}}(q^{\mu},M(\beta_{\theta}),\cdots,\partial_{e_\theta}^{\alpha_4}M(\beta_{\theta}),\beta_{\theta},\cdots,\partial_{e_\theta}^{\alpha_4}\beta_{\theta}}{\mathbb{M}_{\mathcal{Q}}(n_{\theta},M(\beta_{\theta}), q^{0})}\biggl)_{k}\biggl\}_{ij},\end{aligned}$$ for some generically defined polynomials $\mathbb{P}$, $\mathbb{Q}$ and $\mathbb{M}$. Then, the desired result follows from Lemma \[lem2\], Lemma \[U<\] and the estimate (\[JJ\]). This ends the proof of the claim. Now, substituting the estimates in the claim into (\[long\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}\Gamma_{5}(f)\right|\cr &\le \sum_{\substack{|\alpha_{1}|+|\alpha_{2}|+|\alpha_{3}|\cr+|\alpha_{4}|=|\alpha|}}
|\partial^{\alpha_{1}}y_{i}||\partial^{\alpha_{2}}y_{j}|\sum_{\substack{|\beta_{1}|+|\beta_{2}|+|\beta_{3}|\cr=|\beta|}}
\int^1_0|\partial^{\alpha_{3}}_{\beta_{1}}\mathcal{Q}_{ij}||\partial^{\alpha_{4}}_{\beta_{2}}J(\theta)|d\theta \bigg|\partial_{\beta_{3}}\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{J^0}}\right\}\!\bigg|\cr
&\le C\!\!\!\sum_{\substack{|\alpha_{1}|+|\alpha_{2}|+|\alpha_{3}|\cr+|\alpha_{4}|=|\alpha|}}\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha_{1}|}\|\partial^{k}f\|_{L^2_q}\!\!\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha_{2}|}\|\partial^{k}f\|_{L^2_q}\!\!\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha_{3}|}\|\partial^{k}f\|_{L^2_q}\!\!\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha_{4}|}\|\partial^{k}f\|_{L^2_q}e^{-C^{\prime}\sqrt{1+|q|^2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{J^0}}\cr
&\equiv B(f)\frac{e^{-C^{\prime}\sqrt{1+|q|^2}}}{\sqrt{J^0}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, we apply the Sobolev embedding $H^2(\mathbb{T}^3)\subseteq L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^3)$ to the lower order terms to get $$\begin{aligned}
B(f)\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^{k}f\|_{L^2_q},\end{aligned}$$ and observe from (\[beta0\]) that $C^\prime-\frac{\beta_0}{2}>\frac{\beta_0}{4}$, that gives $$\frac{e^{-C^{\prime}\sqrt{1+|q|^2}}}{\sqrt{J_0}}\leq e^{-\frac{1}{4}\beta_0\sqrt{1+|q|^2}}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}\Gamma_{5}(f)\right|\leq C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^{k}f\|_{L^2_q}e^{-\frac{1}{4}\beta_0\sqrt{1+|q|^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ The desired estimate follows directly from this: $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}\{I_2\}g\, dq\right|&\le \sum_{\substack{|k|\le |\alpha|\cr |l|\le|\beta|}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left|\biggl(\partial^{\alpha-k} \{U^0\}-\partial^{\alpha-k}\{U\}\cdot \partial_{\beta-l}\{\hat{q}\}\biggl) \partial^k_l\Gamma_{5} (f)g\right|\, dq\cr
&\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^{k}f\|_{L^2_q}\biggl(1+\sum_{|m|\le|\alpha-k|}\|\partial^{m} f\|_{L^2_q}\biggl)\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} e^{-\frac{1}{4}\beta_0\sqrt{1+|q|^{2}}}|g|dq\cr
&\le C\sqrt{E(t)}\sum_{|k|\le|\alpha|}\|\partial^{k}f\|_{L^2_q}\|g\|_{L^2_q}.\end{aligned}$$
The following lemma on the difference of distribution functions is also needed for the local existence and uniqueness. We omit the proof since it can be treated similarly.
\[nonlinear2\] Assume $\bar{F}:=J^0+\bar{f}\sqrt{J^0}$ is another solution of . For sufficiently small $E(f)(t)$ and $E(\bar{f})(t)$, we then have $$\left|\int_{\mathbb{T}^3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left\{\Gamma(f)-\Gamma(\bar{f})\right\}(f-\bar{f}) \,dqdx\right|\le
C \|f-\bar{f}\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}}.$$
Proof of the main result
========================
Now, we are ready to prove the main result. Since it is rather standard, we only sketch the proof.
Local existence
---------------
With the estimates on the nonlinear parts established in the previous section, the local in time existence then follows by standard argument [@Guo; @whole; @Guo; @VMB]:
\[thm8\] Let $N\geq4$ and $F_{0}=J^0+\sqrt{J^0}f_{0}\ge 0.$ Then there exist $M_{0}>0, T_{*}>0$, such that if $T_{*}\le\frac{M_{0}}{2}$ and $E(f_{0})\le \frac{M_{0}}{2}$, there is a unique global solution $F(x,q,t)$ to the Anderson-Witting model such that
1. The energy functional is continuous in $[0,T_{*})$ and uniformly bounded: $$\sup_{0\le t\le T_{*}}E(f)(t)\le M_{0}.$$
2. The distribution function remains positive in $[0,T_{*})$: $$F(x,q,t)=J^0+\sqrt{J^0}f(x,q,t)\ge 0.$$
Coercivity of L
---------------
We decompose $f$ into the macro and micro parts: $$f=P(f)+\{I-P\}(f)$$ where $P(f)$ takes the form of $$\begin{aligned}
P(f)=\tilde{a}\sqrt{J^0}+b\cdot q\sqrt{J^0}+cq^0\sqrt{J^0},\end{aligned}$$ and rewrite the linearized Anderson-Witting model as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\{\partial_{t}+\hat{q}\cdot\nabla_{x}\}P(f)&=\{-\partial_{t}-\hat{q}\cdot\nabla_{x}+L\}\{I-P\}(f)+\Gamma (f)\cr
&\equiv l\{I-P\}(f)+h(f).\end{aligned}$$ Comparing both sides of the equation with respect to the basis: $$\label{basis}
\{e_{a_0}, e_{a_i}, e_{bc_i}, e_{ij}, e_{c}\}
=\Big\{\sqrt{J_0},\ \frac{q_{i}}{q^{0}}\sqrt{J_0},\ q_{i}\sqrt{J_0},\ \frac{q_{i}q_{j}}{q^{0}}\sqrt{J_0},\ q^{0}\sqrt{J_0}\Big\},$$ we obtain the following micro-macro system:
1. $\partial_{t}\tilde{a}=l_{a_0}+h_{a_0}$,
2. $\partial_{t}c=l_{c}+h_{c}$,
3. $\partial_{t}b_{i}+\partial_{x_{i}}c=l_{bc_i}+h_{bc_i}$,
4. $\partial_{x_{i}}\tilde{a}=l_{ai}+h_{ai}$,
5. $(1-\delta_{ij})\partial_{x_{i}}b_{j}+\partial_{x_{j}}b_{i}=l_{ij}+h_{ij}$,
where $l_{a_0},\cdots, l_{c}$ and $h_{a_0},\cdots,h_{c}$ denote the inner product of $l\{I-P\}(f)$ and $h(f)$ with the corresponding basis (\[basis\]). The standard analysis of the system [@Guo; @whole; @Guo; @VMB] gives $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{|\alpha|\le N}\|\partial^{\alpha}P(f)\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}}\le
C\sum_{|\alpha|\le N}\big\{\|\{I-P\}(\partial^{\alpha}f)\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}}+\sqrt{E(t)}\|\partial^{\alpha}f\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}}\big\}.\end{aligned}$$ This, combined with Proposition \[pro\] (2), gives the dissipative estimate of $L$ for sufficiently small $E(f)$: $$\label{coercivity}
\sum_{|\alpha|\le N}\langle L(\partial^{\alpha}f),\partial^{\alpha}f\rangle_{x,q}\le-\delta\sum_{|\alpha|\le N}\|\partial^{\alpha}f\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}}$$ for some $\delta>0$.
Proof of Theorem \[main2\]
--------------------------
Applying $\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}$ to (\[LAW\]), taking inner product with $\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}f$, and employing Lemma \[nonlinear1\] and , we have from standard arguments [@Guo; @VMB] that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|\partial^{\alpha}f\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}}+\delta\|\partial^{\alpha}f\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}}&\le C\sqrt{E(t)}E(t)\quad (\beta=0),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d}{dt}\|\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}f\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}}+\delta\|\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}f\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}}\le C\biggl\{\sum_{|k|<|\beta|}\sum_{i=1}^{3}\|\partial_{x_{i}}\partial^{\alpha}_{k}f\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}} +\sqrt{E (t)}E(t)\biggl\}\quad (\beta\neq0).\end{aligned}$$ We then combine these estimates to derive the following energy estimate [@Guo; @VMB]: $$\sum_{|\alpha|+|\beta|\le N}\biggl(C_{|\beta|}\frac{d}{dt}\|\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}f\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}}+\delta_{N}\|\partial^{\alpha}_{\beta}f\|^{2}_{L^2_{x,q}}\biggl)\le C_{N*}\sqrt{E(t)} E(t)$$ for some positive constants $C_{|\beta|}$, $\delta_{N}$. Then, the desired result follows from the standard continuity argument.[**Acknowledgement**]{} The work of Seok-Bae Yun was supported by Samsung Science and Technology Foundation under Project Number SSTF-BA1801-02.
[10]{} Andreasson, H.: Regularity of the gain term and strong $L^1$-convergence to equilibrium for the relativistic Boltzmann equation, SIAM J. Math. Anal. [**[27]{}**]{} (1996) 1386–1405 Anderson, J. L., Witting, H. R.: A relativistic relaxation-time model for the Boltzmann equation. Physica. [**[74]{}**]{} (1974) 466–488 Anderson, J. L., Witting, H. R.: Relativistic quantum transport coefficients. Physica. [**[74]{}**]{} (1974) 489–495 Bichteler, K.: On the Cauchy problem of the relativistic Boltzmann equation. Comm. Math. Phys. [**4**]{} (1967) 352–364 Bellouquid, A., Calvo, J., Nieto, J., Soler, J.: On the relativistic BGK-Boltzmann model: asymptotics and hydrodynamics. J. Stat. Phys. [**149**]{} (2012) 284–316 Bellouquid, A., Nieto, J., Urrutia, L.: Global existence and asymptotic stability near equilibrium for the relativistic BGK model. Nonlinear Anal. [**114**]{} (2015) 87–104. Bhatnagar, P. L., Gross, E. P. and Krook, M. L.: A model for collision processes in gases. I. Small amplitude processes in charged and neutral one-component systems, Phys. Rev. [**94**]{} (1954) 511-525. Calogero, S.: The Newtonian limit of the relativistic Boltzmann equation. J. Math. Phys. [**45**]{} (2004) 4042–4052 Cercignani, C., Kremer, G. M.: The Relativistic Boltzmann Equation: Theory and Applications. Birkhäuser, Basel (2002) Denicol, G. S., Heinz, U., Martinez, M., Noronha, J., Strickland, M.: New exact solution of the relativistic Boltzmann equation and its hydrodynamic limit. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[113]{}**]{} (2014) 202301 Denicol, G. S., Heinz, U., Martinez, M., Noronha, J., Strickland, M.: Studying the validity of relativistic hydrodynamics with a new exact solution of the Boltzmann equation. Phys. Rev. D. [**[90]{}**]{} (2014) 125026
Dudyński, M.: On the linearized relativistic Boltzmann equation. II. Existence of hydrodynamics. J. Stat. Phys. [**57**]{} (1-–2) (1989) 199–245 Dudyński, M., Ekiel-Jeżewska, M. L.: On the linearized relativistic Boltzmann equation. I. Existence of solutions. Comm. Math. Phys. [**115**]{} (4) (1985) 607–629 Dudyński, M., Ekiel-Jeżewska, M. L.: Global existence proof for relativistic Boltzmann equation, J. Stat. Phys. [**66**]{} (3) (1992) 991–1001. Eckart, C., Phys. Rev. [**58**]{} (1940) 919. Florkowski, W., Maksymiuk, E., Ryblewski, R., Strickland, M.: Exact solution of the $(0+1)$-dimensional Boltzmann equation for a massive gas. Phys. Rev. C. [**[89]{}**]{} (2014) 054908 Florkowski, W., Ryblewski, R., Strickland, M.: Anisotropic hydrodynamics for rapidly expanding systems. Nucl. Phys. A [**[916]{}**]{} (2013) 249–259 Florkowski, W., Ryblewski, R., Strickland, M.: Testing viscous and anisotropic hydrodynamics in an exactly solvable case. Phys. Rev. C. [**[88]{}**]{} (2013) 024903 Glassey, R. T., Strauss, W. A.: Asymptotic stability of the relativistic Maxwellian. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. [**29**]{} (2) (1993) 301–347 Glassey, R. T., Strauss, W. A.: Asymptotic stability of the relativistic Maxwellian via fourteen moments. Trans. Th. Stat. Phys. [**24**]{} (4–5) (1995) 657–678 Guo, Y.: The Boltzmann equation in the whole space. Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**53**]{} (2004). no.4, 1081-1094 Guo, Y.: The Vlasov-Maxwell-Boltzmann system near Maxwellians. Invent. Math. [**153**]{} (2003) no.3, 593-630 Guo, Y., Strain, Robert M.: Momentum regularity and stability of the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell-Boltzmann system. Comm. Math. Phys. [**310**]{} (3) (2012) 649–673.
Hwang, B.-H., Yun, S.-B.: Stationary solutions to the boundary value problem for relativistic BGK model in a slab. submitted. Jaiswal, A.: Relativistic dissipative hydrodynamics from kinetic theory with relaxation time approximation. Phys. Rev. C. [**[87]{}**]{} (2013) 051901 Jaiswal, A.: Relativistic third-order dissipative fluid dynamics from kinetic theory. Phys. Rev. C. [**[88]{}**]{} (2013) 021903 Jaiswal, A., Ryblewski, R., Strickland, M.: Transport coefficients for bulk viscous evolution in the relaxation time approximation. Phys. Rev. C. [**[90]{}**]{} (2014) 044908 Jiang, Z.: On the relativistic Boltzmann equation, Acta Math. Sci. [**18**]{} (3) (1998) 348–360. Jiang, Z.: On the Cauchy problem for the relativistic Boltzmann equation in a periodic box: global existence. Transport Theory Statist. Phys. [**28**]{} (6) (1999) 617–628 Jang, J. W., Strain, Robert M., Yun, S.-B.: Propagation of uniform upper bound for the spatially homogeneous relativistic Boltzmann equation. Preprint. Jang, J. W., Yun, S.-B.: Gain of regularity for the relativistic collision operator. Preprint. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.10147 Landau, L. D., Lifshitz, E. M.: Fluid Mechanics. Pergamon Press. (1959) Lee, H., Rendall, A.: The spatially homogeneous relativistic Boltzmann equation with a hard potential, Comm. Partial Differential Equations [**38**]{} (12) (2013) 2238–2262 Kremer, G. M., Patsko, C. H.: Relativistic ionized gases: Ohm and Fourier laws from Anderson and Witting model equation. Physica A. [**[322]{}**]{} (2003) 329–344
Marle, C.: Sur létablissement des equations de lhydrodynamique des fluides relativistes dissipatifs. II. Méthodes de résolution approchée de lequation de Boltzmann relativiste. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré [**10**]{} (1969) 127–194 Marle, C.: Modele cinétique pour létablissement des lois de la conduction de la chaleur et de la viscosité en théorie de la relativité. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris [**[260]{}**]{} (1965) 6539–6541 Mendoza, M., Boghosian, B. M., Herrmann, H. J., Succi, S.: Derivation of the lattice Boltzmann model for relativistic hydrodynamics. Phys. Rev. D. [**[82]{}**]{} (2010) 105008 Mendoza, M., Karlin, I., Succi, S., Herrmann, H. J.: Relativistic lattice Boltzmann model with improved dissipation. Phys. Rev. D. [**[87]{}**]{} (2013) 065027
Molnár, E., Niemi, H., Rischke, D. H.: Derivation of anisotropic dissipative fluid dynamics from the Boltzmann equation. Phys. Rev. D. [**[93]{}**]{} (2016) 114025 Maartens, R., Wolvaardt, F. P.: Exact non-equilibrium solutions of the Einstein–Boltzmann equations. Class. Quanlum Grav. [**[11]{}**]{} (1994) 203–225.
Speck, J., Strain, Robert M.: Hilbert expansion from the Boltzmann equation to relativistic fluids. Comm. Math. Phys. [**304**]{} (2011) 229–280 Strain, Robert M.: Asymptotic stability of the relativistic Boltzmann equation for the soft potentials. Comm. Math. Phys. [**300**]{} (2010) 529–597 Strain, Robert M.: Global Newtonian limit for the relativistic Boltzmann equation near vacuum. SIAM J. Math. Anal. [**42**]{} (2010) 1568–1601 Strain, Robert M., Yun, S.-B.: Spatially homogenous Boltzmann equation for relativistic particles, SIAM J. Math. Anal. [**46**]{} (1) (2014) 917–938 Strain, Robert M., Zhu, K.: Large-time decay of the soft potential relativistic Boltzmann equation in $\mathbb{R}^3_x$. Kinet. Relat. Models [**5**]{} (2) (2012) 383–415.
Triginer, J., Zimdahl, W., Pavon, D.: Kinetic theory for particle production. Class. Quantum Grav. [**[13]{}**]{} (1996) 403–416 Zimdahl, W., Triginer, J., Pavon, D.: Collisional equilibrium, particle production, and the inflationary universe. Phys. Rev. D. [**[54]{}**]{} (1996) 6101 Wennberg, B.: The geometry of binary collisions and generalized Radon transforms. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. [**139**]{} (1997) no. 3, 291–302
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- '$^\ast$Department d’Estructura i Constituents de la MatèriaUniversitat de Barcelona, Diagonal 647, E-08028 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain'
- '$^\dagger$Uji Research CenterYukawa Institute for Theoretical PhysicsKyoto University, Uji 611, Japan'
author:
- 'Joaquim Gomis[^1][Electronic address: [email protected]]{}and Hiroshi Suzuki[^2][JSPS Junior Scientist Fellow. Also at Department of Physics, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima 724, Japan. Electronic address: [email protected]]{}'
date: =
title: 'Covariant Currents in $N=2$ Super-Liouville Theory'
---
phyzzx =[92-4UB-ECM-PF 92/4]{}
[February 1992]{}
Introduction
============
The $N=2$ string or the two-dimensional $N=2$ supergravity introduced by Ademollo [*et al*]{} \[,,,,,,\] has critical dimension $d=2$ and there is no transverse degree of freedom. Very recently, it has been argued that the no-ghost theorem can be established \[\]. The $N=2$ subcritical strings or $N=2$ super-Liouville theory has also been analyzed. Distler, Hlousek, and Kawai \[\] noticed that the local ansatz for the Jacobian, that relates the interacting measure with the free measure, works for any kind of conformal matter or, in terms of strings, for an arbitrary number of space-time dimensions. All those special features of $N=2$ string suggest that this theory is a topological quantum field theory \[,\]. In a previous work \[\], we proved that critical and subcritical $N=2$ strings are topological field theories in the sense that the (super-)coordinate BRST current algebra gives a realization of an $N=2$ superfield extension of the topological conformal algebra \[,\] for arbitrary type of conformal matter.
In this paper we want to analyze in detail the appearance of this topological conformal algebra in the case of $N=2$ super-Liouville theory by constructing an effective theory based on anomalous identities associated with the BRST and ghost number symmetries. The finite renormalization of the coupling constant will be interpreted as a one-loop order effect of the BRST invariant measure. The relation with the critical string will be also commented.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we compute the BRST and ghost number anomalies in the $N=2$ supergravity in the superconformal gauge, by using the path integral representation \[\]. The $N=2$ super-Liouville theory is constructed in Section 3 with a consideration on the covariant BRST and ghost number supercurrents. In Section 4 we derive the topological conformal algebra. In section 5 there are some conclusions and there is an Appendix about some basic facts of the $N=2$ superfield formalism.
BRST and ghost number anomalies in $N=2$ supergravity
=====================================================
In this section, we compute anomalies associated with the BRST and the ghost number supercurrents in the two-dimensional $N=2$ supergravity. We follow the path integral prescription for anomaly calculation \[\]. In the case of $N=1$ supergravity, the superfield path integral is known to be an appropriate tool to compute those anomalies \[,\]. For $N=2$ case, however, it is well-known that the action of the matter multiplet (A.4) cannot be written directly in terms of the real scalar superfield (A.8) \[\]. Therefore it is not clear how the superfield path integral is useful in the present context of the anomaly calculation.[^3][For the ghost and anti-ghost multiplet, the action can be written directly by the superfield as in (A.12). Thus the superfield path integral may work.]{}
Here we consider the path integral in the component fields. The classical gauge symmetries of the $N=2$ supergravity are the general coordinate, the local Lorentz, the $N=2$ supersymmetry, the Weyl, the super-Weyl, and the chiral transformations \[\]. We assume under our regularization, the Weyl, the super-Weyl and the chiral transformations are anomalous at quantum level. Using the non-anomalous transformations, we can fix the $N=2$ supergravity multiplet in the superconformal gauge as $$\eqalign{
&e_\mu^a=e^{\sigma/2}\delta^a_\mu,
\cr
&\chi^\pm_\mu=\gamma_\mu\phi^\pm,
\cr
&A_\mu=\epsilon_{\mu\nu}\partial^\nu\phi,
\cr
}
\ee$$ where $\sigma$ is the Liouville mode and, $\phi^\pm$ and $\phi$ are their $N=2$ superpartners.
The BRST supercurrent and ghost number supercurrent anomalies will depend on the Liouville mode $\sigma$ and their $N=2$ superpartners. As we are working in a path integral in the components, we should construct the integration variables depending on $\sigma$, $\phi^\pm$, and $\phi$ such that the integration measure is invariant under the supercoordinate transformations. This program have some difficulties, for $N=1$, see for example \[\]. Here instead we are going to use the following strategy. Let us forget about the anomalous character of the super-Weyl and the chiral transformations. By using these symmetries, we can fix the gauge $$\eqalign{
&e_\mu^a=e^{\sigma/2}\delta^a_\mu,
\cr
&\chi^\pm_\mu=0,
\cr
&A_\mu=0.
\cr
}
\ee$$ In this way, the BRST supercurrent and ghost number supercurrent anomalies will depend only on the Liouville mode. When we consider the effect of the super-Weyl and the chiral anomalies, the remaining components of the gravitino and the U(1) gauge field should appear in various anomalies. Here we [*assume*]{} that we are actually using a regularization that is invariant under the super-coordinate and the gauge transformations. Especially, we assume the invariance under the [*global*]{} super transformation: $$\eqalign{
&\delta\sigma=i\left(\alpha^+\phi^--\alpha^-\phi^+\right),
\cr
&\delta\phi=\alpha^-\phi^++\alpha^+\phi^-,
\cr
&\delta\phi^\pm
=\alpha^\pm\left(\partial\phi\pm i\partial\sigma\right).
\cr
}
\eqn\twotwo$$ To get the dependences on the remaining components of the Liouville superpartners, we will use the invariance (or covariance) under . This strategy is the same as the one for a calculation of the super-Liouville action in \[\].
The partition function of the $N=2$ supergravity in the superconformal gauge is defined by $$\eqalign{
\int\,d\widetilde\mu\,\exp\biggl\{-{1\over2\pi}\int\biggl[\,
{1\over2}&\left(
-\partial\Xmu\partialbar\Xmu
-\partial\Ymu\partialbar\Ymu
+\psiplusmu\partialbar\psiminusmu+\psiminusmu\partialbar\psiplusmu
\right)
\cr
&\qquad+b\partialbar c+\betaplus\partialbar\gammaminus
+\betaminus\partialbar\gammaplus+\eta\partialbar\xi
+({\rm c.\ c.})\,\biggr]\biggr\},
\cr
}
\eqn\twofour$$ where we defined the integration measure $d\widetilde\mu$ by $$\eqalign{
d\widetilde\mu&=
% \Di\bl e^{\sigma/2}\br
\Di\bl e^\sigma c\br
\Di\bl e^\sigma\overline c\br
\Di\bl e^{-\sigma/2}b\br
\Di\bl e^{-\sigma/2}\overline b\br
\Di\bl e^{3\sigma/4}\gammaplus\br
\Di\bl e^{3\sigma/4}\overline\gammaplus\br
\cr
&\quad\times
\Di\bl e^{3\sigma/4}\gammaminus\br
\Di\bl e^{3\sigma/4}\overline\gammaminus\br
\Di\bl e^{-\sigma/4}\betaplus\br
\Di\bl e^{-\sigma/4}\overline\betaplus\br
\Di\bl e^{-\sigma/4}\betaminus\br
\Di\bl e^{-\sigma/4}\overline\betaminus\br
\cr
&\quad\times
\Di\bl e^{\sigma/2}\xi\br
\Di\bl e^{\sigma/2}\overline\xi\br
\Di\eta
\Di\overline\eta
\Di\bl e^{\sigma/4}\psiplusmu\br
\Di\bl e^{\sigma/4}\overline\psiplusmu\br
\cr
&\quad\times
\Di\bl e^{\sigma/4}\psiminusmu\br
\Di\bl e^{\sigma/4}\overline\psiminusmu\br
\Di\bl e^{\sigma/2}\Xmu\br
\Di\bl e^{\sigma/2}\Ymu\br
\cr
&\equiv
% \Di\bl e^{\sigma/2}\br
\Di\widetilde c\,
\Di\widetilde{\overline c}\,
\Di\widetilde b\,
\Di\widetilde{\overline b}\,
\Di\widetilde\gamma^+
\Di\widetilde{\overline\gamma}^+
\Di\widetilde\gamma^-
\Di\widetilde{\overline\gamma}^-
\Di\widetilde\beta^+
\Di\widetilde{\overline\beta}^+
\Di\widetilde\beta^-
\Di\widetilde{\overline\beta}^-
\Di\widetilde\xi
\Di\widetilde{\overline\xi}
\Di\eta
\Di\overline\eta
\cr
&\qquad\times
\Di\widetilde\psi^{+\mu}
\Di\widetilde{\overline\psi}^{+\mu}
\Di\widetilde\psi^{-\mu}
\Di\widetilde{\overline\psi}^{-\mu}
\Di\widetilde X^\mu
\Di\widetilde Y^\mu.
\cr
}
\eqn\twofive$$ The various weight factors ($\exp\sigma$) in the integration measure are determined from the general coordinate (BRST) invariance of the integration measure \[,\]. In the above expression, we did not include the integration of the Liouville (or Weyl) mode $\sigma$. We will turn this point in the next section. Our starting point and are the same as the one in \[\].
We also note the above integration measure is invariant under the conformal transformation as noted in \[\]: $$\delta\phi=V\partial\phi+h\left(\partial V\right)\phi,\quad
\delta\overline\phi=V\partial\overline\phi,
\ee$$ where $h$ is the conformal weight of the generic field $\phi$.
In the path integral formulation \[\], the anomaly is generally ascribed to a non-invariance of the integration measure and the Jacobian factor associated with the anomalous transformation gives rise to the anomaly. The Jacobian factor of general conformal fields in a conformally flat background, is analyzed in \[\]. According to \[\], under an infinitesimal change of the integration variable, $\tilde\phi\rightarrow\tilde\phi+\varepsilon(x)\tilde\phi$, a logarithm of the Jacobian factor $J$ is given by $$\ln J=\pm{1\over2\pi}\int d^2x\varepsilon(x)
\left[\left(a-b\over3\right)\partial\partialbar\sigma
+M^2e^{-(2a+b)\sigma}\right],
\eqn\twoeight$$ and, for $\tilde\phi\rightarrow\tilde\phi+\varepsilon(x)\partial\tilde\phi$, $$\eqalign{
&\ln J
=\pm{1\over24\pi}\int d^2x\varepsilon(x)
\biggl[\left(b^2-4ab\right)\partial\sigma\partialbar\partial\sigma
+\left(2a-3b\right)\partialbar\partial^2\sigma
\cr
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
-12M^2\left(a+b\right)\partial\sigma e^{-(2a+b)\sigma}\biggr].
\cr
}
\eqn\twonine$$ In and , the double sign ($\pm$) corresponds to the statistics of the field $\phi$. The trace operation that is necessary to evaluate the above Jacobian factors is regularized by using an exponential type damping factor $e^{-H/M^2}$ with the regulator $H$, which is defined by $$H\equiv-\Dslash^\dagger\Dslash
\equiv-e^{a\sigma}\partial e^{b\sigma}\partialbar e^{a\sigma}.
\eqn\twonines$$ where $\Dslash$ is the kinetic operator of the field $\tilde\phi$. By rewriting the action in in terms of the integration variables in , we can read off the various values of $a$ and $b$ in for the each fields (see Table 1).
To see how our present formulation works, let us first consider the ghost number anomaly \[\]. In $N=2$ case, the ghost number current is known to be anomaly free, due to a cancellation of the background charge \[\]. The ghost number supercurrent \[\] is defined by $$\eqalign{
j_{\rm gh}(Z)&\equiv-BC(Z)
\cr
&=i\eta c+\thetaminus\left(-\eta\gammaplus+i\betaplus c\right)
+\thetaplus\left(\eta\gammaminus+i\betaminus c\right)
\cr
&\quad+\thetaminus\thetaplus\left(-\eta\xi-\betaminus\gammaplus
-\betaplus\gammaminus-bc\right)
\cr
&\equiv
j_{\rm gh}^0(z)+\thetaminus j_{\rm gh}^+(z)
+\thetaplus j_{\rm gh}^-(z)+\thetaminus\thetaplus
j_{\rm gh}^{+-}(z).
\cr
}
\eqn\twonineprime$$ We can immediately see $$\partialbar\VEV{j_{\rm gh}^0(z)}
=\partialbar\VEV{j_{\rm gh}^+(z)}
=\partialbar\VEV{j_{\rm gh}^-(z)}=0,
\eqn\twooneone$$ i.e., these currents are anomaly free. To show this, let us consider the following infinitesimal change of variables in : $$b\rightarrow b+i\varepsilon(x)\eta,\quad
\xi\rightarrow\xi-i\varepsilon(x)c.
\eqn\twoeleven$$ Note that the partition function itself does not change under a change of the integration variables. Therefore the variation of the action and the variation of the integration measure should be canceled each other, and we have the following identity: $$-{1\over2\pi}\int d^2x\varepsilon(x)
\partialbar\VEV{j_{\rm gh}^0(z)}
+\VEV{\ln J}=0,
\ee$$ where $J$ is a Jacobian factor associated with the change of variables . However, for , the Jacobian is trivial, i.e., $J=1$ and $\ln J=0$, because the variation of the field is not proportional to the field itself. Therefore $\partialbar\VEV{j_{\rm gh}^0(z)}$ is anomaly free. Similar considerations show other relations in .
A potential anomalous term in a vacuum expectation value is thus a product of the equation of motion and the conjugate field, because such a combination is proportional to the Jacobian factor of a change of variable whose variation is proportional to the field itself. In this sense the final combination $\partialbar\VEV{j_{\rm
gh}^{+-}(z)}$ is potentially dangerous. Let us consider the following change of variables: $$\eqalign{
&\delta c=\varepsilon(x)c,\quad\delta b=-\varepsilon(x)b,
\cr
&\delta\gamma^\pm=\varepsilon(x)\gamma^\pm,\quad
\delta\beta^\pm=-\varepsilon(x)\beta^\pm,
\cr
&\delta\xi=\varepsilon(x)\xi,\quad
\delta\eta=-\varepsilon(x)\eta,
\cr
}
\eqn\twothirteen$$ (more precisely, we should write down the variation of the tilded integration variables, but for , the variation of the tilded variables is proportional to the one of the untilded variables). Then we have $$-{1\over2\pi}\int d^2x\varepsilon(x)
\partialbar\VEV{j_{\rm gh}^{+-}(z)}+\VEV{\ln J}=0,
\ee$$ where $J$ is the Jacobian factor associated with the variation . From the master formula , we have $$\ln J=-{1\over4\pi}\int d^2x\varepsilon(x)
(-3+2\times2-1)\partialbar\partial\sigma=0,
\ee$$ where the contributions from the different sector \[($b$,$c$), ($\beta^\mp$,$\gamma^\pm$), and ($\eta$,$\xi$) respectively\] are separately indicated. We can see that the ghost number anomaly vanishes due to a cancellation of the background charges. Our formulation reproduces the desired answer as is expected.
Let us now turn to the anomaly associated with the conservation of the BRST supercurrent. We define the BRST supercurrent as \[\] $$\eqalign{
j_B(Z)&\equiv C\left(T^X+{1\over2}T^{\rm gh}\right)
+{1\over4}\Diminus\left[C\left(\Diplus C\right)B\right]
+{1\over4}\Diplus\left[C\left(\Diminus C\right)B\right]
\cr
&\equiv J_B(Z)+\widehat\jmath_B(Z).
\cr
}
\eqn\twosixteen$$ To see the structure of the BRST anomaly, we call the first term in the first line in as $J_B(Z)$ and the total divergence parts as $\widehat\jmath_B(Z)$. We should note here that we chose the total divergence parts $\widehat\jmath_B(B)$ (which do not affect to the BRST charge $Q_B$) by $$j_B(Z)=-\left\{Q_B,j_{\rm gh}(Z)\right\},
\eqn\twoseventeen$$ to make the BRST current manifestly BRST invariant if $Q_B^2=0$. In this sense the above choice is the most symmetric one and this choice of $\widehat\jmath_B(Z)$ is crucial for our conclusion.
We also define the components of the BRST supercurrent as $$\eqalign{
&J_B(Z)\equiv J_B^0(z)+\thetaminus J_B^++\thetaplus J_B^-(z)
+\thetaminus\thetaplus J_B^{+-}(z),
\cr
&\widehat\jmath_B(Z)\equiv\widehat\jmath_B^0(z)+\thetaminus\widehat
\jmath_B^+
+\thetaplus\widehat\jmath_B^-(z)
+\thetaminus\thetaplus\widehat\jmath_B^{+-}(z).
\cr
}
\ee$$ The explicit form of the component currents of $J_B(Z)$ becomes: $$\eqalign{
&J_B^0(z)={1\over2}c\left[\psiminusmu\psiplusmu
-i\partial(c\eta)+{1\over2}\gammaplus\betaminus
-{1\over2}\gammaminus\betaplus\right],
\cr
&J_B^+(z)=-{1\over2}c\biggl[-i\partial\Ymu\psiplusmu
+\partial\Xmu\psiplusmu-\partial\left(\gammaplus\eta\right)
+i\partial\left(c\betaplus\right)-{1\over2}i\gammaplus b
+{1\over2}\gammaplus\partial\eta
\cr
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\qquad\qquad\qquad+{1\over2}\xi\betaplus
+{1\over2}i\partial c\betaplus\biggr]
\cr
&\qquad\qquad-{1\over2}i\gammaplus\left[\psiminusmu\psiplusmu
-i\partial(c\eta)+{1\over2}\gammaplus\betaminus
-{1\over2}\gammaminus\betaplus\right],
\cr
&J_B^-(z)=-{1\over2}c\biggl[-i\partial\Ymu\psiminusmu
-\partial\Xmu\psiminusmu+\partial\left(\gammaminus\eta\right)
+i\partial\left(c\betaminus\right)-{1\over2}i\gammaminus b
-{1\over2}\gammaminus\partial\eta
\cr
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\qquad\qquad\qquad-{1\over2}\xi\betaminus
+{1\over2}i\partial c\betaminus\biggr]
\cr
&\qquad\qquad+{1\over2}i\gammaminus\left[\psiminusmu\psiplusmu
-i\partial(c\eta)+{1\over2}\gammaplus\betaminus
-{1\over2}\gammaminus\betaplus\right],
\cr
&J_B^{+-}(z)=\widetilde J_B^{+-}(z)+{3\over4}
\partial\left(c\gammaplus\betaminus+c\gammaplus\betaminus\right)
-{1\over2}\partial(c\xi\eta)
\cr
&\qquad+{i\over2}\xi\left(\psiminusmu\psiplusmu
+\gammaplus\betaminus-\gammaminus\betaplus\right)
+{i\over2}\gammaminus\partial\left(\gammaplus\eta\right)
-{i\over2}\gammaplus\partial\left(\gammaminus\eta\right)
-{1\over2}\gammaminus\gammaplus b.
\cr
}
\ee$$ In the last expression, $\widetilde J_B^{+-}(z)$ is defined by $$\eqalign{
\widetilde J_B^{+-}&\equiv
{1\over2}c\left(\partial\Xmu\partial\Xmu+\partial\Ymu\partial\Ymu
+\partial\psiminusmu\psiplusmu+\partial\psiplusmu\psiminusmu\right)
\cr
&\quad+c\left(\partial cb-{1\over2}\gammaminus\partial\betaplus
-{3\over2}\partial\gammaminus\betaplus
-{1\over2}\gammaplus\partial\betaminus
-{3\over2}\partial\gammaplus\betaminus+\partial\xi\eta\right).
\cr
}
\ee$$ Similarly, the components of the hat supercurrent $\widehat\jmath_B(Z)$ are given by $$\eqalign{
&\widehat\jmath_B^0(z)=-{i\over2}\gammaminus\gammaplus\eta
+{1\over4}c\left(\gammaplus\betaminus-\gammaminus\betaplus\right),
\cr
&\widehat\jmath_B^+(z)=-{1\over4}\partial\left(c\gammaplus\eta\right)
-{1\over4}c\partial\gammaplus\eta+{i\over2}\gammaplus\xi\eta
+{1\over4}\gammaplus\partial c\eta
-{i\over4}\gammaplus\gammaplus\betaminus
\cr
&\qquad\qquad-{1\over4}c\xi\betaplus
+{i\over4}c\partial c\betaplus
-{i\over4}\gammaplus\gammaminus\betaplus+{i\over4}\gammaplus cb,
\cr
&\widehat\jmath_B^-(z)={1\over4}\partial\left(c\gammaminus\eta\right)
+{1\over4}c\partial\gammaminus\eta+{i\over2}\gammaminus\xi\eta
-{1\over4}\gammaminus\partial c\eta
-{i\over4}\gammaminus\gammaminus\betaplus
\cr
&\qquad\qquad+{1\over4}c\xi\betaminus
+{i\over4}c\partial c\betaminus
-{i\over4}\gammaminus\gammaplus\betaminus+{i\over4}\gammaminus cb,
\cr
&\widehat\jmath_B^{+-}(z)=-{1\over2}\partial(c\xi\eta)
+{1\over4}\partial\left(c\gammaplus\betaminus\right)
+{1\over4}\partial\left(c\gammaminus\betaplus\right).
\cr
}
\eqn\twotwentyone$$ Let us start the calculation of the BRST anomaly from the first part, $\partialbar\VEV{J_B^0(z)}$. Noting the dangerous combination, i.e., a product of the equation of motion and the conjugate field, we find $$\partialbar\VEV{J_B^0(z)}
=\VEV{{1\over2}c\partialbar\left(\psiminusmu\psiplusmu\right)
+{1\over4}c\partialbar\left(\gammaplus\betaminus%
-\gammaminus\betaplus\right)}.
\ee$$ Therefore we use the following variation of the integration variables $$\delta\psiplusmu=-{1\over2}\varepsilon(x)c\psiplusmu,\quad
\delta\psiminusmu={1\over2}\varepsilon(x)c\psiminusmu,
\eqn\twotwentythree$$ to get $$-{1\over2\pi}\int d^2x\varepsilon(x)
\VEV{{1\over2}c\partialbar\left(\psiminusmu\psiplusmu\right)}
+\VEV{\ln J}=0,
\eqn\twotwentyfour$$ where $J$ is the Jacobian factor associated with the above transformation . However if we note the fact that, in our present formulation, the Jacobian factor does not depend on the U(1) charge (the superscript $\pm$) but only on the conformal weight, we can see the contributions from $\psiplusmu$ and $\psiminusmu$ cancel each other, i.e., $\ln J=0$ in . Therefore $$\VEV{{1\over2}c\partialbar\left(\psiminusmu\psiplusmu\right)}=0.
\eqn\twotwentyfive$$ From the same reason, we have $$\VEV{{1\over4}c\partialbar\left(\gammaplus\betaminus\right)}
=\VEV{{1\over4}c\partialbar\left(\gammaminus\betaplus\right)}.
\eqn\twotwentysix$$ Combining and , $$\partialbar\VEV{J_B^0(z)}=0,
\eqn\twotwentyseven$$ i.e., $J_B^0(z)$ is anomaly free.
For $\partialbar\VEV{J_B^+(z)}$, since $\VEV{-{1\over2}i\gammaplus\partialbar\left(\psiminusmu\psiplusmu
\right)}=0$, we can see, $$\partialbar\VEV{J_B^+(z)}
=\VEV{{1\over4}i\gammaplus\partialbar(cb)
-{1\over4}i\partialbar\left(\gammaplus\gammaplus\betaminus\right)
+{1\over4}i\gammaplus\partialbar\left(\gammaminus\betaplus\right)}.
\ee$$ We consider the following variations: $$\eqalign{
&\delta c={1\over4}i\varepsilon(x)\gammaplus c,\quad
\delta b=-{1\over4}i\varepsilon(x)\gammaplus b,
\cr
&\delta\gammaplus={1\over4}i\varepsilon(x)\gammaplus\gammaplus,\quad
\delta\gammaminus=-{1\over4}i\varepsilon(x)\gammaplus\gammaminus,
\cr
&\delta\betaplus={1\over4}i\varepsilon(x)\gammaplus\betaplus,\quad
\delta\betaminus=-{1\over4}i\varepsilon(x)\gammaplus\betaminus,
\cr
}
\ee$$ and obtain the following identity: $$-{1\over2\pi}\int d^2x\varepsilon(x)\partialbar\VEV{J_B^+(z)}
+\VEV{\ln J}=0.
\ee$$ From the master formula , we have $$\ln J={1\over2\pi}\int d^2x\varepsilon(x)
{i\over8}\gammaplus\partialbar\partial\sigma,
\ee$$ and then $$\partialbar\VEV{J_B^+(z)}
={i\over8}\VEV{\gammaplus\partialbar\partial\sigma}
={i\over8}\partialbar\VEV{\gammaplus\partial\sigma}.
\eqn\twothirtytwo$$ In deriving the last expression, we used a safe equation of motion, $\VEV{\partialbar\gammaplus}=0$. The equation of motion alone is always safe, i.e., the Schwinger–Dyson equation always is valid.
Similarly, for $\partialbar\VEV{J_B^-(z)}$ (by interchanging $+\leftrightarrow-$), we have $$\partialbar\VEV{J_B^-(z)}
={i\over8}\VEV{\gammaminus\partialbar\partial\sigma}
={i\over8}\partialbar\VEV{\gammaminus\partial\sigma}.
\eqn\twothirtythree$$ To evaluate $\partialbar\VEV{J_B^{+-}(z)}$, let us first consider $\partialbar\VEV{\widetilde J_B^{+-}(z)}$. We take the following variations: $$\eqalign{
&\delta\sigma=0,
\cr
&\delta\Xmu=\varepsilon(x)c\partial\Xmu,\quad
\delta\Ymu=\varepsilon(x)c\partial\Ymu,
\cr
&\delta\psi^{\pm\mu}
=\varepsilon(x)\left[c\partial\psi^{\pm\mu}
+{1\over2}(\partial c)\psi^{\pm\mu}\right],
\cr
&\delta c=\varepsilon(x)c\partial c,
\cr
&\delta b=\varepsilon(x)\biggl[
c\partial b+2(\partial c)b
\cr
&\qquad\qquad
+{1\over2}\left(\partial\Xmu\partial\Xmu
+\partial\Ymu\partial\Ymu+\partial\psiminusmu\psiplusmu
+\partial\psiplusmu\psiminusmu\right)
\cr
&\qquad\qquad
-{1\over2}\gammaminus\partial\betaplus
-{3\over2}\partial\gammaminus\betaplus
-{1\over2}\gammaplus\partial\betaminus
-{3\over2}\partial\gammaplus\betaminus
+\partial\xi\eta\biggr],
\cr
&\delta\gamma^\pm=\varepsilon(x)\left[
c\partial\gamma^\pm-{1\over2}(\partial c)\gamma^\pm\right],
\cr
&\delta\beta^{\pm}=\varepsilon(x)\left[
c\partial\beta^\pm+{3\over2}(\partial c)\beta^\pm\right],
\cr
&\delta\xi=\varepsilon(x)c\partial\xi,
\cr
&\delta\eta=\varepsilon(x)\left[
c\partial\eta+(\partial c)\eta\right].
\cr
}
\eqn\twothirtyfour$$ Then we have the following identity: $$\eqalign{
&-{1\over2\pi}\int d^2x
\biggl\{\varepsilon(x)\partialbar\VEV{\widetilde J_B^{+-}(z)}
\cr
&\qquad\qquad\quad-\partial\varepsilon(x)c\bigl[
{1\over2}\left(\psiplusmu\partialbar\psiminusmu
+\psiminusmu\partialbar\psiplusmu\right)
+b\partialbar c+\eta\partialbar\xi
\cr
&\qquad\qquad\quad%
+{3\over2}\betaplus\partialbar\gammaminus
+{1\over2}\partialbar\betaplus\gammaminus
+{3\over2}\betaminus\partialbar\gammaplus
+{1\over2}\partialbar\betaminus\gammaplus\bigr]\biggr\}
\cr
&\quad+\VEV{\ln J_1}=0,
\cr
}
\eqn\twothirtyfive$$ where $J_1$ is the Jacobian factor associated the variations . The variations cause the following variations of the integration variables: $$\eqalign{
&\delta\widetilde X^\mu=\varepsilon(x)\left[
c\partial\widetilde X^\mu
-{1\over2}c(\partial\sigma)\widetilde X^\mu\right],
\cr
&\delta\widetilde Y^\mu=\varepsilon(x)\left[
c\partial\widetilde Y^\mu
-{1\over2}c(\partial\sigma)\widetilde Y^\mu\right],
\cr
&\delta\widetilde\psi^{\pm\mu}
=\varepsilon(x)\left[c\partial\widetilde\psi^{\pm\mu}
-{1\over4}c(\partial\sigma)\widetilde\psi^{\pm\mu}
+{1\over2}(\partial c)\widetilde\psi^{\pm\mu}\right],
\cr
&\delta\widetilde c
=\varepsilon(x)e^{-\sigma}\widetilde c\partial\widetilde c,
\cr
&\delta\widetilde b=\varepsilon(x)\left[
c\partial\widetilde b
+{1\over2}c(\partial\sigma)\widetilde b
+2(\partial c)\widetilde b\right],
\cr
&\delta\widetilde\gamma^\pm=\varepsilon(x)\left[
c\partial\widetilde\gamma^\pm
-{3\over4}c(\partial\sigma)\widetilde\gamma^\pm
-{1\over2}(\partial c)\widetilde\gamma^\pm\right],
\cr
&\delta\widetilde\beta^{\pm}=\varepsilon(x)\left[
c\partial\widetilde\beta^\pm
+{1\over4}c(\partial\sigma)\widetilde\beta^{\pm}
+{3\over2}(\partial c)\widetilde\beta^\pm\right],
\cr
&\delta\widetilde\xi=\varepsilon(x)\left[
c\partial\widetilde\xi
-{1\over2}c(\partial\sigma)\widetilde\xi\right],
\cr
&\delta\eta=\varepsilon(x)\left[
c\partial\eta+(\partial c)\eta\right].
\cr
}
\ee$$ From the master formula and we have $$\eqalign{
&\ln J_1
\cr
&={1\over2\pi}\int d^2x\varepsilon(x)
\left[-{d\over3}c\partialbar\partial^2\sigma
+{d-2\over4}c\partial\sigma\partialbar\partial\sigma
-{d+6\over12}\partial c\partialbar\partial\sigma
-dM^2\partial\left(ce^\sigma\right)\right].
\cr
}
\eqn\twothirtyseven$$ For the remaining part in , we can see $$\eqalign{
&-{1\over2\pi}\int d^2x\left(-\partial\varepsilon(x)\right)
\biggl\langle
c\biggl[
{1\over2}\left(\psiplusmu\partialbar\psiminusmu
+\psiminusmu\partialbar\psiplusmu\right)
+b\partialbar c+\eta\partialbar\xi
\cr
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
+{3\over2}\betaplus\partialbar\gammaminus
+{1\over2}\partialbar\betaplus\gammaminus
+{3\over2}\betaminus\partialbar\gammaplus
+{1\over2}\partialbar\betaminus\gammaplus
\biggr]\biggr\rangle
\cr
&\quad+\VEV{\ln J_2}=0,
\cr
}
\ee$$ where the Jacobian $J_2$ is associated with $$\eqalign{
&\delta\psi^{\pm\mu}=-{1\over2}\partial\varepsilon(x)c\psi^{\pm\mu},
\cr
&\delta b=-\partial\varepsilon(x)cb,
\cr
&\delta\gamma^\pm={1\over2}\partial\varepsilon(x)c\gamma^\pm,\quad
\delta\beta^\pm=-{3\over2}\partial\varepsilon(x)c\beta^\pm,
\cr
&\delta\eta=-\partial\varepsilon(x)c\eta.
\cr
}
\ee$$ By using the master formula, $$\ln J_2={1\over2\pi}\int d^2x\varepsilon(x)
\left[-{d-12\over12}\partial\left(c\partialbar\partial\sigma\right)
-dM^2\partial\left(ce^\sigma\right)\right].
\eqn\twoforty$$ Combining the above results and , we have $$\partialbar\VEV{\widetilde J_B^{+-}(z)}
={d-2\over4}\VEV{c\left(\partial\sigma\partialbar\partial\sigma
-\partialbar\partial^2\sigma\right)}
-{3\over2}\VEV{\partial\left(c\partialbar\partial\sigma\right)}.
\ee$$ Finally we have to calculate: $$\eqalign{
&\partialbar\VEV{J_B^{+-}(z)-\widetilde J_B^{+-}(z)}
\cr
&=\partialbar\VEV{
{3\over4}\partial\left(c\gammaminus\betaplus
+c\gammaplus\betaminus\right)
-{1\over2}\partial(c\xi\eta)}
\cr
&=\partial\VEV{{3\over4}c\partialbar\left(\gammaminus\betaplus
+\gammaplus\betaminus\right)
-{1\over2}c\partialbar(\xi\eta)}
\cr
&={5\over4}\VEV{\partial\left(c\partialbar\partial\sigma\right)}.
\cr
}
\ee$$ (The calculation is similar to the ghost number anomaly.) Collecting the above considerations, we finally get $$\eqalign{
\partialbar\VEV{J_B^{+-}(z)}
&={d-2\over4}\VEV{c\left(\partial\sigma\partialbar\partial\sigma
-\partialbar\partial^2\sigma\right)}
-{1\over4}\VEV{\partial\left(c\partialbar\partial\sigma\right)}
\cr
&={d-2\over4}\partialbar\VEV{c
\left({1\over2}\partial\sigma\partial\sigma
-\partial^2\sigma\right)}
-{1\over4}\partialbar\VEV{\partial\left(c\partial\sigma\right)},
\cr
}
\eqn\twofortythree$$ where, in the final step, we used a safe equation of motion $\VEV{\partialbar c}=0$.
For the hat currents in , similar calculations show, $$\eqalign{
&\partialbar\VEV{\widehat\jmath_B^0}=0,
\cr
&\partialbar\VEV{\widehat\jmath_B^+}
=-{i\over8}\VEV{\gammaplus\partialbar\partial\sigma}
=-{i\over8}\partialbar\VEV{\gammaplus\partial\sigma},
\cr
&\partialbar\VEV{\widehat\jmath_B^-}
=-{i\over8}\VEV{\gammaminus\partialbar\partial\sigma}
=-{i\over8}\partialbar\VEV{\gammaminus\partial\sigma},
\cr
&\partialbar\VEV{\widehat\jmath_B^{+-}}
={1\over4}\VEV{\partial\left(c\partialbar\partial\sigma\right)}
={1\over4}\partialbar\VEV{\partial\left(c\partial\sigma\right)},
\cr
}
\eqn\twofortyfour$$ where, in the final step, we used safe equations of motion, $\VEV{\partialbar\gamma^\pm}=\VEV{\partialbar c}=0$.
One may summarize those identities , , , and , and in supercurrent forms: $$\eqalign{
&\partialbar\VEV{J_B(Z)}
=\partialbar\biggl\langle
{i\over8}\thetaminus\gammaplus\partial\sigma
+{i\over8}\thetaplus\gammaminus\partial\sigma
\cr
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
+\thetaminus\thetaplus\left[
{d-2\over4}c\left({1\over2}\partial\sigma\partial\sigma
-\partial^2\sigma\right)
-{1\over4}\partial\left(c\partial\sigma\right)\right]
\biggr\rangle,
\cr
&\partialbar\VEV{\widehat\jmath_B(Z)}
=\partialbar\VEV{
-{i\over8}\thetaminus\gammaplus\partial\sigma
-{i\over8}\thetaplus\gammaminus\partial\sigma
+{1\over4}\thetaminus\thetaplus
\partial\left(c\partial\sigma\right)}.
\cr
}
\eqn\twofortyfive$$ Now, as noted previously, we assumed that our regularization actually preserves the global supersymmetry . In terms of the superfield, this assumption requires the right hand sides of should behave as covariant supercurrents. Thus here we introduce the super-Liouville field by $$\Phi(Z)=\phi(z)+\theta^-\phi^+(z)
+\theta^+\phi^-(z)+i\theta^-\theta^+\partial\sigma(z),
\ee$$ where $\phi$ and $\phi^\pm$ are the remaining components of the U(1) gauge field and the gravitino respectively, and $\sigma$ is the Liouville mode. The covariant combinations which reproduce under a condition $\phi=\phi^\pm=0$ are $$\eqalign{
&\partialbar\VEV{J_B(Z)}
={d-2\over4}\partialbar\VEV{C\left({1\over2}D^-\Phi D^+\Phi
+i\partial\Phi\right)}
\cr
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-{i\over8}\partialbar
\VEV{\Diplus\left(C\Diminus\Phi\right)
+\Diminus\left(C\Diplus\Phi\right)},
\cr
&\partialbar\VEV{\widehat\jmath_B(Z)}
={i\over8}\partialbar
\VEV{\Diplus\left(C\Diminus\Phi\right)
+\Diminus\left(C\Diplus\Phi\right)}.
\cr
}
\eqn\twofortyseven$$ The above covariantizations are unique ones. Therefore if we take our definition of the BRST supercurrent , we have $$\partialbar\VEV{j_B(Z)}
={d-2\over4}\partialbar\VEV{C\left({1\over2}D^-\Phi D^+\Phi
+i\partial\Phi\right)}.
\eqn\twofortyeight$$ Here we should emphasize that the BRST anomaly in vanishes for $d=2$. In the case of $N=0$ and $N=1$ (super-)gravity, on the other hand, even if one take a BRST invariant BRST current as in , the BRST anomaly contains a additional total divergent piece \[,\], which does not proportional to $d-26$ and $d-10$ respectively. As a consequence, the BRST anomaly in $N=0$ and $N=1$ (super-)gravity does [*not*]{} vanish even in the critical dimension $d=26$ and $d=10$. The origin of the total divergent BRST anomaly is the fact that the BRST invariant path integral measure is invariant under the global BRST transformation, up to a total divergence \[\]. Therefore it generates a total divergent anomaly in general under a [ *localized*]{} BRST transformation, like . In this sense, the absence of a total divergent anomaly in is an intrinsic feature of the $N=2$ theory and suggests the topological nature of $N=2$ theory as a quantum theory.
We can also summarize the ghost number anomaly in terms of the supercurrent: $$\partialbar\VEV{j_{\rm gh}(Z)}=0.
\eqn\twofortynine$$ The anomalous identities, and will play an important role when we construct the effective covariant supercurrents in $N=2$ super-Liouville theory.
$N=2$ super-Liouville theory and the covariant supercurrents
============================================================
In the previous section, we saw that the various anomalies appear through the $\sigma$-dependences in the integration measure . Here we try to construct an effective theory which is supposedly equivalent with the original $N=2$ supergravity , by incorporating the effect of anomalies. Firstly, following a standard procedure to produce the Wess–Zumino term in the string theory \[\], we repeat an infinitesimal transformation of the integration variables. For example, we change $\widetilde X^\mu$ as $$\widetilde X^\mu\longrightarrow
\left(1+{\sigma\over2}dt\right)\widetilde X^\mu.
\eqn\threeone$$ By repeating this infinitesimal transformation up to a finite $t$, the kinetic operator of $\widetilde X^\mu$ changes to $$e^{-\sigma(1-t)/2}\partial\partialbar e^{-\sigma(1-t)/2},
\ee$$ thus all the $\sigma$ dependences in and disappear at $t=1$.
On the other hand, from the master formula , the change of variable in generates the following Jacobian: $$\ln J(t)_{\widetilde X^\mu}={d\over2\pi}dt\int d^2x\sigma\left[
-{1\over12}(1-t)\partialbar\partial\sigma+{1\over2}M^2e^{(1-t)\sigma}
\right].
\ee$$ Summing over all the contributions from various fields and by integrating $\ln J(t)$ from $t=0$ to $1$, we have the so-called Liouville action: $$\int_0^1\ln J(t)=-{2-d\over16\pi}
\int d^2x\partial\sigma\partialbar\sigma.
\eqn\threefour$$ Note that the “Liouville term,” $e^\sigma$, disappears in because of the supersymmetry of the original model.
As noted in the previous section, the Liouville action should invariant under the global super transformation . Therefore, under a supersymmetric regularization, the Liouville action should have the form \[\], $$S_{\rm Liouville}\equiv-{2-d\over16\pi}
\int d^2x\left[\partial\sigma\partialbar\sigma
+\partial\phi\partialbar\phi
-\phi^+\partialbar\phi^-
-\phi^-\partialbar\phi^+
+({\rm c.\ c.})\right].
\eqn\threefive$$ In this stage, since we have extracted the $\sigma$-dependences in the integration measure as the Liouville action , our partition function of the matter and the ghost multiplets in a fixed metric background has the following form: $$\eqalign{
\int\,d\mu\,\exp\biggl\{-{1\over2\pi}\int\biggl[\,
{1\over2}&\left(
-\partial\Xmu\partialbar\Xmu
-\partial\Ymu\partialbar\Ymu
+\psiplusmu\partialbar\psiminusmu+\psiminusmu\partialbar\psiplusmu
\right)
\cr
&\qquad+b\partialbar c+\betaplus\partialbar\gammaminus
+\betaminus\partialbar\gammaplus+\eta\partialbar\xi
+({\rm c.\ c.})\,\biggr]\biggr\},
\cr
}
\eqn\threesix$$ where $d\mu$ is a “naive” integration measure: $$\eqalign{
d\mu&=
\Di c
\Di\overline c
\Di b
\Di\overline b
\Di\gammaplus
\Di\overline\gammaplus
\Di\gammaminus
\Di\overline\gammaminus
\Di\betaplus
\Di\overline\betaplus
\Di\betaminus
\Di\overline\betaminus
\cr
&\quad\times
\Di\xi
\Di\overline\xi
\Di\eta
\Di\overline\eta
\Di\psiplusmu
\Di\overline\psiplusmu
\Di\psiminusmu
\Di\overline\psiminusmu
\Di\Xmu
\Di\Ymu.
\cr
}
\eqn\threeseven$$ From and , we have the following correlation functions of $X^\mu(Z)$, $C(Z)$, and $B(Z)$: $$\eqalign{
&\VEV{X^\mu(Z_a)X^\nu(Z_b)}=\eta^{\mu\nu}\ln Z_{ab},
\cr
&\VEV{C(Z_a)B(Z_b)}=\VEV{B(Z_a)C(Z_b)}=
{{\theta_{ab}^-\theta_{ab}^+}\over{Z_{ab}}},
\cr
}
\eqn\threeeight$$ where $Z_{ab}$ and $\theta^\pm_{ab}$ are defined by $$\eqalign{
&Z_{ab}
=z_a-z_b-\left(\theta_a^+\theta_b^-+\theta_a^-\theta_b^+\right),
\cr
&\theta^\pm_{ab}=\theta^\pm_a-\theta^\pm_b.
\cr
}
\ee$$ Our next question is the following: What is the correct expression of the ghost number supercurrent and the BRST supercurrent in the partition function ? Note that, in the partition function , we do not have any anomalies and we can always use the naive equations of motion. From the expressions of the BRST anomaly and the ghost number anomaly , we may take $$\eqalign{
&j_B(Z)\equiv C\left(T^X+{1\over2}T^{\rm gh}\right)
+{d-2\over4}C
\left({1\over2}\Diminus\Phi\Diplus\Phi+i\partial\Phi\right)
\cr
&\qquad\qquad
+{1\over4}\Diminus\left[C\left(\Diplus C\right)B\right]
+{1\over4}\Diplus\left[C\left(\Diminus C\right)B\right],
\cr
&j_{\rm gh}(Z)\equiv-BC,
\cr
}
\eqn\threeten$$ as the effective covariant supercurrents in the partition function . In , we determined the $\Phi$-dependences as to reproduce and under uses of the naive equations of motion of the matter and the ghost fields. This prescription was also applied to $N=0$ and $N=1$ (super-)gravity \[,\]. We emphasize that we obtained the anomalous identities and in the BRST invariant path integral framework \[,\], thus those expressions should reflect the (super-)coordinate covariance in the quantum theory.
In order to have a complete description of the $N=2$ quantum supergravity, we should quantize the Liouville supermultiplet. We define the partition function of the Liouville supermultiplet as $$\eqalign{
&\int\Di\left(e^{\sigma/2}\right)
\Di\left(e^{\sigma/4}\phi^+\right)
\Di\left(e^{\sigma/4}\overline\phi^+\right)
\Di\left(e^{\sigma/4}\phi^-\right)
\Di\left(e^{\sigma/4}\overline\phi^-\right)
\Di\left(e^{\sigma/2}\phi\right)
\cr
&\times\exp\left\{
-{2-d\over16\pi}\int d^2x\left[\partial\sigma\partialbar\sigma
+\partial\phi\partialbar\phi
-\phi^+\partialbar\phi^-
-\phi^-\partialbar\phi^+
+({c.\ c.})\right]
\right\},
\cr
}
\eqn\threeeleven$$ where we have chosen the weight factors ($\exp\sigma$) following the prescription in \[,\]. The full partition function is given by a product of and .
If we apply the same procedure of the derivation of also to the gravitinos $\phi^\pm$ and the gauge field $\phi$, the partition function changes to $$\eqalign{
&\int\Di\left(e^{\sigma/2}\right)
\Di\phi^+\Di\overline\phi^+\Di\phi^-\Di\overline\phi^-\Di\phi
\cr
&\times\exp\left[
-\left({2-d\over16\pi}-{1\over24\pi}\right)
\int d^2x\partial\sigma\partialbar\sigma
-{1\over4\pi}M^2\int d^2xe^\sigma
+\cdots
\right],
\cr
}
\eqn\threetwelve$$ where we only indicated the $\sigma$-dependence of the action. The integration of the Liouville field in is, on the other hand, highly non-linear because the integration variable is $e^{\sigma/2}$, not simply $\sigma$. To avoid this problem, here we apply the background field method \[,\] and include the one-loop renormalization effect arising from the non-trivial measure $e^{\sigma/2}$.
To do this, we set $e^{\sigma/2}\equiv e^{\sigma_0/2}+\varphi$ and expand the Liouville action in with respect to $\varphi$ up to the second order. If we assume the $M^2e^\sigma$ term in is canceled by a suitable counter term, the resulting action for the quantum fluctuation $\varphi$ has the same form of the action of $\widetilde X^\mu(z)$ with replacement $\sigma\rightarrow\sigma_0$. Thus, up to the one-loop order, we have additional contribution from the Liouville part itself, $${1\over16\pi}\int d^2x
\partial\sigma_0\partialbar\sigma_0
.
\ee$$ We regard this factor as the one-loop finite renormalization effect. Adding this effect to the original contribution from , and after a covariantization, we finally have $$\eqalign{
&\int\Di\sigma
\Di\phi^+\Di\overline\phi^+\Di\phi^-\Di\overline\phi^-\Di\phi
\cr
&\times\exp\left\{
-{1-d\over16\pi}\int d^2x\left[\partial\sigma\partialbar\sigma
+\partial\phi\partialbar\phi
-\phi^+\partialbar\phi^-
-\phi^-\partialbar\phi^+
+({\rm c.\ c.})\right]
\right\},
\cr
}
\eqn\threeforteen$$ where we have rewritten $\sigma_0$ as $\sigma$ and taken a naive integration measure $\sigma$ for the Liouville field, since we already include the (one-loop) quantum effect of $e^{\sigma/2}$. We should note here the coefficient in , $2-d$, changes to $1-d$ in . Since the action in has the same form as the matter supermultiplet $X^\mu(Z)$, the correlation function of the Liouville superfield $\Phi$ is given by $$\VEV{\Phi\left(Z_a\right)\Phi\left(Z_b\right)}
={4\over d-1}\ln Z_{ab}.
\eqn\threefifteen$$ As the effective covariant supercurrents in the partition function , we may take with a replacement $2-d\rightarrow 1-d$, i.e., $$\eqalign{
&j_B(Z)\equiv C\left(T^X+{1\over2}T^{\rm gh}\right)
+{d-1\over4}C
\left({1\over2}\Diminus\Phi\Diplus\Phi+i\partial\Phi\right)
\cr
&\qquad\qquad
+{1\over4}\Diminus\left[C\left(\Diplus C\right)B\right]
+{1\over4}\Diplus\left[C\left(\Diminus C\right)B\right],
\cr
&j_{\rm gh}(Z)\equiv-BC.
}
\eqn\threesixteen$$ We comment on the differences of from the analogous construction for the $N=0$ and $N=1$ (super-)Liouville cases \[,\]. The differences are i) no appearance of a correction term due to the Liouville field in the ghost number supercurrent $j_{\rm gh}(Z)$ in and, ii) no appearance of a divergence correction term in the expression of BRST supercurrent $j_B(Z)$ in . The origins of these facts are respectively, i) a vanishing of the ghost number anomaly in $N=2$ theory , ii) no appearance of the BRST anomaly which is not proportional to $d-2$ in . In fact, as is discussed in the following section, these two facts might be related each other.
We regard the whole set of the partition function and , and the effective supercurrents in as the effective theory of the two-dimensional $N=2$ supergravity, i.e., $N=2$ super-Liouville theory. The advantage of this effective theory is that we can use propagators in a flat space-time, like . Although the replacement $2-d\rightarrow1-d$ in the current operator construction in is [*ad hoc*]{}, we will check the covariance of those supercurrents by using the operator product expansion (OPE) in the next section. This shift of the parameter, $2-d\rightarrow1-d$ also appeared as the ansatz in \[\].
BRST supercurrent algebra and the topological conformal algebra
===============================================================
In this section, we show that our effective supercurrents in forms a topological conformal algebra \[,\], which appears in two-dimensional topological (conformal) field theories \[,\]. This observation was reported in our previous communication \[\].
Firstly we change the normalization of the Liouville superfield as $$\Phi(Z)\longrightarrow{2\over\sqrt{d-1}}\Phi(Z).
\ee$$ Thus the correlation function in changes to $$\VEV{\Phi\left(Z_a\right)\Phi\left(Z_b\right)}
=\ln Z_{ab},
\ee$$ and the effective BRST supercurrent changes to $$\eqalign{
j_B(Z)&=C(Z)\left(T^X+T^{\rm Liouville}+{1\over2}T^{\rm gh}\right)
\cr
&\quad+{1\over4}D^-\left[C\left(D^+C\right)B\right]
+{1\over4}D^+\left[C\left(D^-C\right)B\right].
\cr
}
\ee$$ In the above expression, we defined the Liouville energy-momentum tensor: $$T^{\rm Liouville}={1\over2}D^-\Phi D^+\Phi+\kappa\partial\Phi,
\ee$$ where $\kappa$ satisfies $$\kappa^2={{1-D}\over4}.
\ee$$
The BRST charge in the $N=2$ super-Liouville theory thus is given by $$Q_B=\int DZ\,C\left(T^X+T^{\rm Liouville}+{1\over2}T^{\rm gh}\right),
\ee$$ and, as we will see, it satisfies $Q_B^2=0$ for any $d$. Furthermore we will also see $$T(Z)=\left\{Q_B,B(Z)\right\},
\eqn\fourseven$$ where the total energy momentum tensor $T$ is defined by $$T=T^X+T^{\rm gh}+T^{\rm Liouville}.
\ee$$ At this point we examine the BRST supercurrent algebra in $N=2$ super-Liouville theory. We change the notation as $$\eqalign{
&T(Z)\equiv T(Z),
\cr
&G(Z)\equiv j_B(Z),
\cr
&\overline G(Z)\equiv B(Z),
\cr
&J(Z)\equiv j_{\rm ghost}(Z).
\cr
}
\eqn\fournine$$ For the superconformal properties, the relevant operator product expansion is (for any $d$), $$\eqalign{
T(Z_a)\Psi(Z_b)&\sim
h\,{{\theta_{ab}^-\theta_{ab}^+}\over{Z_{ab}^2}}\,\Psi(Z_b)
+{1\over{2Z_{ab}}}\left(\theta_{ab}^-D_b^+-\theta_{ab}^+D_b^-\right)
\Psi(Z_b)
\cr
&\quad+{{\theta_{ab}^-\theta_{ab}^+}\over{Z_{ab}}}
\,\partial_{z_b}\Psi(Z_b),
\cr
}
\eqn\fourten$$ where $\Psi=T$, $G$, $\overline G$, and $J$ with $h=1$, $0$, $1$, and $0$ respectively. This expression implies those operators are primary fields with the U(1) charge $0$ and the superconformal weight $h$. Especially the case $\Psi=T$ implies a vanishing of the total central charge for any $d$. Moreover the BRST supercurrent $j_B(Z)$ and the ghost number supercurrent $j_{\rm gh}(Z)$ in are primary fields. In this sense, the supercurrents in this effective theory are [*covariant*]{} in the quantum level and this desired feature suggests our construction in is reliable.
For another relations between various operators, we have (also for any $d$), $$\eqalign{
&G(Z_a)\overline G(Z_b)\sim
{1\over{2Z_{ab}}}\left(\theta_{ab}^-D_b^+-\theta_{ab}^+D_b^-\right)
J(Z_b)
+{{\theta_{ab}^-\theta_{ab}^+}\over{Z_{ab}}}
\,T(Z_b),
\cr
&G(Z_a)G(Z_b)\sim0,
\cr
&\overline G(Z_a)\overline G(Z_b)\sim0,
\cr
&J(Z_a)J(Z_b)\sim0,
\cr
&J(Z_a)G(Z_b)\sim
{{\theta_{ab}^-\theta_{ab}^+}\over{Z_{ab}}}\,G(Z_b),
\cr
&J(Z_a)\overline G(Z_b)\sim
-{{\theta_{ab}^-\theta_{ab}^+}\over{Z_{ab}}}\,\overline G(Z_b).
\cr
}
\eqn\foureleven$$ Surprisingly, in the above operator algebra, no quantum anomalous term appears and it coincides with the classically expected form. In the case of $N=0$ and $N=1$ cases \[,\], on the other hand, the quantum anomalous terms vanish only at $d=-2$ and $d=\pm\infty$ respectively. The algebra in and form a kind of the topological conformal algebra or the twisted $N=4$ superconformal algebra \[,\]. Therefore, in the $N=2$ super-Liouville theory, the super-coordinate BRST supercurrent algebra gives a representation of a $N=2$ superfield extension of the topological conformal algebra for any $d$.[^4][By comparing the conformal weight and the statistics of the each component fields, we can see that our algebra in and are not the same as the twisted $N=4$ superconformal algebras analyzed by Nojiri \[\].]{} Our observation thus suggests the topological nature of the $N=2$ super-Liouville theory (or the $N=2$ fermionic string theory) as the quantum theory.
We note that the first relation in implies , and the second relation in implies the BRST invariance of the BRST supercurrent, therefore the BRST charge is nilpotent.
The anomaly-free property of the operator algebra in and might be understood from the absence of the ghost number anomaly in $N=2$ theory: In our construction, which is analogous to the one in \[,\], the correction of the ghost number current due to the Liouville mode is determined from the ghost number anomaly. In $N=2$ case, since we have no ghost number anomaly in , the form of the effective ghost number supercurrent in has no correction due to the Liouville mode. From experiences on the $N=0$ and $N=1$ (super-)Liouville theories \[,,\], we know the following relation for the [ *effective*]{} currents: $$j_B=-\left\{Q_B,j_{\rm gh}\right\},
\eqn\fourtwelve$$ and we can see that the $(d-{\rm critical\ dimensions}+1)$ non-proportional correction of the BRST (super-)current in the left hand side is generated from the Liouville correction of the ghost number (super-)current in the right hand side. If we expect the general validity of the relation in our construction, the BRST supercurrent in the $N=2$ super-Liouville theory will not have $d-1$ non-proportional correction. Actually, we can check from the explicit form . In the BRST current algebra like in the $N=0$ and $N=1$ case \[,,\], we can also observe that the anomalous terms in the algebra arise from the above mentioned non-trivial correction of the BRST and ghost number (super-)currents. In the case of $N=2$, therefore, we may expect the anomaly free property of the operator algebra.
It is also useful to see how the critical string can be considered as a subcritical string in dimension 1 plus the Liouville superfield, in fact in this situation, $\kappa=0$ and all the operators of the effective theory coincide with the ones of the critical string, since in this case there is no restriction for the possible values of $d$.
Conclusion
==========
We computed the BRST and the ghost number anomalies in the $N=2$ supergravity in the superconformal gauge, working in a path integral in terms of the component fields. The dependences of the Liouville mode in the anomalies were directly calculated while the dependences of the Liouville superpartners were determined by using the global supersymmetry . The final results were written in terms of superfields.
The effective $N=2$ super-Liouville theory was constructed at one loop level and there is a finite renormalization of the coupling constant, i.e., from $2-d$ to $1-d$. The algebra of the operators in gives rise to an $N=2$ superfield extension of the topological conformal algebra for any value of dimensions $d$ without any anomalous terms. The crucial points for this property are the vanishing of the ghost number anomaly and the definition of the BRST supercurrent. Our observation shows an appearing of a quite simplification in the $N=2$ case and also suggests a topological nature of the $N=2$ super-Liouville theory.
The $N=2$ critical string can be considered as an $N=2$ subcritical string in dimension $1$ plus the Liouville superfield. All the above features distinguish $N=2$ string from the $N=0$ and $N=1$ strings. The physical relevance of the topological algebra is under study.
Let us recall some basic facts of $N=2$ string in the superfield formalism,[^5][We follow the notation of \[\].]{} The $N=2$ superspace is described in terms of the bosonic $(z,\overline
z)$ and the fermionic $(\theta^\pm,\overline\theta^\pm)$ coordinates. We define covariant derivatives by $$D^\pm={\partial\over{\partial\theta^\mp}}+\theta^\pm\partial,\quad
\overline D^\pm={\partial\over{\partial\overline\theta^\mp}}
+\overline\theta^\pm\overline\partial.
\ee$$ The action can be written in terms of two superfields $S^\mu(z,\overline
z,\theta^+,\overline\theta^+,\theta^-,\overline\theta^-)$ and $S^{\mu\ast}(z,\overline
z,\theta^+,\overline\theta^+,\theta^-,\overline\theta^-)$ satisfying two constraints ($\mu$ runs over $1$ to $d$): $$D^-S^\mu=\overline D^-S^\mu=0,
\ee$$ and $$D^+S^{\mu\ast}=\overline D^+S^{\mu\ast}=0.
\ee$$ The action is given by \[\] $$A=\int dzd\overline z\int
d\theta^+d\overline\theta^+d\theta^-d\overline\theta^-
S^{\mu\ast} S^\mu.
\ee$$ The solution of the equations of motion $$D^+\overline D^+S^\mu=0,\quad\overline D^-D^-S^{\mu\ast}=0,
\ee$$ can be written as $$S^\mu=S_1^\mu+S_2^\mu,
\ee$$ where $$\eqalign{
&D^-S_1^\mu=\overline D^-S_1^\mu=\overline D^+S_1^\mu=0,
\cr
&D^-S_2^\mu=\overline D^-S_2^\mu=D^+S_2^\mu=0.
\cr
}
\ee$$ A real superfield $X^\mu$ is constructed via $$X^\mu\left(z,\theta^+,\theta^-\right)
=S_1^\mu\left(z+\theta^-\theta^+,\theta^-\right)
+S_1^{\mu\ast}\left(z+\theta^+\theta^-,\theta^+\right).
\ee$$ The components of $X^\mu(Z)$ are $$X^\mu(Z)=X^\mu(z)+\theta^-\psi^{+\mu}(z)+\theta^+\psi^{-\mu}(z)
+i\theta^-\theta^+\partial Y^\mu(z),
\ee$$ where $X^\mu(z)$ and $Y^\mu(z)$ are free bosonic fields and $\psi^{\pm\mu}(z)$ are free fermions.
The contribution to the energy momentum tensor from $X^\mu$ is $$T^X(Z)={1\over2}D^-X^\mu D^+X^\mu(Z).
\ee$$ The $N=2$ string action is invariant under several local gauge transformations. We are working in the superconformal gauge. The gauge fixing generates a Faddeev–Popov determinant expressible as a superfield action using $N=2$ superfield ghost $C$ and antighost $B$: $$\eqalign{
&C\equiv c+i\theta^+\gamma^--i\theta^-\gamma^
++i\theta^-\theta^+\xi,
\cr
&B\equiv-i\eta-i\theta^+\beta^--i\theta^-\beta^+
+\theta^-\theta^+b.
\cr
}
\ee$$ The ghosts $c$ and $b$ are for the $\tau$-$\sigma$ general coordinate invariances, $\gamma^\pm$ and $\beta^\pm$ are the super ghosts for the two local supersymmetry transformations and $\xi$ and $\eta$ are the ghosts associated with the local U(1) symmetry. Their Lagrangians are the first order systems with background charge $Q$ \[\] and statistics $\epsilon$ of $(Q,\epsilon)=(-3,+)$, $(2,-)$ and $(-1,+)$ respectively. Notice that the total background ghost charge vanishes. The ghost action in terms of superfield is given by $$A_{\rm gh}={1\over\pi}\int d^2zd\theta^+d\theta^-B\overline\partial\,C
+({\rm c.\ c.}).
\ee$$ The ghost energy momentum tensor becomes $$T^{\rm gh}(Z)=\partial(CB)(Z)-{1\over2}D^+CD^-B(Z)
-{1\over2}D^-CD^+B(Z).
\ee$$ 4em
Table 1
[^1]:
[^2]:
[^3]:
[^4]:
[^5]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We consider a joint processing of $n$ independent sparse regression problems. Each is based on a sample $(y_{i1},x_{i1})\dots,(y_{im},x_{im})$ of $m$ observations from $y_{i1}=x_{i1}\t\beta_i+\eps_{i1}$, $y_{i1}\in \R$, $x_{i
1}\in\R^p$, $i=1,\dots,n$, and $\eps_{i1}\dist N(0,\sig^2)$, say. $p$ is large enough so that the empirical risk minimizer is not consistent. We consider three possible extensions of the lasso estimator to deal with this problem, the lassoes, the group lasso and the RING lasso, each utilizing a different assumption how these problems are related. For each estimator we give a Bayesian interpretation, and we present both persistency analysis and non-asymptotic error bounds based on restricted eigenvalue - type assumptions.
author:
- 'Natalia Bochkina &'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Sparse Empirical Bayes Analysis (SEBA)'
---
\#1
“…and only a star or two set sparsedly in the vault of heaven; and you will find a sight as stimulating as the hoariest summit of the Alps." R. L. Stevenson
Appendix
========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we give a direct method for calculating the partition function, and hence the equation of state (EOS) of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) at finite chemical potential and zero temperature. In the EOS derived in this paper the pressure density is the sum of two terms: the first term ${\cal P}(\mu)|_{\mu=0}$ (the pressure density at $\mu=0$) is a $\mu$-independent constant; the second term, which is totally determined by $G_R[\mu](p)$ (the renormalized dressed quark propagator at finite $\mu$), contains all the nontrivial $\mu$-dependence. By applying a general result in the rainbow-ladder approximation of the Dyson-Schwinger approach obtained in our previous study \[Phys. Rev. [**C 71**]{}, 015205 (2005)\], $G_R[\mu](p)$ is calculated from the meromorphic quark propagator proposed in \[Phys. Rev. [**D 70**]{}, 014014 (2004)\]. From this the full analytic expression of the EOS of QCD at finite $\mu$ and zero $T$ is obtained (apart from the constant term ${\cal P}(\mu)|_{\mu=0}$ which can in principle be calculated from the CJT effective action). A comparison between our EOS and the cold, perturbative EOS of QCD of Fraga, Pisarski and Schaffner-Bielich is made. It is expected that our EOS can provide a possible new approach for the study of neutron stars.
Key-words: quark-number susceptibility, phase transition
E-mail: [email protected].
PACS Numbers: 12.38.Aw, 12.38.Lg, 12.39.-x, 24.85.+p
address:
- '$^{1}$ Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China'
- '$^{3}$ Joint Center for Particle, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, Nanjing 210093, China'
author:
- 'Hong-shi Zong$^{1,2}$ and Wei-min Sun$^{1,2}$'
title: The calculation of the equation of state of QCD at finite chemical potential and zero temperature
---
The study of the partition function is at the crux of equilibrium statistical field theory (see, for example, Refs. \[1,2\]). The thermodynamic properties of a system, hence also the equation of state (EOS), are completely determined by the partition function. The calculation of the partition function of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) at finite chemical potential is a contemporary focus; e.g., Refs. \[3-9\]. In addition, it is well-known that in astrophysics the study of the neutron star depends crucially on the assumed EOS \[10,11\]. The study of EOS of QCD is thus of extreme importance. In this paper, we try to give a direct method for calculating the partition function and EOS of QCD at finite chemical potential.
The renormalized partition function of QCD at zero temperature and finite chemical potential reads $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{Z}}[\mu]&=&\int{\cal{D}}\bar{q_R}{\cal{D}}q_R{\cal{D}}A_R~\exp\left\{-S_{R}[\bar{q}_R,q_R,A_R]+\int d^4x~\mu Z_2\bar{q}_R(x)\gamma_{4}q_R(x)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $S_{R}[\bar{q}_R,q_R,A_R]$ is the standard renormalized Euclidean QCD action with $q_R$ being the renormalized quark field with three flavors and three colors, $Z_2=Z_2(\zeta^2,\Lambda^2)$ is the quark wave-function renormalization constant ($\zeta$ is the renormalization point and $\Lambda$ is the regularization mass-scale). Here we leave the ghost field term and its integration measure to be understood. The pressure density ${\cal{P}}(\mu)$ is given by $${\cal{P}}(\mu)=\frac{1}{{\cal{V}}}~\ln\cal{Z}[\mu],$$ where ${\cal{V}}$ is the four-volume normalising factor. The above equation for the pressure is just the EOS and from this one immediately obtains the quark-number density $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\mu)&=&\frac{\partial {\cal P}(\mu)}{\partial\mu}=\frac{1}{\cal{V}}\frac{1}{\cal{Z}[\mu]}\frac{\partial \cal{Z}[\mu]}{\partial\mu}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{{\cal{V}}}\frac{\int{\cal{D}}\bar{q}_R{\cal{D}}q_R{\cal{D}}A_R\int d^4x Z_2\bar{q}_R(x)\gamma_{4}q_R(x)\exp\left\{-S_R[\bar{q}_R,q_R,A_R;\mu]\right\}}{\int{\cal{D}}\bar{q}_R{\cal{D}}
q_R{\cal{D}}A_R~\exp\left\{-S_R[\bar{q}_R,q_R,A_R;\mu]\right\}},\end{aligned}$$ where $S_R[\bar{q}_R,q_R,A_R;{\mu}]\equiv S_R[\bar{q}_R,q_R,A_R]-\int d^4x~\mu Z_2\bar{q}_R(x)\gamma_{4}q_R(x)$.
On the other hand, the dressed quark propagator at finite chemical potential can be written as $$G_{Rij}[\mu](x,y)=\frac{\int{\cal{D}}\bar{q}_R{\cal{D}}q_R{\cal{D}}A_R~q_{Ri}(x)\bar{q}_{Rj}(y)\exp\left\{-S_R[\bar{q}_R,q_R,A_R;\mu]\right\}}{\int{\cal{D}}\bar{q}_R{\cal{D}}q_R{\cal{D}}A_R~\exp\left\{-S_R[\bar{q}_R,q_R,A_R;\mu])\right\}}.$$ From Eq. (4), it is easy to obtain the following $$\mathrm{Tr}\left\{G_R[\mu]\gamma_4\right\}=-\frac{\int{\cal{D}}\bar{q}_R{\cal{D}}q_R{\cal{D}}
A_R\int d^4x\bar{q}_R(x)\gamma_{4}q_R(x)\exp\left\{-S_R[\bar{q}_R,q_R,A_R;\mu]\right\}}{\int{\cal{D}}\bar{q}_R{\cal{D}}q_R{\cal{D}}A_R~\exp\left\{-S_R[\bar{q}_R,q_R,A_R;\mu]\right\}},$$ where the notation $\mathrm{Tr}$ denotes trace over the color, flavor, Dirac and coordinate space indices. Comparing Eq. (3) with (5), we obtain a well-known result (for its recent application, see, e.g. Ref. \[12\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\mu)&=&-\frac{Z_2}{{\cal{V}}}Tr\left\{G_R[\mu]\gamma_4\right\}=-N_cN_f Z_2 \int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\mathrm{tr}\left\{G_R[\mu](p)\gamma_4\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $N_c$ and $N_f$ denote the number of colors and of flavors, respectively, and the trace operation is over Dirac indices. From Eq. (6) it can be seen that the quark-number density $\rho(\mu)$ is totally determined by the dressed quark propagator at finite chemical potential. Setting $\mu=0$ in Eq. (6), one finds that the quark-number density at zero chemical potential vanishes. This is because by writing out the general Lorentz structure of $G_R[\mu=0](p)$ and performing the trace one can verify that the integrand is an odd function of $p_4$ and therefore the integration vanishes. This is what one expects in advance.
Integrating the equation $\rho(\mu)=\frac{\partial {\cal P}(\mu)}{\partial\mu}$, one obtains $${\cal{P}}(\mu)=\left.{\cal{P}}(\mu)\right|_{\mu=0}+\int_{0}^{\mu}d\mu'\rho(\mu')=\left.{\cal{P}}(\mu)\right|_{\mu=0}-N_cN_fZ_2\int_{0}^{\mu}d\mu'\int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}
\mathrm{tr}\left\{G_R[\mu'](p)\gamma_4\right\}.$$ From the above equation it can be seen that the pressure density ${\cal P}(\mu)$ is the sum of two terms: the first term ${\cal P}(\mu)|_{\mu=0}$ (the pressure density at zero $\mu$) is only a $\mu$-independent constant; the second term, which is totally determined by $G_R[\mu](p)$, contains all the nontrivial $\mu$-dependence. Here we note that formula (7) is formally model-independent. However, at present it is very difficult to calculate ${\cal P}(\mu)|_{\mu=0}$ and $G_R[\mu](p)$ from first principles of QCD. So when one uses formula (7) to calculate the EOS of QCD, one has to resort to various nonperturbative QCD models.
Over the past few years, considerable progress has been made in the framework of the rainbow-ladder approximation of the Dyson-Schwinger (DS) approach \[13-16\], which provides a successful description of various nonperturbative aspects of strong interaction physics. We naturally expect that it might be a useful nonperturbative approach in the study of EOS of QCD at finite chemical potential. In this paper we shall employ this approach.
Now let us turn to the actual calculation of $G_R[\mu](p)$. Here we apply the following general result proved in Refs. \[17,18\]: Under the rainbow approximation of the Dyson-Schwinger equation (DSE), if one ignores the $\mu$ dependence of the dressed gluon propagator (this is a commonly used approximation in calculating the dressed quark propagator at finite chemical potential \[14,17-23\]) and assumes that the dressed quark propagator at finite $\mu$ is analytic in the neighborhood of $\mu=0$, then the inverse dressed quark propagator at finite chemical potential can be obtained from the one at zero chemical potential by the following simple substitution \[17,18\]: $$G_R^{-1}[\mu](p)=G_R^{-1}({\tilde p})=i \gamma \cdot {\tilde p} A({\tilde p}^2)+B({\tilde p}^2),$$ where $\tilde{p}=(\vec{p},p_4+i\mu)$ and $G_R^{-1}(p)=i \gamma \cdot p A( p^2)+B(p^2)$ is the inverse dressed quark propagator at $\mu=0$. Here one may ask whether the quark propagator given by the above equation is valid for any $\mu$. This question has two levels, those of mathematics and physics. On the mathematical level, it should be noted that in deriving Eq. (8) we have assumed that $|\mu|$ is smaller than the radius of convergence of Taylor expansion of $G_R^{-1}[\mu](p)$ around $\mu=0$ (for details, see Ref. \[17\]). However, Eq. (8) holds in the whole domain of analyticity of $G_R^{-1}[\mu](p)$ in the complex $\mu$-plane, not only within the circle of convergence of $\mu$ expansion. This is a result of a well-known theorem in complex analysis \[24\]: Suppose each of two functions $f(z)$ and $g(z)$ is analytic in a common domain $D$. If $f(z)$ and $g(z)$ coincide in some subportion $D'\subset D$, then $f(z)=g(z)$ everywhere in $D$. On the physical level, it is generally believed that at finite $\mu$ there will be a chiral transition. In particular, in the chiral limit, this is a first order phase transition, and hence the quark mass function derived from the quark propagator will drop discontinuously to zero. This feature is not reproduced by the quark propagator in Eq. (8). Hence it should be stressed that this not happening is a pure assumption of the model employed in this paper.
According to Eq. (8), once the dressed quark propagator at $\mu=0$ is known, one can obtain the dressed quark propagator at finite $\mu$ by means of Eq. (8). Therefore, in order to calculate $G_R[\mu](p)$ using Eq. (8), one needs to specify the form of the dressed quark propagator at zero chemical potential in advance. In Ref. \[25\], guided by the solution of the coupled set of DSEs for the ghost, gluon and quark propagator in the Landau gauge, the following meromorphic form of the dressed quark propagator is proposed: $$G_R(p)=Z_2^{-1}(\zeta^2,\Lambda^2)\sum_{j=1}^{n_P} \left\{\frac{r_j}{i \not\! p +m_j}+\frac{r_j}{i \not\! p+m_j^*}\right\},$$ with $m_j=a_j+ib_j$. The propagator of this form has $n_P$ pairs of complex conjugate poles located at $a_j\pm ib_j$. When some $b_j$ is set to zero, the pair of complex conjugate poles degenerates to a real pole. The residues $r_j$ are real (note that a similar meromorphic form of the quark propagator was previously proposed in Ref. \[26\], in which the residues in the two additive terms are complex conjugate of each other). In the chiral limit, the requirement that the dressed quark propagator reduces to the free one in the large momentum limit entails that $$\sum_{j=1}^{n_P}\,r_j=\frac{1}{2}~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~\sum_{j=1}^{n_P}\,r_ja_j=0.$$ In this paper, following Ref. \[25\], we set the renormalization point to be $\zeta^2=16~\mathrm{GeV}^2$. Here it should be noted that the quark propagator (9) is obtained from a calculation going significantly beyond the rainbow approximation (for details, see Ref. \[25\]) and not necessarily a solution to the rainbow DSE for the quark propagator at $\mu=0$. However, it would be valid to assume for the moment that the quark propagator obtained by substituting (9) into Eq. (8) is an acceptable approximation for the quark propagator at finite chemical potential and see what physical results it will yield. With this in mind, from the form of $G_R(p)$ given in Eq. (9) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
G_R[\mu](p)&=&Z_2^{-1}(\zeta^2,\Lambda^2)\sum_{j=1}^{n_P}\left\{\frac{r_j}{i \not\! {\tilde p}+m_j}+\frac{r_j}{i \not\! {\tilde p}+m_j^*}\right\} \nonumber \\
&=& Z_2^{-1}(\zeta^2,\Lambda^2)\sum_{j=1}^{n_P} \left\{\frac{r_j (-i \not\! {\tilde p}+m_j)}{{\tilde p}^2+m_j^2}+\frac{r_j (-i \not\! {\tilde p}+m_j^*)}{{\tilde p}^2+m_j^{*2}}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the above equation into Eq. (6) and performing the trace, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\mu)&=& 4i N_c N_f \int \frac{d^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\sum_{j=1}^{n_P}\left\{\frac{r_j(p_4+i\mu)}{{\vec p}^2+(p_4+i\mu)^2+m_j^2}+\frac{r_j(p_4+i\mu)}{{\vec p}^2+(p_4+i\mu)^2+m_j^{*2}}\right\} \\
&=& \frac{4i N_c N_f}{(2\pi)^4}\sum_{j=1}^{n_P}\left\{r_j \int d^4 p \frac{p_4+i\mu}{{\vec p}^2+(p_4+i\mu)^2+m_j^2}+r_j \int d^4 p \frac{p_4+i\mu}{{\vec p}^2+(p_4+i\mu)^2+m_j^{*2}}\right\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Now we need to evaluate the integrals in Eq. (11). We first consider the first integral on the right-hand-side of (11) and write $$\int d^4 p \frac{p_4+i\mu}{{\vec p}^2+(p_4+i\mu)^2+m_j^2}=\int d {\vec p} \int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}d p_4 \frac{p_4+i\mu}{{\vec p}^2+(p_4+i\mu)^2+m_j^2}.$$ The integral over $p_4$ can be written as a line integral from $-\infty+i\mu$ to $+\infty+i\mu$ in the complex plane: $$\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}d p_4 \frac{p_4+i\mu}{{\vec p}^2+(p_4+i\mu)^2+m_j^2}=\int\limits_{-\infty+i\mu}^{+\infty+i\mu}dz \frac{z}{z^2+{\vec p}^2+m_j^2}.$$ The latter integral can be evaluated by means of contour integration. For this purpose we choose the following contour (see Fig. 1). The function $f(z)=\frac{z}{z^2+{\vec p}^2+m_j^2}$ has two poles in the complex plane which are located at $$z_j=\pm \sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{({\vec p}^2+\alpha_j)^2+\beta_j^2}-{\vec p}^2-\alpha_j}{2}}\pm i~ sgn(-\beta_j)\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{({\vec p}^2+\alpha_j)^2+\beta_j^2}+{\vec p}^2+\alpha_j}{2}},$$ where $m_j^2 \equiv \alpha_j+\beta_j i$ and $sgn(-\beta_j)$ denotes the sign of $-\beta_j$. Among the two poles, one lies in the upper half plane, the other lies in the lower half plane. The imaginary part of the pole in the upper half plane is $$\omega_j ({\vec p})=\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{({\vec p}^2+\alpha_j)^2+\beta_j^2}+{\vec p}^2+\alpha_j}{2}}.$$
(5,5) (2.2,2.2)[O]{} (5.0,2.5)[Re$z$]{} (2.5,5.0)[Im$z$]{} (0.0,2.5)[(1,0)[5.0]{}]{} (2.5,1.5)[(0,1)[3.5]{}]{} (1.5,3.5)[(-1,0)[1]{}]{} (2.5,3.5)[(-1,0)[1]{}]{}(3.5,3.5)[(-1,0)[1]{}]{} (4.5,3.5)[(-1,0)[1]{}]{} (0.5,2.5)[(1,0)[1.2]{}]{} (1.7,2.5)[(1,0)[0.8]{}]{}(2.5,2.5)[(1,0)[1.2]{}]{} (3.7,2.5)[(1,0)[0.8]{}]{} (4.5,2.5)[(0,1)[0.6]{}]{}(4.5,3.1)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (0.5,3.5)[(0,-1)[0.6]{}]{}(0.5,2.9)[(0,-1)[0.4]{}]{} (0.3,2.2)[$-R$]{}(4.4,2.2)[$R$]{} (2.6,3.6)[$\mu$]{} (2.5,4.25)[(1,0)[0.05]{}]{}(2.6,4.25)[$\omega_j(\vec{p})$]{} (3.5,4.25)(3.6,4.25)[$z_j$]{} (4.5,4.9)[(1,0)[0.2]{}]{} (4.5,4.9)[(0,1)[0.2]{}]{} (4.55,4.95)[$z$]{}
Here one should distinguish two cases:\
(i) $\mu<\omega_j({\vec p})$. In this case, since there are no poles inside the contour (see Fig. 1), the integral along the contour vanishes. The integral along the straight segment from $-R$ to $R$ vanishes because $f(z)$ is an odd function. In the $R\rightarrow \infty$ limit, the integral along the two vertical segments gives zero contribution because $f(z)$ vanishes at infinity. So in the $R\rightarrow \infty$ limit, the contour integral has its contribution only from $\int\limits_{R+i\mu}^{-R+i\mu} dz f(z)$. Therefore one has $$\int\limits_{-\infty+i\mu}^{+\infty+i\mu} dz f(z)=0,~~~\mu < \omega_j({\vec p}).$$ (ii) $\mu > \omega_j({\vec p})$. In this case, there is one pole inside the contour (see Fig. 2). According to the above explanation and applying the residue theorem, one has
(5,5) (2.2,2.2)[O]{} (5.0,2.5)[Re$z$]{} (2.5,5.0)[Im$z$]{} (0.0,2.5)[(1,0)[5.0]{}]{} (2.5,1.5)[(0,1)[3.5]{}]{} (1.5,4.0)[(-1,0)[1]{}]{} (2.5,4.0)[(-1,0)[1]{}]{}(3.5,4.0)[(-1,0)[1]{}]{} (4.5,4.0)[(-1,0)[1]{}]{} (0.5,2.5)[(1,0)[1.2]{}]{} (1.7,2.5)[(1,0)[0.8]{}]{}(2.5,2.5)[(1,0)[1.2]{}]{} (3.7,2.5)[(1,0)[0.8]{}]{} (4.5,2.5)[(0,1)[0.8]{}]{}(4.5,3.3)[(0,1)[0.7]{}]{} (0.5,4.0)[(0,-1)[0.8]{}]{}(0.5,3.2)[(0,-1)[0.7]{}]{} (0.3,2.2)[$-R$]{}(4.4,2.2)[$R$]{} (2.6,4.15)[$\mu$]{} (2.5,3.25)[(1,0)[0.05]{}]{}(2.6,3.25)[$\omega_j(\vec{p})$]{} (3.5,3.25)(3.6,3.25)[$z_j$]{} (4.5,4.9)[(1,0)[0.2]{}]{} (4.5,4.9)[(0,1)[0.2]{}]{} (4.55,4.95)[$z$]{}
$$-\int\limits_{-\infty+i\mu}^{+\infty+i\mu} dz f(z)=2\pi i ~\mathrm{Res}(f(z), z=z_j)=\pi i,~~~\mu > \omega_j({\vec p}).$$
Eqs. (12) and (13) can be combined into the following form $$\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}d p_4 \frac{p_4+i\mu}{{\vec p}^2+(p_4+i\mu)^2+m_j^2}=\int\limits_{-\infty+i\mu}^{+\infty+i\mu} dz f(z)=-\pi i \theta(\mu-\omega_j({\vec p})).$$ Now, when $\mu < \sqrt{\frac{\alpha_j+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}}{2}}$, one has $\omega_j({\vec p}) >\mu, \forall~ {\vec p}$, so in this case $$\theta(\mu-\omega_j({\vec p}))\equiv 0.$$ When $\mu \geq \sqrt{\frac{\alpha_j+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}}{2}}$, $\omega_j({\vec p}) <\mu$ if and only if $|{\vec p}|< (\mu^2-\frac{\beta_j^2}{4\mu^2}-\alpha_j)^{1/2}$, so in this case $$\theta(\mu-\omega_j({\vec p}))=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 , & \mathrm{when}~~ |{\vec p}|< (\mu^2-\frac{\beta_j^2}{4\mu^2}-\alpha_j)^{1/2} \\
0, & \mathrm{when}~~ |{\vec p}|>(\mu^2-\frac{\beta_j^2}{4\mu^2}-\alpha_j)^{1/2}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Therefore one has $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int d^4 p \frac{p_4+i\mu}{{\vec p}^2+(p_4+i\mu)^2+m_j^2}=-\pi i \int d {\vec p}~ \theta(\mu-\omega_j({\vec p})) \nonumber \\
&&=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
0,~ & \mathrm{when} ~\mu < \sqrt{\frac{\alpha_j+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}}{2}} \\
-\frac{4\pi^2 i}{3}(\mu^2-\frac{\beta_j^2}{4\mu^2}-\alpha_j)^{3/2},~ & \mathrm{when} ~\mu \geq \sqrt{\frac{\alpha_j+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}}{2}}
\end{array}\right. \nonumber \\
&&=-\frac{4\pi^2 i}{3}\theta(\mu-\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_j+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}}{2}})(\mu^2-\frac{\beta_j^2}{4\mu^2}-\alpha_j)^{3/2}.\end{aligned}$$ The second integral on the right-hand-side of Eq. (11) can be obtained by making the replacement $m_j^2=\alpha_j+\beta_j i \rightarrow m_j^{*2}=\alpha_j-\beta_j i$ in Eq. (15) and it is equal to the first one: $$\int d^4 p \frac{p_4+i\mu}{{\vec p}^2+(p_4+i\mu)^2+m_j^{*2}} = -\frac{4\pi^2 i}{3}\theta(\mu-\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_j+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}}{2}})(\mu^2-\frac{\beta_j^2}{4\mu^2}-\alpha_j)^{3/2}.$$ Substituting Eqs. (15) and (16) into Eq. (11) gives $$\rho(\mu)=\frac{2N_c
N_f}{3\pi^2}\sum_{j=1}^{n_P}r_j\theta(\mu-\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_j+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}}{2}})(\mu^2-\frac{\beta_j^2}{4\mu^2}-\alpha_j)^{3/2}.$$ In the numerical calculations in this paper, we use three sets of parameters given in Ref. \[25\], which represent three forms of the propagator: three real poles (3R), two pairs of complex conjugate poles (2CC) and one real pole and one pair of complex conjugate poles (1R1CC). These parameters are listed in Table I.
[Table I. The parameters used in this paper. They are taken directly from Table II of Ref. \[25\]]{}.
[16cm]{}[l@\*[8]{}[c]{}]{} Parametrization&$r_1$&$a_1$ (GeV)&$b_1$ (GeV)&$r_2$&$a_2$ (GeV)&$b_2$ (GeV)&$r_3$&$a_3$ (GeV)\
2CC&0.360&0.351&0.08&0.140&-0.899&0.463&-&-\
1R1CC&0.354&0.377&-&0.146&-0.91&0.45&-&-\
3R&0.365&0.341&-&1.2&-1.31&-&-1.06&-1.40\
The dependence of $\rho(\mu)$ on $\mu$ is plotted in Fig. 3. Just as shown in Fig. 3, the obtained quark-number density distribution differs significantly from the Fermi distribution of the free quark theory. Physically this is a consequence of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking and confinement in the low energy region. We note that when $\mu$ is smaller than a critical value $\mu_0$ ($\mu_0=351~\mathrm{MeV}$, $377~\mathrm{MeV}$ and $341~\mathrm{MeV}$ for the 2CC, 1R1CC and 3R parametrization, respectively), the quark-number density vanishes identically. Namely, $\mu=\mu_0$ is a singularity which separates two regions with different quark number densities. This result agrees qualitatively with the general conclusion of Ref. \[27\]. In that reference, based on a universal argument, it is pointed out that the existence of some singularity at the point $\mu=\mu_0$ and $T=0$ is a robust and model-independent prediction. The numerical value of the critical chemical potential in pure QCD (i.e., with electromagnetic interactions being switched off) is estimated to be $(m_N-16~\mathrm{MeV})/N_c=307~\mathrm{MeV}$ (where $m_N$ is the nucleon mass and $N_c=3$ is the number of colours). The value of the critical chemical potential obtained in this study is almost of the same order of magnitude as the estimate in that reference. This difference can be attributed to the choice of the parameters of the model quark propagator employed in this paper. In fact, as was pointed out in Ref. \[25\], the choice of the parameters of the model quark propagator (9) has some arbitrariness. We expect that our work can give further constraints on the model parameters.
Now let us calculate $\int\limits_0^\mu d\mu' \rho(\mu')$. From Eq. (17) one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\mu d\mu' \rho(\mu') &=& \frac{2N_c N_f}{3\pi^2}\sum_{j=1}^{n_P}r_j\int\limits_0^\mu d\mu'\theta \Bigg(\mu'-\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_j+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}}{2}}\Bigg)(\mu'^2-\frac{\beta_j^2}{4\mu'^2}-\alpha_j)^{3/2} \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{2N_c N_f}{3\pi^2}\sum_{j=1}^{n_P}r_j~\theta\Bigg(\mu-\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_j+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}}{2}}\Bigg)\int\limits_{\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_j+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}}{2}}}^\mu d\mu' (\mu'^2-\frac{\beta_j^2}{4\mu'^2}-\alpha_j)^{3/2} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{2 N_c
N_f}{3\pi^2}\sum_{j=1}^{n_P}r_j~\theta\Bigg(\mu-\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_j+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}}{2}}\Bigg)
I(\mu;\alpha_j,\beta_j).\end{aligned}$$ where $I(\mu;\alpha_j,\beta_j)$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
I(\mu;\alpha_j,\beta_j)&\equiv&\int\limits_{\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_j+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}}{2}}}^{\mu}d\mu^\prime\left(\mu^{\prime2}-\frac{\beta_j^2}
{4\mu^{\prime2}}-
\alpha_j\right)^{3/2}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{3(\alpha_j^2-\beta_j^2)}{16}\ln\frac{\sqrt{
\mu^2-\alpha_j/2+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}/2}+
\sqrt{\mu^2-\alpha_j/2-\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}/2}}{\sqrt{
\mu^2-\alpha_j/2+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}/2}-\sqrt{\mu^2-\alpha_j/2-
\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}/2}}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{3\alpha_j|\beta_j|}{4}\arctan\sqrt{\frac{(\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}-\alpha_j)
(\mu^2-\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}/2-\alpha_j/2)}{(\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}+\alpha_j)
(\mu^2+\sqrt{\alpha_j^2+\beta_j^2}/2-\alpha_j/2)}}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\mu^2}{4}\sqrt{\mu^4-\alpha_j\mu^2-\beta_j^2/4}
-\frac{5\alpha_j}{8}\sqrt{\mu^4-\alpha_j\mu^2-\beta_j^2/4}
+\frac{\beta_j^2}{8}\frac{\sqrt{\mu^4-\alpha_j\mu^2-\beta_j^2/4}}{\mu^2}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
Now let us turn to the calculation of ${\cal P}(\mu)|_{\mu=0}$. The rainbow-ladder approximation of DSE is the stationary point equation for the CJT effective action \[28\] which, evaluated at this stationary point, is \[29\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}(\mu)|_{\mu=0} &=& 2N_cN_f\int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\left\{\ln\left[\frac{A^2(p^2)p^2+B^2(p^2)}{p^2}\right]-\frac{p^2A(p^2)[A(p^2)-1]+B^2(p^2)}{p^2A^2(p^2)+B^2(p^2)}\right\} \nonumber \\
&=& -2N_cN_f\int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4} \bigg\{ \ln \bigg[ p^2 \bigg(p^2 \sigma_v^2(p^2)+\sigma_s^2(p^2)\bigg)\bigg]+1+p^2 \sigma_v (p^2) \bigg\},\end{aligned}$$ where $G(p)=\frac{1}{i \gamma \cdot p A(p^2)+B(p^2)} \equiv i \gamma \cdot p \sigma_v (p^2)+\sigma_s(p^2)$ is the unrenormalized dressed quark propagator at $\mu=0$. From the model quark propagator (9) one obtains $$\sigma_v(p^2)=-\sum_{j=1}^{n_P}\bigg(\frac{r_j}{p^2+m_j^2}+\frac{r_j}{p^2+m_j^{*2}}\bigg),~~~~~\sigma_s(p^2)=\sum_{j=1}^{n_P}\bigg(\frac{r_j
m_j}{p^2+m_j^2}+\frac{r_j m_j^*}{p^2+m_j^{*2}}\bigg).$$ From Eqs. (20,21) and the parameters of the model quark propagator (9) listed in Table I, one can calculate ${\cal P}(\mu)|_{\mu=0}$.
The determination of the EOS of QCD is a longstanding problem in strong interaction physics. Lattice QCD calculations and phenomenological models try to pin down a useable EOS since two decades. It is interesting to compare the EOS obtained in this paper to the EOS of QCD proposed in previous studies. Here we shall take one prominent example, the cold, perturbative EOS of QCD proposed by Fraga, Pisarski and Schaffner-Bielich in Ref. \[30\]. The pressure density to second order in $\alpha_s$ in the $\overline{MS}$ scheme obtained in Ref. \[30\] is quoted as follows $${\cal P}_{FPS}(\mu)=\frac{N_f\mu^4}{4\pi^2}\Bigg\{1-2\Big(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\Big)-\Bigg[G+N_f \ln \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}+\Big(11-\frac{2}{3}N_f \Big)\ln\frac{{\bar \Lambda}}{\mu}\Bigg]\Big(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\Big)^2\Bigg\},$$ where $G=G_0-0.536N_f+N_f \ln N_f$, $G_0=10.374 \pm 0.13$ and ${\bar \Lambda}$ is the renormalization subtraction point. The scale dependence of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s({\bar \Lambda})$ is taken as $$\alpha_s({\bar \Lambda})=\frac{4\pi}{\beta_0 u}\Bigg[ 1-\frac{2\beta_1}{\beta_0^2}\frac{\ln(u)}{u}+\frac{4\beta_1^2}{\beta_0^4 u^2}\Bigg(\Big(\ln(u)-\frac{1}{2}\Big)^2+\frac{\beta_2\beta_0}{8\beta_1^2}-\frac{5}{4}\Bigg) \Bigg],$$ where $u=\ln({\bar \Lambda}^2/\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^2)$, $\beta_0=11-2N_f/3$, $\beta_1=51-19N_f/3$, and $\beta_2=2857-5033N_f/9+325N_f^2/27$. For $N_f=3$, $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}=365~\mathrm{MeV}$. The only freedom in the model of Ref. \[30\] is the choice of the ratio ${\bar \Lambda}/\mu$, which is taken to be 2 in that reference. The perturbative EOS (22) is applicable only in the chirally symmetric phase, when the chemical potential $\mu$ is larger than $\mu_\chi$, the chiral phase transition point. A plot of our EOS and the EOS of Fraga, Pisarski and Schaffner-Bielich is given in Fig. 4. Here we note that when applying our EOS to the study of neutron star, owing to the boundary condition imposed on the surface of neutron star, the constant term ${\cal P}(\mu)|_{\mu=0}$ does not contribute to the mass-radius relation, so when comparing our EOS with that of Fraga, Pisarski and Schaffner-Bielich in Fig. 4, we do not consider this term. From Fig. 4 it can be seen that in the region of $\mu$ studied, the pressure density in the EOS of Fraga, Pisarski and Schaffner-Bielich and our EOSs (for the three parametrization of the model quark propagator) increases monotonically as $\mu$ increases. In large $\mu$ region the EOS of Fraga, Pisarski and Schaffner-Bielich and our EOSs show qualitatively similar behaviors: all of them tend to the free quark gas result as $\mu$ tends to infinity. Compared with the EOS of Fraga, Pisarski and Schaffner-Bielich, our EOSs tend somewhat more rapidly to the free quark gas result. When $\mu$ is less than about $1.8~\mathrm{GeV}$, the EOS of Fraga, Pisarski and Schaffner-Bielich and our EOSs begin to show appreciable difference: the pressure density given in our EOSs is much lower than that given in the EOS of Fraga, Pisarski and Schaffner-Bielich. Here we note that the form of our EOS depends strongly on the model quark propagator at zero $\mu$ one chooses. The parameters of the model quark propagator (9) are determined by numerical fitting \[25\] and there exist some arbitrariness in this process. In further researches we will apply our EOS to the study of neutron star and we hope that by comparing theoretical results with observational results of neutron star we can have further constraints to the parameters of our model quark propagator.
![The pressure, relative to the free quark gas pressure ${\cal P}_{\mathrm free}=N_cN_f\mu^4/(12\pi^2)$, in our EOS (18) and the EOS (22) of Fraga, Pisarski and Schaffner-Bielich[]{data-label="fig4"}](EOSREALFIG4.EPS "fig:"){width="13cm"}\
To summarize, in the study of strongly interacting matter at finite temperature and/or finite density, the knowledge of the partition function of QCD determines all the thermodynamic properties of the system. In this paper, we try to give a direct method for calculating the partition function, and hence the EOS of QCD at finite chemical potential and zero temperature. In this method the quark-number density $\rho(\mu)$ is expressed in terms of the dressed quark propagator at finite chemical potential $G[\mu](p)$, and the pressure density ${\cal P}(\mu)$ is given by the integration of $\rho(\mu)$ plus an additive constant, whose physical meaning is the pressure density at zero chemical potential ${\cal P}(\mu)|_{\mu=0}$. Because of the difficulty of calculating $G[\mu](p)$ and ${\cal P}(\mu)|_{\mu=0}$ from first principles of QCD, one has to resort to nonperturbative QCD models when applying our method. In this paper we adopt one nonperturbative QCD model, the rainbow-ladder approximation of the Dyson-Schwinger approach. In order to obtain an EOS with explicit analytical form, we choose the meromorphic model quark propagator proposed in Ref. \[25\]. Using the general result proved in the framework of the rainbow-ladder approximation of the DS approach in Refs. \[17,18\], $G[\mu](p)$ is obtained from this model quark propagator. From this the quark-number density $\rho(\mu)$ is calculated, which is found to differ significantly from the Fermi distribution of free quark theory. Physically this is a consequence of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking and confinement in the low energy region. It is found that when $\mu$ is below a critical value $\mu_0$ ($\mu_0=351~\mathrm{MeV}$, $377~\mathrm{MeV}$ and $341~\mathrm{MeV}$ for the 2CC, 1R1CC and 3R parametrization, respectively), the quark-number density vanishes identically. This feature agrees with the general conclusion in Ref. \[27\]. The value $\mu_0$ obtained here is almost of the same order of magnitude as the estimate made in \[27\] ($307~\mathrm{MeV}$). The constant ${\cal P}(\mu)|_{\mu=0}$ is also self-consistently calculated using the rainbow-ladder approximation of the DS approach. From these the full analytic expression of the EOS of QCD at finite $\mu$ and zero $T$ is obtained (apart from the constant term ${\cal P}(\mu)|_{\mu=0}$ which can in principle be calculated from the CJT effective action). A comparison between our EOS and one prominent example of the EOS of QCD, the cold, perturbative EOS of QCD proposed by Fraga, Pisarski and Schaffner-Bielich in \[30\] is made.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (under Grant No 10575050) and the Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (under Grant No 20060284020).
[**References**]{}
[\[1\]]{} J.I. Kapusta, Finite-temperature field theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989).
[\[2\]]{} M.le Bellac, Thermal Field Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).
[\[3\]]{} Z. Fodor and S. Katz, Phys. Lett. [**B 534**]{}, 87 (2002).
[\[4\]]{} M. D’Elia and M.P. Lombardo, Phys. Rev. [**D 67**]{}, 014505 (2003).
[\[5\]]{} C.R. Allton, S. Ejiri, S. J. Hands, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E. Laermann and C. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. [D 68]{}, 014507 (2003).
[\[6\]]{} R.V. Gavai and S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. [**D 68**]{}, 034506 (2003); R.V. Gavai and S. Gupta, ibid. [**D 72**]{}, 054006 (2005).
[\[7\]]{} S. Gupta and R. Ray, Phys. Rev. [**D 70**]{}, 114015 (2004).
[\[8\]]{} M. He, W.M. Sun, H.T. Feng, and H.S. Zong, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**34**]{}, 2655 (2007); W.M. Sun and H.S. Zong, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A 22**]{}, 3201 (2007).
[\[9\]]{} C.R. Allton et al., Phys. Rev. [**D 71**]{}, 054508 (2005).
[\[10\]]{} F. $\ddot{O}$zel, Nature [**445**]{}, 1115 (2006).
[\[11\]]{} M. Alford, et al., Nature [**445**]{}, E7 (2007).
[\[12\]]{} D. Nickel, J. Wambach and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. [**D 73**]{}, 114028 (2006).
[\[13\]]{} C.D. Roberts and A.G. Williams, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**33**]{}, 477 (1994), and references therein.
[\[14\]]{} C.D. Roberts and S.M. Schmidt, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**45S1**]{}, 1 (2000), and references therein.
[\[15\]]{} P. Maris and C.D. Roberts, Int. J. Mod Phys. E [**12**]{}, 297 (2003).
[\[16\]]{} R. Alkofer and L.von Smekal, Phys. Rept. [**353**]{}, 281 (2001); C.S. Fischer and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 094020 (2003), and references therein.
[\[17\]]{} H.S. Zong, L. Chang, F.Y. Hou, W.M. Sun and Y.X. Liu, Phys. Rev. [**C 71**]{}, 015205 (2005); F.Y. Hou, L. Chang, W.M. Sun, H.S. Zong and Y.X. Liu, Phys. Rev. [**C 72**]{}, 034901 (2005).
[\[18\]]{} H.T. Feng, F.Y. Hou, X. He, W.M. Sun and H.S. Zong, Phys. Rev. [**D 73**]{}, 016004 (2006); H.T. Feng, W.M. Sun, D.K He, and H.S. Zong, Phys. Lett. [**B 661**]{}, 57 (2008).
[\[19\]]{} Y. Taniguchi and Y. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 2283 (1997).
[\[20\]]{} D. Blaschke, C.D. Roberts and S. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. [**B 425**]{}, 232 (1998).
[\[21\]]{} P. Maris, C.D. Roberts and P.C. Tandy, Phys. Lett. [**B 420**]{}, 267 (1998).
[\[22\]]{} A. Bender, W. Detmold and A.W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. [**B 516**]{}, 54 (2001).
[\[23\]]{} O. Miyamura, S. Choe, Y. Liu, T. Takaishi, and A. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. [**D 66**]{}, 077502 (2002).
[\[24\]]{} See, e.g., M.J. Ablowitz and A.S. Fokas, [*Complex Variables, Introduction and Applications, 2nd ed.*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 2003) p. 122.
[\[25\]]{} R. Alkofer, W. Detmold, C.S. Fischer, and P. Maris, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 014014 (2004).
[\[26\]]{} M.S. Bhagwat, M.A. Pichowsky, and P.C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. [**D 67**]{}, 054019 (2003).
[\[27\]]{} M. A. Halasz, A. D. Jackson, R. E. Shrock, M. A. Stephanov and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. [**D 58**]{}, 096007 (1998).
[\[28\]]{} J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis, Phys. Rev. [**D 10**]{}, 2428 (1974).
[\[29\]]{} K. Stam, Phys. Lett. [**B 152**]{}, 238 (1985).
[\[30\]]{} E. S. Fraga, R. D. Pisarski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. [**D 63**]{}, 121702(R) (2001); Nucl. Phys. [**A 702**]{}, 217c (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Parameter identification problems are formulated in a probabilistic language, where the randomness reflects the uncertainty about the knowledge of the true values. This setting allows conceptually easily to incorporate new information, e.g. through a measurement, by connecting it to Bayes’s theorem. The unknown quantity is modelled as a (may be high-dimensional) random variable. Such a description has two constituents, the measurable function and the measure. One group of methods is identified as updating the measure, the other group changes the measurable function. We connect both groups with the relatively recent methods of functional approximation of stochastic problems, and introduce especially in combination with the second group of methods a new procedure which does not need any sampling, hence works completely deterministically. It also seems to be the fastest and more reliable when compared with other methods. We show by example that it also works for highly nonlinear non-smooth problems with non-Gaussian measures.'
author:
- '[Bojana V. Rosić]{}'
- '[Anna Kučerová]{}'
- '[Jan Sýkora]{}'
- '[Oliver Pajonk]{}'
- '[Alexander Litvinenko]{}'
- '[Hermann G. Matthies]{}'
bibliography:
- '\\thebib/jabbrevlong.bib'
- '\\thebib/matthies\_BU\_paper-1.bib'
- '\\thebib/phys\_D.bib'
- '\\thebib/fa.bib'
- '\\thebib/risk.bib'
date: '[December 2011]{}'
title: '[Parameter Identification in a Probabilistic Setting]{}'
---
\[2003/12/01\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Colin V. Parker'
- 'Li-Chung Ha'
- Cheng Chin
bibliography:
- 'cvppapers.bib'
title: '*In situ* observation of strongly interacting ferromagnetic domains in a shaken optical lattice'
---
In pursuit of strongly interacting ultracold atomic systems, much effort has focused on exploiting or engineering interactions capable of generating long-range ordered phases. Efforts to simulate ferromagnetism using spinor Bose gases[@Stenger:1998p1770; @Chang:2005p1771; @StamperKurn:2012p1756] have taken advantage of contact and weak dipole interactions to form domains[@Sadler:2006p1742] and spin textures[@Vengalattore:2008p1759; @Kronjager:2010p1758; @Vinit:2013p1757]. However, the characteristic timescales in such systems are long, and equilibrium can be reached only under a very narrow range of conditions[@PhysRevA.84.063625]. Long-range order has also been introduced by using cavity photons[@Baumann:2010p1755] or lattice tilting[@Simon:2011p1574] to generate interactions, but also in a non-equilibrium context.
A distinct but complementary approach has focused on the design of lattices with complex dispersion relations. The complexity of the band structure for cold atoms is now beginning to overcome the limitations of simple lattices in the ground band, and recent progress has seen more exotic lattices such as hexagonal[@SoltanPanahi:2011p1750] and kagome[@Jo:2012p1749], as well as occupation of higher bands[@Wirth:2011p1490]. One promising route toward more complicated band structures involves hybridizing the bands in a simple lattice by dynamically shaking the lattice[@Gemelke:2005p1741; @Lignier:2007p1743; @Struck:2011p1612; @Struck:2012p1739]. Experiments using this technique have created hybridized band structures with negative or near-zero tunneling coefficients[@Lignier:2007p1743], or with multiple minima at high-symmetry points in the Brillouin zone[@Struck:2011p1612].
Our experiment is based on a cesium Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of 25,000 atoms loaded into a one dimensional optical lattice (see Methods). Using lattice shaking near the ground-to-first-excited transition frequency we create a hybridized band structure with two distinct minima at momenta $k = \pm k^*$, with $k^*$ incommensurate to the lattice (see Fig. \[fig1\]). A similar dispersion has been obtained in the continuum by introducing Raman-dressed spin-orbit coupling[@Lin:2011p1764], and there have been proposals for using this type of dispersion to generate spatially ordered phases[@Wang:2010p1773; @Ho:2011p1772]. Labeling the minima as spin-up and spin-down and treating the system as a two-mode BEC yields an effective Hamiltonian, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqmain}
H & = & \sum_{\sigma = \uparrow, \downarrow} \epsilon_\sigma N_\sigma + \frac{g}{2}N^2_\uparrow + \frac{g}{2}N^2_\downarrow + 2gN_\uparrow N_\downarrow,\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_\sigma$ represents the single particle energy of each spin state, $N_\uparrow$ ($N_\downarrow$) is the number of up (down) spins, and $g=4\pi\hbar^2 a/mV$ is the interaction strength of the original gas in terms of the scattering length $a$, the mass $m$ and the effective trap volume $V$. The factor of two in the interspecies interaction arises from inclusion of both Hartree (direct) and Fock (exchange) interactions, and represents the large energy cost to support density waves when both modes are occupied. Introducing the collective spin $\vec{J}$ representation[@Dalton:2011p1762], we find the Hamiltonian for an easy-axis magnet, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqspin}
H & = & \frac{\epsilon_\uparrow+\epsilon_\downarrow}{2}N + \frac{3g}{4} N^2 + bJ_z - g J_z^2\end{aligned}$$ where $b = \epsilon_\uparrow - \epsilon_\downarrow$ is the effective field, $J_z = \frac{1}{2}\left(N_\uparrow - N_\downarrow\right)$ is the magnetization, and the first two terms are constants of motion. For bosons with repulsive interaction $g > 0$, interactions between the two spins are strongly ferromagnetic.
To demonstrate this ferromagnetism, we ramp the amplitude of lattice shaking to tune the dispersion from one with a single minimum to one with two distinct minima. We perform absorption images after $30$ ms time-of-flight (TOF) with a magnetic gradient canceling the gravitational force of the earth; see Fig. \[fig1\]c for sample images. We also average over many shots to create a density histogram, shown in Fig. \[fig1\]d. When the lattice is removed abruptly, the atoms in different spin states are projected back to free particle states, giving us an effective Stern-Gerlach measurement. For no shaking up to a shaking amplitude of about $15\textrm{ nm}$ we observe a single, narrow momentum distribution centered at zero, consistent with a regular BEC. As the shaking amplitude is increased further, we observe a bifurcation and the momentum distribution develops a two-peak structure. Note that this structure occurs after averaging over many shots to create the histogram; the majority of shots will feature all of the atoms in one state or the other, that is, fully magnetized samples. Comparing to the calculated position of the minima from numerical diagonalization (white line in Fig. \[fig1\]d, and see Supplementary Information), we find good overall agreement. In the spin language, the transition from one to two minima corresponds to a paramagnetic (PM) to ferromagnetic (FM) transition.
The complete magnetization of the sample above a critical shaking amplitude demonstrates a spontaneous symmetry breaking process. We investigate this process by testing its sensitivity to an explicit symmetry breaking term $b J_z$, see Fig. \[fig2\]. This is realized by providing the condensate a small initial velocity $v$ relative to the lattice that acts as a synthetic field $b = -2\hbar k^* v$, where $2\pi\hbar$ is the Planck constant (see Supplemental Information). For spontaneous symmetry breaking we expect to fully magnetize the sample even for symmetry breaking $b$ much less than our temperature scale or chemical potential. To quantify the sensitivity we assume atoms populate the two spin states according to a Boltzmann distribution with an effective temperature $T_\textrm{eff}$. When the lattice shaking, and thus ferromagnetism, is ramped on slowly over $100\textrm{ ms}$ we find an effective temperature of $0.7\textrm{ nK}$, well below the actual temperature of $7\textrm{ nK}$ and chemical potential $\sim 20\textrm{ nK}$. This extreme sub-thermal sensitivity shows that our system is driven into a fully ferromagnetic state by spontaneous symmetry breaking. When ferromagnetism is ramped on more quickly, the sensitivity is reduced, which is the expected behavior of a quenched ferromagnet. We can identify the importance of interactions to the symmetry breaking by changing the bias magnetic field to vary the scattering length via Feshbach resonance[@RevModPhys.82.1225]. When the scattering length is reduced from $35\textrm{ }a_0$ to $27\textrm{ }a_0$, with $a_0$ the Bohr radius, we observe a less sensitive transition, which confirms that spin interactions depend on the scattering length.
When a ferromagnet is cooled in the absence of an external bias field, domain formation is expected. Here too we observe that with the smallest symmetry breaking applied, or rapid ramping of the ferromagnetic interaction, we can form domains. Once the shaking has ramped on, and the domains have formed, the confining potential or other sources can no longer move atoms across the barrier to the other spin state. Therefore, total magnetization (i.e. total quasimomentum) will be conserved. Figure \[fig3\]a shows the domain structure at 5 ms TOF for a typical situation when ferromagnetism is ramped on slowly (over $100$ ms). A more detailed reconstruction of the original domain structure can be accomplished by taking advantage of the information in the Bragg peaks (see Supplementary Information). Such domains are further proof of the symmetry breaking nature of our system. As one might expect for a ferromagnet, the nature of these domains depends on the conditions in which they were formed. When ferromagnetism is ramped on slowly over $100$ ms, we observe larger domains, with boundaries typically oriented in the same direction (Fig. \[fig3\]c). When the ramping is done as a quench, over $10$ ms, we observe a greater number of smaller domains, with less predictable orientation (Fig. \[fig3\]d). Our result is consistent with the Kibble-Zurek mechanism in the sense that faster ramps yield shorter range correlations.
To quantify difference in domain size and shape, we compute the density-weighted magnetization correlator[@Sadler:2006p1742], $$\begin{aligned}
G(\delta \mathbf{r}) = \frac{\left\langle\int j_z(\mathbf{r})j_z(\mathbf{r}+\delta \mathbf{r})d\mathbf{r}\right\rangle}{\left\langle\int n(\mathbf{r})n(\mathbf{r}+\delta \mathbf{r})d\mathbf{r}\right\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ and $j_z$ denote number and magnetization densities, and angle brackets denote an average over multiple trials. We distinguish between single and multiple domain samples (see Supplemental Information). For fully polarized domains we expect $G(0) = 1$, however, we obtain $G(0) = 0.6$ for single-domain samples, which can be explained by a $10\%$ uncertainty in state identification. $G(0)$ is even lower for samples with domains due to the observed domain wall size, which is limited by atom dynamics during the 5 ms TOF. Along the short trap axis, the correlations in samples with slow ramping are both stronger (indicating fewer domain boundaries) and longer range (indicating larger domains) compared with quenched samples. In quenched samples the correlations are roughly isotropic due to the random orientation of domains. In samples with slow ramping and multiple domains, the correlation along the long trap axis drops off abruptly at about $10 \textrm{ }\mu\textrm{m}$ or 20 lattice spacings, see Fig. \[fig3\]. Our analysis of $G(r)$ demonstrates that long-range spin correlations can be established, and that domains boundaries prefer to align along the short trap axis when ferromagnetism is turned on slowly.
To fully investigate the emergence of domains from a single mode condensate, we measure the spatial and momentum distribution of the atoms after a sudden ($5\textrm{ ms}$) quench across the ferromagnetic transition. Figure \[fig4\]a shows images at various hold times following the quench and for different TOF, revealing that immediately following the quench the atoms have not yet moved appreciably from their original momentum distribution, and therefore in unstable equilibrium at zero momentum. Over the course of about $10$ ms, the atoms displace from this maximum into the minima on either side in a complex and dissipative manner, eventually completely depopulating the zero momentum state (see Fig. \[fig4\]a). The dissipative dynamics indicate that energy must flow into other degrees of freedom, for example the kinetic energy in the transverse (non-lattice) directions. Observation of fast mixing between the spin and motional degrees of freedom demonstrates that our spin-spin interactions are strong and will drive the system towards equilibrium on short timescales.
Given the quantum nature of our magnetic domains, which are characterized by complex order parameters $e^{ik^*x}\Psi(x)$ and $e^{-ik^*x}\Psi(x)$, where $\Psi(x)$ is the bosonic field operator, we expect spatial interference if they were made to overlap. We do indeed see interference at intermediate times hold times for *in situ* and $5\textrm{ ms}$ TOF images. Figure \[fig4\]b shows the fast Fourier transform of the atomic density averaged over multiple 5 ms TOF images, showing a peak at wavevector $0.27 k_L = 0.9k^*$, where $k_L = 2\pi/\lambda_L = 2\pi/{1064\textrm{ nm}}$ is the lattice momentum. This signal, at half the expected wavevector for interference between the two domains, is consistent instead with interference between either domain and the remnant population at zero momentum. The interference grows in strength as the hold time increases and the system relaxes from the quench, reaching a peak at $\sim 10$ ms. This supports our interpretation, as at longer times the system nears equilibrium, domains have formed and there is no remnant population at zero momentum. Because our three dimensional condensate is thicker than the depth of focus of the imaging system, we lack the resolution to detect interference at $2k^*$. We also note that the interference is weaker for *in situ* images compared with those taken at 5 ms TOF. This suggests that as the condensate begins to relax toward the two minima, it has already begun to break up in real space to reduce density corrugation. With a time-of-flight image, the domains pass over one and other, allowing us to visualize the quantum inference more clearly.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated a novel method for creating and observing long-range magnetic order using a double-well band structure created by near-resonant lattice shaking. We are able to modify the dispersion quite significantly with only minimal heating. With increasing shaking strength we can realize a paramagnetic to ferromagnetic transition. The ferromagnetic state can support multiple domains, and is extremely sensitive to the symmetry breaking field. Using lattice shaking to tune band structure has important implications for the simulation of various ordered states in solid systems, where Fermi surface shape and topology can play a very important role. The same double well used here would have a nested Fermi surface and be expected to undergo a charge density wave transition[@Shankar:1994p1745], for example. Furthermore, the near-resonant shaking technique is easily extendable to two or three dimensions, or other atomic species, which can be Fermionic and/or contain multiple accessible internal states. Thus near resonant shaking opens the door to a variety of exciting possibilities for quantum simulation.
Methods
=======
Lattice loading
---------------
Our experiment begins by evaporating and loading a $^{133}\textrm{Cs}$ BEC into a three dimensional optical dipole trap with trapping frequencies of $8.6$, $19.1$, and $66.9$ Hz in three directions, with the tightest trapping in the direction of gravity and imaging[@Hung:2008p1751]. The atoms are then loaded into a one-dimensional optical lattice at $35^\circ$ to the in-plane trapping directions, where the final atom number is between 20,000 and 30,000 at a temperature of 7 nK. After the atoms are loaded into the optical lattice, a sinusoidal shaking is turned on with a linear ramp of between $5$ and $100$ ms. After the shaking is ramped on, we shake the atoms for 50-100 ms before performing an *in situ* image or extinguishing all lattice and trapping light for a time-of-flight image. Moderate heating is observed during the lattice shaking, resulting in a lifetime of 1 s. Our optical lattice is formed by reflecting one of the dipole trap beams back on itself after passing through two oppositely oriented acousto-optic modulators (AOMs). The lattice modulation is accomplished by frequency modulating the driving radio frequency (around a carrier of $80$ MHz) for the paired AOMs, which changes the relative phase, and therefore the optical path length, between the AOMs (see Supplemental Information).
Lattice shaking
---------------
To realize a double-well dispersion, we use a periodic shaking of the optical lattice at a frequency near the ground band to first excited band transition at zero quasi-momentum. This shaking allows the two bands to mix, creating a competition between the positive curvature of the ground band and the negative curvature of the excited band, as shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. For our experiments we use a laser wavelength $\lambda_L = 1064\textrm{ nm}$ (lattice spacing $532\textrm{ nm}$) and lattice depth $V = 7.0 \textrm{ }E_R$, where $E_R = h^2/2m\lambda_L^2$ is the lattice recoil energy. This yields a zero momentum band gap of $5.0\textrm{ }E_R$. We apply the shaking at a slightly blue-detuned frequency of $7.3 \textrm{ kHz} = 5.5\textrm{ }E_R/h$, which gives the least heating when the double-weel dispersion is formed. The solid black curves in Fig. \[fig1\]b show the lowest two bands without shaking in the dressed atom picture. To confirm that the bands will mix to create a double-well potential, we have numerically computed the hybridized Floquet states for several different shaking amplitudes and the results agree well with the experiment (see Supplemental Information).
Acknowledgements
================
We thank Chung-Kuan Lin for assistance in the early stages of the experiment. We acknowledge useful discussions with N. Gemelke, I. Spielman, A. Rançon, H. Zhai, and G. Baym. This work was supported by NSF MRSEC (DMR-0820054), NSF Grant No. PHY-0747907 and ARO Grant No. W911NF0710576 with funds from the DARPA OLE Program.
Author contributions
====================
L.-C.H. performed the experiments. L.-C.H. and C.V.P. analyzed the data and C.V.P. wrote the manuscript. C.C. supervised. We declare no competing financial interest.
![**Ferromagnetic transition in a shaken optical lattice with double-well dispersion** (a) Dispersion $E(k)$ of the first two bands in an optical lattice, hybridized using near-resonant shaking. (b) Expanded view of the hybridized ground band in the paramagnetic case with no shaking (black), the ferromagnetic case with strong shaking (blue), and the critical case (red). (c) Single shot images (at $30$ ms TOF) of $\sim 25,000$ Cs atoms in the lattice with different shaking amplitudes. (d) Momentum distribution along the lattice direction as a function of peak-to-peak shaking amplitude $\Delta x$, averaged over 10 trials at each amplitude. The TOF position is used to determine the momentum in lattice units $k_L = 2\pi/\lambda_L$, where $\lambda_L = 1064\textrm{ nm}$ is the optical lattice wavelength. The white line is the calculated location of the dispersion minimum. We ramp on the shaking amplitude over 50 ms followed by an additional 50 ms of constant shaking.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1.pdf){width="3.4"}
![**Sensitivity of the ferromagnetic transition to explicit symmetry breaking** (a) We control the energy imbalance $\Delta E$ with a small initial velocity $v$ of the atoms relative to the lattice. For short times the imbalance is given by $\Delta E = -b = 2\hbar k^*v$. (b) Average density profile along the lattice direction as a function of imbalance with $100\textrm{ ms}$ ramping time and scattering length $a = 35\textrm{ }a_0$. (c) Average momentum as a function of imbalance under three different conditions: ramping time $100\textrm{ ms}$ with $a = 35\textrm{ }a_0$ (black) or $a = 27\textrm{ }a_0$ (green), and ramping time $10\textrm{ ms}$ with $a = 35\textrm{ }a_0$ (red). The solid lines are fits to a thermal distribution, with effective temperatures $T_{\rm eff}$ of $0.7$, $1.2$, and $2.9\textrm{ nK}$. The sample has temperature $T = 7\textrm{ nK}$ and chemical potential $\mu \sim 20\textrm{ nK}$. Atoms were held at constant shaking amplitude $\Delta x = 65 \textrm{ nm}$ for $100\textrm{ ms}$ following the ramp.\[fig2\]](Fig2.pdf){width="3.4"}
![**Ferromagnetic domains and spin correlations** (a) Image taken after 5 ms TOF, showing lattice Bragg peaks. (b) Reconstructed density and magnetization using Bragg peaks (see Supplementary Information). (c) Three representative magnetization images with $100\textrm{ ms}$ ramping time. (d) Three representative magnetization images with $10\textrm{ ms}$ ramping time. (e) Density-weighted magnetization correlator $G(r)$ along the long and short trapping directions: The average of $\sim 10$ single domain samples with 100 ms ramping time (black), $\sim 10$ multi-domain samples with $100\textrm{ ms}$ ramping time (blue), and $\sim 20$ multi-domain samples with $10\textrm{ ms}$ ramping time (red). Atoms were held at constant shaking amplitude $\Delta x = 65\textrm{ nm}$ for $100\textrm{ ms}$ following the ramp. []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3.pdf){width="3.4"}
![**Quench dynamics and magnetic domain interference** (a) Single shot images taken *in situ* and with 5 ms and 30 ms TOF, at several hold times following a 5 ms quench into the ferromagnetic state. (b) Spatial power spectrum along the lattice direction from images with 5 ms TOF, averaged over 20 shots. A peak appears at $k^* = 0.27 k_L$ for the first 10 ms. The shaking amplitude was $\Delta x = 65 \textrm{ nm}$. []{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4.pdf){width="3.4"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Shogo H. Nakakita\
Graduate School of Engineering Science, Osaka University
- |
Masayuki Uchida\
Graduate School of Engineering Science and MMDS, Osaka University
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Inference for ergodic diffusions plus noise
---
=1
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work was partially supported by Overseas Study Program of MMDS, JST CREST, JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP17H01100 and Cooperative Research Program of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The analytical description of the dynamics in models with discrete variables (e.g. Ising spins) is a notoriously difficult problem, that can be tackled only under some approximation. Recently a novel variational approach to solve the stationary dynamical regime has been introduced by Pelizzola \[Eur. Phys. J. B, 86 (2013) 120\], where simple closed equations are derived under mean-field approximations based on the cluster variational method. Here we propose to use the same approximation based on the cluster variational method also for the non-stationary regime, which has not been considered up to now within this framework. We check the validity of this approximation in describing the non-stationary dynamical regime of several Ising models defined on Erdos-Rényi random graphs: we study ferromagnetic models with symmetric and partially asymmetric couplings, models with random fields and also spin glass models. A comparison with the actual Glauber dynamics, solved numerically, shows that one of the two studied approximations (the so-called ‘diamond’ approximation) provides very accurate results in all the systems studied. Only for the spin glass models we find some small discrepancies in the very low temperature phase, probably due to the existence of a large number of metastable states. Given the simplicity of the equations to be solved, we believe the diamond approximation should be considered as the ‘minimal standard’ in the description of the non-stationary regime of Ising-like models: any new method pretending to provide a better approximate description to the dynamics of Ising-like models should perform at least as good as the diamond approximation.'
author:
- Eduardo Domínguez Vázquez
- Gino Del Ferraro
- 'Federico Ricci-Tersenghi'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography\_dynamics.bib'
title: 'A simple analytical description of the non-stationary dynamics in Ising spin systems'
---
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
Dynamics is an important issue in almost every field of science, ranging from physics and biochemistry to neuroscience and social engineering [@barthelemy2008dynamical; @castellano2009statistical; @boccaletti2006complex]. Nature and society have shown to be rich of systems presenting collective behaviour of many interacting agents. Neural networks and brain behaviour, gene regulatory networks, flocking or generally living systems and active matter are just few examples. Within statistical mechanics, a fundamental theory for the study of these systems, a satisfactory description of the time evolution of a many-particle system remains one of the most difficult subjects [@vankampen; @balescu1975equilibrium]. The core challenge is that even in cases where the microscopic processes guiding the dynamics are given, going from a very general statement like a master equation to a practical solution is usually unfeasible. This is due to the unavoidable difficulties of the exponential growth of the size of the state space with the number of particles and time intervals considered [@del2015dynamic; @lokhov2014dynamic].
For what concerns graphical models [@koller2009probabilistic; @wainwright2008graphical], as for instance disordered model defined on graph topologies [@mezard1990spin; @mezard2009information], in recent years there has been a sustained effort in the modelling of their dynamical behaviour for both dense and dilute networks [@semerjian2004stochastic]. Many concepts have been introduced in a natural analogy with the equilibrium theory, e.g. dynamical replica analysis [@hatchett2005dynamical; @mozeika2009dynamical], cavity method [@kiemes], dynamic message-passing algorithm [@Neri2009; @aurell2012dynamic; @del2015dynamic; @lokhov2014dynamic], large deviation [@del2014perturbative; @altarelli2013large], TAP approaches [@roudi2011dynamical] and extended Plefka expansion for continuous variables [@bravi2015extended]. Despite all these advances, the issue is far from being settled and there is an active community searching for approximate methods that accurately reproduce numerical results from stochastic simulations [@barthel2015matrix].
Recently Pelizzola in Ref. [@pelizzola2013variational] has extended a simple variational technique based on a generalization of the cluster variational method (CVM) [@kikuchi61] to describe the stationary dynamical regime of Ising-like systems. The results obtained in Ref. [@pelizzola2013variational] are extremely accurate, given the simplicity of the equations to be solved.
Here we claim that the same approximation based on CVM should be equally good in describing the non-stationary/transient regime, which is far more important in many applications, where the system under study is strongly out-of-equilibrium or in a changing environment.
To prove our claim we compare the analytical approximate solution with the actual Glauber dynamics solved running a large number of Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The comparison we make is extremely accurate since we check several microscopic observables (single spin magnetizations and two-point correlations in space and time), and not only macroscopic observables (global magnetization and energy).
The manuscript is organized as follows. In section \[sec:variational\_kik\_pel\] we review the main ideas of a variational formulation of dynamics in discrete time. In the following section \[sec:kinetic\] we define the kinetic Ising model and its dynamic evolution. In section \[sec:results\] the main numerical results obtained after applying the variational formulation to this model are presented and discussed in relation to MC simulations and another recently proposed approximation called dynamic message passing (DMP) with 1-step Markov memory [@del2015dynamic]. Finally, we discuss our findings in section \[sec:discussion\] and close with two appendices including complementary technical details.
A variational formulation of dynamics in discrete time {#sec:variational_kik_pel}
======================================================
In this section we briefly sketch the approach formalized by R. Kikuchi in [@kikuchi61] and recently adapted and improved by A. Pelizzola in [@pelizzola2013variational]. The method relies on a generalization of the equilibrium cluster expansion technique (also known as cluster variational method [@kikuchi; @pelizzola05]) to include dynamical processes. One of the advantages of this approach is that it gives a scheme for a hierarchy of approximations with increasing accuracy, always deducing the dynamical equations from a variational principle. Hereafter we will follow the notation of [@pelizzola2013variational].
Let $\mathbf{s}^t=\left\lbrace s_1^t\ldots s_N^t\right\rbrace$ be the set of variables that describe the state of a system at time $ t\in \left[0\ldots t_f\right]$. If the evolution in time is stochastic, all the statistical information up to time $t_f$ is contained in the joint probability distribution of the histories, $P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})$. This object is in itself untractable for large systems since it takes a number of values $O(A^{N\times t_f})$ where $A$ is the typical cardinality of the variable $s_i$. Several probability distributions depending on different subsets of variables will be used in this paper, all being marginals of the master probability $P$. In order to lighten notation, all of them will be written with the symbol $P$ and distinguished only by their arguments.
We will focus on the commonly studied case of Markovian dynamics: $$P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t-1},{\mathbf{s}}^t)=W({\mathbf{s}}^t|{\mathbf{s}}^{t-1}) P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t-1})
\label{eqn:markov1}$$ or, equivalently: $$P({\mathbf{s}}^t)=\sum_{{\mathbf{s}}^{t-1}}W({\mathbf{s}}^t|{\mathbf{s}}^{t-1}) P({\mathbf{s}}^{t-1}), \;\; \qquad\mbox{given} \:\:P({\mathbf{s}}^0). \label{eqn:markov2}$$ Equations and are assumed valid for any $t\in [1..t_f]$.
In Physics it is always convenient to derive the fundamental relations from a variational principle. The cost in terms of abstraction is greatly compensated by the comprehension of the internal structure of the theory in question. In this case, the central role is played by a functional $\mathcal{F}\left[P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})\right]$ introduced by Kikuchi in [@kikuchi61] and defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}\left[P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})\right]=\sum_{{\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f}}P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})
\left[- \sum_{t=1}^{t_f} \ln W({\mathbf{s}}^{t}| {\mathbf{s}}^{t-1})+\ln P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})\right]
\label{eqn:kikuchifreeenergy}\end{aligned}$$ The functional $\mathcal{F}$ takes as an argument the joint probability distribution $P$ and has a structure resembling that of a Gibbs free energy from equilibrium statistical mechanics. The most interesting property of (\[eqn:kikuchifreeenergy\]) is that if it is minimized in the space of $P$ taking into account the marginalization constraint: $$\sum_{{\mathbf{s}}^1,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f}}P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})=P({\mathbf{s}}^0)
\label{eqn:marg_constraint}$$ the time evolution equation (\[eqn:markov1\]) is recovered. This is, the probability distribution that minimizes $\mathcal{F}$ is actually the one corresponding to the dynamic of the system. For completeness this procedure is described in Appendix \[app:kikuchi\_minimization\].
The technical difficulty of computing $P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})$ exactly is not reduced by the previous result, but it suggests a possible source of approximations. For example, some kind of mean field or factorization of $P$ can be proposed which amounts to minimizing $\mathcal{F}$ in a restricted subspace of distributions. In Kikuchi’s original paper [@kikuchi61], the joint probability distribution was parametrized in terms of two-times and single time probabilities. Cluster expansion of the functional was then used to find approximations to the real probability distribution. An approach that appears more promising was proposed recently in [@pelizzola2013variational]. The latter, also inspired by the cluster variational method, makes an approximation to (\[eqn:kikuchifreeenergy\]) obtained as a sum of the contributions of similar functionals written for the most correlated variables. Let us see this in more detail for a specific example.
In what follows we focus on locally tree-like topologies (i.e. random graphs) since we are interested in applications where dynamical discrete variables do interact via a diluted graphical model. For our purposes, it is useful to think at the dynamic evolution as a set of copies of the original system, one for each time, that interact according to the transition matrix $W({\mathbf{s}}^t|{\mathbf{s}}^{t-1})$. Furthermore, for a model with short range interactions and a Markovian dynamics the probability distribution of $s_i^t$ depends only on the previous time state of the variables it interacts with ($s_{\partial i}^{t-1} \equiv \{s_k^{t-1}\}_{k\in\partial i}$), where $\partial i$ denotes the subset of variables neighbours of $i$. For ease of computation, we assume the state of $s_i^t$ not to depend on $s_i^{t-1}$: this is what happens, for example, in the heat-bath dynamics. Dependence of $s_i^t$ on $s_i^{t-1}$ can be introduced without any conceptual change [@PelizzolaPretti2017] and must be included if one is interested in other dynamics, as for example those in epidemic models.
We also assume that the spin transitions are independent events, or equivalently, that the transition matrix can be factorized as follows $$W({\mathbf{s}}^t|{\mathbf{s}}^{t-1})=\prod_{i=1}^{N} W_i(s_i^t|s_{\partial i}^{t-1}).
\label{eq:transition_matrix_factorized}$$ This choice corresponds to the so-called ‘parallel dynamics’ in Monte Carlo simulations. Under the above assumptions we can write $$P(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1})=W_i(s_i^t|s_{\partial i}^{t-1}) P(s_{\partial i}^{t-1})\,.
\label{eqn:exact_evolution}$$
According to the prescription of the CVM, a first attempt to approximate the complete $\mathcal{F}$ may start from approximating the probability distribution in as a product of cluster probabilities. In the case of Markovian dynamics, we expect that the largest correlations between the variable $i$ at time $t$ and its neighbours at the previous time are encoded in clusters $A_i^{t}=(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1})$. Therefore, following the CVM prescription, one can take $A_i^{t}$ as maximal cluster and expand the entropy term in . The result is a new definition for an approximated functional $ \mathcal{F}_S$ that is variational in the set of all cluster probability distributions $\left\lbrace P(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1})\right\rbrace_{t=1,\ldots,t_f}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}_S[\left\lbrace P(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1})\right\rbrace_{t=1,\ldots,t_f}]=&&
\sum_{i,t>0}^{t_f} \sum_{s^t_i,s_{\partial i}^{t-1}} P(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1})
\left[- \ln W_i(s^{t}_i| s^{t-1}_{\partial i})+\ln P(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1})\right]\nonumber\\
&&-\sum_{i,t>0}^{t_f-1} d_i \sum_{s^t_i} P(s_i^t)\ln P(s_i^t)\label{eqn:starfreeenergy}
-\sum_{i} (d_i-1) \sum_{s^0} P(s_i^0)\ln P(s_i^0)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $d_i$ is the degree of vertex $i$, that is the number of neighbors of spin $s_i$. First note that the first term on the RHS of (\[eqn:starfreeenergy\]) is just a sum of functionals identical in structure to (\[eqn:kikuchifreeenergy\]) but each one restricted to the set of variables $A_i^{t}=(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1})$. These sets, in the CVM language, are the maximal regions at this level of approximation. The meaning of the second and third term is simple: since the sets $A_i^{t}$ overlap, some single variable contributions must be substracted in order to count each only once. This is the standard situation in the context of CVM. This particular choice of variables included in $A_i^{t}$ is called *star* approximation in [@pelizzola2013variational].
The next step is to minimize this functional constrained to a set of consistency relations which are equivalent to (\[eqn:marg\_constraint\]): $$\begin{aligned}
P(s_i^t)&=& \sum_{s_{\partial i}^{t-1}} P(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1})\\
P(s_j^{t-1})&=& \sum_{s^{t}_i,s_{\partial i \setminus j}^{t-1}} P(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1}).\end{aligned}$$ The final result is that the minimizing probabilities obey the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
P(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1})&=& W_i(s^{t}_i| s^{t-1}_{\partial i})\prod_{j\in \partial i} P(s_j^{t-1})\label{eqn:star_evolution1}\\
P(s_i^t)&=&\sum_{s_{\partial i}^{t-1}} W_i(s^{t}_i| s^{t-1}_{\partial i})\prod_{j\in \partial i} P(s_j^{t-1})
\label{eqn:star_evolution2}\end{aligned}$$ A convenient feature of equation (\[eqn:star\_evolution2\]) is that once the probabilities at a given time are known, the next generation of distributions are generated using this simple prescription. The aforementioned relations have been obtained before [@hard_spin; @Petermann; @DeLosRiosPetermann] as an improved mean field theory but the approximations were then made on intuitive grounds. The comparison between the approximate equation and the exact dynamics shows that the star approximation amounts to assume that all the spins $s_{\partial i}$ neighbours of $i$ are probabilistically independent and therefore one expect it to be more accurate in the high temperature regime.
Much in the same way the *diamond* approximation [@pelizzola2013variational] is derived. The fundamental idea is to include longer correlations in the time dynamics. This can be done, to some extent, taking into account correlations coming from $s_{\partial i}^{t-1}$ and previous interactions with other variables in the network. As can be easily seen, all variables in $s_{\partial i}^{t-1}$ interact with $s_{i}^{t-2}$ so, for the variable $i$, this should be the main source of correlation. The new region-based functional will take as fundamental elements all the groups in the maximal set, the diamond cluster $B_i^{t}=\left\lbrace s_i^{t}\cup s_{\partial i}^{t-1}\cup s_i^{t-2}\right\rbrace $. So, following the CVM recipe, one can approximate the full joint probability by a product of cluster probabilities with the new maximal set $B_i^{t}$. The final result after constraint minimization reads
$$P(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1},s_i^{t-2})=W_i(s^{t}_i| s^{t-1}_{\partial i})\left[\prod_{j\in \partial i} P(s_j^{t-1},s_i^{t-2})\right] \left[P(s_i^{t-2})\right]^{1-d_i}
\label{eqn:diamond_evolution1}$$
and can be turned, alternatively, in $$P(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1},s_i^{t-2})=W_i(s^{t}_i| s^{t-1}_{\partial i})\left[\prod_{j\in \partial i} P(s_j^{t-1}|s_i^{t-2})\right] P(s_i^{t-2}),
\label{eqn:diamond_evolution2}$$ where the standard definition for conditional probabilities $P(s_j^{t-1},s_i^{t-2}) = P(s_j^{t-1}|s_i^{t-2}) P(s_i^{t-2})$ is used.
As for the previous cluster expansion, we get a set of equations that can be iterated in time. The results obtained using this second proposal are expected to improve those from the star approximation, the reason being that the factorization in the star anzats is refined by conditioning on the state of the common neighbor, compare (\[eqn:star\_evolution1\]) and (\[eqn:diamond\_evolution2\]).
Let us observe that neither the maximal cluster in the star approximation, i.e. $A_i^{t}=(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1})$, nor the maximal cluster in the diamond approach $B_i^{t}=\left\lbrace s_i^{t}\cup s_{\partial i}^{t-1}\cup s_i^{t-2}\right\rbrace $ includes the state $s_i^{t-1}$. This is because one of our working assumptions is that the state of a spin at time $t$ does not depend on the same spin at time $t-1$. For other dynamical rules where the state $s_i^{t-1}$ can determine directly the state of $s_i^{t}$, e.g. in epidemic models, one would need to include also $s_i^{t-1}$ in the cluster constructions to account the effect of such interaction [@PelizzolaPretti2017].
The kinetic Ising model {#sec:kinetic}
=======================
The numerical test of the approximations introduced in the previous section that we perform, in this contribution, is made for the kinetic Ising model, typically used as a prototype to investigate spin dynamics. This model is defined as a set of $N$ Ising spins $s_i=\pm1$ placed on the vertices of a graph $G$ that describes the topology of the interactions $J_{ij}$, plus a rule for the time evolution of these variables [^1]. We will consider a parallel Glauber dynamic [@Glauber63] by means of a transition matrix of the form , where for each spin $i$ we have: $$\label{eq:rate_w}
W_i(s_i^t|s_{\partial i}^{t-1})=
\dfrac{\exp \left[\beta s_i^t\left(h_i^t + \sum_{j\in \partial i} J_{ji} s_j^{t-1}\right) \right]}
{2\cosh \left[\beta \left(h_i^t + \sum_{j\in \partial i} J_{ji} s_j^{t-1}) \right)\right]}$$ with $\beta$ and $h_i^t$ being respectively the inverse temperature and an external local field at time $t$. The behavior of this model depends essentially on two features. On the one hand, the topology of the interaction graph $G$, whether it is a lattice, a random graph, fully connected, etc, and on the other, the symmetry of the interactions $J_{ij}$. Hereafter, according to the literature, we denote *symmetric* those graphs having $J_{ij} = J_{ji}$ and *partially asymmetric* or *asymmetric* those graphs for which $J_{ij} \neq J_{ji}$. Depending on these properties, the system may, for example, not satisfy detailed balance conditions or reach a stationary state different from thermal equilibrium [@aurell2011message]. In any case, the variational formalism can be straighforwardly applied to different levels of approximation. In the rest of this section we present the results of the star and the diamond for this model.
All equations in the star approximation can be expressed in terms of single site probabilities, which are parametrized using local magnetizations: $P(s_i^t)=\frac{1+m_i^t s_i^t}{2}\;$ where $\;m_i^t=\sum_{s_i^t} s_i^t P(s_i^t)$. Local magnetizations are then all the information that is kept at this level. The time propagation in this case can be recast from (\[eqn:star\_evolution2\]) in the following compact form: $$m_i^t=\sum_{s_{\partial i}^{t-1}}\tanh \beta \Big( h_i^t + \sum_{j\in \partial i} J_{ji} s_j^{t-1} \Big) \prod_{j\in \partial i} \dfrac{1+m_j^{t-1}s_j^{t-1}}{2}.$$ Some non trivial correlations can be estimated once we obtain single site magnetizations, for example, nearest neighbour disconnected correlation at consecutive times is directly derived from equation (\[eqn:star\_evolution1\]) if $k\in \partial i$ $$\label{eq:star_corr}
c_{i,k}^{t,t-1}=\langle s_i^{t}s_k^{t-1} \rangle=\sum_{s_{\partial i}^{t-1},s_i^{t}}s_i^{t}s_k^{t-1}{W\left(s_i^t\, \arrowvert \,s_{\partial i}^{t-1}\right)}
\prod_{j\in \partial i}\dfrac{1+m_j^{t-1}s_j^{t-1}}{2}$$ and the connected correlation can be computed accordingly to $$\left(c_{i,k}^{t,t-1}\right)_c=c_{i,k}^{t,t-1}-m_i^t m_k^{t-1}$$ For the diamond approximation, in addition to single site probabilities we need to consider the joint distribution of nearest neighbors at consecutive times. The evolution of the system is reduced to the propagation in time of a set of equations relating these variables (see (\[eqn:diamond\_evolution1\])): $$P(s_i^t,s_j^{t-1})=\sum_{s_{\partial i \setminus j}^{t-1},s_i^{t-2}}W_i(s^{t}_i| s^{t-1}_{\partial i})\left[\prod_{j\in \partial i} P(s_j^{t-1},s_i^{t-2})\right] \left[P(s_i^{t-2})\right]^{1-d_i}
\label{eqn:diamond_evolution_marginalized}$$ The correlation between nearest neighbors is, in this case, part of the set of variables and not a deduced quantity as in the star case. This is a fundamental advantage that will provide much more accurate predictions, as will be shown with numerical simulations in the Section \[sec:results\] . An algorithm can be easily written to iterate equation (\[eqn:diamond\_evolution\_marginalized\]). Alternatively, one can use the magnetization and correlation instead of propagating probabilities, which are always a bit redundant because of normalization constraints. The choice is a tradeoff between space in memory (larger when storing probabilities) and simulation time (longer when marginalizing to find magnetization and correlation). Probabilities and moments are related as usual by the following $$P(s_i^t,s_j^{t-1}) = \dfrac{1}{4}\left( 1 + m_i^t s_i^t + m_j^{t-1} s_j^{t-1} + c_{i,j}^{t,t-1} s_i^t s_j^{t-1}\right)$$ This last expression can be plugged in to obtain iterative equations for the magnetization and correlations which we use for the numerical implementation.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In this section we numerically test the accuracy of the star and diamond approximation illustrated in Section \[sec:variational\_kik\_pel\] on the kinetic Ising model presented in Section \[sec:kinetic\] and relate these results with MC simulations. The numerical analysis is done on a Erdos-Rényi random graph topology for two ferromagnetic models and two different disorder models as the Random Field Ising Model [@imry1975random] and the Viana-Bray Spin Glass [@viana1985phase].
In general, the only exact procedure available for a statistical description of the set of states generated by the dynamic evolution of a system is precisely the explicit construction of this set of states. This is usually done via stochastic simulations, i.e. Monte Carlo (MC), or molecular dynamics. Accuracy in both methods is obtained by paying a cost in terms of computational effort. For example, in non-equilibrium MC simulations, accurate averages are computed by summing over a very large number of dynamical trajectories. This amounts to run the algorithms many times with different choices for the initial conditions and different sets of random numbers for the acceptance-rejection rule. All this has a cost that increases linearly with the number of runs $N_r$, whereas statistical errors decrease as $N_r^{-1/2}$.
At this point approximate algorithms like the ones described in the previous sections become very useful. These are one-run algorithms in the sense that, given the initial condition $P(s^0)$, the corresponding set of equations is solved only once, moving forward in time. This simplification comes at the cost of having only a reduced set of parameters, like the local magnetization or nearest neighbours correlations, to describe the statistics of the systems. Nevertheless, it is worth investigating the conditions and models where this approximations can be useful. In [@pelizzola2013variational] some results are shown for the stationary behaviour of the star and diamond approximation in contrast to MC simulations and other equivalent methods. A kinetic Ising spin model with asymmetric interactions is analyzed on finite dimensional lattices as well as on a random regular graph. Those results show that for the stationary state (for asymmetric interactions equilibrium in the thermodynamical sense is not attained) the diamond approximation gives the best estimates of single site magnetization among all approaches considered. In what follows we show that this family of approximations based on the CVM well describes also the transient regime of the microscopic variables for some symmetric and asymmetric tree-like networks.
Symmetric and partially asymmetric ferromagnet {#sec:ferromagnet}
----------------------------------------------
In this subsection we compare numerical results for the star, diamond and DMP 1-step Markov memory [@del2015dynamic] approximations on an Erdos-Rényi random graph (ERRG) with $N=10^3$ sites and a mean connectivity $c=3$. The accuracy of these methods is then compared with MC simulations averaged on $10^6$ runs.
The typical computational time of the approximations described in the previous sections with the aforementioned simulation parameters is of order of a few minutes on a desktop PC whereas the MC simulation time takes much longer, of the order of several hours.
Simulations are started from a state far from equilibrium; all spins set in the same direction. In Figure \[fig:global\_mag\_sym\_low\] we report the time evolution of the global magnetization for a ferromagnet with symmetric interactions ($J_{ij}=J_{ji}=\frac{1}{c}$) at low temperature. The predictions for the first time steps are almost the same for all methods considered. However, for longer times the diamond approximation obtains a much better estimate of this global average. In the high temperature phase all the three approximations are almost indistinguishable to MC and therefore we do not report these results here.
To test the accuracy of the approximations for local observables, in Figure \[fig:local\_mag\_error\_sym\_low\] we report a plot of an overall measure of the distance between the set of approximated local magnetizations computed with the different approaches and the MC results for the same quantities. The initial conditions are the same as those in Figure \[fig:global\_mag\_sym\_low\]. The mean deviation $\delta m(t)$ is defined as: $$\delta m(t)=\sqrt {\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N}(m_i^A(t)-m_i^{MC}(t))^2}{N}}
\label{eqn:delta_m}$$ where $m_i^A(t)$ stands for the approximated local magnetization by using one of the approaches reported. It confirms that the diamond approximation typically finds local magnetization with an error around $10^{-3}$ for a quantity that is $\mathcal{O}(1)$ in a ferromagnetic state. For a MC simulation with $10^6$ runs the statistical error for the local magnetization is also near $10^{-3}$ which means that the error made by the diamond approach is almost indistinguishable from MC fluctuations. The long term agreement for the symmetric network is indeed not surprising since the diamond solution in the stationary case coincides with the belief propagation solution [@pelizzola2013variational], known to be very accurate on tree-like topologies. The transient behaviour, on the other hand, is usually more difficult to reproduce and this simple method gives very good estimates in this region.
Since the basic variable sets defined in the context of each approximation contain several spins at different positions and times, some two-point correlations are easily derived. For instance, in Figure \[fig:corr\_sym\_low\] nearest neighbour correlations are computed according to for the star, to for the diamond and by using the formulation described in Appendix \[app:DMP\] for the dynamic-message passing approach. At this stage it is worth remembering that parallel dynamics runs two histories that are independent from each other, e.g. nearest neighbors *at the same time* never have a common spin in their respective histories. Therefore the only possible source of correlation between them is the initial condition. On the other hand, a spin and its nearest neighbour at one-time distance are strongly correlated since they appear simultaneously in the update equations for the probabilities (see equation ). Figure \[fig:corr\_sym\_low\] shows that the diamond approximation, contrarily to the other methods, in addition to the magnetization well reproduces also the out-of-equilibrium behaviour of correlation functions for this symmetric model. The same method also allows a straightforward computation of the autocorrelations at time $t$ and $t-2$, as reported in equation , and results for this quantity are shown in Figure \[fig:autocorr\_sym\_low\]. The same observables cannot be computed by using the star approximation, because it is not included in any CVM region. A similar numerical analysis as the one presented for the ferromagnet with symmetric interactions can be done for asymmetric networks. We consider here the dynamic evolution of the kinetic Ising model for a partially asymmetric ferromagnet. This model is best described by a directed graph where interacting spins $(i,j)$ are connected by two directed edges with opposite directions and different interaction strengths, say $J_{ij}=1/c$ and $J_{ji}=1/4c$. For each edge, the direction with the stronger coupling is chosen uniformly randomly and independently from the other edges. Results for the dynamic evolution of the global magnetization at low temperature are illustrated in Figure \[fig:global\_mag\_asym\_low\]. The diamond approximation, as in the previous symmetric case, outperforms the other methods. Comparing to the symmetric ferromagnet case (see Fig. \[fig:global\_mag\_sym\_low\]), the DMP approach with 1-step Markov memory improves the dynamic reconstruction, whereas the star approximation worsens. In the high temperature regime the star approximation quantitatively deviates from the MC simulations whereas both diamond and DMP provide more accurate results. We do not report these outcomes here because are of less interest compared to the low temperature case. In Figure \[fig:local\_mag\_error\_asym\_low\] we also report the error in the computation of local magnetizations. As for the symmetric case, the diamond approximation outperforms the other approximations and typically finds local magnetization with a relative error of less than $0.5\%$.
\[fig:asym\_mag\_error\]
The dynamics of connected correlations at high and low temperature for this model is reported respectively in Figure \[fig:corr\_asym\_high\] and \[fig:autocorr\_asym\_low\]. The star approximation deviates from MC simulations already for high temperatures and its numerical results gets progressively worsen by lowering the temperature. The DMP 1-step Markov memory performs better at high temperatures but deviate from MC simulations at low temperature, especially in the out-of-equilibrium transient. The diamond approximation performs very well in both cases being almost indistinguishable from MC simulations for the high temperature case. Note that the equilibration value of the correlation in Figure \[fig:corr\_asym\_high\] is not negligible, signaling the vicinity of a phase transition where correlations are larger.
Random Field Ising Model and Viana-Bray Spin Glass {#sec:RFIM_SG}
--------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we report the numerical results obtained by applying the variational approach illustrated in Section \[sec:variational\_kik\_pel\] on the Random Field Ising Model [@imry1975random] and the Viana-Bray Spin Glass [@viana1985phase] compared with the dynamic message-passing approach and MC simulations.
The RFIM is a paradigmatic disordered model where the disorder is not encoded topologically in the randomness of the coupling interactions $J_{ij}$ but rather in a random external local field $h_i$ acting on each spin within the network. It represents one of the simplest models that exhibits cooperative behaviour with quenched disorder and can be considered, somehow, complementary to the Ising spin glass. The energy function at equilibrium for this model is $H(\boldsymbol{s}) =- \sum_{(ij)} J s_i s_j - \sum_i h_i s_i$. The presence of the random external local field antagonizes the ordering effect due to ferromagnetic couplings and therefore one expects a lowering of the transition temperature increasing the magnitude of the local field. For low enough fields, or low enough temperatures, the system is found in a ferromagnetic phase, whereas, in the opposite limits, it is found in a paramagnetic one. For the dynamical simulations of this model, we use the Glauber transition rate of equation with $J_{ij} = J_{ji} = 1/c$ and a random local external field constant in time, *i.e.* $h_i^t = h_i = \pm 0.3$, extracted from a bimodal distribution.
Similarly to the symmetric ferromagnetic case of Section \[sec:ferromagnet\], the dynamics of the global magnetization at high temperature is well recovered by all the approximations at any time and therefore is not reported here. In Figure \[fig:magn\_RFIM\_low\] we show the global magnetization at low temperatures, *i.e.* below the critical transition, which by a population dynamics calculation [@Doria201558] can be estimated around $T_c=0.78$ for the value of $h_i$ used. Except for very short times, both the star and the DMP 1-step Markov memory approximation deviates from MC simulations whereas the diamond approximations well reproduces the behaviour of this observable at every time in the dynamics. Two-times connected correlation functions are illustrated in Figure \[fig:corr\_RFIM\_low\]. The diamond approximation, also in this case, remains the most performing approximation, almost indistinguishable from MC simulations.
As last example for the numerics, we test the accuracy of the approximation on the dynamics of the Ising spin glass Viana-Bray model [@viana1985phase]. Contrarily to the RFIM, the Ising spin glass presents topological disorder in the *quenched* couplings $J_{ij}$ which are sampled randomly from either a gaussian or a bimodal distribution. The presence of both positive and negative couplings in the networks generates a very irregular energy landscape. This difference - respect to the previous analyzed models - enriches very much the physics of this system which shows a spin glass phase transition in addition to the ferromagnetic transition seen for the previous models.
For our dynamical investigation, we study the time evolution of the kinetic Ising spin glass with transition rate defined in with couplings $J_{ij} = \pm 1/c$ chosen from a bimodal distribution and zero external local field, in the spin glass phase for the temperature $T=0.25$. The critical temperature for the spin glass transition is $T_{SG}=0.506$. In Figure \[fig:SG\] we report the dynamical evolution of the global magnetization for this case obtained by starting from an initial configuration with $m_i= 0.5$ for each site $i$. Due to the parallel dynamic update rule used in this contribution and discussed in Section \[sec:kinetic\], both the global and the local magnetization show an oscillatory behaviour for the spin glass case therefore, in Figure \[fig:SG\] we only show the behaviour for even times. The DMP 1-step Markov memory approach well recovers the transient behaviour only for very short times of the dynamics and then very quickly converges to the equilibrium value of the global magnetization $m=0$. Also the star approximation shows a good accuracy only for very short times and its results for the long time behaviour are far from MC simulations (as in the other models the star approximation always returns a too large magnetization).
At variance with these methods, the diamond approximation shows a much better agreement with MC results, both for the short and long time dynamics. In the high temperature regime (see Figure \[fig:magn\_SG\_high\]) its results are almost indistinguishable from MC simulations whereas, lowering the temperature, its performances becomes progressively worse for long time dynamics (see Figure \[fig:magn\_SG\_low\]).
The decrease of accuracy of the diamond approximation in the SG phase, compared to all the previous cases where it works perfectly, can be understood by the following argument. Spin glass models are known to have many different *states*, i.e. kinds of long range order, in the low temperature phase. Although in each state the local magnetizations are strongly different from zero, their sign change chaotically from state to state; such that, if an average over the states is performed, mean local magnetizations are very close to zero. So, while the dynamics locally develops one (or few) type of order, having a sensibly non-zero magnetization, the diamond approximation takes the average over all possibile dynamical trajectories and predicts a much smaller magnetization (see right panel in Fig. \[fig:magn\_SG\_low\]).
The CVM-based approximations we are studying here are not designed to take into account the many states present in a spin glass phase; they assume the joint probability distribution can be factorized as in a single thermodynamical pure state. In the spin glass jargon, these approximations are replica symmetric. The replica symmetry can be broken within the CVM framework [@rizzo2010replica] and this probably leads to a better approximation for the dynamics in a spin glass phase [@lage2014message]. We leave this subject for a future study.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this contribution we have proposed to extend to the non-stationary/transient dynamical regime of Ising-like models the simple variational approach introduced in [@kikuchi61] and recently improved in [@pelizzola2013variational] so far used to approximate only the stationary regime.
This simple variational formulation is based on two key steps: (i) the construction of a non-equilibrium functional depending on the joint probability distribution of spin histories and (ii) the approximation of this probability according to the prescription given by the cluster variational method. The minimization of the approximated functional, under the constraint of marginalization consistency for the probabilities, leads to simple iterative equations for the joint probabilities of local variables. These iterative equations allow for a computationally very efficient estimation of both macroscopic observables (e.g. global magnetization and energy) and microscopic local observables (e.g. single spin magnetizations, two-times and two-points correlations).
In [@pelizzola2013variational] this approach was shown to give good results for the equilibrium (or in general, stationary) states and to outperform existing methods in the literature. Here we have tested this approximation for the analytical description of *non-stationary* dynamics of several Ising models defined on a random graph topology: ferromagnets with both symmetric and partially asymmetric couplings, random field models and spin glasses.
The numerical validation has been achieved by a detailed comparison of local microscopic observables (single spin magnetizations and two-times and/or two-spins correlations) with data obtained from extensive Monte Carlo simulations of the dynamics. We have found that the *star approximation* in general predicts a too large magnetization: this is probably due to the fact it enforces only self-consistency between single spin magnetizations and, since mean-field approximations tend to stabilize metastable states, the evolution under the star approximation may get easily stuck in a metastable state with a too large magnetization. On the contrary the *diamond approximation* is extremely accurate in all the models studied even at low temperature. The only situation where it fails to follow the exact dynamical evolution is the low temperature phase of a spin glass model: we believe this is due to the presence of many states, a feature not taken into account by the diamond approximation (which is essentially a replica symmetric approximation in the spin glass jargon).
We have included in the comparison also a method presented in [@del2015dynamic] known as dynamic message-passing 1-step Markov memory, that performs in general worst than the diamond approximation. Instead the method presented in [@barthel2015matrix] has not been included in the comparison because it is computationally much more demanding; it would be not very fair to compare the goodness of methods that require very different computational resources.
It is worth stressing that the vast majority of the computational time in this work has been dedicated to run a very large number of Monte Carlo simulations to achieve a small error on microscopic observables; the solution of the mean-field equations for star and diamond approximations takes roughly the same running time of a single Monte Carlo trajectory, and the latter approximation outputs mean values for microscopic observables as accurate as Monte Carlo in many cases. So, in situations where the mean-field approximation is not too crude, the use of the computationally heavy Monte Carlo method can be safely avoided.
The main conclusion is that the diamond approximation is extremely effective in describing the non-stationary regime of the dynamics of Ising models on random graphs. We think that the prominence of the approach studied here, besides its good results, resides in its simplicity, the intuitive ground from which it is derived, on its cheap computational cost and the possibility of extending it to include high order correlations (ignored in the simplest mean-field approximations). We believe that these features may allow for an easy and immediate application of the method to the investigation of non-equilibrium dynamics of other systems, as for instance biological and social systems.
**Acknowledgements.** We thank Erik Aurell for comments and a careful reading of the manuscript. We also acknowledge Alejandro Lage-Castellanos, Roberto Mulet, Alessandro Pelizzola and Marco Pretti for useful comments and discussions. This work has been partially supported by the STINT project Enhancing cooperation opportunities with Havana University through the Erasmus Programme actions(ED) and has been funded under FP7/2007-2013/Grant No. 290038 (GDF) and by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No \[694925\]).
Constrained minimization of $\mathcal{F}$ functional {#app:kikuchi_minimization}
====================================================
As stated in section \[sec:variational\_kik\_pel\], the dynamic obeyed by a system can be obtained from a constrained minimization of the $\mathcal{F}[P]$ functional, defined in equation (\[eqn:kikuchifreeenergy\]). We will rewrite it here for more clarity: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}\left[P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})\right]=\sum_{{\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f}}P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})
\left[- \sum_{t=1}^{t_f} \ln W({\mathbf{s}}^{t}| {\mathbf{s}}^{t-1})+\ln P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})\right] \end{aligned}$$ The argument of this functional is the joint probability distribution of the histories of all variables. This probability must be consistent to the initial condition $P(s^0)$ from which the system evolves: $$\sum_{{\mathbf{s}}^1,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f}}P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})=P({\mathbf{s}}^0)
\label{eqn:constraint2}$$ The standard procedure to solve this kind of problems is the method of Lagrange multipliers. The Lagrange function in this case reads: $$\mathcal{L}[P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})]=\mathcal{F}[P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f})] - \sum_{{\mathbf{s}}^0} \lambda({\mathbf{s}}^0) \left(\sum_{{\mathbf{s}}^1,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f}}P({\mathbf{s}}^0,\ldots,{\mathbf{s}}^{t_f}) - P({\mathbf{s}}^0) \right)$$ and the stationary points are the solutions to the system of equations: $$\begin{cases}
\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \lambda({{\mathbf{s}}'}^{0})}=0 & \forall \:\: {{\mathbf{s}}'}^{0} \\
\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial P({{\mathbf{s}}'}^{0},\ldots,{{\mathbf{s}}'}^{t_f})}=0 & \forall \:\: ({{\mathbf{s}}'}^{0},\ldots,{{\mathbf{s}}'}^{t_f})\\
\end{cases}
\label{eqn:minima_condition}$$ The first equation in (\[eqn:minima\_condition\]) gives just the constraining relation. On the other hand, for the second, it should be noticed that derivatives are taken respect the specific value of $P$ for each set of histories $({{\mathbf{s}}'}^{0},\ldots,{{\mathbf{s}}'}^{t_f})$. After derivation, this second condition leads to: $$P({{\mathbf{s}}'}^{0},\ldots,{{\mathbf{s}}'}^{t_f})=C({{\mathbf{s}}'}^{0}) \prod_{t=1}^{t_f} W({{\mathbf{s}}'}^{t}| {{\mathbf{s}}'}^{t-1}),$$ which, using the constraint (\[eqn:constraint2\]), reduces to an equivalent of the original dynamic of the system (compare to (\[eqn:markov1\]) and (\[eqn:markov2\])): $$P({{\mathbf{s}}'}^{0},\ldots,{{\mathbf{s}}'}^{t_f})= \prod_{t=1}^{t_f} W({{\mathbf{s}}'}^{t}| {{\mathbf{s}}'}^{t-1}) P({{\mathbf{s}}'}^{0})$$
Computation of correlations within the dynamic message passing formalism {#app:DMP}
========================================================================
In this Appendix we want to show how to explicitly compute the correlation functions between spin $i$ and its neighbours by using the dynamic message-passing approach presented in [@del2015dynamic] in order to reproduce the results illustrated in Section \[sec:results\]. The computation of these observables is indeed not shown explicitly in [@del2015dynamic] although the math ingredients to compute them are all already present there. We therefore believe useful to review these contents in order to clarify how to compute correlation functions within this formalism. The approach is quite general and allows, in principle, to compute correlation functions both at the same time or at different times in the dynamics. Equation (19) of [@del2015dynamic], that we report below, illustrates how to compute the joint probability distribution of spin $i$ and its neighbours at the same time $t$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:iterP} P^{(t)}(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t}) &= \sum_{ s_i^{t-1}, s_{\partial i}^{t-1}} \prod_{j\in \partial i} T_{j \to (ij)} (s_j^{t} | s_j^{t-1}, s_i^{t-1}) \, W_i(s_i^t | s_{\partial i}^{t-1}) \, P^{(t-1)}(s_i^{t-1},s_{\partial i}^{t-1}).\end{aligned}$$ Note that we here adapted the notation of [@del2015dynamic] to the symbols adopted in this manuscript. According to the joint probability $P^{(t)}(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t})$ between a given spin and its neighbours at time $t$ can be computed iteratively starting from the initial conditions for $P^{(t)}$ at time zero. Above $W_i(s_i^t | s_{\partial i}^{t-1})$ is the same transition rate for spin $i$ which appears in the main text, whereas $T_{j \to (ij)} (s_j^{t} | s_j^{t-1}, s_i^{t-1})$ represents the two-times message that comes from the $1$-step Markov ansatz taken in [@del2015dynamic] and which can be computed also iteratively according to equation (13) in [@del2015dynamic]. A partial marginalization of allows then to compute same-time correlations as $c_{ij}^t = \langle s_i^t, s_j^t\rangle$ with $j$ in the neighbourhood of $i$ ($j \in \partial i$), which are though not investigated in this work where we rather focus on correlations at different time. Removing the sum on the RHS of gives the more general two-times joint probability distribution $$\label{eq:joint_gen}
P^{(t,t-1)}(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t}, s_i^{t-1},s_{\partial i}^{t-1}) = \prod_{j\in \partial i} T_{j \to (ij)} (s_j^{t} | s_j^{t-1}, s_i^{t-1}) \, W_i(s_i^t | s_{\partial i}^{t-1}) \, P^{(t-1)}(s_i^{t-1},s_{\partial i}^{t-1})$$
which can be marginalized to obtain the joint probability function between spin $i$ at time $t$ and its neighbours at time $t-1$ as follows $$\label{eq:joint_twotimes}
P^{(t,t-1)}(s_i^t,\, s_{\partial i}^{t-1}) = \sum_{s_{\partial i}^{t},s_i^{t-1}}\prod_{j\in \partial i} T_{j \to (ij)} (s_j^{t} | s_j^{t-1}, s_i^{t-1}) \, W_i(s_i^t | s_{\partial i}^{t-1}) \, P^{(t-1)}(s_i^{t-1},s_{\partial i}^{t-1})$$
As it is easy to see, the joint probabilities appearing on both sides of are not the same. For each time of the dynamics the same-time probability on the RHS has indeed to be determined using the iterative equation which can then be plugged into to obtain the two-times joint probability $P^{(t,t-1)}(s_i^t,s_{\partial i}^{t-1})$. This latter can then be used to compute two-times correlations as $c_{ij}^{(t,t-1)} = \langle s_i^t, s_j^{t-1}\rangle$ with $j$ in the neighbourhood of $i$. This is the procedure used to compute such correlation functions appearing in Section \[sec:results\].
[^1]: In general $G$ could be a directed graph and $J_{ij}\neq J_{ji}$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For future wireless networks, enormous numbers of interconnections are required, creating a disorganized topology and leading to a great challenge in data aggregation. Instead of collecting data individually, a more efficient technique, computation over multi-access channels (CoMAC), has emerged to compute functions by exploiting the signal-superposition property of wireless channels. However, the implementation of CoMAC in disorganized networks with multiple relays (hops) is still an open problem. In this paper, we combine CoMAC and orthogonal communication in the disorganized network to attain the computation of functions at the fusion center. First, to make the disorganized network more tractable, we reorganize the disorganized network into a hierarchical network with multiple layers that consists of subgroups and groups. In the hierarchical network, we propose multi-layer function computation where CoMAC is applied to each subgroup and orthogonal communication is adopted within each group. By computing and communicating subgroup and group functions over layers, the desired functions are reconstructed at the fusion center. The general computation rate is derived and the performance is further improved through time allocation and power control. The closed-form solutions to optimization are obtained, which suggest that existing CoMAC and orthogonal communication schemes can be generalized.'
author:
- 'Fangzhou Wu, Li Chen, Nan Zhao, Yunfei Chen, F. Richard Yu, and Guo Wei [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]'
bibliography:
- 'NOAH.bib'
title: Computing and Communicating Functions in Disorganized Wireless Networks
---
Achievable computation rate, data aggregation, function computation, hierarchical networks, resource allocation.
Introduction
============
5G and Internet of Things lead to a revolution in wireless networks [@fettweis20145g; @al2015internet]. With such enormous numbers of nodes, the typologies of networks become complex and disorganized. To aggregate a large amount of data wirelessly in disorganized networks, the conventional multi-access schemes cannot be applied since this would result in excessive network latency with limited radio resources. Thus, how to aggregate data efficiently from distributed nodes is of great importance.
Data aggregation from distributed nodes is first constructed as information-theoretic formulations [@orlitsky1995coding; @xie2004network; @giridhar2005computing; @xie2007multisource; @moscibroda2007worst; @huang2015upper]. For example, a source coding problem involving communicating a function of two variables in a simple two-node network with side information at the receiver, has been solved in [@orlitsky1995coding]. Considering the multi-source network, [@xie2004network] described it as one of communicating possibly correlated sources over a multi-terminal wireless network. Further, given different typology for the disorganized network including relays, [@giridhar2005computing; @xie2007multisource; @moscibroda2007worst; @huang2015upper] provided the corresponding bound of the capacity. Although these interesting bounds were presented in terms of different wireless networks in the ideal case, the study is still limited in the practical case of data aggregation considering channel fading, noise, and resource allocation.
Considering practical wireless networks, some data aggregation approaches introduced different protocols to improve the efficiency of data aggregation, such as mobile data collectors [@luo2010joint], topology control [@han2012minimum], and sleep schedule [@han2013duty]. In these data aggregation schemes, each node at the edge has to transmit its data to the fusion center through several relays (hops). For the disorganized network, the cost of direct data forwarding will be high and the routing path becomes complex due to massive numbers of sources and relays. To further improve the efficiency of data aggregation, compressive sensing was used in the disorganized network to process the data before transmission. In [@roughan2012spatio; @kong2013data], compressive sensing was only applied to remove temporal redundancy before data transmission starts, which did not leverage the flexibly of relays in the routing path. A more precise scheme was proposed by [@xu2015hierarchical], which aimed to remove data redundancy existing in the routing path and was based on a multilevel hierarchical clustering architecture and hybrid compressive sensing. Unfortunately, even though compressive sensing provides an attracting way to improve the efficiency, the number of measurements at each relay still becomes large in the network with enormous numbers of nodes. This implies that only limited improvement can be obtained by orthogonal communication.
Recently, computation over multi-access channels (CoMAC) has emerged as a promising solution that merges computation and communication by exploiting the signal-superposition property of wireless channels. It collects a relevant function of the node measurements via concurrent node transmissions instead of individual data [@goldenbaum2015nomographic; @abari2016over; @goldenbaum2014channel; @nazer2007computation; @appuswamy2014computing; @nazer2011compute; @jeon2014computation; @wu2019computation; @kortke2014analog; @chen2018over2; @erez2005lattices; @abari2015airshare; @jeon2016opportunistic]. These functions computed by CoMAC belong to a class of nomographic functions such as averaging and geometric mean, and are widely used in data aggregation [@goldenbaum2015nomographic]. As a straightforward use of CoMAC, nodes in wireless sensor networks can transmit their readings over the air simultaneously to compute a function value of the sensor readings (e.g., arithmetic mean, polynomial or the number of active nodes) instead of requiring individual readings.
CoMAC was first studied in [@abari2016over; @goldenbaum2014channel], where pre-processing at each node and post-processing at the fusion center were used to compute functions against the fading channel. The designs of pre-processing and post-processing used to compute linear and non-linear functions have been proposed in [@abari2016over], and the effect of channel estimation error was characterized in [@goldenbaum2014channel]. For robustness to noise, CoMAC was further proposed using joint source-channel coding in [@nazer2007computation; @appuswamy2014computing; @erez2005lattices; @nazer2011compute; @jeon2014computation; @wu2019computation; @jeon2016opportunistic; @chen2018over2; @kortke2014analog; @abari2015airshare] to improve the equivalent signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The potential of linear source coding was discussed in [@nazer2007computation], and its application for CoMAC was presented in [@appuswamy2014computing]. Compared with linear source coding, nested lattice coding could approach the performance of a standard random coding [@erez2005lattices]. The lattice-based CoMAC was extended to a general framework in [@nazer2011compute] for networks with linear channels and additive white Gaussian noise. In [@jeon2014computation], the authors derived the corresponding achievable computation rate considering channel fading. The scheme based on function division was given in [@jeon2016opportunistic; @wu2019computation] through theoretical analysis. For the implementation of CoMAC, frequency synchronization has been solved by an attractive solution, called “AirShare”, which was developed in [@abari2015airshare] for synchronizing nodes by broadcasting a reference-clock signal. To cope with phase offset, a design has been proposed to estimate phase offset and to equalize the corresponding error in [@chen2018over2]. To verify the feasibility of CoMAC in practice, software-defined radio was built in [@kortke2014analog], and the authors in [@chen2018over2] implemented a cooperative wide-band spectrum sensing system.
However, CoMAC has only been investigated in relay-free networks through direct communications and it cannot be used in the disorganized network where the transmission destination of each node is different. In disorganized networks, analyses were constructed as information-theoretic formulations in the ideal case without fading channel, noise, and resource allocation. Thus, how to compute functions in practical disorganized networks needs to be addressed. Since the topology becomes more general but also disorganized, it analysis would be quite complex compared with that of the relay-free network.
Motivated by the above observations, in this paper, we first recast the disorganized network into a hierarchical network with multiple layers consisting of subgroups and groups for further analysis. Then, in the hierarchical network, we propose multi-layer function computation (ML-FC) by computing and communicating subgroup and group functions over layers and reconstructing the desired function at the fusion center. Theoretical expressions of achievable computation rates are derived based on nested lattice coding. Furthermore, resource allocation is considered to improve the computation rate, and the corresponding closed-form solutions are given in different cases. Our contributions are summarized as follows:
- *Hierarchical networks*. We reorganize the disorganized network into the hierarchical networks with multiple layers by introducing two components, i.e., groups and subgroups. Referring to disorganized networks, in hierarchical networks, the nodes in the first layer are source nodes, the only one node in the last layer is the fusion center, and the nodes in the rest layers are relay nodes.
- *ML-FC*. In the hierarchical network, ML-FC is proposed which combines CoMAC and orthogonal communication. The desired functions at the fusion center are reconstructed by subgroup functions and group functions where each subgroup function is obtained by CoMAC and the group function is obtained by orthogonal communication.
- *General computation rate*. The theoretical expression of the computation rate of ML-FC is derived, and it suggests that the subgroup with the worst computation rate plays an important role in the network. Also, it generalizes CoMAC considering the relay-free network.
- *Time allocation and power control*. We formulate two optimization problems considering time allocation with fixed power control and adaptive power control, respectively. Both closed-form solutions are derived, which suggests that the performance with adaptive power control is further improved compared with fixed power control.
![The topology of the disorganized network.[]{data-label="fig:randomnetwork"}](Figs/randomnetwork){width="0.7\linewidth"}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[System Model??\] introduces the considered disorganized network and the classical schemes of data aggregation. The reorganization of the disorganized network and the structure of the hierarchical network are shown in Section \[Reorganization of Disorganized Networks\]. Based on the hierarchical network, we provide a detailed description of ML-FC in Section \[Computation Rate of Multi-layer Networks\], and the computation rate of ML-FC is also derived. Section \[Power Control and Time Allocatio\] focuses on the analysis of the performance of the proposed ML-FC, which includes power control and time allocation. Simulation results and the corresponding discussions are presented in Section \[Simulation Results and Discussions\], and conclusions are given in Section \[Conclusion\].
$ \bm{\mathrm{Notations:}} $ Throughout this paper, we define $ \mathsf{C}(x)=\log(1+x) $ and $ \mathsf{C}^+(x)=\max\left\lbrace \frac{1}{2}\log(x),0\right\rbrace$. Let $ [1:n] $ denote a set $ \left\lbrace1,2,\cdots,n\right\rbrace$. For a set $ \mathcal{A} $, $ \left|\mathcal{A}\right| $ denotes the cardinality of $ \mathcal{A} $. Let the entropy of a random variable $ A $ be $ H(A) $ and the expectation of it be $ \mathsf{E}\left[A \right] $. A set $ \left\lbrace x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_N \right\rbrace $ is written as $ \left\lbrace x_i \right\rbrace_{i\in[1:N]} $ or $ \left\lbrace x_i \right\rbrace_{i=1}^{N} $ for short.
System Model {#System Model??}
============
In this section, we first present the topology of the disorganized network. Then, classical aggregation schemes are introduced. Based on the features of the disorganized network, we raise some open problems regarding function computation in the disorganized network.
Disorganized Networks
---------------------
In practical terms, the topology of a wireless network is arbitrary. With different deployment environment, the network would be disorganized. Thus, we consider the disorganized network in the general case[^5], which consists of source nodes, relay nodes, and one fusion center as destination. In the disorganized network, the fusion center wishes to compute the desired function concerning all the source nodes. With a given topology, the network is demonstrated as Fig. \[fig:randomnetwork\]. We assume the number of the source nodes is $ K_1 $ and define a set $ \mathcal{K}_{1} $ including the indexes of all the source nodes. The $ i $-th source node $ {\rm N}_{1,i} $ draws data from the corresponding random source $ S_i $ for $ T_d $ times and then provides a length-$ T_d $ data vector as $ \bm{\mathrm{s}}_{1,i}=[ s_{1,i}[1],\cdots, s_{1,i}[j],\cdots s_{1,i}[T_d]]$.
Let $ \bm{\mathrm{b_v}}=\left[ S_1, S_2, \cdots, S_K\right] $ be the random source vector associated with a joint probability mass function $ p_{\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}}(\cdot) $. The desired function determined by the random source vector $ \bm{\mathrm{b_v}} $ is expressed as $ f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}) $, and its definition is given as follows.
For all $ j\in[1:T_d] $, the function with independent variables $ \lbrace s_{1,1}[j],s_{1,2}[j],\cdots,s_{1,K_1}[j]\rbrace $ is called the desired function with the form as $$f(s_{1,1}[j],s_{1,2}[j],\cdots,s_{1,K_1}[j])=f(\bm{\mathrm{s}}_1[j]),$$ where $\bm{\mathrm{s}}_1[j]=[s_{1,1}[j],s_{1,2}[j],\cdots,s_{1,K_1}[j]]$ is independently drawn from $ p_{\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}}(\cdot) $. Every function $ f(\bm{\mathrm{s}}_1[j]) $ is seen as a realization of $ f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}) $. Thus, the fusion center computes $ T_d $ desired functions when each source node gets data from each random source for $ T_d $ times.
\[Typical Functions\] As studied in [@goldenbaum2014computation; @jeon2014computation], CoMAC is designed to compute different types of desired functions. There are two typical functions that we focus on. The function $ f(\bm{\mathrm{s}}_1[j])$, with values in the set $ \lbrace \sum_{i=1}^{K_1}a_{1,i}s_{1,i}[j], \cdots, \sum_{i=1}^{K_1}a_{L_s,i}s_{1,i}[j] \rbrace $, is called the arithmetic sum function, where $ a_{l,i}\in\mathbb{R} $ is the weighting factor for the node $ {\rm N}_{1,i} $, and $ L_s $ belongs to $ \mathbb{N} $. The arithmetic sum function is a weighted sum function, which includes the mean function $ f(\bm{\mathrm{s}}_1[j])=\frac{1}{K_1}\sum_{i=1}^{K_1}s_{1,i}[j] $ and the function for the active node only $ f(\bm{\mathrm{s}}_1[j])=\left\lbrace s_{1,1}[j], s_{1,2}[j], \cdots, s_{1,K_1}[j]\right\rbrace $ as special cases. Otherwise, the function $ f(\bm{\mathrm{s}}_1[j])$, with values in the set of $\lbrace \sum_{i=1}^{K_1}\bm{1}_{s_{1,i}[j]=0}, \cdots, \sum_{i=1}^{K_1}\bm{1}_{s_{1,i}[j]=p}\rbrace $, is regarded as the type function where $ \bm{1}_{(\cdot)} $ denotes the indicator function and $ p\in\mathbb{N} $. As pointed out in [@giridhar2005computing], any symmetric function such as mean, variance, maximum, minimum and median can be attained from the type function.
To attain reliable computations against noise, a block code is used, named sequences of nested lattice codes [@nazer2011compute]. With the length-$ \bar{n} $ block code, the computation rate is used as performance metrics [@jeon2014computation; @goldenbaum2015nomographic; @goldenbaum2014computation; @wu2019computation; @nazer2011compute], of which the definition is given as follows.
\[Computation rate\] The computation rate specifies how many function values can be computed per channel use within a predefined accuracy. It can be written as $ R=\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{T_d}{n}H(f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}})) $, where $ T_d $ is the number of function values, $ n $ ($ n\ge\bar{n} $) is the number of channel uses [^6] and $ H(f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}})) $ is the entropy of $ f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}) $. Otherwise, $ R $ is achievable only if there is a length-$ \bar{n} $ block code so that the probability $ \Pr\left( \bigcup_{j=1}^{T_d}\left\lbrace \hat{f}(\bm{\mathrm{s}}[j]\neq f(\bm{\mathrm{s}}[j]))\right\rbrace\right) \rightarrow0 $ as $ \bar{n} $ increases, where $ \hat{f}(\bm{\mathrm{s}}[j]) $ is the estimated function.
Aggregation Schemes {#Aggregation Schemes}
-------------------
There exist two classical aggregation schemes, namely CoMAC and orthogonal communication.
![The classical CoMAC for the relay-free network[]{data-label="fig:singlelayer"}](Figs/SingleLayer){width="0.7\linewidth"}
- ***CoMAC.*** CoMAC has been well investigated as the efficient aggregation in the relay-free network (the simplest network), and its classical framework is given in Fig. \[fig:singlelayer\]. Different from the disorganized network, in Fig. \[fig:singlelayer\], all the source nodes and the fusion center can be communicated with each other directly.
Let $ \bm{\mathrm{s}}_{1,i} $ represent the data vector of the node $ {\rm N}_{1,i} $ whose length is $ T_d $. Denote $ \bm{\mathrm{x}}_{1,i}=[x_{1,i}[1],x_{1,i}[2],\cdots,x_{1,i}[\bar{n}]] $ as the length-$ \bar{n} $ transmitted vector of the node $ {\rm N}_{1,i} $. The univariate function $ \bm{\mathcal{E}}_{1,i}(\cdot) $ which generates $ \bm{\mathrm{x}}_{1,i}=\bm{\mathcal{E}}_{1,i}(\bm{\mathrm{s}}_{1,i}) $ is an encoding function of $ \mathrm{N}_{1,i} $. This means that $ \bm{\mathrm{s}}_{1,i} $ with length $ T_d $ is mapped to a transmitted vector $ \bm{\mathrm{x}}_{1,i} $ with length $ \bar{n} $ for $ \mathrm{N}_{1,i} $. Then, the received signal for the $ m $-th channel use can be expressed as $$\label{model of snetwork}
y[m]=\sum_{i=1}^{{K}_{1}}v_{1,i}[m]h_{1,i}[m]x_{1,i}[m]+w[m],$$ where $ h_{1,i}[m] $ is the channel from $ \mathrm{N}_{1,i} $ to the fusion center at the $ m $-th channel use, $ x_{1,i}[m] $ is the $ m $-th element of the transmitted vector $ \bm{\mathrm{x}}_{1,i} $, $ v_{1,i}[m]=\frac{|h_{1,i}[m]|}{h_{1,i}[m]}\sqrt{P_{1,i}[m]} $ is the power factor of $ \mathrm{N}_{1,i} $, $ P_{1,i}[m] $ is the transmitted power of $ \mathrm{N}_{1,i} $ and $ w[m] $ is identically and independently distributed (i.i.d.) complex Gaussian random noise following $ \mathcal{CN}(0,1) $.
After $ \bar{n} $ channel uses, the received vector $ \bm{\mathrm{y}} $ is obtained at the fusion center. The decoding function $ \bm{\mathcal{D}}_j(\cdot) $ is used to estimate the $ j $-th desired function $ f(\bm{\mathrm{s}}_1[j]) $, which satisfies $ \hat{f}(\bm{\mathrm{s}}_1[j])=\bm{\mathcal{D}}_j(\bm{\mathrm{y}}) $. This implies that the fusion center obtains $ T_d $ desired functions depending on the received vector with length $ \bar{n} $. Its computation rate [@jeon2014computation Theorem 3] is given as $$\label{RF-CoMAC with FPC}
R= \mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K_1}+ \mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in[1:K_1]}\left|h_{1,i} \right|^2 \right]P \right) ,$$ where $ K_1 $ is the number of source nodes in the network, $ P $ is the transmitted power of each node and $ \left|h_{1,i} \right|^2 $ is the channel gain from $ \mathrm{N}_{1,i} $ to the fusion center.
- ***Orthogonal Communication.*** The other solution to aggregating data uses orthogonal resource blocks (e.g., channel uses, code sequences, and sub-carriers) to transmit the individual data to the fusion center. To compute the $j $-th desired function $ f(\bm{\mathrm{s}}_1[j]) $, the fusion center should first obtain the individual data $ \{s_{1,i}[j]\}_{i=1}^{K_1} $ during $ K_1 $ channel uses. Then, the corresponding desired function $ f(\bm{\mathrm{s}}_1[j]) $ is calculated. It is also known as the time-sharing technique, which achieves a computation rate of $$\label{the time-sharing technique}
R=\dfrac{1}{K_1} \mathsf{C}\left(\mathsf{E}\left[\left|h \right|^2\right]P \right),$$ where $ \left|h \right|^2 $ is the channel gain of each node without loss of generality.
Open Problems
-------------
Neither orthogonal communication nor CoMAC can be implemented directly in the disorganized network. For orthogonal communication, the collection of individual data from nodes results in excessive latency as the number of nodes increases. As for CoMAC, different node has a different transmission destination in the disorganized network instead of the same transmission destination in the relay-free network. This implies that it is impossible to use concurrent node transmissions to attain CoMAC. Thus, we expect to expand the analysis of relay-free networks to the analysis of disorganized networks considering the practical case that includes channel fading, noise, and resource allocation. Since the analysis of disorganized networks is more general but also challenging, several issues need to be solved.
1. The disorganized network needs to be reorganized to make further analysis possible. It needs to be considered that how to recast the disorganized network into a hierarchical network in a general way and how to design a scheme that ensures the reliable computation of the desired function at the fusion center.
2. With the proposed scheme, it becomes important to evaluate the performance through computation rate and further optimize it against channel fading. Thus, the corresponding computation rate should be derived and the resource allocation should be discussed.
Reorganization of Disorganized Networks {#Reorganization of Disorganized Networks}
=======================================
Although the disorganized network in Fig. \[fig:randomnetwork\] is general and practical, its structure makes analysis difficult. Before proposing the scheme to efficiently compute the desired function at the fusion center, in Section \[Hybrid Aggregation for Single Layer\], we first reorganize the disorganized network into a hierarchical network with multiple layers, which consists of groups and subgroups. In Section \[Computing and Communicating Functions\], we present a detailed description of the division and reconstruction of the desired function and the group function.
Hierarchical Networks {#Hybrid Aggregation for Single Layer}
---------------------
\[Hierarchical Networks\]
We introduce two components to reorganize the disorganized network, which are given as follows.
- ***Subgroups.*** Assume there are two layers, namely the $ (l-1) $-th layer and the $ l $-th layer. We place $ \bar{K} $ nodes[^7] in the $ (l-1) $-th layer and one node in the $ l $-th layer as $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $, where these $ \bar{K} $ nodes wish to transmit their data to $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $. The subgroup, whose index is $ c $, consists of these $ \bar{K} $ nodes where the $ i $-th node is denoted as $ {\rm N}_{l-1,i} $, and the node $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ computes the subgroup function $ f^{(c)}_{l,k}(\cdot) $ associated with the subgroup $ c $.
As given in Fig. \[fig:subgroup\], each node $ {\rm N}_{l-1,i} $ in the $ (l-1) $-th layer owns a data vector $ \bm{\mathrm{s}}_{l-1,i} $ of length $ T_d $. In the $ l $-th layer, the node $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ computes the subgroup function $ f^{(c)}_{l,k}(\cdot) $ via concurrent node transmissions. Based on Section \[Aggregation Schemes\], CoMAC is applied to compute the subgroup function.
- ***Groups.*** As shown in Fig. \[fig:group\], one group, which is allocated to the node $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ in the $ l $-th layer, consists of several subgroups in the $ (l-1) $-th layer. Assume the number of subgroups is $ \bar{C} $[^8], then the node $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ needs to reconstruct the group function $ f_{l,k}(\cdot) $ using $ \bar{C} $ subgroup functions.
To reconstruct the group function $f_{l,k}(\cdot) $ at $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $, all the subgroup functions must be obtained first. Based on Section \[Aggregation Schemes\], orthogonal communication is applied by communicating the subgroup functions to $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ during the given channel uses, where different subgroup is active to compute different subgroup function $ f^{(c)}_{l,k}(\cdot) $ at different channel use. After obtaining all the subgroup functions $ \{f^{(c)}_{l,k}(\cdot)\}_{c=1}^{\bar{C}} $, the node $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ can reconstruct the group function $ f_{l,k}(\cdot) $.
With the description of two components, one can observe that the classical aggregation schemes in relay-free networks are combined in our scheme, where the subgroup function is obtained by CoMAC whereas the group function is obtained by orthogonal communication. Also, the structure of the group shown as Fig. \[fig:group\] is the relay-free network in a general way. By setting the number of subgroups $ \bar{C} $ to one, CoMAC is generalized, which implies that the only one subgroup is treated as a group. Also, by setting the number of subgroups $ \bar{C} $ to the number of nodes $ \bar{K} $, orthogonal communication is generalized, which implies that each node as a subgroup transmits its data individually.
With the help of subgroups and groups, the aggregation from the $ (l-1) $-th layer to the $ l $-th layer is given as Fig. \[fig:LayertoLayer\]. Each node $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ in the $ l $-th layer serves a group to reconstruct the corresponding group function $ f_{l,k}(\cdot) $. Similar to orthogonal communication, different group in the $ (l-1) $-th layer is allocated some orthogonal channel uses to compute the subgroup functions and reconstruct the group function at the corresponding node in the $ l $-th layer. Based on Fig. \[fig:LayertoLayer\], we further expand it to the case with multiple layers. Then, the hierarchical network is obtained as shown in Fig. \[fig:multilayer\].
***Hierarchical Networks.*** The disorganized network in Fig. \[fig:randomnetwork\] is reorganized into the hierarchical network, which consists of $ L $ $ (L\geq2) $ layers where the $ l $-th layer includes $ K_l $ nodes and the indexes of them belong to a set $ \mathcal{K}_{l} $. Compared with the disorganized network, in the hierarchical network, $ K_{1}$ nodes in the first layer are the source nodes, the nodes from the second layer to the $ (L-1) $-th layer are relay nodes, and the only one node in the $ L $-th layer is regarded as a fusion center. Finally, the desired function will be computed at the fusion center over layers.
In both disorganized networks and hierarchical networks, the routing path of each node does not be changed, which implies that the transmission destination of one node in the disorganized network is the same as the one in the corresponding hierarchical network. Further, the condition, where each node only owns one transmission destination, is satisfied in both disorganized networks and hierarchical networks. Thus, we can always find an equivalent hierarchical network by changing the parameters of the hierarchical network to replace the disorganized one.
Division and Reconstruction of Functions {#Computing and Communicating Functions}
----------------------------------------
In the hierarchical network including $ L $ layers, the fusion center computes the desired function $ f\left( \left\lbrace s_{1,k}[j]\right\rbrace _{k\in\mathcal{K}_1}\right) $, where $ s_{1,k}[j] $ is the data sampled by the node $ {\rm N}_{1,k}, k\in\mathcal{K}_1 $. Depending on a given topology, all these nodes in $ \mathcal{K}_{l-1} $ are divided into $ K_{l} $ groups and allocated to $ K_{l} $ nodes in the $ l $-th layer for $ l\ge2 $. We define the set $ \mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $ including the indexes of the nodes in the group allocated to $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $. Thus, the desired function is divided into group functions and each group function, associated with the data $ \left\lbrace s_{l-1,i}[j]\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}} $, is computed at $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $. The detailed definition of the group function is given as follows.
\[Group Function\] For $ l\ge2 $, let $$\label{key}
\mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}=\left\lbrace x :x\in\mathcal{K}_{l-1} \right\rbrace$$ denote a set including these indexes of the nodes as a group allocated to $ \mathrm{N}_{l,k} $. Each element $ x $ in $ \mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}} $ is the index of a node from the set $\mathcal{K}_{l-1}$. Suppose that $ \bigcup_{k\in\mathcal{K}_{l}}\mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}=\mathcal{K}_{l-1} $ and $ \mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,u}}\bigcap\mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,v}} =\emptyset$ for all $ u,v\in\mathcal{K}_{l} $. A function $ f_{l,k}(\left\lbrace s_{l-1,i}[j]\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}} ) $ is said to be a group function if and only if there exists a function $ g_{l}(\cdot) $ satisfying $$\label{key}
\begin{split}
f(\bm{\mathrm{s}}_1[j])=g_{l}(&f_{l,1}(\left\lbrace s_{l-1,i}[j]\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,1}}} ), f_{l,2}(\left\lbrace s_{l-1,i}[j]\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,2}}} ),\\
& \cdots, f_{l,K_l }(\left\lbrace s_{l-1,i}[j]\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,K_l}}} ))
\end{split}$$ for $ l\ge2 $.
Definition \[Group Function\] suggests that the group functions in each layer can reconstruct the desired function, even though the desired function only needs to be reconstructed at the fusion center in the last layer by these group functions in the $ (L-1) $-th layer.
To attain the computation of the group function at $ \mathrm{N}_{l,k} $, all these subgroup functions should be obtained at $ \mathrm{N}_{l,k} $ first since a group function is further divided into several subgroup functions[^9]. The function computed by a subgroup is called a subgroup function, and its definition is given as follows.
\[subgroup Function\] Assume the nodes in $ \mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $ as a group is divided into $ C_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}} $ subgroups. The set $ \mathcal{C}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}} $ includes indexes of these $ C_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}} $ subgroups satisfying that $ \bigcup_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}}\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}=\mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}} $, where $ \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}} \subseteq\mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}} $ and $ \mathcal{K}^{(u)}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}\bigcap\mathcal{K}^{(v)}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}} =\emptyset$ for all $ u,v\in\mathcal{C}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}} $. A function $ f^{(c)}_{l,k}(\left\lbrace s_{l-1,i}[j]\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}} ) $ is said to be a subgroup function if and only if there exists a function $ g_{l,k}(\cdot) $ satisfying $$\label{key}
\begin{split}
&f_{l,k}(\left\lbrace s_{l-1,i}[j]\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}})\\
&=g_{l,k}(f^{(1)}_{l,k}(\left\lbrace s_{l-1,i}[j]\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}},\cdots,\quad f^{(C_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}})}_{l,k}(\left\lbrace s_{l-1,i}[j]\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(C_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}})}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}} ) ). \end{split}$$
The property of subgroup functions is similar to the one of group functions, which shows that a group function $ f_{l,k}(\left\lbrace s_{l-1,i}[j]\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}} ) $ can be reconstructed at $ \mathrm{N}_{l,k} $ after $ \mathrm{N}_{l,k} $ obtains $ C_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}} $ subgroup functions.
To compute the subgroup functions reliably against noise, we apply sequences of nested lattice codes. For the node $ {\rm N}_{l-1,i} $ in the $ (l-1) $-th layer, the length-$ T_d $ data vector $ \bm{\mathrm{s}}_{l-1,i} $ is mapped to the length-$ \bar{n} $ transmitted vector $ \bm{\mathrm{x}}_{l-1,i}=[x_{l-1,i}[1],x_{l-1,i}[2],\cdots,x_{l-1,i}[\bar{n}]] $. Then, similar to Eq. , the length-$ \bar{n} $ received vector $ \bm{\mathrm{y}}^{(c)}_{l,k} $ of the $ c $-th subgroup at $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ is given as $$\label{System Model}
y^{(c)}_{l,k}[m]=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}}v^{i \to k}_{l-1}[m]h^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]x^{i \to k}_{l-1}[m]+w[m],$$ where $ h^{i \to k}_{l-1}[m] $ is the channel from $ \mathrm{N}_{l-1,i} $ to $ \mathrm{N}_{l,k} $ at the $ m $-th channel use, $ x^{i \to k}_{l-1}[m] $ is the $ m $-th element of the transmitted vector $ \bm{\mathrm{x}}_{l-1,i} $, $ v_{l-1}^{i\to k}[m]=\frac{|h_{l-1}^{i\to k}[m]|}{|h_{l-1}^{i\to k}[m]}\sqrt{P_{l-1}^{i\to k}[m]} $ is the power factor of $ \mathrm{N}_{l-1,i} $, $ P_{l-1}^{i\to k}[m] $ is the transmitted power of $ \mathrm{N}_{l-1,i} $ and $ w[m] $ is i.i.d. complex Gaussian random noise following $ \mathcal{CN}(0,1) $.
After receiving $ \bm{\mathrm{y}}^{(c)}_{l,k} $, the decoding function is used to unmap the length-$ \bar{n} $ received vector to $ T_d $ subgroup functions $ \{f^{(c)}_{l,k}(\lbrace s_{l-1,i}[j]\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}})\}_{j=1}^{T_d} $.
{width="\linewidth"}
\[XXX\]
1. **Initialization for Source Nodes**:\
The sources nodes in the first layer are divided into five groups, each group is allocated to a node in the second layer. The data of $ {\rm N}_{1,k} $ is $ s_{1,k} $, which is drawn from the corresponding random source.
2. \[begin1\]\[end1\] **Procedure in One Group**:
1. The given channel uses for the group $ \left\lbrace {\rm N}_{1,1},{\rm N}_{1,2},{\rm N}_{1,3},{\rm N}_{1,4},{\rm N}_{1,5} \right\rbrace $ belongs a set $ \mathcal{T}_{2,1} $, and the group function needs to be computed at $ {\rm N}_{2,1} $ during these channel uses.
2. To obtain the group function, two subgroup functions should first be computed at $ {\rm N}_{2,1} $ using CoMAC in different channel uses from $ \mathcal{T}_{2,1} $ since the group consists of two subgroups.
3. After $ | \mathcal{T}_{2,1} | $ channel uses, at $ {\rm N}_{2,1} $, all subgroup functions are computed. $ f^{(1)}_{2,1}(s_{1,1},s_{1,2}) $ is the subgroup function associated with the first subgroup and $ f^{(2)}_{2,1}(s_{1,3},s_{1,4},s_{1,5}) $ is the subgroup function associated with the second subgroup.
4. Using these subgroup functions, the corresponding group function is reconstructed at $ {\rm N}_{2,1} $ as $ f_{2,1}(s_{1,1},s_{1,2},s_{1,3},s_{1,4},s_{1,5})=g_{2,1}(f^{(1)}_{2,1}(s_{1,1},s_{1,2}),f^{(2)}_{2,1}(s_{1,3},s_{1,4},s_{1,5})) $.
3. **From One Layer to Another Layer**:\
Using the same steps in the procedure in one group, each group finishes the computation of the group function at the corresponding node in the second layer.
4. **Initialization for Relay Nodes**:\
In the second layer, the data of $ {\rm N}_{2,k} $ is $ s_{2,k} $ satisfying $ s_{2,k}=f_{2,k}(\cdot) $. All the nodes in $ \mathcal{K}_2 $ is divided into two groups that are allocated to the nodes in the third layer.
5. **Reconstruction of Desired Function**:\
Using similar steps in the procedure in one group from one layer to another layer, finally, the desired function is obtained as $ f(\{s_{1,i}\}_{i\in\mathcal{K}_1})=g_{4,1}(f_{4,1}(s_{3,1},s_{3,2})) $ at the fusion center.
Computation Rates in Hierarchical Networks {#Computation Rate of Multi-layer Networks}
==========================================
With the help of the hierarchical network, the analysis of the disorganized network becomes tractable. First of all, we provide a detailed procedure of ML-FC in Section \[Function Computation Procedure\]. The procedure helps us to rule the relation of the functions between nodes. Then, in Section \[Achievable Computation Rate\], we derive the computation rate of ML-FC based on the relation of the functions.
Procedure of ML-FC {#Function Computation Procedure}
------------------
Fig. \[fig:functionflow\] is an example of the hierarchical network with the given topology, which aims at computing the desired function $ f\left( \left\lbrace s_{1,i}\right\rbrace _{i\in\mathcal{K}_1}\right) $ over $ 4 $ layers. For $ l\ge2 $, each node $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ is assigned a group consisting of several subgroups. The data of $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ is denoted as $ s_{l,k} $. We describe the procedure of ML-FC as Algorithm \[XXX\].
With the help of the example shown in Fig. \[fig:functionflow\], we extend it to a general case mentioned in Section \[Computing and Communicating Functions\] and show the recurrence relation between these functions over layers.
In the second layer, each node $ {\rm N}_{2,k} $ computes $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,k}} $ subgroup functions. Then, it reconstructs the group function as $$\label{key}
\begin{split}
&f_{2,k}\left(\left\lbrace\left\lbrace s_{1,i}\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{2,k}}}\right\rbrace_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{2,k}}}\right)=g_{2,k}\left(\left\lbrace f^{(c)}_{2,k} \left(\left\lbrace s_{1,i}\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{2,k}}} \right)\right\rbrace_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{2,k}}} \right).
\end{split}$$
By setting the data $ s_{2,k}=f_{2,k}(\lbrace\lbrace s_{1,i}\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{2,k}}}\rbrace_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{2,k}}}) $ for each node in $ \mathcal{K}_2 $, the node $ {\rm N}_{3,k} $ in the third layer also reconstructs the corresponding group function as $$\label{key}
\begin{split}
&f_{3,k}\left(\left\lbrace\left\lbrace s_{2,i}\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{3,k}}}\right\rbrace_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{3,k}}}\right)=g_{3,k}\left(\left\lbrace f^{(c)}_{3,k} \left(\left\lbrace s_{2,i}\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{3,k}}} \right)\right\rbrace_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{3,k}}} \right).
\end{split}$$
Thus, we can obtain the recurrence relation between the $ l $-th layer and the $ (l-1) $-th layer as $$\label{the recurrence relation}
\begin{split}
&f_{l,k}\left(\left\lbrace\left\lbrace s_{l-1,i}\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\right\rbrace_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\right)=g_{l,k}\left(\left\lbrace f^{(c)}_{l,k} \left(\left\lbrace s_{l-1,i}\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}} \right)\right\rbrace_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l-1,k}}} \right),
\end{split}$$ where $ s_{l,k}=f_{l,k}(\lbrace\lbrace s_{l-1,i}\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\rbrace_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}) $.
At the last layer, i.e., $ l=L $, only including the fusion center, the desired function is finally computed because of $$\label{Reliable Desired Function}
\begin{split}
f_{L}\left(\left\lbrace\left\lbrace s_{L-1,i}\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{L}}}\right\rbrace_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{L}}}\right)&\stackrel{(a)}{=}f_{L}\left(\left\lbrace s_{L-1,i}\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{L-1}}\right)\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{=}f_{L}\left(\left\lbrace s_{L-2,i}\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{L-2}}\right)\\
&=\cdots\\
&\stackrel{(c)}{=}f_{L}\left(\left\lbrace s_{1,i}\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{1}}\right),
\end{split}$$ where the condition $ (a) $ follows since $ K_L=1 $, the condition $ (b) $ follows because the values of $ \left\lbrace s_{L-1,i}\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{L-1}} $ are associated with $ \left\lbrace s_{L-2,i}\right\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{L-2}} $ and the condition $ (c) $ follows due to the recurrence relation (Eq. ).
Achievable Computation Rates {#Achievable Computation Rate}
----------------------------
Eq. shows that the computation rate of the desired function is determined by all the group functions over $ L $ layers, and each group function is reconstructed by the corresponding subgroup functions. Thus, we present the computation rates of the subgroup function, the group function and the desired function step by step.
\[Rate of Subgroup Function\] For a subgroup $ \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $ with $ K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $ nodes, the computation rate of the subgroup function $ f^{(c)}_{l,k} (\lbrace s_{l-1,i}\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}} ) $ at the $ m $-th channel use is given as $$\label{key}
R_{l,k}^{(c)}[m]=\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{ K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\left[|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]|^2P^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]\right]\right),$$ where $ |h^{i \to k}_{l-1}[m]|^2 $ is the channel gain and $ P_{l-1}^{i\to k}[m] $ is the transmitted power (see Eq. ).
Please refer to Eq. and [@jeon2014computation Theorem 3 and Section IV-A].
To reconstruct the group function $ f_{l,k}(\lbrace\lbrace s_{l-1,i}\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\rbrace_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}) $ during the given $ | \mathcal{T}_{l,k} | $ channel uses where the set $ \mathcal{T}_{l,k} $ includes the channel uses for $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $, the subgroup functions should be computed first at different channel use from $ \mathcal{T}_{l,k} $. Assume that the channel uses allocated to the corresponding subgroup $ \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $ are in a set $ \mathcal{T}^{(c)}_{l,k} \subseteq \mathcal{T}_{l,k} $ satisfying $ | \mathcal{T}^{(c)}_{l,k} |=\beta_{l,k}^{(c)}| \mathcal{T}_{l,k} | $ and $ \sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\beta_{l,k}^{(c)}=1 $. After obtaining all the subgroup functions, the group function is reconstructed by Eq. . Thus, the computation rate of the group function is given as follows.
\[General Rate of Minimal Substructure\] For any group $ \mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $ with $ C_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $ subgroups, the computation rate of the group function reconstructed at $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ is $$% \resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{$
\begin{split}
R_{l,k}=&\min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\frac{\beta^{(c)}_{l,k}}{| \mathcal{T}^{(c)}_{l,k} |}\sum_{m\in\mathcal{T}^{(c)}_{l,k}}\left[\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\left[|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]|^2P^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]\right]\right)\right]\\
=&\min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}} \beta^{(c)}_{l,k} \mathsf{E}\left[\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\left[|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2P^{i\to k}_{l-1}\right]\right) \right].
\end{split}
% $}$$
Based on Lemma \[Rate of Subgroup Function\], the average computation rate $$\label{key}
\begin{split}
R_{l,k}^{(c)}=\frac{1}{| \mathcal{T}_{l,k}^{(c)}|}\sum_{m\in\mathcal{T}^{(c)}_{l,k}}R_{l,k}^{(c)}[m]
\end{split}$$ is achievable for computing the subgroup function $ f^{(c)}_{l,k}(\lbrace s_{l-1,i}[j]\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{\mathrm{N}_{l,k}}}) $ during $ | \mathcal{T}_{l,k}^{(c)}| $ channel uses when $ | \mathcal{T}_{l,k} | $ increases. Depending on Definition \[Computation rate\], the number of the values of the subgroup function computed during $ | \mathcal{T}_{l,k}^{(c)}| $ channel uses is $ U^{(c)}_{l,k}=\frac{R_{l,k}^{(c)}\left| \mathcal{T}_{l,k}^{(c)}\right|}{H(f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}))} $. From Eq. , we can observe that the group function is reconstructed by $ C_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $ subgroup functions, which implies that the computation rate of the group function is determined by the rates of these subgroup functions. Since the number of the values of each subgroup function $ U^{(c)}_{l,k} $ is different, only $U_{l,k}= \min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}U^{(c)}_{l,k} $ group functions can be reconstructed. Hence, the computation rate based on Definition \[Computation rate\] to compute the group function $ f_{l,k}(\lbrace\lbrace s_{l-1,i}\rbrace_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\rbrace_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}) $ is $$\label{key}
\begin{split}
R_{l,k}=&\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\dfrac{U_{l,k}}{| \mathcal{T}_{l,k}|}{H(f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}))}\\
\stackrel{(a)}{=}&\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\dfrac{\min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}U^{(c)}_{l,k}}{| \mathcal{T}_{l,k}|}{H(f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}))}\\
\stackrel{(b)}{=}&\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\frac{R_{l,k}^{(c)}\left| \mathcal{T}_{l,k}^{(c)}\right|}{| \mathcal{T}_{l,k}|}\\
\stackrel{(c)}{=}&\min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\beta^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{E}\left[R_{l,k}^{(c)} \right],
\end{split}$$ where the condition $ (a) $ follows because of $U_{l,k}= \min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}U^{(c)}_{l,k} $, the condition $ (b) $ follows because the expression of $ U^{(c)}_{l,k} $ and the condition $ (c) $ follows due to $ \frac{\left| \mathcal{T}_{l,k}^{(c)}\right|}{\left| \mathcal{T}_{l,k}\right|}=\beta_{l,k}^{(c)} $.
To reconstruct the desired function $ f\left( \left\lbrace s_{1,k}\right\rbrace _{k\in\mathcal{K}_1}\right) $ computed at the fusion center during $ n $ channel uses over $ L $ layers, the group allocated to $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ is active to compute the group function in the given channel uses in a set $ \mathcal{T}_{l,k} $. Assume the number of the given channel uses is given as $ | \mathcal{T}_{l,k} |=\alpha_{l,k}n $ satisfying $ \sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\alpha_{l,k}=1 $. With the help of Theorem \[General Rate of Minimal Substructure\], the computation rate of the desired function in the hierarchical network with $ L $ layers is given as follows.
\[General Rate of Multi-Layer Network\] For any $ L\in\mathbb{N} $ satisfying $ L\ge2 $, the computation rate of the desired function in the hierarchical network over fading MAC is given as $$\begin{split}
R=&\min_{l\in[2:L]}\min_{k\in\mathcal{K}_{l}}\alpha_{l,k}\min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}} \beta^{(c)}_{l,k}\frac{1}{|\mathcal{T}^{(c)}_{l,k}| }\sum_{m\in\mathcal{T}^{(c)}_{l,k}}\left[\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\left[|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]|^2P^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]\right]\right)\right]\\
=&\min_{l\in[2:L]}\min_{k\in\mathcal{K}_{l}}\alpha_{l,k}\min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}} \beta^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{E}\left[\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\left[|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2P^{i\to k}_{l-1}\right]\right)\right].
\end{split}$$
Theorem \[General Rate of Minimal Substructure\] suggests that the computation rate of the group function computed at $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ is $ R_{l,k} $. However, to reconstruct the group function at $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $, all the nodes in $ \mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $ need to obtain the data vector first. In the hierarchical network with $ L $ layers, the data vector of $ {\rm N}_{l-1,i}, i \in \mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $ is obtained by the values of the group function computed by the group $ \mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{l-1,i}} $ (see Eq. ). Thus, when considering the relation between layers, the number of the values of the group function computed at $ {\rm N}_{l,k} $ is determined by not only $ \mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $ but also $ \{\mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{l-1,i}}\}_{i\in\mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}} $, which is expressed as $$\label{the recurrence relation again}
\bar{U}_{l,k}=\min\left\lbrace \dfrac{R_{l,k}| \mathcal{T}_{l,k}|}{H(f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}))}, \min_{i\in \mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}} \bar{U}_{l-1,i} \right\rbrace.$$ For the sake of simplicity, we denote $ \frac{R_{l,k}| \mathcal{T}_{l,k}|}{H(f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}))} $ as $ \rho_{l,k} $. Based on the recurrence relation (Eq. ), at the fusion center ($ l=L $), the number of the values of the desired function is $$\label{key}
% \resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{$
\begin{split}
\bar{U}_{L,1}=&\min\left\lbrace \rho_{L,1}, \min_{i\in \mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{L,1}}} \bar{U}_{l-1,i} \right\rbrace\\
\stackrel{(a)}{=}&\min\left\lbrace \rho_{L,1}, \min_{i_1\in \mathcal{K}_{L-1}} \min\left\lbrace \rho_{L-1,i_1}, \min_{i_2\in \mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{L-1,i_1}}} \bar{U}_{L-2,i_2} \right\rbrace \right\rbrace\\
\stackrel{(b)}{=}&\min\left\lbrace \rho_{L,1},\min_{i_1\in \mathcal{K}_{L-1}} \rho_{L-1,i_1}, \min_{i_1\in \mathcal{K}_{L-1}} \min_{i_2\in \mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{L-1,i_1}}} \bar{U}_{L-2,i_2}\right\rbrace\\
\stackrel{(c)}{=}&\min\left\lbrace \rho_{L,1},\min_{i_1\in \mathcal{K}_{L-1}} \rho_{L-1,i_1}, \min_{i_1\in \mathcal{K}_{L-2}} \bar{U}_{L-2,i_2}\right\rbrace\\
=&\min_{l\in[2:L]}\min_{k\in \mathcal{K}_{l}}\rho_{l,k},
\end{split}
% $}$$ where the condition $ (a) $ follows because of $ K_L=1 $ and Eq. , the condition $ (b) $ follows since $ \min $ operation is associative and the condition $ (c) $ follows due to $ \cup_{i_1\in\mathcal{K}_{L-1}} \mathcal{K}_{{\rm N}_{L-1,i_1}}=\mathcal{K}_{L-2} $ (see Definition \[Group Function\]).
At last, the fusion center computes $ \bar{U}_{L,1} $ desired functions over $ L $ layers. And, the computation rate of the desired function in the hierarchical network is given as $$\label{key}
\begin{split}
R=&\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\dfrac{\bar{U}_{L,1}}{n}{H(f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}))}\\
\stackrel{(a)}{=}&\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\dfrac{\min_{l\in[2:L]}\min_{k\in \mathcal{K}_{l}}\rho_{l,k}}{n}{H(f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}))}\\
\stackrel{(b)}{=}&\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\min_{l\in[2:L]}\min_{k\in \mathcal{K}_{l}}\dfrac{R_{l,k}| \mathcal{T}_{l,k}|}{n}\\
\stackrel{(c)}{=}&\min_{l\in[2:L]}\min_{k\in\mathcal{K}_{l}}\alpha_{l,k}R_{l,k},
\end{split}$$ where the condition $ (a) $ follows because of Eq. , the condition $ (b) $ follows due to $\rho_{l,k}= \frac{R_{l,k}| \mathcal{T}_{l,k}|}{H(f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}}))} $ and the condition $ (c) $ follows as $ | \mathcal{T}_{l,k} |=\alpha_{l,k}n $.
The rate of Theorem \[General Rate of Multi-Layer Network\] considers the general case and can reduce to the rate in the relay-free network by setting $ L=2 $. Based on the general rate, we can apply different resource allocation to analyze the corresponding rate and to improve the performance.
Optimal Resource Allocation {#Power Control and Time Allocatio}
===========================
Theorem \[General Rate of Multi-Layer Network\] suggests that the subgroup with the worst computation rate plays an important role in the hierarchical network. Thus, we consider time allocation and power control in this section to improve the computation rate.
Optimal Time Allocation and Fixed Power Control {#Fixed Power}
-----------------------------------------------
Considering the fixed power constraint for each user, we obtain the computation rate from Theorem \[General Rate of Multi-Layer Network\] easily as $$\label{key}
\begin{split}
R=&\min_{l\in[2:L]}\min_{k\in\mathcal{K}_{l}}\alpha_{l,k}\min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}} \beta^{(c)}_{l,k}\frac{1}{|\mathcal{T}^{(c)}_{l,k}| }\sum_{m\in\mathcal{T}^{(c)}_{l,k}}\left[\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]|^2P\right)\right]\\
\stackrel{(a)}{\le}&\min_{l\in[2:L]}\min_{k\in\mathcal{K}_{l}}\alpha_{l,k}\min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}} \beta^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P\right)
\end{split}$$ by setting $ P^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]=P $, where the condition $ (a) $ follows because of the increase in $ n $ and Jensen’s inequality.
One can observe that each $ \alpha_{l,k} $ and each $ \beta^{(c)}_{l,k} $ should be optimized to approach the optimal computation rate since the computation rate of each subgroup function is different. A subgroup function with higher computation rate should be allocated fewer channel uses as the number of the desired functions computed at the fusion center is determined by the minimum of the number of each subgroup function. Thus, we formulate the following optimization problem.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathop{\mathrm{maximize}}\limits_{\alpha_{l,k},\beta^{(c)}_{l,k}} & \quad \min_{l\in[2:L]}\min_{k\in\mathcal{K}_{l}}\alpha_{l,k}\min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}} \beta^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+ \quad\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P\right) \nonumber \\
{\rm s.t.}&\quad \sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\alpha_{l,k}=1 \label{Fixed Power Pro 1 St1}\\
&\quad \sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\beta^{(c)}_{l,k}=1,\forall l\in[2:L], \forall k\in\mathcal{K}_l \label{Fixed Power Pro 1 St2}
\end{aligned}$$
Although the objective function is non-convex, it can be transformed into a convex function by relaxing the parameters through McCormick relaxation [@mitsos2009mccormick] in terms of the bi-linear function. We introduce $ p_{l,k}^{(c)} = \alpha_{l,k}\beta_{l,k}^{(c)}$. Then the constrains and can be jointly rewritten as $ \sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}p_{l,k}^{(c)}=1 $. Therefore, the $ \max-\min $ problem can be reformed as
\[rewritten max-min\]\[rewritten max-min part one\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathop{\mathrm{maximize}}\limits_{p^{(c)}_{l,k},t} & \quad t \nonumber \\
{\rm s.t.}&\ p^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P\right)\ge t,\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\forall l\in[2:L],\forall k \in\mathcal{K}_{l}, \forall c \in \mathcal{C}_{l,k}\label{noconvexieq_sad}\\
&\quad \sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}p_{l,k}^{(c)}=1 \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
Since Problem \[rewritten max-min part one\] is a linear programming problem, the problem can be solved by the interior-point methods or Lagrangian duality approach [@boyd2004convex]. However, such an optimal solution requires iteratively updating Lagrange multipliers using sub-gradient methods. By exploring the special structure of Problem \[rewritten max-min part one\], we obtain a simple optimal solution that does not require iterations. The optimal $ \left\lbrace {{p^{*}}^{(c)}_{l,k}}\right\rbrace_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}$ and $t^{*} $ can be obtained as closed-form expressions though the Lagrangian function $$\label{key}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}=t&-\sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\lambda_{l,k}^{(c)}\left[ t-p^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P\right)\right]\\ &-\mu(\sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}p^{(c)}_{l,k}-1),
\end{split}$$ where $ \left\lbrace\lambda_{l,k}^{(c)} \right\rbrace $ and $ \mu $ are Lagrange multipliers.
By setting the first derivative of $ \mathcal{L} $ with respect to $ t $, we have $ \sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\lambda_{l,k}^{(c)}=1 $ with the complementary slackness condition for all $ c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $ $$\label{the complementary slackness condition to t}
\lambda_{l,k}^{(c)}\left[ t-p^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P\right)\right]=0.$$
Also, by setting the first derivative of $ \mathcal{L} $ with respect to $ p^{(c)}_{l,k} $ for all $ c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $, we have $$\label{L respect to p}
\lambda_{l,k}^{(c)}\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P\right)-\mu=0$$ with the complementary slackness condition $ \mu(\sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}p^{(c)}_{l,k}-1)=0 $.
From Eq. , one can observe that $ \lambda_{l,k}^{(c)}=0 $,$ \forall c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}$ if $ \mu=0 $, which is contrary to $ \sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\lambda_{l,k}^{(c)}=1 $. Thus, to obtain the optimal solution, $ \mu\neq0 $ should hold. For each $ c $ in $ \mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}} $, $p^{(c)}_{l,k} \mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\frac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P\right) $ should be the same and equal to $ t $ due to $ \mu\neq0 $, $ \lambda_{l,k}^{(c)}\neq0 $ and Eq. . Using $ \sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\lambda_{l,k}^{(c)}=1 $ and $$\label{key}
p^{(c)}_{l,k}=\dfrac{t}{{\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\frac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P\right)}},$$ the optimal $ t^{*} $ is given as $$\label{Sad Op}
\begin{split}
t^{*}=&\left[\sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_{l}}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\left[ \mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P\right)\right]^{-1} \right]^{-1}
\end{split}$$ and the optimal $ {{p^{*}}^{(c)}_{l,k}} $ is given as $$\label{key}
{{p^{*}}^{(c)}_{l,k}}=\frac{ t^{*}}{\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\frac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P\right)}.$$
As a result, the computation rate with optimal time allocation and fixed power control is given as $ t^{*} $ (Eq. ).
By setting $ L=2 $, $ K_2=1 $ and $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,1}}=1 $ in Eq. , it reduces to a simple case where $ K_1 $ nodes wish to compute a desired function at the fusion center directly as classical CoMAC mentioned in Section \[Aggregation Schemes\], and the rate of it, named the rate of CoMAC with fixed power control, is the same as Eq. [@jeon2014computation]. Also, by setting $ L=2 $, $ K_2=1 $, $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,1}}=K_1 $, and $ K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{2,1}}=1 $ in Eq. , it reduces to the time-sharing case as Eq. .
Optimal Time Allocation and Adaptive Power Control {#Average Power Control s}
--------------------------------------------------
We observe that each node in the hierarchical network is active only in the corresponding channel uses. To compute the functions more efficiently, long-term power control should be considered as $ \mathsf{E}\left[P^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m] \right]=P $. The transmitted power of each node is set to $$\label{Average Power Control}
P^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]=\left\lbrace
\begin{split}
&c\dfrac{\min_{j\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{j\to k}_{l-1}[m]|^2}{|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]|^2}&,m\in\mathcal{T}_{l,k}^{(c)}\\
&0&,{\rm otherwise}
\end{split}\right..$$
To satisfy the long-term power control constrain, we have $$\label{key}
\begin{split}
\mathsf{E}\left[P^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]\right]=&\sum\limits_{t=1}^{n}\Pr(m=t)P^{i\to k}_{l-1}[m]|_{m=t }\\
\stackrel{(a)}{=}&\frac{c}{n}\sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}^{(c)}_{l,k}}\dfrac{\min_{j\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{j\to k}_{l-1}[t]|^2}{|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}[t]|^2}\\
\stackrel{(b)}{=}&c\alpha_{l,k}\beta_{l,k}^{(c)}\mathsf{E}\left[\dfrac{\min_{j\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{j\to k}_{l-1}|^2}{|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2} \right]
\end{split},$$ which should be equal to $ P $. Then, $ c $ is obtained as $$\label{value of c}
c=\dfrac{P}{\alpha_{l,k}\beta_{l,k}^{(c)}\mathsf{E}\left[\dfrac{\min_{i\in \mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2}{|h^{j\to k}_{l-1}|^2} \right]}.$$
Substituting Eqs. and into the rate in Theorem \[General Rate of Multi-Layer Network\], the computation rate is expressed as $$\label{Grate of ML-FC with APC and OTA}
\begin{split}
R=&\min_{l\in[2:L]}\min_{k\in\mathcal{K}_{l}}\alpha_{l,k}\min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}} \beta^{(c)}_{l,k} \mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\vphantom{\left.\frac{\mathsf{E}\left[ \min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right] P}{\alpha_{l,k}\beta^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{E}\left[{\min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2}/{\left| h\right|^2 }\right]}\right) }\frac{\mathsf{E}\left[ \min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right] P}{\alpha_{l,k}\beta^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{E}\left[{\min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2}/{\left| h\right|^2 }\right]}\right),
\end{split}$$ where $ h $ is used as a representative coefficient without loss of generality.
Considering adaptive power control, we formulate an optimization problem as Problem \[Average Power Control optimization\] to maximize the computation rate.
\[Average Power Control optimization\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathop{\mathrm{maximize}}\limits_{\alpha_{l,k},\beta^{(c)}_{l,k}} & \quad \min_{l\in[2:L]}\min_{k\in\mathcal{K}_{l}}\alpha_{l,k}\min_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}} \beta^{(c)}_{l,k} \mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\vphantom{\quad\left.\frac{\mathsf{E}\left[ \min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right] P}{\alpha_{l,k}\beta^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{E}\left[{\min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2}/{\left| h\right|^2 }\right]}\right) \nonumber} \quad\frac{\mathsf{E}\left[ \min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right] P}{\alpha_{l,k}\beta^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{E}\left[{\min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2}/{\left| h\right|^2 }\right]}\right) \nonumber \\
{\rm s.t.}&\quad \sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\alpha_{l,k}=1\\
&\quad \sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\beta^{(c)}_{l,k}=1,\forall l\in[2:L], \forall k\in\mathcal{K}_l
\end{aligned}$$
By introducing the convex relaxation as $ p_{l,k}^{(c)} = \alpha_{l,k}\beta_{l,k}^{(c)}$, this problem is rewritten as the following form.
\[rewritten Average Power Control optimization\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathop{\mathrm{maximize}}\limits_{p^{(c)}_{l,k},t} \quad t \nonumber \\
&{\rm s.t.}\ p^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\frac{\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P}{p^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{E}\left[{\min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2}/{\left| h\right|^2 }\right]}\right)\ge t,\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\forall l\in[2:L], \forall k \in\mathcal{K}_{l}, \forall c \in \mathcal{C}_{l,k} \label{convex constrains}\\
&\quad\quad \sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}p_{l,k}^{(c)}=1 \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
Problem \[rewritten Average Power Control optimization\] now is a convex problem since the constrain, Eq. , is concave. Hence, the above optimization problem has a unique maximum. The Lagrangian function is given as $$\label{Lagrangian}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}=&t-\sum_{l=2}^L\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_{l}}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}\lambda_{l,k}^{(c)}\left[t-p^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{C}^{+}\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\vphantom{\left.\left.\frac{\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P}{p^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{E}\left[{\min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2}/{\left| h\right|^2 }\right]}\right) \right]}\frac{\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P}{p^{(c)}_{l,k}\mathsf{E}\left[{\min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2}/{\left| h\right|^2 }\right]}\right) \right]\\
&-\mu\left(\sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}p_{l,k}^{(c)}-1\right)
\end{split}$$ with the complementary slackness condition $$\label{key}
\mu\left(\sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}p_{l,k}^{(c)}-1\right)=0,$$ where $ \left\lbrace \lambda_{l,k}^{(c)}\right\rbrace $ and $ \mu $ are Lagrange multipliers.
We apply the KKT optimality conditions to the Lagrangian function to obtain the optimal factor $ {p^{*}}^{(c)}_{l,k} $. By setting the first derivative of $ \mathcal{L} $ as Eq. with respect to $ {p}^{(c)}_{l,k} $ to zero, we have $$\label{key}
\ln\left(\dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\dfrac{\varepsilon^{(c)}_{l,k}}{{p}^{(c)}_{l,k}}\right)-\dfrac{\varepsilon^{(c)}_{l,k}}{{p}^{(c)}_{l,k}\left( \dfrac{1}{K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}+\dfrac{\varepsilon^{(c)}_{l,k}}{{p}^{(c)}_{l,k}}\right) }=\dfrac{\mu\ln(2)}{\lambda_{l,k}^{(c)}},$$ where $ \varepsilon^{(c)}_{l,k}=\frac{\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2\right]P}{\mathsf{E}\left[{\min_{i\in\mathcal{K}^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}|h^{i\to k}_{l-1}|^2}/{\left| h\right|^2 }\right]} $.
Then, each optimal factor is expressed as $$\label{OPeta}
{p^{*}}^{(c)}_{l,k}=\max\left\lbrace 0,-\varepsilon^{(c)}_{l,k}K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}\left[ 1+\left( {\tau}^{(c)}_{l,k}\right)^{-1} \right]^{-1} \right\rbrace,$$ where $ {\tau}^{(c)}_{l,k} $ is a Lambert $ W $ function as $$\label{Vg}
{\tau}^{(c)}_{l,k}=W\left(-{2^{-\frac{\mu}{\lambda_{l,k}^{(c)}}}}{\left( K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}\right)^{-1}}\exp(-1)\right),$$ while $ {p^{*}}^{(c)}_{l,k} $ satisfies $$\label{Constrain}
\left\lbrace
\begin{split}
\sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}{p^{*}}^{(c)}_{l,k}\le1,\quad\mu=0\\
\sum_{l=2}^{L}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_l}\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}_{{\rm N}_{l,k}}}{p^{*}}^{(c)}_{l,k}=1,\quad\mu>0
\end{split}
\right..$$
By setting $ L=2 $, $ K_2=1 $ and $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,1}}=1 $ in Eq. , the rate of it is the same as the rate $$\label{RF-CoMAC with APC}
R=\mathsf{C}^+\left( \dfrac{1}{K_1}+\dfrac{\mathsf{E}\left[\min_{i \in [1:K_1]} |h_{1,i}|^2\right]P }{\mathsf{E}\left[{\min_{i \in [1:K_1]}|h_{1,i}|^2}/{|h|^2} \right]}\right)$$ in [@jeon2014computation Theorem 5] as the rate of CoMAC with adaptive power control. Also, by setting $ L=2 $, $ K_2=1 $, $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,1}}=K_1 $, $ K^{(c)}_{{\rm N}_{2,1}}=1 $ and $ \beta^{(c)}_{l,k}=\frac{1}{K_1} $ in Eq. as the time-sharing case, an improved rate is obtained as $ R=\frac{1}{K_1}\mathsf{E}\left[ \mathsf{C}\left(\left|h \right|^2K_1P \right) \right] $ compared with Eq. .
Simulation Results and Discussion {#Simulation Results and Discussions}
=================================
In this section, we provide simulation results of the computation rates of ML-FC, the time-sharing scheme as Eq. , CoMAC with fixed power control as Eq. and CoMAC with adaptive power control as Eq. . In our simulation, the average signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is the same as $ P $ because the variance of the noise is set as one. We consider i.i.d. Rayleigh fading channel, i.e., the exponential distribution with parameter one. The abbreviations for fixed power control, adaptive power control, average time allocation, and optimal time allocation are FPC, APC, ATA, and OTA, respectively.
![Computation rates of CoMAC with different schemes with respect to the number of source nodes $ K_1 $ and $ P $ when $ L=2 $.[]{data-label="fig:cs1"}](Figs/CS1){width="\linewidth"}
![Computation rates of ML-FC with different schemes with respect to the number of subgroups $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,1}} $ and the number of layers $ L $ when $ K_1 $=64.[]{data-label="fig:cs2"}](Figs/CS2){width="\linewidth"}
![Computation rates of ML-FC with different schemes with respect to the number of subgroups $ K_2 $ and the number of layers $ L $ when $ K_1=64 $.[]{data-label="fig:cs3"}](Figs/CS3){width="\linewidth"}
![Computation rates of ML-FC with respect to the number of groups $K_2 $ and the number of source nodes $ K_1 $ when $ L=3 $.[]{data-label="fig:cs4"}](Figs/CS4){width="\linewidth"}
Since the hierarchical network is a more general case compared with the relay-free network, the rates of CoMAC (Eqs. , and ) should be generalized by the rates of ML-FC with different parameters. Thus, in Fig. \[fig:cs1\], their relationship is given. By setting $ L=2 $, the hierarchical network reduces to the relay-free network aiming at computing the desired function associated with $ K_1 $ source nodes directly. When the number of subgroups $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,1}} $ is equal to the number of source nodes $ K_1 $, the fusion center collects all the individual data from $ K_1 $ nodes as the time-sharing case and the rate of ML-FC with FPC is the same as Eq. by setting $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,1}}=K_1 $ in Eq. . By setting $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,1}}=1 $ in Eq. , all the nodes transmit signals simultaneously to the fusion center as the number of the subgroups is 1. It generalizes the rate of CoMAC with FPC ( Eq. ). Similarly, by setting $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,1}}=1 $ in Eq. , the rate of CoMAC with APC (Eq. ) is obtained.
The computation rates of ML-FC with different schemes versus the number of subgroups in the first layer $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,1}} $ and the number of layers $ L $ are demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:cs2\]. In this case, we consider the hierarchical network where $ K_1=64 $ nodes are deployed in the first layer and each of the rest layers owns one node. One can observe that the computation rate decreases as the number of layers increases. Since each layer has to be allocated some channel uses to compute the corresponding functions, i.e., subgroup functions and group functions, the increase in the number of layers causes the decrease in the number of channel uses allocated to each layer when the total of channel uses is fixed. Besides, the computation rate is improved by setting $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,1}} =2 $. This implies that the group function should be divided into several subgroup functions to be computed instead of computing it directly. Compared with ML-FC with FPC, ML-FC with APC improves the rate. Also, optimal time allocation provides further improvement.
However, the impact of the number of groups is different from the impact of the number of subgroups. In Fig. \[fig:cs3\], we show the computation rates of ML-FC for different schemes versus the number of groups in the first layer $ K_{2} $[^10]. The main difference from Fig. \[fig:cs2\] is that the increase in the groups results in the worse performance since each group is allocated fewer channel uses when the channel uses and $ C_{{\rm N}_{2,1}} $ are fixed. With fewer channel uses, the number of the group functions computed at the corresponding node is fewer. Thus, the computation rate of ML-FC decreases.
Although Fig. \[fig:cs3\] suggests that the number of groups in a network should be as few as possible, it does not mean that the increase in the number of groups only has disadvantage. As shown in Fig. \[fig:cs4\], we simulate the computation rates with respect to the number of groups in the first layer and the number of the source nodes in the first layer. One can observe that all the rates decrease as the number of source nodes $ K_1 $ increases. Also, when $ K_1 $ is small, the relation between the rate and the number of groups is the same as that in Fig. \[fig:cs3\]. However, as $ K_1 $ becomes larger, unlike the rate of ML-FC with one group decreasing rapidly, the rates of ML-FC with multiple groups keep a slower decrease. Especially, ML-FC with eight groups provides the slowest decrease, which implies that ML-FC with more groups can support a network with more nodes. Thus, it provides a way to design a network that can afford massive numbers of nodes by increasing the number of groups in this network.
Conclusion {#Conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we have combined the uses of CoMAC and orthogonal communication to attain the computation of functions in the disorganized network. First, we have reorganized the disorganized network into the hierarchical network including multiple layers, which consists of subgroups and groups. In the hierarchical network, ML-FC has been developed where subgroup functions and group functions are obained by CoMAC and orthogonal communication, respectively. Then, the desired function at the fusion center is reconstructed by these subgroup and group functions. To reliably reconstruct the desired function over multiple layers, we have characterized the relationship among subgroup functions, group functions, and desired functions. With the given relationship, we have derived the general computation rate of ML-FC, which suggests that the computation rate is determined by the subgroup function with the worst rate. Furthermore, we have formulated optimization problems taking into account time allocation and power control. The closed-form optimal solutions have been given with respect to different cases, which generalizes the existing CoMAC works.
[^1]: F. Wu, L. Chen and G. Wei are with Department of Electronic Engineering and Information Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230027. (e-mail: [email protected], {chenli87, wei}@ustc.edu.cn).
[^2]: N. Zhao is with the School of Info. and Commun. Eng., Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China, and also with National Mobile Communications Research Laboratory, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China. (e-mail:[email protected]).
[^3]: Y. Chen is with the School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K. (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^4]: F.R. Yu is with the Department of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada. (email: [email protected]).
[^5]: The topology of the wireless network can be arbitrary, but it must be known.
[^6]: If the number of channel uses is equal to the length of the block code, then the computation rate $ R $ is also given as $ R=\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{T_d}{\bar{n}}H(f(\bm{\mathrm{b_v}})) $.
[^7]: Since the number of nodes in the $ (l-1) $-th layer can be arbitrary, we assume that it is $ \bar{K} $ without loss of generality.
[^8]: Since the number of subgroups for a group can be arbitrary, we assume that it is $ \bar{C} $ without loss of generality.
[^9]: Shown in Fig. \[fig:group\], a group is divided into several subgroups.
[^10]: As demonstrated in Section \[Hierarchical Networks\], the sum of the number of groups in the $ l $-th layer is equal to the number of nodes in the $ (l+1) $-th layer since each node in the $ (l+1) $-th is allocated a group from the $ l $-th layer in the hierarchical network.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We find solutions of Laplace’s equation with specific boundary conditions (in which such solutions take either the value zero or unity in each surface) using a generic curvilinear system of coordinates. Such purely geometrical solutions (that we shall call Basic Harmonic Functions BHF’s) are utilized to obtain a more general class of solutions for Laplace’s equation, in which the functions take arbitrary constant values on the boundaries. On the other hand, the BHF’s are also used to obtain the capacitance of many electrostatic configurations of conductors. This method of finding solutions of Laplace’s equation and capacitances with multiple symmetries is particularly simple, owing to the fact that the method of separation of variables becomes much simpler under the boundary conditions that lead to the BHF’s. Examples of application in complex symmetries are given. Then, configurations of succesive embedding of conductors are also examined. In addition, expressions for electric fields between two conductors and charge densities on their surfaces are obtained in terms of generalized curvilinear coordinates. It worths remarking that it is plausible to extrapolate the present method to other linear homogeneous differential equations.
**Keywords**: Laplace’s equation, curvilinear coordinates, capacitance, harmonic functions, separation of variables.
author:
- |
Mayckol Morales[^1], Rodolfo A. Diaz[^2], William J. Herrera[^3].\
Departamento de Física. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia.
title: 'Solutions of Laplace’s equation with simple boundary conditions, and their applications for capacitors with multiple symmetries'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Solutions of Laplace’s equation, usually called Harmonic Functions (HF’s)are very important in many branches of Physics and Engineering such as electrostatics, gravitation, hydrodynamics and thermodynamics[@Arfken; @Grif]. Therefore, considerable effort has been done in solving Laplace’s equation [@geomcapac3]-[@conformal1] in a variety of geometries and boundary conditions. On the other hand, the capacitance of electrostatic conductors is a very important quantity since capacitors are present in many electric and electronic devices [@dasref]-[@cables]. Thus, many studies of its general properties [@Grif]-[@cap08], and calculations of coefficients of capacitance for many geometric configurations [@cap02]-[@geomcapac3] have been carried out.
The first goal in this paper is to show a simple method to solve Laplace’s equation for configurations of volumes with certain symmetries, when the HF’s acquire values of either zero or unity in each surface that provides the boundary conditions. The solutions of Laplace’s equation under these specific boundary conditions will be called Basic Harmonic Functions (BHF’s). We shall see that the form of these boundary conditions leads to very easy solutions via separation of variables. Besides, the solutions will be written in terms of a generic system of curvilinear coordinates that can be adjusted for many symmetries. It is remarkable that the BHF’s depends exclusively on the geometry, and not on the physical problem involved.
The determination of the BHF’s under a given geometry will be applied in two scenarios: $\mathbf{(a)}$ The generation of a more general class of solutions in which the HF’s take arbitrary constant values on the surfaces that determine the volume. $\mathbf{(b)\ }$The calculation of the coefficients of capacitance when the surfaces that form the volume are covered with electrostatic conductors. Once again, both types of solutions are given in a generic form in terms of appropriate generalized systems of coordinates.
The paper is distributed as follows: In section \[Laplace\], we solve Laplace’s equation in generalized geometrical configurations to obtain the BHF’s, by using a generic system of curvilinear coordinates. As a matter of illustration of the method, we obtain the BHF’s for the cases of two concentric spheres and two concentric cylinders. Then, from the BHF’s obtained in Sec. \[Laplace\] and appealing to the linearity of Laplace’s equation, we construct in Sec. \[sec:equipotential case\] a more general class of solutions in which HF’s acquire arbitrary constant values on the surfaces. On the other hand, in section \[formulas of capacitance\], we use the general expressions for the BHF’s in generalized curvilinear coordinates, in order to obtain the corresponding generalized formulas for the coefficients of capacitance. The capacitance coefficients for the cases of two concentric spheres and two concentric cylinders are obtained for illustration. Then, section \[capaccalc\] shows calculations of BHF’s and capacitances for more complex geometries in which our formulation acquires all its power. Moreover, in appendix \[sec:field density\], we obtain the electric field between two conductors as well as charge densities on their surfaces in terms of curvilinear coordinates, while in appendix [sec:embedding]{}, formulas for the coefficients of capacitance are extended to the case in which we have a configuration of succesively embedded conductors. Appendix \[ap:coordinate geom\] provides some relations between curvilinear coordinates and geometrical factors. Finally, section \[conclusions\] contains our conclusions.
Laplace’s equation and systems of orthogonal curvilinear coordinates \[Laplace\]
================================================================================
Laplace’s equation given by $$\nabla ^{2}f=0 \label{Laplaceeq}$$has solutions that depend on the boundary conditions. It is desirable to use a system of coordinates adjusted to the symmetry of the problem. Let us consider a generic orthogonal coordinate system $\left( u,v,w\right) $, with its corresponding scale factors $\left( h_{u},h_{v},h_{w}\right) $. Furthermore, let us assume that the boundary consists of two closed surfaces $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ in which the coordinate $u$ takes constant values $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}\ $on $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ respectively. We shall suppose that one of the surfaces contains the other, and we define as $V$ the volume delimited between both closed surfaces. We intend to find a solution $f_{j}(u,v,w)$ of Laplace’s equation in $V$,$\ $with the following boundary conditions $$f_{j}\left( u_{j},v,w\right) =1\ ,\ \ f_{j}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) =0\ \ ;\
\text{with\ \ }i,j=1,2\ \text{ and\ \ }i\neq j \label{eq:Condicion_Frontera}$$where $i,j=1,2$ are indices that label the surfaces that determine the boundary. Further, $u_{i}$ refers to the constant value of the coordinate $u$ on the surface $S_{i}$. As we already mentioned, we shall call Basic Harmonic Functions (BHF’s) to the solutions of Laplace’s equation with the boundary conditions defined in Eq. (\[eq:Condicion\_Frontera\]). In terms of the $\left( u,v,w\right) $ coordinates, Laplace’s equation for $f_{j}\ $becomes [@Arfken] $$\left[ \frac{\partial }{\partial u}\left( \frac{h_{v}h_{w}}{h_{u}}\frac{\partial f_{j}}{\partial u}\right) +\frac{\partial }{\partial v}\left( \frac{h_{w}h_{u}}{h_{v}}\frac{\partial f_{j}}{\partial v}\right) +\frac{\partial }{\partial w}\left( \frac{h_{u}h_{v}}{h_{w}}\frac{\partial f_{j}}{\partial w}\right) \right] =0 \label{eq:Laplaciano_Particular}$$Assuming the following ansatz of separation $$f_{j}\left( u,v,w\right) =U_{j}(u)\Theta _{j}(v,w)\ \ ;\ \ j=1,2
\label{eq:Anzat1}$$The boundary conditions Eq. (\[eq:Condicion\_Frontera\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
f_{j}\left( u_{j},v,w\right) =U_{j}\left( u_{j}\right) \Theta _{j}(v,w)
&=&1\ \ ;\ \ j=1,2 \label{boundary cond1} \\
f_{j}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) =U_{j}\left( u_{i}\right) \Theta _{j}(v,w)
&=&0\ \ ;\ \text{with\ \ }i,j=1,2\ \text{ and\ \ }i\neq j
\label{boundary cond2}\end{aligned}$$
From now on, we shall assume that $i,j=1,2\ $and $i\neq j$ unless otherwise stated. Since the coordinates $v$ and $w$ take any value on the surfaces, it is necessary that $U_{j}\left( u_{i}\right) =0$, in order to satisfy the boundary condition (\[boundary cond2\]) and to obtain a non-trivial solution. On the other hand, the boundary condition (\[boundary cond1\]) says that $$\Theta _{j}\left( v,w\right) =\frac{1}{U_{j}\left( u_{j}\right) }\equiv A_{j}$$where $A_{j}$ are two constants that only depend on $j$. Thus, the solution $f_{j}(u,v,w)$ in Eq. (\[eq:Anzat1\]) can then be rewritten as $$f_{j}(u,v,w)\equiv A_{j}U_{j}\left( u\right) \equiv f_{j}\left( u\right)
\label{fj(u)}$$therefore the solution only depends on the coordinate $u$. The boundary conditions (\[eq:Condicion\_Frontera\]) become $$f_{j}\left( u_{i}\right) =0\ \ ;\ \ f_{j}\left( u_{j}\right) =1
\label{eq:Condiciones_Frontera}$$from Eq. (\[fj(u)\]) we get $\partial _{v}f_{j}=\partial _{w}f_{j}=0$ from which Laplace’s equation (\[eq:Laplaciano\_Particular\]) reads $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial }{\partial u}\left( \frac{h_{v}h_{w}}{h_{u}}\frac{\partial
f_{j}\left( u\right) }{\partial u}\right) &=&0\ \ \Rightarrow
\label{eq:Laplaciano_Redox} \\
\frac{h_{v}h_{w}}{h_{u}}\frac{\partial f_{j}\left( u\right) }{\partial u}
&=&k_{j}\left( v,w\right) \label{eq:Laplaciano_Redox2}\end{aligned}$$note that there is not dependence on the coordinate $u\ $on the right hand side of Eq. (\[eq:Laplaciano\_Redox2\]). Consequently, the $u-$dependence given by $\partial _{u}f_{j}\left( u\right) $ on the left hand side of Eq. (\[eq:Laplaciano\_Redox2\]) must be cancelled by the remaining factor $h_{v}h_{w}/h_{u}$. It suggests that the dependence with $u$ on the term $h_{v}h_{w}/h_{u}$ should be factorized. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that $$\frac{h_{v}h_{w}}{h_{u}}=G\left( u\right) H\left( v,w\right)
\label{eq:Ansatz2}$$
Note that the validity of this ansatz depends only on the coordinate system[^4]. Thus, neither $G\left( u\right) $ nor $H\left( v,w\right) $ could depend on $j$. Applying such an ansatz on Eq. (\[eq:Laplaciano\_Redox\]) we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
H\left( v,w\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial u}\left[ G\left( u\right) \frac{\partial f_{j}\left( u\right) }{\partial u}\right] &=&0\ \ \Rightarrow \ \
\frac{d}{du}\left[ G\left( u\right) \frac{df_{j}\left( u\right) }{du}\right]
=0 \\
&\Rightarrow &\ G\left( u\right) \frac{df_{j}\left( u\right) }{du}=B_{j}\end{aligned}$$
where $B_{j}$ is another couple of constants for each $S_{j}$. We can solve for$\ f_{j}\left( u\right) $ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
df_{j}\left( u\right) &=&\frac{B_{j}}{G\left( u\right) }du\ \ \Rightarrow \
\ f_{j}\left( u\right) =B_{j}\int \frac{du}{G\left( u\right) }+C_{j} \notag
\\
f_{j}\left( u\right) &=&B_{j}Z\left( u\right) +C_{j}\ \ ;\ \ \frac{dZ\left(
u\right) }{du}\equiv \frac{1}{G\left( u\right) } \label{eq:fj=00003DBjZ+Cj}\end{aligned}$$once again $C_{j}$ is another couple of constants associated with each surface. Combining (\[eq:fj=00003DBjZ+Cj\]) with the conditions ([eq:Condiciones\_Frontera]{}) we have $$\begin{aligned}
f_{j}\left( u_{i}\right) &=&0=B_{j}Z\left( u_{i}\right) +C_{j}
\label{eq:Condicion_i_j} \\
f_{j}\left( u_{j}\right) &=&1=B_{j}Z\left( u_{j}\right) +C_{j}
\label{eq:Condcion_j_j}\end{aligned}$$From (\[eq:Condicion\_i\_j\]) it is obtained that $$C_{j}=-B_{j}Z\left( u_{i}\right) \label{eq:Cj}$$Substituting (\[eq:Cj\]) in (\[eq:Condcion\_j\_j\]) we obtain $$1=B_{j}Z\left( u_{j}\right) -B_{j}Z\left( u_{i}\right)$$$$B_{j}=\frac{1}{\left[ Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left( u_{i}\right) \right] }
\label{def Bj}$$and substituting (\[eq:Cj\]) and (\[def Bj\]) in ([eq:fj=00003DBjZ+Cj]{}) yields $$f_{j}\left( u\right) =\frac{Z\left( u\right) }{\left[ Z\left( u_{j}\right)
-Z\left( u_{i}\right) \right] }-B_{j}Z\left( u_{i}\right) =\frac{Z\left(
u\right) }{\left[ Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left( u_{i}\right) \right] }-\frac{Z\left( u_{i}\right) }{\left[ Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left( u_{i}\right) \right] } \notag$$
Summarizing, let us assume a geometric configuration with two closed surfaces $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ in which one of the surfaces contains the other. Both surfaces determine a volume $V$. Let us also assume that there is a system of coordinates $\left( u,v,w\right) $, with scale factors $\left( h_{u},h_{v},h_{w}\right) $ such that the coordinate $u$ is constant in each surface $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ (both constants $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}\ $should be different if we want a non-trivial solution). Under such hypotheses, the solutions of Laplace’s equation within the volume $V$ and that satisfies the boundary conditions$$f_{j}\left( u_{j},v,w\right) =1\ ,\ \ f_{j}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) =0\ \ ;\
\text{with\ \ }i,j=1,2\ \text{ and\ \ }i\neq j
\label{eq:Condicion_Frontera2}$$possess the following features: These solutions $f_{j}\left( u\right) $ only depends on the variable $u$ and can be constructed with the following set of expressions $$\begin{aligned}
f_{j}\left( u\right) &=&\frac{Z\left( u\right) -Z\left( u_{i}\right) }{\left[
Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left( u_{i}\right) \right] }\ ;\ \ \text{with\ \ }i,j=1,2\ \text{ and\ \ }i\neq j \label{regla de oro} \\
\frac{h_{v}h_{w}}{h_{u}} &\equiv &G\left( u\right) H\left( v,w\right) \ \ \
;\ \ \ \frac{dZ\left( u\right) }{du}\equiv \frac{1}{G\left( u\right) }
\label{regla de oro2}\end{aligned}$$Note that$$f_{1}\left( u\right) +f_{2}\left( u\right) =1 \label{f1+f2=1}$$in the region $V\ $in which this Laplace’s equation is satisfied. Such a property is a particular case of a more general context [@capac1]. From the previous developments, it can be seen that the functions $G\left(
u\right) ,\ H\left( v,w\right) $ and $Z\left( u\right) $ are not unique. We can redefine such functions as follows$$\overline{G}\left( u\right) \equiv \kappa G\left( u\right) \ ,\ \ \bar{H}\left( v,w\right) \equiv \frac{1}{\kappa }H\left( v,w\right) \ ,\ \ \
\overline{Z}\left( u\right) \equiv \frac{1}{\kappa }Z\left( u\right) +\beta
\label{gauges}$$where $\kappa $ and $\beta $ are arbitrary constants. Nevertheless, it is not a problem since these functions are not physical observables. Moreover, it is easy to check that the BHF’s given by Eq. (\[regla de oro\]) are invariant under the gauge transformations defined by Eqs. (\[gauges\]). Finally, the boundary conditions along with the uniqueness theorems, guarantee that each solution $f_{j}\left( u\right) $ is unique within the volume $V$.
It worths remarking that the formulas obtained in this section are valid regardless which surface contains the other. Further, perhaps the most outstanding property of the BHF’s obtained here, is that they depend only on the geometry. The functions $f_{j}\left( u\right) $ are dimensionless and given a geometry, they are unique for each $j$.
BHF’s for a particular case for the scale factors\[sec:BHF particular\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us examine the particular case in which$$\frac{h_{v}h_{w}}{h_{u}}=1 \label{ansatzh2}$$in that case from Eq. (\[regla de oro2\]) the simplest solution for the functions $G\left( u\right) ,\ H\left( v,w\right) $ and $Z\left( u\right) $ reads$$G\left( u\right) =H\left( v,w\right) =1\ \ ;\ \ Z\left( u\right) =u
\label{GHZ simple}$$Substituting (\[GHZ simple\]) in (\[regla de oro\]) the solution for $f_{j}\left( u\right) $ simplifies considerably$$f_{j}\left( u\right) =\frac{u-u_{i}}{u_{j}-u_{i}}\ ;\ \ \text{with\ \ }i,j=1,2\ \text{ and\ \ }i\neq j \label{HFsimplest}$$
The assumption (\[ansatzh2\]) is fulfilled when we have a system of coordinates with cylindrical symmetry that is obtained with a conformal transformation from the cartesian system of coordinates projected onto the $XY-$plane. In that case we usually obtain $h_{u}=h_{v}$ and $h_{w}=1$ (of course the roles of $v$ and $w$ could be interchanged). Note however that a cylindrical symmetry coming from a conformal transformation is only a sufficient condition but not necessary. Equation (\[ansatzh2\]) is the only condition we require for the validity of Eq. (\[HFsimplest\]).
BHF’s for the case of two concentric spheres[subsec:twospheres1]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to illustrate the method, let us take a geometric configuration consisting of two concentric spheres of radius $a$ and $b$ with $a>b$. We recall that by definition $u$ is the coordinate such that $u_{i}$ keeps constant for all points of the surface $S_{i}$ for $i=1,2$. Thus, the spherical coordinates are the appropriate ones, and $u\equiv r$ is the coordinate that is kept constant for each of the spherical surfaces. Hence, for this configuration we have $$u=r,\ v=\theta ,\ w=\varphi \ \ \ \text{and\ \ \ }h_{r}=1,\ h_{\theta }=r,\
h_{\varphi }=r\sin \theta \label{coordin spher}$$from the first of Eqs. (\[regla de oro2\]) we can find a solution for $G\left( u\right) \equiv G\left( r\right) $ and for $H\left( v,w\right)
\equiv H\left( \theta ,\varphi \right) $$$\frac{h_{\theta }h_{\varphi }}{h_{r}}\equiv G\left( r\right) H\left( \theta
,\varphi \right) \ \Rightarrow \ r^{2}\sin \theta =G\left( r\right) H\left(
\theta ,\varphi \right)$$so a possible solution is[^5]$$G\left( r\right) =-r^{2}\ \ ;\ \ H\left( \theta ,\varphi \right) =H\left(
\theta \right) =-\sin \theta \label{Grsolminus}$$from the second of Eqs. (\[regla de oro2\]) we can find a solution for $Z\left( u\right) =Z\left( r\right) $ $$Z\left( r\right) =-\int \frac{dr}{r^{2}}=\frac{1}{r} \label{Z(u)spheres}$$and substituting in Eq. (\[regla de oro\]) we obtain
$$f_{j}\left( r\right) =\frac{\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{r_{i}}}{\left[ \frac{1}{r_{j}}-\frac{1}{r_{i}}\right] }\ \ ,\ \ i,j=1,2\text{\ \ \ and\ \ }i\neq j
\label{eq:Esferas}$$
for $r_{j}=r_{2}\equiv a$ and $r_{i}=r_{1}\equiv b$ with $a>b$ Eq. ([eq:Esferas]{}) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
f_{2}\left( r\right) &=&\frac{\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{r_{1}}}{\left( \frac{1}{r_{2}}-\frac{1}{r_{1}}\right) }=\frac{\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{b}}{\left( \frac{1}{a}-\frac{1}{b}\right) } \notag \\
f_{2}\left( r\right) &=&\left( \frac{ab}{b-a}\right) \left( \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{b}\right) \label{value of fi(r)sphere1}\end{aligned}$$since $\nabla ^{2}\left( 1/r\right) =0$ for $r\neq 0$, it is easy to check that $f_{2}\left( r\right) $ is a solution for Laplace’s equation in the region $b<r<a$ that satisfies the boundary conditions ([eq:Condicion\_Frontera]{}) that in our case read $$f_{2}\left( r_{2}\right) =f_{2}\left( a\right) =1\text{\ \ \ and\ \ }f_{2}\left( r_{1}\right) =f_{2}\left( b\right) =0$$from Eq. (\[eq:Esferas\]) we can also obtain $f_{1}\left( r\right) $$$\begin{aligned}
f_{1}\left( r\right) &=&\frac{\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{r_{2}}}{\left( \frac{1}{r_{1}}-\frac{1}{r_{2}}\right) }=\frac{\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{a}}{\left( \frac{1}{b}-\frac{1}{a}\right) } \notag \\
f_{1}\left( r\right) &=&\left( \frac{ab}{a-b}\right) \left( \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{a}\right) \label{value of fi(r)sphere2}\end{aligned}$$which satifies Laplace’s equation in the region $b<r<a$ with boundary conditions $f_{1}\left( a\right) =0$ and $f_{1}\left( b\right) =1$. Observe that $f_{1}\left( r\right) +f_{2}\left( r\right) =1$, as it must be.
BHF’s for two concentric cylinders
----------------------------------
Let us assume two very long concentric cylinders of radii $a$ and $b$ with $a>b$. This geometry can be adapted to the polar cylindrical coordinate system $\left( r,\varphi ,z\right) $. However, we shall use the (equivalent) conformal polar cylindrical coordinate system $\left( \rho ,\varphi
,z\right) $. Such a system is defined as$$\begin{aligned}
x &=&e^{\rho }\cos \varphi \ ;\ \ y=e^{\rho }\sin \varphi \ ;\ \ z=z
\label{conformal cyl} \\
h_{\rho } &=&r\ ;\ \ h_{\varphi }=r\ ;\ \ h_{z}=1 \label{conformal cyl2}\end{aligned}$$the advantage of using the coordinates $\left( \rho ,\varphi ,z\right) $ \[instead of the usual cylindrical polar coordinates\] is that the scale factors (\[conformal cyl2\]) satisfy the condition (\[ansatzh2\]) from which it is immediate the form of the BHF’s from Eq. (\[HFsimplest\])$$f_{j}\left( \rho \right) =\frac{\rho -\rho _{i}}{\rho _{j}-\rho _{i}}=\frac{\ln \left( r/r_{i}\right) }{\ln \left( r_{j}/r_{i}\right) }\ ;\ \ r_{1}=b\
;\ r_{2}=a\ \ \text{with\ \ }i,j=1,2\ \text{ and\ \ }i\neq j
\label{BHF cylinders}$$
The case in which the surfaces are equipotential\[sec:equipotential case\]
==========================================================================
Returning to the general case, it could be realized that owing to the particular form of the boundary conditions (\[eq:Condicion\_Frontera\]), the solutions previously generated are remarkably simple and also purely geometrical as discussed above. We can use the BHF’s $f_{j}\left( u\right) $ generated in this way, in order to obtain a more general class of solutions $\phi \left( u\right) \ $of Laplace’s equation in the same volume $V$, in which the HF $\phi \left( u\right) \ $acquires constant but arbitrary values $\phi _{1}$ and $\phi _{2}$ on the surfaces $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ respectively. For such a scenario, the solution $\phi \left( u\right) $ is given by$$\phi \left( u\right) =\phi _{1}f_{1}\left( u\right) +\phi _{2}f_{2}\left(
u\right) =\phi _{2}+f_{1}\left( u\right) ~\left[ \phi _{1}-\phi _{2}\right]
\label{fi(u)gen}$$where we have used Eq. (\[f1+f2=1\]) and the functions $f_{j}\left(
u\right) \ $are given by Eqs. (\[regla de oro\], \[regla de oro2\]) in generalized orthogonal curvilinear coordinates. We can see that Eq. ([fi(u)gen]{}) is the solution to this equipotential problem by observing that if we apply $\nabla ^{2}$ on both sides of such an equation, we find that $\phi \left( u\right) $ obeys Laplace’s equation. Moreover, by taking a point on the surface $S_{i}$ then $u=u_{i}\ $and Eq. (\[fi(u)gen\]) yields the required boundary conditions$$\phi \left( S_{i}\right) =\phi \left( u_{i}\right) =\phi _{i}\ \ \text{with\
\ }i=1,2. \label{equipot condition}$$The uniqueness theorems guarantees that such a solution is unique. Note that in this case the boundary conditions $\phi _{1}$ and $\phi _{2}$ could have dimensions as well as the general solution $\phi \left( u\right) $. For instance, in electrostatics $\phi \left( u\right) $ would have dimensions of potential. This strategy is quite similar to the use of Green’s functions to solve Poisson’s equation (or any other linear inhomogeneous equation), in the sense that Green’s functions only depends on the geometry as it is the case with the BHF’s.
As a matter of example, we should keep in mind that the BHF’s given by Eqs. (\[value of fi(r)sphere1\], \[value of fi(r)sphere2\]) for the concentric spheres are purely geometrical so far. If we want to solve a physical problem such as the electrostatic potential in the volume defined by $b<r<a$, when the two spherical surfaces are at potentials $\phi _{b}$ and $\phi
_{a}$, such a potential is given by Eq. (\[fi(u)gen\])$$\phi \left( r\right) =\phi _{b}f_{1}\left( r\right) +\phi _{a}f_{2}\left(
r\right) =\phi _{a}+f_{1}\left( r\right) \ \left[ \phi _{b}-\phi _{a}\right]
\ ;\ \ b\leq r\leq a \label{soluc concentric}$$
Formulas of capacitance in orthogonal curvilinear coordinates[formulas of capacitance]{}
========================================================================================
[![Configuration of two conductors in which the inner conductor with external surface $S_{i}$ is enclosed within the cavity of an external conductor. The surface of the cavity is denoted by $S_{j}$, and the volume$\ V$ is the region (in white) between both surfaces. We could interchange the role of the labels $i\leftrightarrow j$, and all our developments are still valid. []{data-label="fig:twocond"}](GRAEMBE2.eps "fig:"){width="7.2cm"} ]{}
The BHF’s described in section \[Laplace\] have an interesting application in determining coefficients of capacitance of certain geometrical configurations. Let us assume that the surfaces $S_{i}$ and $S_{j}$ defined in section \[Laplace\] are covered by electrostatic conductors and the volumen $V$ is left empty. For example, let us assume for a moment that $S_{j}$ contains to $S_{i}$. We could have a conductor with a cavity such that the surface of the cavity is $S_{j}$ and we could have another conductor inside the cavity whose external surface is $S_{i}$ as displayed in Fig. \[fig:twocond\]. Of course, it is possible to interchange the roles of $S_{i}$ and $S_{j}$ and our developments are still the same.
We can determine the coefficients of capacitance for this geometry of capacitors by using the BHF’s in section \[Laplace\]. It can be shown that the coefficients of capacitance for the previous configuration of conductors are given by [@capac1]
$$C_{ij}=-\varepsilon _{0}\oint_{S_{i}}\nabla f_{j}\left( u_{i}\right) \cdot
\mathbf{n}_{i}dS \label{eq:CapacitanciaDiazHerrera}$$
where $\mathbf{n}_{i}$ is a normal to the surface $S_{i}$ that points outwards with respect to the $i-th\ $conductor. We have $$Q_{i}=\sum_{j}C_{ij}\phi _{j} \label{potential relation}$$with $Q_{i},\phi _{i}$ denoting the charge and potential on each conductor. Expression (\[eq:CapacitanciaDiazHerrera\]) is valid even if $i=j$. Nevertheless, we shall consider the case in which $i\neq j$ henceforth. Since the functions $f_{j}$ take constant values on each surface, then $\nabla f_{j}$ evaluated on each surface is perpendicular to such a surface. Moreover, it can be proved that [@capac1]$$\nabla f_{j}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) \cdot \mathbf{n}_{i}\geq 0\text{ \ for\ }i\neq j \label{gradtoni}$$such that $\nabla f_{j}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) $ is parallel (and not antiparallel) to $\mathbf{n}_{i}$ in each point $u_{i},v,w$ on the surface$\
S_{i}$. From these facts and using Eqs. (\[regla de oro\], \[regla de oro2\]), as well as the fact that $f_{j}\left( u\right) $ only depends on $u$, we have$$\begin{aligned}
\nabla f_{j}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) \cdot \mathbf{n}_{i} &=&\left\Vert
\nabla f_{j}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) \right\Vert =\left\vert \frac{1}{h_{u}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) }\frac{df_{j}\left( u_{i}\right) }{du}\right\vert =\left\vert \frac{1}{h_{u}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) ~\left[
Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left( u_{i}\right) \right] }\frac{dZ\left(
u_{i}\right) }{du}\right\vert \notag \\
\nabla f_{j}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) \cdot \mathbf{n}_{i} &=&\left\vert \frac{1}{h_{u}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) ~\left[ Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left(
u_{i}\right) \right] G\left( u_{i}\right) }\right\vert \label{gradfj}\end{aligned}$$where we have taken into account that all functions involved in integral (\[eq:CapacitanciaDiazHerrera\]) should be evaluated at a given point in $S_{i}$ i.e. at $u=u_{i}$. Moreover, since $\mathbf{n}_{i}~dS$ is orthogonal to the unit vectors $\mathbf{e}_{v}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{w}$ associated with the $v,w$ coordinates, we have$$dS=\left\vert h_{v}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) ~h_{w}\left( u_{i},v,w\right)
\right\vert dvdw$$where we have taken into account that $dS$ is positive definite. Utilizing Eqs. (\[eq:Ansatz2\]) the differential of surface becomes$$dS=\left\vert h_{u}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) ~G\left( u_{i}\right) ~H\left(
v,w\right) \right\vert \ dv\ dw \label{dSinfunctions}$$substituting (\[gradfj\]) and (\[dSinfunctions\]) in ([eq:CapacitanciaDiazHerrera]{}) the non-diagonal coefficients of capacitance yield finally $$C_{ij}=-\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left(
u_{i}\right) \right\vert }\oint_{S_{i}}\left\vert H\left( v,w\right)
\right\vert dv~dw\ ;\ \ \text{with\ \ }i,j=1,2\ \ \text{and\ \ }i\neq j
\label{eq:Capacitancia_Nueva}$$we emphasize that despite Eq. (\[eq:CapacitanciaDiazHerrera\]) is valid for any values of $i$ and $j$, Eqs. (\[gradfj\]) and (\[gradtoni\]) are only valid for $i\neq j$. In order to obtain the diagonal coefficients we only have to use the properties [@capac1]$$C_{i1}+C_{i2}=0\ ;\ \ C_{ij}=C_{ji}\ \ \Rightarrow \ \ C_{ii}=-C_{ij}\ \
\text{with\ \ }i,j=1,2\ \ \text{and\ \ }i\neq j$$or more explicitly$$C_{11}=C_{22}=-C_{12}=-C_{21} \label{only one Cij}$$It worths noting that expression (\[eq:Capacitancia\_Nueva\]) is also invariant under the gauge transformations given by Eqs. (\[gauges\]). On the other hand, Eqs. (\[eq:Capacitancia\_Nueva\]) and (\[only one Cij\]) leads to [@capac1; @capac2]$$C_{ii}>0\text{ and }C_{ij}<0\text{ \ with\ }i\neq j \label{CiiCij}$$Finally, as a proof of consistency, we see from Eq. (\[only one Cij\]) that the eigenvalues of the 2$\times 2$ matrix of capacitance are $0$ and$\
2C_{11}$. These results along with Eqs. (\[CiiCij\]) says that the matrix of capacitance is positive singular as it must be [@capac2]. In terms of voltages Eqs. (\[potential relation\], \[only one Cij\]) becomes$$Q_{1}=C_{11}\left( \phi _{1}-\phi _{2}\right) =C_{22}\left( \phi _{1}-\phi
_{2}\right) =-Q_{2} \label{all charges}$$Note that if $S_{i}$ refers to the internal conductor, $Q_{i}$ is the total charge on it. But if $S_{i}$ refers to the cavity of the external conductor that contains the other conductor, $Q_{i}$ is only the charge accumulated on the surface of the cavity. In addition, if the internal conductor has a cavity, the surface of such a cavity does not contribute in the surface integral to calculate the coefficients of capacitance [@Grif].
Capacitance for the particular case of the scale factors
--------------------------------------------------------
As it was the case for the solutions of Laplace’s equation, the expression for the coefficients of capacitance is particularly simple when the system of coordinates obeys relation (\[ansatzh2\])$$\frac{h_{v}h_{w}}{h_{u}}=1 \label{ansatzh}$$in that case, Eqs. (\[GHZ simple\]) provide simple solutions for $Z\left(
u\right) $ and $H\left( v,w\right) $. Substituting (\[GHZ simple\]) in Eq. (\[eq:Capacitancia\_Nueva\]), the latter becomes $$C_{ij}=-\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert u_{j}-u_{i}\right\vert }\oint_{S_{i}}dv~dw\ \ ;\ \ i\neq j \label{eq:Capacitancia_Cilindroij}$$or for the diagonal elements$$C_{ii}=-C_{ij}=\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert u_{j}-u_{i}\right\vert }\oint_{S_{i}}dv~dw\ \ ;\ \ \text{with\ \ }i,j=1,2\ \ \text{and\ \ }i\neq j
\label{eq:Capacitancia_Cilindro}$$We saw that Eq. (\[ansatzh\]) holds when we have a system of coordinates with cylindrical symmetry obtained with a conformal transformation from the cartesian coordinates. Nevertheless, we should recall that a cylindrical symmetry coming from a conformal transformation is only a sufficient condition. We only require the condition (\[ansatzh\]) to guarantee the validity of Eq. (\[eq:Capacitancia\_Cilindro\]).
Observe that Eq. (\[eq:Capacitancia\_Cilindro\]) has a structure similar to the capacitance of two parallel plates with area $$A_{eff}\equiv \oint_{S_{i}}dv~dw \label{Aeff}$$located at a distance $\left\vert
u_{j}-u_{i}\right\vert $. Note however that in generalized coordinates, the integral (\[Aeff\]) is not necessarily an area. For instance, if the two coordinates $v$ and $w$ are angular, this quantity is dimensionless. In the same way, the quantity $\left\vert u_{j}-u_{i}\right\vert $ is not always a distance.
Capacitance of two concentric spheres
-------------------------------------
Once again for the sake of illustration, we start calculating the well known capacitance of two concentric spheres with the values given in subsection \[subsec:twospheres1\]. Thus, the radius of the smaller sphere is$\ b$ and the radius of the cavity of the bigger sphere is $a$, so that $a>b$. Applying Eqs. (\[Grsolminus\]) and (\[Z(u)spheres\]) in Eq. ([eq:Capacitancia\_Nueva]{}) and setting $r_{i}=r_{1}\equiv b$,$\
r_{j}=r_{2}\equiv a\ $we get$$\begin{aligned}
C_{12} &=&-\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert Z\left( r_{2}\right) -Z\left(
r_{1}\right) \right\vert }\oint_{S_{1}}\left\vert H\left( \theta ,\varphi
\right) \right\vert ~d\theta ~d\varphi =-\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert
\frac{1}{a}-\frac{1}{b}\right\vert }\oint_{S_{1}}\left\vert \sin \theta
\right\vert ~d\theta ~d\varphi \\
C_{12} &=&-\frac{\varepsilon _{0}ab}{\left( a-b\right) }\int_{0}^{\pi }\sin
\theta ~d\theta ~\int_{0}^{2\pi }d\varphi =-\frac{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}ab}{\left( a-b\right) }\end{aligned}$$it is straigthforward that $C_{21}=C_{12}$. Therefore the coefficients of capacitance yield the expected result$$C_{ii}=-C_{ij}=\frac{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}ab}{a-b}\ \ ;\ \ \text{with\ \ }i,j=1,2\ \ \text{and\ \ }i\neq j \label{concentric spheres C}$$
Capacitance of two concentric cylinders
---------------------------------------
As for the case of BHF’s, it is more convenient to use the conformal polar cylindrical coordinates $\left( \rho ,\varphi ,z\right) $ defined by Eqs. (\[conformal cyl\]) instead of the usual polar cylindrical system. Since for the $\left( \rho ,\varphi ,z\right) $ system the condition (\[ansatzh\]) is fullfilled the capacitance coefficients are given by Eq. ([eq:Capacitancia\_Cilindro]{})$$\begin{aligned}
C_{ii} &=&\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \rho _{j}-\rho _{i}\right\vert }\oint_{S_{i}}d\varphi ~dz=\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \rho _{j}-\rho
_{i}\right\vert }\int_{0}^{2\pi }d\varphi ~\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dz \notag \\
C_{ii} &=&-C_{ij}=\frac{2\pi \varepsilon _{0}L}{\left\vert \rho _{j}-\rho
_{i}\right\vert }=\frac{2\pi \varepsilon _{0}L}{\left\vert \ln \left(
a/b\right) \right\vert }\ \ ;\ \ i,j=1,2\ \ \text{and\ \ }i\neq j
\label{Capac cylinders}\end{aligned}$$where we have assumed that the cylinders are located in the $z$ interval $\left[ -L/2,\ L/2\right] $ with $L>>a$. This is the usual result.
Calculations of BHF’s and capacitances in more complex geometries \[capaccalc\]
===============================================================================
As we said, the cases of two concentric spheres and two concentric cylinders were developed for the sake of illustration only. In this section, we shall calculate BHF’s and capacitance coefficients for more complex symmetries in which our method acquires all its power.
BHF’s and capacitance on Prolate spheroidal surfaces
----------------------------------------------------
[![Shell formed between two confocal prolate spheroids.[]{data-label="fig:prolateshell"}](PROLATE.eps "fig:"){width="4.2cm"} ]{}
Let us consider a shell formed between two confocal prolate spheroids as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:prolateshell\]. In order to find the BHF’s and capacitance coefficients, we use the *Prolate spheroidal system of coordinates*, which is obtained by revolutioning the elliptical bidimensional system of coordinates $\left( \xi ,\eta \right) \ $with respect to the major semiaxis of the ellipses. The most usual definition of the prolate spheroidal system of coordinates reads: $$\begin{aligned}
x &=&a\sinh \xi \sin \eta \cos \varphi \ \ ;\ \ y=a\sinh \xi \sin \eta \sin
\varphi \ \ ;\ \ z=a\cosh \xi \cos \eta \\
\xi &\geq &0,\ \ \eta \in \lbrack 0,\pi ],\ \ \ a=\frac{d}{2}\ \ ;\ \
\varphi \in \lbrack 0,2\pi )\end{aligned}$$where $\xi ,\eta $ are the bidimensional elliptical coordinates, $\varphi $ is the azimuthal angle and $d$ denotes the distance between the foci. The scale factors are given by $$h_{\xi }=h_{\eta }=a\sqrt{\sinh ^{2}\xi +\sin ^{2}\eta }\ \ ;\ \ h_{\varphi
}=a\sinh \xi \sin \eta \label{prolate coordh}$$By means of the trigonometric and hyperbolic identities $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{z^{2}}{a^{2}\cosh ^{2}\xi }+\frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{a^{2}\sinh ^{2}\xi }
&=&\cos ^{2}\eta +\sin ^{2}\eta =1 \label{hiper id pro1} \\
\frac{z^{2}}{a^{2}\cos ^{2}\eta }-\frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{a^{2}\sin ^{2}\eta }
&=&\cosh ^{2}\xi -\sinh ^{2}\xi =1 \label{hiper id pro2}\end{aligned}$$it can be seen that the constant values of $\xi $ correspond to prolate spheroids, while surfaces of constant $\eta $ are hyperboloids of revolution. Consequently, since we are interested in the configuration in which the surfaces are confocal prolate spheroids, the coordinate that is kept constant is $\xi $. Then we shall assign $\left( u,v,w\right)
\rightarrow \left( \xi ,\eta ,\varphi \right) $. Combining Eqs. ([prolate coordh]{}) and (\[regla de oro2\]) we have$$\frac{h_{\eta }h_{\varphi }}{h_{\xi }}=h_{\varphi }=a\sinh \xi \sin \eta
\equiv G\left( \xi \right) H\left( \eta ,\varphi \right)$$Such that a set of solutions for $G\left( u\right) $ and $H\left( v,w\right)
$ is given by$$G\left( \xi \right) =a\sinh \xi \ \ ;\ \ H\left( \eta ,\varphi \right) =\sin
\eta \label{GH prolate}$$and from Eqs. (\[regla de oro2\], \[GH prolate\]), the simplest solution for $Z\left( u\right) $ yields$$\begin{aligned}
Z\left( \xi \right) &=&\int \frac{d\xi }{G\left( \xi \right) }=\frac{1}{a}\int \frac{1}{\sinh \xi }\ d\xi \notag \\
Z\left( \xi \right) &=&\frac{1}{a}\ln \left( \tanh \frac{\xi }{2}\right)
\label{Z prolate}\end{aligned}$$substituting (\[Z prolate\]) in (\[regla de oro\]) we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
f_{j}\left( \xi \right) &=&\frac{Z\left( \xi \right) -Z\left( \xi
_{i}\right) }{\left[ Z\left( \xi _{j}\right) -Z\left( \xi _{i}\right) \right]
} \notag \\
f_{j}\left( \xi \right) &=&\frac{\ln \left( \tanh \frac{\xi }{2}\right) -\ln
\left( \tanh \frac{\xi _{i}}{2}\right) }{\ln \left( \tanh \frac{\xi _{j}}{2}\right) -\ln \left( \tanh \frac{\xi _{i}}{2}\right) }=\frac{\ln \left( \frac{\tanh \frac{\xi }{2}}{\tanh \frac{\xi _{i}}{2}}\right) }{\ln \left( \frac{\tanh \frac{\xi _{j}}{2}}{\tanh \frac{\xi _{i}}{2}}\right) }\ \ ;\ \ i,j=1,2\text{\ \ and\ \ }i\neq j \label{f1prolate}\end{aligned}$$where $\xi _{i}$ and $\xi _{j}$ are the constant values of that coordinate on the surfaces $S_{i}$ and $S_{j}$. Now for the capacitance we subtitute (\[GH prolate\]) and (\[Z prolate\]) in (\[eq:Capacitancia\_Nueva\]) to get$$\begin{aligned}
C_{12} &=&-\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert Z\left( \xi _{2}\right)
-Z\left( \xi _{1}\right) \right\vert }\oint_{S_{1}}\left\vert H\left( \eta
,\varphi \right) \right\vert ~d\eta ~d\varphi \\
C_{12} &=&-\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \frac{1}{a}\ln \left( \tanh
\frac{\xi _{2}}{2}\right) -\frac{1}{a}\ln \left( \tanh \frac{\xi _{1}}{2}\right) \right\vert }\int_{0}^{2\pi }~d\varphi \int_{0}^{\pi }\sin \eta
~d\eta\end{aligned}$$the explicit calculation of $C_{21}$ gives $C_{21}=C_{12}$ as it must be. So we finally obtain$$C_{ii}=-C_{ij}=\frac{4\pi a\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \ln \left( \frac{\tanh \frac{\xi _{j}}{2}}{\tanh \frac{\xi _{i}}{2}}\right) \right\vert }\ \
;\ \ i,j=1,2\text{\ \ and\ \ }i\neq j \label{capacprolate}$$
The reader can contrast the simplicity and brevity of the calculation in this subsection, with respect to the methods developed in the literature (see for instance Ref. [@geomcapac1]). Once the general formulas ([regla de oro]{}, \[regla de oro2\]) and (\[eq:Capacitancia\_Nueva\]) are obtained, the application to this specific geometry is just a bit more than a direct replacement. This is also the case with other symmetries as we shall see.
Finally, it is desirable to obtain the capacitance in terms of geometrical factors. Defining $a_{i}$ as the major semiaxes of the prolate spheroid associated with $\xi _{i}$, the capacitance (\[capacprolate\]) becomes (see appendix \[ap:coordinate geom\])$$C_{ii}=-C_{ij}=\frac{4\pi a\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \ln \left( \frac{\left( a+a_{i}\right) \sqrt{a_{j}^{2}-a^{2}}}{\left( a+a_{j}\right) \sqrt{a_{i}^{2}-a^{2}}}\right) \right\vert }\ \ ;\ \ i,j=1,2\text{\ \ and\ \ }i\neq j \label{capacprolate2}$$it is also shown in appendix \[ap:coordinate geom\] that the capacitance of two concentric spheres is obtained from the limit where $a$ tends to zero.
BHF’s and capacitance on oblate spheroidal surfaces
---------------------------------------------------
[![A shell formed between two confocal oblate spheroidal surfaces.[]{data-label="fig:oblateshell"}](OBLATE.eps "fig:"){width="4.2cm"} ]{}
Let us consider a shell formed between two confocal oblate spheroids as displayed in Fig. \[fig:oblateshell\]. Then, we should work with the *oblate spheroidal coordinate system* which is obtained by revolutioning the bidimensional elliptical coordinate system $\left( \xi
,\eta \right) \ $around the minor semiaxis of the ellipses. The transformation of coordinates and scale factors yield $$\begin{aligned}
x &=&a\cosh \xi \cos \eta \cos \varphi \ \ ;\ \ y=a\cosh \xi \cos \eta \sin
\varphi \ \ ;\ \ z=a\sinh \xi \sin \eta \label{coordinates oblate} \\
h_{\xi } &=&h_{\eta }=a\sqrt{\sinh ^{2}\xi +\sin ^{2}\eta }\ \ ;\ \
h_{\varphi }=a\cosh \xi \cos \eta \label{scale factors oblate} \\
\xi &\geq &0,\ \ \eta \in \lbrack -\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2}],\ \ \ a=\frac{d}{2}\ \ ;\ \ \varphi \in \lbrack 0,2\pi ) \label{intervals oblate}\end{aligned}$$The trigonometric and hyperbolic identities $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{z^{2}}{a^{2}\sinh ^{2}\xi }+\frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{a^{2}\cosh ^{2}\xi }
&=&\cos ^{2}\eta +\sin ^{2}\eta =1 \label{ec elipsoid obl2} \\
\frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{a^{2}\cos ^{2}\eta }-\frac{z^{2}}{a^{2}\sin ^{2}\eta }
&=&\cosh ^{2}\xi -\sinh ^{2}\xi =1 \label{ec elipsoid obl2b}\end{aligned}$$show that the surfaces in which $\xi \ $acquires constant values correspond to oblate spheroids, while the surfaces with $\eta $ constant correspond to hyperboloids of revolution. Once again, $\xi $ is the variable that is kept constant in the surfaces we are working with. Equations (\[regla de oro2\]) and (\[scale factors oblate\]) are combined to give$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{h_{\eta }h_{\varphi }}{h_{\xi }} &=&h_{\varphi }=a\cosh \xi \cos \eta
\equiv G\left( \xi \right) H\left( \eta ,\varphi \right) \notag \\
G\left( \xi \right) &\equiv &a\cosh \xi \ \ ;\ \ H\left( \eta ,\varphi
\right) \equiv \cos \eta \label{GH oblate} \\
Z\left( \xi \right) &=&\frac{1}{a}\int \frac{1}{\cosh \xi }d\xi =\frac{1}{a}\sin ^{-1}\left( \tanh \xi \right) \label{Z oblate}\end{aligned}$$Using Eqs. (\[GH oblate\], \[Z oblate\]) in (\[regla de oro\]) we obtain$$f_{j}\left( \xi \right) =\frac{Z\left( \xi \right) -Z\left( \xi _{i}\right)
}{\left[ Z\left( \xi _{j}\right) -Z\left( \xi _{i}\right) \right] }=\frac{\sin ^{-1}\left( \tanh \xi \right) -\sin ^{-1}\left( \tanh \xi _{i}\right) }{\sin ^{-1}\left( \tanh \xi _{j}\right) -\sin ^{-1}\left( \tanh \xi
_{i}\right) }\ \ ;\ \ i,j=1,2\text{\ \ and\ \ }i\neq j \label{BHF oblate}$$and the capacitance coefficients are obtained from (\[GH oblate\], \[Z oblate\]) and (\[eq:Capacitancia\_Nueva\])$$\begin{aligned}
C_{ij} &=&\frac{-\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert Z\left( \xi _{j}\right)
-Z\left( \xi _{i}\right) \right\vert }\oint_{S_{1}}\left\vert H\left( \eta
,\varphi \right) \right\vert ~d\eta ~d\varphi =\frac{-\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \frac{1}{a}\sin ^{-1}\left( \tanh \xi _{j}\right) -\frac{1}{a}\sin ^{-1}\left( \tanh \xi _{i}\right) \right\vert }\int_{0}^{2\pi }d\varphi
\int_{-\pi /2}^{\pi /2}\cos \eta ~d\eta \notag \\
C_{ii} &=&-C_{ij}=\frac{4\pi a\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \sin ^{-1}\left(
\tanh \xi _{j}\right) -\sin ^{-1}\left( \tanh \xi _{i}\right) \right\vert }\
\ ;\ \ i,j=1,2\text{\ \ and\ \ }i\neq j \label{oblategeo}\end{aligned}$$for instance, if we compare with the procedure in Ref. [@geomcapac3b], the advantages of our method are apparent. In terms of geometrical factors the coefficients $C_{ij}$ read (see appendix \[ap:coordinate geom\])$$C_{ii}=-C_{ij}=\frac{4\pi a\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \cos ^{-1}\epsilon
_{j}-\cos ^{-1}\epsilon _{i}\right\vert }\ \ ;\ \ i,j=1,2\text{\ \ and\ \ }i\neq j \label{oblategeom}$$where $\epsilon _{j}$,$\ \epsilon _{i}$ are the eccentricities of the ellipses associated with the surfaces $S_{j}$ and $S_{i}$ respectively.
BHF’s and capacitance of two confocal elliptical cylinders
----------------------------------------------------------
[![A shell formed between two confocal elliptical cylinders. The values $a_{1},~a_{2}$ correspond to the major semiaxes, while $b_{1},~b_{2}$ denote the minor semiaxes.[]{data-label="fig:confocal cylinders"}](CONFOCYL.eps "fig:"){width="4.2cm"} ]{}
This is an example in which the particular condition (\[ansatzh2\]) is fulfilled. Let us consider a shell formed by two confocal elliptical cylinders as shown in Fig. \[fig:confocal cylinders\]. The values $b_{1}$, $a_{1}$, correspond to the minor semiaxis and major semiaxis of the internal cylinder, while $b_{2}$, $a_{2}$ are the semiaxes associated with the external cylinder. We assume that along the $Z-$axis the cylinders are located in the interval $\left[ -L/2,~L/2\right] $ with $L>>a_{2}$. We shall use the* cylindrical elliptical system of coordinates* which is obtained by projecting the elliptical bidimensional system on the $Z-$axis. The transformation of coordinates and scale factors yield $$\begin{aligned}
x &=&a\cosh \xi \cos \eta \ ;\ y=a\sinh \xi \sin \eta \ \ ;\ z=z
\label{elipcylinder1} \\
h_{\xi } &=&h_{\eta }=a\sqrt{\sinh ^{2}\xi +\sin ^{2}\eta }\ \ ;\ \ h_{z}=1
\label{elipcylinder2} \\
\xi &\geq &0\ ;\ \ 0\leq \eta <2\pi \ ;\ \ -\infty <z<\infty \ ;\ \ a=\frac{d}{2}\end{aligned}$$The trigonometrical and hyperbolic identities $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{x^{2}}{a^{2}\cosh ^{2}\xi }+\frac{y^{2}}{a^{2}\sinh ^{2}\xi } &=&\cos
^{2}\eta +\sin ^{2}\eta =1 \label{elipcyl3} \\
\frac{x^{2}}{a^{2}\cos ^{2}\eta }-\frac{y^{2}}{a^{2}\sin ^{2}\eta } &=&\cosh
^{2}\xi -\sinh ^{2}\xi =1 \label{elipcyl4}\end{aligned}$$say that surfaces with constant $\xi $ are confocal elliptical cylinders and surfaces with $\eta $ constant are confocal hyperbolic cylinders. Thus $\xi $ is the coordinate that takes constant values in the surfaces we are considering. Equation (\[elipcylinder2\]) shows that in this case, the condition (\[ansatzh2\]) is satisfied. Consequently, the BHF’s are given by Eq. (\[HFsimplest\]) that in this case becomes
$$f_{j}\left( \xi \right) =\frac{\xi -\xi _{i}}{\xi _{j}-\xi _{i}}\ \ ;\ \
i,j=1,2\text{\ \ and\ \ }i\neq j \label{HFellipsecylinder}$$and the coefficients of capacitance are given by Eq. ([eq:Capacitancia\_Cilindro]{}) that in our case gives$$\begin{aligned}
C_{11} &=&-C_{12}=\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \xi _{2}-\xi
_{1}\right\vert }\oint_{S_{1}}d\eta \ dz=\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert
\xi _{2}-\xi _{1}\right\vert }\int_{0}^{2\pi }d\eta \int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dz
\notag \\
C_{ii} &=&-C_{ij}=\frac{2\pi \varepsilon _{0}L}{\left\vert \xi _{i}-\xi
_{j}\right\vert }\ \ ;\ \ i,j=1,2\text{\ \ and\ \ }i\neq j
\label{cijcylindellip1}\end{aligned}$$Note that the integral has the same value if we integrate over $S_{2}$, it guarantees that $C_{12}=C_{21}$. This example shows that under the condition (\[ansatzh2\]) the results are much simpler. In terms of geometrical factors Eq. (\[cijcylindellip1\]) becomes (see appendix \[ap:coordinate geom\])$$C_{ii}=-C_{ij}=\frac{2\pi \varepsilon _{0}L}{\left\vert \ln \left[ \frac{a_{i}+\sqrt{a_{i}^{2}-a^{2}}}{a_{j}+\sqrt{a_{j}^{2}-a^{2}}}\right]
\right\vert }\ \ ;\ \ i,j=1,2\text{\ \ and\ \ }i\neq j
\label{cijcylindellip2}$$the limit $a\rightarrow 0$, reduces to the case of two concentric cylinders.
BHF’s and capacitance of two eccentric cylinders
------------------------------------------------
[![Two eccentric cylinders $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}\ $with radii $r_{1}$ and $r_{2}$. The cylinder $C_{1}$ is contained in the cylinder $C_{2}$, and their centers are separated by a distance $D$.[]{data-label="fig:bipolar"}](BIPOLARB.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ]{}
[![Bipolar coordinate system (in two dimensions) with foci $F_{1}=\left( 0,-a\right) $ and $F_{2}=\left( 0,a\right) $. It is shown that curves associated with positive (negative) constant values of $\protect\tau
$ are circles that contain the focus $F_{2}\ $($F_{1}$). When $\left\vert
\protect\tau _{1}\right\vert >\left\vert \protect\tau _{2}\right\vert $ the circle $C_{2}$ contains the circle $C_{1}$.[]{data-label="fig:bipolar1"}](BIPOLAR1.eps "fig:"){width="9cm"} ]{}
Let us consider a shell like the one in Fig. \[fig:bipolar\]. The external cylinder has a radius $r_{2}$, and the internal one a radius $r_{1}$. The centers are located at the points $\left( x_{c_{1}},0\right) $ and $\left(
x_{c_{2}},0\right) $, and are separated by a distance $D$. The cylindrical bipolar coordinate system is the appropriate for this geometry. The (bidimensional) bipolar coordinate system posseses two foci $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$, usually located at $(-a,0)$ and $(a,0)$ respectively. The transformations from cartesian coordinates and scale factors are given by $$\begin{aligned}
x &=&a\frac{\sinh \tau }{\cosh \tau -\cos \sigma }\ \ ;\ \ y=a\frac{\sin
\sigma }{\cosh \tau -\cos \sigma }\ \ ;\ \ z=z \\
h_{\sigma } &=&h_{\tau }=\frac{a}{\cosh \tau -\cos \sigma }\ ;\ h_{z}=1 \\
0 &\leq &\sigma <2\pi \ \ ;\ \ -\infty <\tau <+\infty \ \ ;\ \ -\infty
<z<+\infty\end{aligned}$$The distance from each focus to an arbitrary point $\left( x,y\right) \ $in the plane yields$$d_{1}^{2}=(x+a)^{2}+y^{2}\ \ ;\ d_{2}^{2}=(x-a)^{2}+y^{2}$$Thus, $\sigma $ represents the angle between the lines that join each focus with a given point $\left( x,y\right) $ in the plane, while $\tau $ is given by$$\tau =\ln \left( \frac{d_{1}}{d_{2}}\right)$$the curves (in the plane) with $\sigma $ constant correspond to non-concentric circles that intersect in the two foci (see Fig. [fig:bipolar1]{}). The curves with $\tau $ constant correspond to non-intersecting circles and with different radii (see Fig. [fig:bipolar1]{}). Two curves $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}\ $with constant positive values $\tau _{1}>\tau _{2}$ correspond to two non-concentric circles such that both circles contain the focus $F_{2}$ and the circle $C_{2}$ contains the circle $C_{1}$. Adding the $z$ coordinate, we obtain the desire configuration of two non-concentric cylinders[^6]. Therefore, we assign $\left( u,v,w\right) \rightarrow
\left( \tau ,\sigma ,z\right) $. Note that this system of coordinates satisfy condition (\[ansatzh2\]) so that the solutions for the coefficients of capacitance and BHF’s are given by Eqs. (\[HFsimplest\]) and (\[eq:Capacitancia\_Cilindro\])$$\begin{aligned}
f_{j}\left( \tau \right) &=&\frac{\tau -\tau _{i}}{\tau _{j}-\tau _{i}}\ \
;\ \ i,j=1,2\text{ and }i\neq j \label{CIIeccentric2} \\
C_{ii} &=&\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \tau _{j}-\tau _{i}\right\vert }\oint_{S_{i}}d\sigma ~dz=\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \tau _{j}-\tau
_{i}\right\vert }\int_{0}^{2\pi }d\sigma ~\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dz \notag \\
C_{ii} &=&-C_{ij}=\frac{2\pi \varepsilon _{0}L}{\left\vert \tau _{j}-\tau
_{i}\right\vert }\ \ ;\ \ i,j=1,2\text{ and }i\neq j \label{CIIeccentric1}\end{aligned}$$
Substituting Eq. (\[taosgeom\]) of appendix \[ap:coordinate geom\] in Eq. (\[CIIeccentric1\]), we obtain the coefficients of capacitance in terms of geometrical factors$$C_{ii}=-C_{ij}=\frac{2\pi \varepsilon _{0}L}{\cosh ^{-1}\left( \frac{r_{1}^{2}+r_{2}^{2}-D^{2}}{2r_{1}r_{2}}\right) } \label{CIIeccentric3}$$when $D\rightarrow 0$ we recover the expression for two concentric cylinders.
Conclusions\[conclusions\]
==========================
We solve Laplace’s equation for some geometrical configurations in which there exist a system of coordinates $\left( u,v,w\right) \ $that can be adjusted to the geometry. Specifically, we assume that the boundary consists of two closed surfaces $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ so that one of the surfaces is included into the other, and in which the coordinate $u\ $takes constant values $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ on each surface $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$. We solve Laplace’s equation within the volume $V$ between both surfaces. Besides, we take specific boundary conditions in which the solutions take values that are either zero or unity on the surfaces. The solutions of Laplace’s equation with such specific boundary conditions are called Basic Harmonic Functions (BHF’s). It worths remarking that the BHF’s only depend on the geometry, and their solutions via separation of variables are particularly simple. The expressions for the BHF’s are given in terms of generalized curvilinear coordinates in such a way that we can sweep a variety of systems of coordinates to obtain the BHF’s associated with the given symmetry.
Further, we exploit the purely geometrical BHF’s in two ways. On one hand, we can determine a more general class of Harmonic Functions (HF’s i.e. solutions of Laplace’s equation) for the same geometry of the BHF’s, but in which the functions take arbitrary constant values on the boundaries. On the other hand, we calculate the coefficients of capacitance when the surfaces that form the volume are covered with electrostatic conductors. Expressions for either HF’s and for coefficients of capacitance are given again in terms of generalized curvilinear coordinates, such that we can obtain these quantities for multiple symmetries by simple replacements. Several examples with different symmetries are provided.
In addition, appendices \[sec:field density\] and \[sec:embedding\] show natural extensions coming from our present formulation. In appendix [sec:field density]{}, expressions for the electric field between two conductors and the charge densities on each of their surfaces are written in generalized curvilinear coordinates, while in appendix \[sec:embedding\], formulas for the capacitance coefficients are extended to the case of conductors in sucessive embedding.
It worths emphasizing that after obtaining the general formulas for BHF’s, capacitance coefficients, electric fields and surface charge densities in terms of generalized orthogonal curvilinear coordinates, calculations of these observables for each symmetry are straightforward. After checking Eqs. (\[regla de oro\], \[regla de oro2\], \[eq:Capacitancia\_Nueva\]) and Eqs. (\[electric curvilinear\], \[regla de oro surface\]) we can see that all those observables are obtained by simple combinations of the functions $h_{u},G\left( u\right) ,\ H\left( v,w\right) $ and $Z\left(
u\right) $. The first three are basically input parameters, and the latter is obtained from $1/G\left( u\right) $ by a direct integration. Comparison with the calculations of the same quantities with other methods given in the literature, shows the simplicity and brevity of our method as it was emphasized in several of our examples.
Note that despite with the traditional strategies Laplace’s Equation can be solved in many cases via separation of variables, in most of such cases a series expansion in certain special functions is usually required in order to adjust the boundary conditions. By contrast, the BHF’s obtained via the formulas (\[regla de oro\], \[regla de oro2\]) lead in many problems to closed solutions. Therefore, solutions of Laplace’s equation with equipotential surfaces can often be written (with our method) in terms of closed well-defined functions. Though solutions in series are exact in principle, when we handle them in practice we should truncate the series somewhere, leading to a considerable expansion of numerical errors, especially if the series converges slowly (sometimes problems of convergence also arise).
On the other hand, it is well known that solutions of Laplace’s equation can be treated with the geometrical formalism of Green’s functions. Nevertheless, it could be noticed that finding BHF’s (which are also purely geometrical) is in general much easier than the calculation of the Green’s function on the same geometry. Finally, it is possible to extrapolate the method developed here to other linear homogeneous differential equations. In the same way that we can associate a Green’s function with each linear differential operator, we can define BHF’s for each linear differential operator.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge to división de investigación de Bogotá (DIB) of Universidad Nacional de Colombia for its financial support.
Electric field and surface density in a configuration of two conductors\[sec:field density\]
============================================================================================
Once again we use $i,j=1,2$ and $i\neq j$ throughout this section. If $\phi
_{i}$ and $\phi _{j}$ are the (constant) potentials on conductors $i$ and $j$ respectively, the potential in the volume $V$ between the surfaces $S_{i}$ and $S_{j}$ is given by Eq. (\[fi(u)gen\])$$\phi =\phi _{i}f_{i}+\phi _{j}f_{j} \label{fi(u)gen2}$$on the other hand, from the property $f_{i}+f_{j}=1$ we obtain$$\nabla f_{i}=-\nabla f_{j} \label{gradfifj}$$combining Eqs. (\[fi(u)gen2\], \[gradfifj\]) and the fact that the BHF’s only depend on $u$, we can find the electric field within the volume $V\ $in terms of curvilinear coordinates$$\mathbf{E}=-\nabla \phi =-\phi _{i}\nabla f_{i}-\phi _{j}\nabla f_{j}=\left(
\phi _{i}-\phi _{j}\right) \nabla f_{j}=\frac{\phi _{i}-\phi _{j}}{h_{u}\left( u,v,w\right) }\frac{\partial f_{j}\left( u\right) }{\partial u}\mathbf{e}_{u}\left( u,v,w\right)$$where $\mathbf{e}_{u}\left( u,v,w\right) $ is the local unitary vector associated with the $u\ $coordinate. Using Eqs. (\[regla de oro\], [regla de oro2]{}) we have$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}\left( u,v,w\right) &=&\frac{\phi _{i}-\phi _{j}}{h_{u}\left(
u,v,w\right) ~\left[ Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left( u_{i}\right) \right] }\frac{dZ\left( u\right) }{du}\mathbf{e}_{u}\left( u,v,w\right) \notag \\
\mathbf{E}\left( u,v,w\right) &=&\frac{\phi _{i}-\phi _{j}}{h_{u}\left(
u,v,w\right) ~\left[ Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left( u_{i}\right) \right]
~G\left( u\right) }\mathbf{e}_{u}\left( u,v,w\right) \ \ ;\ \ i,j=1,2\ \
\text{and }i\neq j \label{electric curvilinear}\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, the surface charge density induced on the surface $S_{i}$ of a perfect conductor is given by [@Grif]$$\sigma \left( S_{i}\right) =\sigma \left( u_{i},v,w\right) =-\varepsilon
_{0}\nabla \phi \left( u_{i},v,w\right) \cdot \mathbf{n}_{i}=\varepsilon
_{0}\left( \phi _{i}-\phi _{j}\right) \nabla f_{j}\left( u_{i},v,w\right)
\cdot \mathbf{n}_{i}$$where we have used Eqs. (\[fi(u)gen2\]) and (\[gradfifj\]). Finally, by using Eq. (\[gradfj\]) we have$$\sigma \left( u_{i},v,w\right) =\left\vert \frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{h_{u}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) ~\left[ Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left(
u_{i}\right) \right] G\left( u_{i}\right) }\right\vert \left( \phi _{i}-\phi
_{j}\right) \ \ ;\ \ i,j=1,2\text{\ and\ }i\neq j
\label{regla de oro surface}$$
As a proof of consistency, let us obtain the total charge on the surface $S_{i}$. By using Eqs. (\[regla de oro surface\], \[dSinfunctions\]) and (\[eq:Capacitancia\_Nueva\], \[only one Cij\]) we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
Q_{i} &=&\oint_{S_{i}}\sigma \left( u_{i},v,w\right) ~dS=\varepsilon
_{0}\left( \phi _{i}-\phi _{j}\right) \oint_{S_{i}}\left\vert \frac{dS}{h_{u}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) ~\left[ Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left(
u_{i}\right) \right] G\left( u_{i}\right) }\right\vert \notag \\
&=&\varepsilon _{0}\left( \phi _{i}-\phi _{j}\right) \oint_{S_{i}}\left\vert
\frac{h_{u}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) ~G\left( u_{i}\right) ~H\left( v,w\right)
}{h_{u}\left( u_{i},v,w\right) ~\left[ Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left(
u_{i}\right) \right] G\left( u_{i}\right) }\right\vert \ dv\ dw \notag \\
&=&\left( \phi _{i}-\phi _{j}\right) \frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert
Z\left( u_{j}\right) -Z\left( u_{i}\right) \right\vert }\oint_{S_{i}}\left\vert H\left( v,w\right) \right\vert \ dv\ dw=-C_{ij}\left( \phi _{i}-\phi
_{j}\right) \notag \\
Q_{i} &=&C_{ii}\left( \phi _{i}-\phi _{j}\right) \label{Q=CVnow}\end{aligned}$$which reproduces the correct expression (\[all charges\]) for the total charge on $S_{i}$. If we compare expressions (\[regla de oro surface\]) and (\[Q=CVnow\]), the term in the absolute value of Eq. (\[regla de oro surface\]) behaves like an effective capacitance per unit area. Effectively, such a term is purely geometrical, as is the term $C_{ii}$.
Electric fields and charge densities for two concentric spheres
---------------------------------------------------------------
For the two concentric spheres of Sec. \[subsec:twospheres1\], we substitute Eqs. (\[coordin spher\], \[Grsolminus\], \[Z(u)spheres\]) in Eq. (\[electric curvilinear\]) to obtain$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}\left( \mathbf{r}\right) &=&\frac{\left( \phi _{i}-\phi
_{j}\right) \mathbf{e}_{r}}{h_{r}~\left[ Z\left( r_{j}\right) -Z\left(
r_{i}\right) \right] ~G\left( r\right) }=\frac{\left( \phi _{1}-\phi
_{2}\right) \mathbf{e}_{r}}{\left[ \frac{1}{r_{2}}-\frac{1}{r_{1}}\right]
~\left( -r^{2}\right) }=\frac{\left( \phi _{b}-\phi _{a}\right) \mathbf{e}_{r}}{\left[ \frac{1}{a}-\frac{1}{b}\right] ~\left( -r^{2}\right) } \notag
\\
\mathbf{E}\left( \mathbf{r}\right) &=&\frac{ab\left( \phi _{b}-\phi
_{a}\right) }{\left( a-b\right) ~r^{2}}\mathbf{e}_{r}
\label{concentric spheres E}\end{aligned}$$and substituting (\[coordin spher\], \[Grsolminus\], \[Z(u)spheres\]) in Eq. (\[regla de oro surface\]) we find$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma \left( r_{i}\right) &=&\left\vert \frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{h_{r}\left(
r_{i}\right) ~\left[ \frac{1}{r_{j}}-\frac{1}{r_{i}}\right] \left(
-r_{i}^{2}\right) }\right\vert \left( \phi _{i}-\phi _{j}\right) =\frac{r_{j}}{r_{i}}\frac{\varepsilon _{0}\left( \phi _{i}-\phi _{j}\right) }{\left\vert
r_{i}-r_{j}\right\vert } \notag \\
\sigma \left( a\right) &=&\frac{b}{a}\frac{\varepsilon _{0}\left( \phi
_{a}-\phi _{b}\right) }{\left( a-b\right) }\ ;\ \ \sigma \left( b\right) =\frac{a}{b}\frac{\varepsilon _{0}\left( \phi _{b}-\phi _{a}\right) }{\left(
a-b\right) } \label{concentric spheres S}\end{aligned}$$integrating these densities on $S_{a}$ and $S_{b}$ we obtain the total charge on such surfaces. Further, taking into account Eqs. (\[concentric spheres C\], \[concentric spheres E\]) we obtain the consistency of all these results$$Q_{a}=-Q_{b}=\frac{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}ab\left( \phi _{a}-\phi _{b}\right)
}{\left( a-b\right) }=C_{11}\left( \phi _{a}-\phi _{b}\right) \ ;\ \ \mathbf{E}\left( \mathbf{r}\right) =\frac{Q_{b}}{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}r^{2}}\mathbf{e}_{r}$$
Electric fields and charge densities for a prolate spheroidal shell
-------------------------------------------------------------------
For a prolate spheroidal shell, we obtain the electric field within the shell and the charge density on the ellipsoidal surfaces by substituting Eqs. (\[prolate coordh\], \[GH prolate\]) and (\[Z prolate\]) in Eqs. (\[concentric spheres E\], \[concentric spheres S\])$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}\left( \xi ,\eta ,\varphi \right) &=&\frac{\phi _{i}-\phi _{j}}{a\sqrt{\sinh ^{2}\xi +\sin ^{2}\eta }~\left[ \ln \left( \tanh \frac{\xi _{j}}{2}\right) -\ln \left( \tanh \frac{\xi _{i}}{2}\right) \right] ~\sinh \xi }\mathbf{e}_{\xi }\left( \xi ,\eta ,\varphi \right) \\
\sigma \left( u_{i},\eta ,\varphi \right) &=&\left\vert \frac{\varepsilon
_{0}}{a\sqrt{\sinh ^{2}\xi _{i}+\sin ^{2}\eta }~\left[ \ln \left( \tanh
\frac{\xi _{j}}{2}\right) -\ln \left( \tanh \frac{\xi _{i}}{2}\right) \right]
~\sinh \xi _{i}}\right\vert \left( \phi _{i}-\phi _{j}\right) \ \ ;\ \
i,j=1,2\ \ \text{and\ \ }i\neq j\end{aligned}$$the magnitude of the electric field and the surface charge densities are independent of the azimutahl angle $\varphi $ as the symmetry suggests. Calculation of electric fields and surface charge densities in other complex geometries is also straightforward.
Chains of embedded conductors\[sec:embedding\]
==============================================
[![Configuration of succesive embedding of 4 conductors. The surface $S_{1}^{\left( a\right) }$ has only outer part while the surface $S_{4}^{\left( b\right) }$ has only an inner part (the surface of the cavity). Conductors 2 and 3 have an inner part $S_{i}^{\left( b\right) }\ $and an outer part $S_{i}^{\left( a\right) }$. []{data-label="fig:embedding"}](GRAEMBED.eps "fig:"){width="7.2cm"} ]{}
Let us assume that we have a set of $N+1\ $conductors succesively embedded as indicated in Fig. \[fig:embedding\]. We label them as$\ 1,2,\ldots ,N+1$ from the inner to the outer. We can see that for $k=2,\ldots ,N$ the surface $S_{k}$ of the $k-th$ conductor has an inner part that we denote as $S_{k}^{\left( b\right) }$, and an outer part that we denote as $S_{k}^{\left( a\right) }$. However, for $S_{1}$ we only have outer part[^7], while for $S_{N+1}$ we only have an inner part. Nevertheless, we still preserve the inner and outer notation for $S_{1}$ and $S_{N+1}\ $by writing $S_{1}=S_{1}^{\left( a\right) }$ and $S_{N+1}=S_{N+1}^{\left( b\right) }$. The volume $V_{k}$ with $k=1,\ldots ,N$ is defined between $S_{k}^{\left( a\right) }$ and $S_{k+1}^{\left( b\right)
} $.
A set of conductors in succesive embedding has some particular properties (see appendix C in Ref [@capac2]). First, the only non-zero coefficients of capacitance are the diagonal ones $C_{ii}\ $and the terms of the form $C_{i,i\pm 1}$. Of course, for $i=1$ there is no term of the form $C_{i,i-1}$, and for $i=N+1$ there is no term of the form $C_{i,i+1}$. The diagonal terms are related with the non-diagonal ones as follows$$\begin{aligned}
C_{ii} &=&-\left( C_{i,i-1}+C_{i,i+1}\right) \ \ \ ;\ \ \ i=2,\ldots ,N
\notag \\
C_{11} &=&-C_{12}\ \ ;\ \ C_{N+1,N+1}=-C_{N,N+1} \label{cembedded}\end{aligned}$$now, owing to the symmetry of the matrix and the properties (\[cembedded\]), it is enough to calculate the non-diagonal terms of the form $C_{i,i+1}$ for $i=1,\ldots ,N$. It can also be proved that [@capac2]$$C_{i,i+1}=-\varepsilon _{0}\oint_{S_{i}^{\left( a\right) }}\nabla
f_{i+1}\left( u_{i}^{\left( a\right) }\right) \cdot \mathbf{n}_{i}^{\left(
a\right) }dS\ \ ;\ \ i=1,\ldots ,N \label{capac embedding}$$that is, only the outer part of the surface $S_{i}$ contributes to the surface integral in the calculation of$\ C_{i,i+1}$. It worths pointing out that the properties described above are valid for any geometry of the conductors, the only condition is that they should be in succesive embedding.
Now let us add the hypotheses we have been working with. That is, that we have a curvilinear coordinate system $\left( u,v,w\right) $ such that the coordinate $u$ acquires a constant value $u_{p}^{\left( \mathcal{\lambda }\right) }$ on each surface $S_{p}^{\left( \lambda \right) }$ with $p=1,2,\ldots ,N+1$ and $\lambda =a,b$.
First of all, we want to calculate the BHF’s within each volume $V_{i}$. By definition of the BHF’s, they satisfy the boundary conditions$$f_{i}\left( S_{i}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\right) =1,\ \ f_{i}\left(
S_{j}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\right) =0\ \ ;\ \ i\neq j\text{ \ and\ \ }\lambda =a,b \label{BHF condic}$$It could be shown that within the volumen $V_{i}$ the BHF’s have the following properties$$f_{i}\left( V_{i}\right) +f_{i+1}\left( V_{i}\right) =1\ \ ;\ \
f_{i+k+1}\left( V_{i}\right) =f_{i-k}\left( V_{i}\right) =0\text{\ };\ \
i=1,2,\ldots ,N\ \ ,\ \ k\geq 1$$therefore, it is sufficient to calculate $f_{i+1}$ within the volume $V_{i}$. Our boundary conditions for the BHF $f_{i+1}$ within $V_{i}$ are given by$$f_{i+1}\left( S_{i}^{\left( a\right) }\right) =0\ \ \ ;\ \ f_{i+1}\left(
S_{i+1}^{\left( b\right) }\right) =1$$with the same analysis done in section \[Laplace\], we see that the functions $f_{i+1}$ only depends on $u$, such that these boundary conditions can be written as[^8]$$f_{i+1}\left( u_{i}^{\left( a\right) }\right) =0\ \ \ ;\ \ f_{i+1}\left(
u_{i+1}^{\left( b\right) }\right) =1 \label{boundary fi+1}$$now, taking into account that in this context the volume $V_{i}$ in which we are evaluating the BHF’s is delimited by the two surfaces $S_{i}^{\left(
a\right) }$ and $S_{i+1}^{\left( b\right) }$, we can use the same arguments that led to Eqs. (\[regla de oro\]) with the assignments $$i\rightarrow i\ \ ,\ j\rightarrow i+1,\ u_{i}\rightarrow u_{i}^{\left(
a\right) }\ ,\ \ u_{j}\rightarrow u_{i+1}^{\left( b\right) }
\label{assignments}$$ From these facts the function $f_{i+1}$ evaluated at any point within the volume $V_{i}\ $yields$$f_{i+1}\left( V_{i}\right) =\frac{Z\left( u\right) -Z\left( u_{i}^{\left(
a\right) }\right) }{Z\left( u_{i+1}^{\left( b\right) }\right) -Z\left(
u_{i}^{\left( a\right) }\right) }\ \ ;\ \ i=1,\ldots ,N
\label{regla de oro3}$$With a similar procedure we can show that$$\begin{aligned}
f_{i+1}\left( V_{i+1}\right) &=&\frac{Z\left( u\right) -Z\left(
u_{i+2}^{\left( b\right) }\right) }{Z\left( u_{i+1}^{\left( a\right)
}\right) -Z\left( u_{i+2}^{\left( b\right) }\right) }\ \ ;\ \ i=1,\ldots ,N-1
\label{regla de oro4} \\
f_{i+1}\left( V_{i+1+k}\right) &=&f_{i+1}\left( V_{i-k}\right) =0\ \ ;\ \
k\geq 1 \label{regla de oro5}\end{aligned}$$On the other hand, the coefficients of capacitance can be obtained from ([capac embedding]{}) and \[regla de oro3\], with the same arguments that led from (\[eq:CapacitanciaDiazHerrera\]) to (\[eq:Capacitancia\_Nueva\]). Thus taking into account the assignments (\[assignments\]) and the fact that only the outer part of the surface $S_{i}$ contributes to the surface integral in the calculation of$\ C_{i,i+1}$, we obtain$$C_{i,i+1}=-\frac{\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert Z\left( u_{i+1}^{\left(
b\right) }\right) -Z\left( u_{i}^{\left( a\right) }\right) \right\vert }\oint_{S_{i}^{\left( a\right) }}\left\vert H\left( v,w\right) \right\vert
dvdw\ ;\ \ i=1,2,\ldots ,N \label{eq:Capacitancia_Nueva2}$$
Succesive embedding of concentric spheres
-----------------------------------------
A simple example consists of examining the succesive embedding of $N+1$ concentric spherical conductors. In that case $u\equiv r$ and we define a set of radii in the form $$a_{1}<b_{2}<a_{2}<b_{3}<a_{3}<\ldots <b_{N}<a_{N}<b_{N+1}
\label{concentric radii}$$note that $b_{i}$ refers to the radius of the cavity of the $i-th$ conductor while $a_{i}$ refers to the radius of the external surface of the $i-th$ conductor. Hence, $a_{i}-b_{i}$ is the thick of the $i-th$ conductor.
Using (\[regla de oro3\]) and (\[Z(u)spheres\]), we obtain the solution for $f_{i+1}$ in a volume $V_{i}$ (i.e. between the radii $a_{i}$ and $b_{i+1}$)$$\begin{aligned}
f_{i+1}\left( r\right) &=&\frac{Z\left( r\right) -Z\left( r_{i}^{\left(
a\right) }\right) }{Z\left( r_{i+1}^{\left( b\right) }\right) -Z\left(
r_{i}^{\left( a\right) }\right) }=\frac{Z\left( r\right) -Z\left(
a_{i}\right) }{Z\left( b_{i+1}\right) -Z\left( a_{i}\right) }=\frac{\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{a_{i}}}{\frac{1}{b_{i+1}}-\frac{1}{a_{i}}} \notag \\
f_{i+1}\left( r\right) &=&\frac{a_{i}b_{i+1}}{a_{i}-b_{i+1}}\left( \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{a_{i}}\right) \ \ \ \text{for\ \ }a_{i}\leq r\leq b_{i+1}
\label{BHFsphere}\end{aligned}$$and substituting Eqs. (\[Z(u)spheres\], \[Grsolminus\]) in Eq. ([eq:Capacitancia\_Nueva2]{}) the coefficient of capacitance $C_{i,i+1}$ yields
$$\begin{aligned}
C_{i,i+1} &=&-\frac{\varepsilon _{0}\oint_{S_{i}^{\left( a\right)
}}\left\vert H\left( \theta ,\varphi \right) \right\vert d\theta ~d\varphi }{\left\vert Z\left( r_{i+1}^{\left( b\right) }\right) -Z\left( r_{i}^{\left(
a\right) }\right) \right\vert }=-\frac{\varepsilon _{0}\oint_{S_{i}^{\left(
a\right) }}\sin \theta ~d\theta ~d\varphi }{\left\vert Z\left(
b_{i+1}\right) -Z\left( a_{i}\right) \right\vert }=-\frac{4\pi \varepsilon
_{0}}{\left\vert \frac{1}{b_{i+1}}-\frac{1}{a_{i}}\right\vert } \notag \\
C_{i,i+1} &=&-\frac{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}a_{i}b_{i+1}}{b_{i+1}-a_{i}}
\label{capacsphere}\end{aligned}$$
Curvilinear coordinates and geometrical factors\[ap:coordinate geom\]
=====================================================================
We have obtained coefficients of capacitance in terms of the generalized curvilinear coordinates $\left( u,v,w\right) $ that are adapted to their symmetries. Notwithstanding, since such coefficients are purely geometrical in nature, it is more useful to obtain formulas for them in terms of geometrical factors (radii, major semiaxes, focal distances, etc.) instead of generalized coordinates $\left( u,v,w\right) $. Hence, in this appendix we rewrite the curvilinear functions obtained for the capacitances in terms of geometrical factors.
Prolate confocal spheroidal shell
---------------------------------
Recalling the equation of an ellipsoid of revolution (revolved around the $Z- $axis) in cartesian coordinates, we have$$\frac{z^{2}}{a_{i}^{2}}+\frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{b_{i}^{2}}=1
\label{ec elipsoid pro}$$for a prolate spheroid, $a_{i}$ refers to the major semiaxis and $b_{i}$ to the minor semiaxis of the ellipsoid of revolution generated by $\xi _{i}$. Comparing equations (\[hiper id pro1\], \[ec elipsoid pro\]) and taking into account that $\cosh \xi $ and $\cosh \xi $ are positive for $\xi >0$ we have$$\cosh \xi =\frac{a_{i}}{a}\ \ \text{and \ }\sinh \xi =\frac{b_{i}}{a}
\label{sicta geompro}$$we shall also take into account that$$a_{i}^{2}-b_{i}^{2}=a^{2} \label{aibiarelated}$$by using a hyperbolic identity, and applying Eqs. (\[sicta geompro\]) we have$$\begin{aligned}
\tanh \frac{\xi _{i}}{2} &=&\frac{\sinh \xi _{i}}{1+\cosh \xi _{i}}=\frac{b_{i}/a}{1+\frac{a_{i}}{a}}=\frac{b_{i}}{a+a_{i}} \notag \\
\tanh \frac{\xi _{i}}{2} &=&\frac{\sqrt{a_{i}^{2}-a^{2}}}{a+a_{i}}
\label{tanhsictaigeom}\end{aligned}$$note that the focal distance $d=2a$ is the same for all ellipses by definition. Therefore, it is convenient to put the expressions in terms of the major semiaxes $a_{i},\ a_{j}\ $of each ellipsoid and the (common) focal semi-distance $a$. Substituting (\[tanhsictaigeom\]) in Eq. ([capacprolate]{}) we obtain the coefficients of capacitance for a prolate confocal spheroidal shell $$C_{ii}=-C_{ij}=\frac{4\pi a\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \ln \left( \frac{\left( a+a_{i}\right) \sqrt{a_{j}^{2}-a^{2}}}{\left( a+a_{j}\right) \sqrt{a_{i}^{2}-a^{2}}}\right) \right\vert } \label{capacprolate3}$$it is interesting to check that despite equation (\[capacprolate3\]) is not defined at $a=0$, the limit $a\rightarrow 0$ exists and reduces to the case of concentric spheres as it must be. Such a limit can be found by using L’Hopital’s rule. Assuming $a_{j}>a_{i}$ we have$$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{a\rightarrow 0}\frac{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}}{C_{ii}} &=&\lim_{a\rightarrow 0}\frac{\ln \left[ \left( a+a_{i}\right) \sqrt{a_{j}^{2}-a^{2}}\right] -\ln \left[ \left( a+a_{j}\right) \sqrt{a_{i}^{2}-a^{2}}\right] }{a}
\\
&=&\lim_{a\rightarrow 0}\left[ \frac{\left( \sqrt{a_{j}^{2}-a^{2}}-\frac{\left( a+a_{i}\right) a}{\sqrt{a_{j}^{2}-a^{2}}}\right) }{\left(
a+a_{i}\right) \sqrt{a_{j}^{2}-a^{2}}}-\frac{\left( \sqrt{a_{i}^{2}-a^{2}}-\frac{\left( a+a_{j}\right) a}{\sqrt{a_{i}^{2}-a^{2}}}\right) }{\left(
a+a_{j}\right) \sqrt{a_{i}^{2}-a^{2}}}\right] \\
&=&\lim_{a\rightarrow 0}\left[ \frac{\left( a_{i}-a\right) \left(
a_{j}^{2}-2a^{2}-a_{i}a\right) -\left( a_{j}-a\right) \left(
a_{i}^{2}-2a^{2}-a_{j}a\right) }{\left( a_{i}^{2}-a^{2}\right) \left(
a_{j}^{2}-a^{2}\right) }\right] \\
\lim_{a\rightarrow 0}\frac{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}}{C_{ii}} &=&\frac{\left(
a_{j}-a_{i}\right) }{a_{i}a_{j}}\end{aligned}$$by comparing with (\[concentric spheres C\]) we see that the limit of concentric spheres is obtained appropriately.
Oblate confocal spheroidal shell
--------------------------------
In the case of an oblate ellipsoid of revolution (revolved around the $Z-$axis), its equation in cartesian coordinates, yield$$\frac{z^{2}}{b_{i}^{2}}+\frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{a_{i}^{2}}=1
\label{ec elipsoid obl}$$comparing Eqs. (\[ec elipsoid obl\], \[ec elipsoid obl2\]) and using Eq. (\[aibiarelated\]) we have$$\begin{aligned}
a^{2}\sinh ^{2}\xi _{i} &=&b_{i}^{2}\ ;\ \ a^{2}\cosh ^{2}\xi
_{i}=a_{i}^{2}\ \Rightarrow \ \ \tanh \xi _{i}=\frac{b_{i}}{a_{i}}=\frac{\sqrt{a_{i}^{2}-a^{2}}}{a_{i}} \notag \\
\tanh \xi _{i} &=&\sqrt{1-\frac{a^{2}}{a_{i}^{2}}}=\sqrt{1-\epsilon _{i}^{2}}
\label{tanhsic}\end{aligned}$$where we have taken into account that $a/a_{i}=\epsilon _{i}$, where $\epsilon _{i}$ denotes the eccentricity of the ellipse associated with the coordinate $\xi _{i}$. Substituting (\[tanhsic\]) in (\[oblategeo\]) we have
$$C_{ii}=\frac{4\pi a\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \sin ^{-1}\left( \sqrt{1-\epsilon _{j}^{2}}\right) -\sin ^{-1}\left( \sqrt{1-\epsilon _{i}^{2}}\right) \right\vert }$$
using the identity $\cos ^{-1}x=\sin ^{-1}\sqrt{1-x^{2}}$ for $0\leq x\leq 1$ we get
$$C_{ii}=\frac{4\pi a\varepsilon _{0}}{\left\vert \cos ^{-1}\epsilon _{j}-\cos
^{-1}\epsilon _{i}\right\vert } \label{oblategeom2}$$
which coincides with (\[oblategeom\]). Once again, the limit with $a\rightarrow 0$ reduces correctly to the case of concentric spheres.
Two confocal elliptical cylinders
---------------------------------
By assuming that the major semiaxis $a_{i}$ goes along $X$ and the minor semiaxes goes along $Y$ we have$$\frac{x^{2}}{a_{i}^{2}}+\frac{y^{2}}{b_{i}^{2}}=1$$and comparing with (\[elipcyl3\]), we obtain$$\tanh \xi _{i}=\frac{b_{i}}{a_{i}} \label{tanhsicta}$$we shall use the identity$$\tanh ^{-1}x=\frac{1}{2}\ln \left( \frac{1+x}{1-x}\right) \ \ ;\ \
\left\vert x\right\vert <1 \label{id tanhinv}$$by applying (\[id tanhinv\]) and (\[aibiarelated\]) in Eq. ([tanhsicta]{}) yields$$\begin{aligned}
\xi _{i} &=&\tanh ^{-1}\left( \frac{b_{i}}{a_{i}}\right) =\frac{1}{2}\ln
\left( \frac{1+\frac{b_{i}}{a_{i}}}{1-\frac{b_{i}}{a_{i}}}\right) =\frac{1}{2}\ln \left( \frac{a_{i}+b_{i}}{a_{i}-b_{i}}\right) =\frac{1}{2}\ln \left[
\frac{\left( a_{i}+b_{i}\right) ^{2}}{a_{i}^{2}-b_{i}^{2}}\right] \\
\xi _{i} &=&\frac{1}{2}\ln \left[ \frac{\left( a_{i}+b_{i}\right) ^{2}}{a^{2}}\right] =\ln \left( \frac{a_{i}+b_{i}}{a}\right)\end{aligned}$$so that$$\xi _{i}-\xi _{j}=\ln \left( \frac{a_{i}+b_{i}}{a_{j}+b_{j}}\right) =\ln \left[ \frac{a_{i}+\sqrt{a_{i}^{2}-a^{2}}}{a_{j}+\sqrt{a_{j}^{2}-a^{2}}}\right] \label{sictai-j}$$substituting (\[sictai-j\]) in (\[cijcylindellip1\]) we obtain Eq. ([cijcylindellip2]{}). This result is clearly independent on the assumption that the major semiaxes goes along $X$.
Two eccentric cylinders
-----------------------
We shall find the coordinate quantity $\tau _{2}-\tau _{1}$ in terms of geometrical factors: that is in terms of the radii $r_{1}$ and $r_{2}\ $of the cylinders and the separation $D\ $between their centers. We shall work in the two dimensional space with coordinates $\left( \tau ,\sigma \right) $. We shall start from the identities$$\begin{aligned}
x^{2}+\left( y-a\cot \sigma \right) ^{2} &=&\frac{a^{2}}{\sin ^{2}\sigma }
\notag \\
y^{2}+\left( x-a\coth \tau \right) ^{2} &=&\frac{a^{2}}{\sinh ^{2}\tau }
\label{identibipolar}\end{aligned}$$and the equation in cartesian coordinates for a circle of radius $r\ $centered at $\left( x_{c},0\right) $$$\left( x-x_{c}\right) ^{2}+y^{2}=r^{2} \label{identibipolar1}$$ comparing (\[identibipolar\]) with (\[identibipolar1\]) it can be shown that$$a=r\sinh \tau \ \ ;\ \ x_{c}=r\cosh \tau \label{identibipolar2}$$from Eqs. (\[identibipolar2\]) we have$$\begin{aligned}
a &=&r_{1}\sinh \tau _{1}=r_{2}\sinh \tau _{2}
\label{eq:Distancia entre Centros-0} \\
D &=&x_{c_{2}}-x_{c_{1}}=r_{2}\cosh \tau _{2}-r_{1}\cosh \tau _{1}
\label{eq:Distancia entre Centros-1}\end{aligned}$$squaring Eq. (\[eq:Distancia entre Centros-1\]) we have $$D^{2}=r_{2}^{2}\cosh ^{2}\tau _{2}+r_{1}^{2}\cosh ^{2}\tau
_{1}-2r_{1}r_{2}\cosh \tau _{1}\cosh \tau _{2}
\label{eq:Distancia entre Centros-1b}$$and using the hyperbolic identity $\cosh ^{2}\tau -\sinh ^{2}\tau =1$, as well as Eq. (\[eq:Distancia entre Centros-0\]), then Eq. ([eq:Distancia entre Centros-1b]{}) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
D^{2} &=&r_{2}^{2}+r_{1}^{2}+r_{2}^{2}\sinh ^{2}\tau _{2}+r_{1}^{2}\sinh
^{2}\tau _{1}-2r_{1}r_{2}\cosh \tau _{1}\cosh \tau
_{2}=r_{2}^{2}+r_{1}^{2}+2\left( r_{1}\sinh \tau _{1}\right) \left(
r_{2}\sinh \tau _{2}\right) -2r_{1}r_{2}\cosh \tau _{1}\cosh \tau _{2} \\
&=&r_{2}^{2}+r_{1}^{2}+2r_{1}r_{2}\left( \sinh \tau _{2}\sinh \tau
_{1}-\cosh \tau _{1}\cosh \tau _{2}\right) \\
D^{2} &=&r_{2}^{2}+r_{1}^{2}-2r_{1}r_{2}\cosh \left( \tau _{2}-\tau
_{1}\right)\end{aligned}$$from which we obtain the desired relation$$\tau _{2}-\tau _{1}=\cosh ^{-1}\left( \frac{r_{1}^{2}+r_{2}^{2}-D^{2}}{2r_{1}r_{2}}\right) \label{taosgeom}$$
[99]{} G. B. Arfken and H. J. Weber. *Mathematical Methods for Physicists 6th Ed*. Elsevier Academic Press (2005).
D. J. Griffiths, *Introduction to Electrodynamics*, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, N. J. 1999.
William J. Herrera, Rodolfo A. Diaz. *The geometrical nature and some properties of the capacitance coefficients based on Laplace’s equation*. American Journal of Physics **76** (1) (2008) pages 55-59.
Rodolfo A. Diaz, William J. Herrera. *The positivity and other properties of the matrix of capacitance: Physical and mathematical implications*. Journal of Electrostatics **69** (2011) 587-595.
M. Uehara, *Green’s functions and coefficients of capacitance*, Am. J. Phys. 54 (1986) 184-185.
V. Lorenzo and B. Carrascal, *Green’s functions and symmetry of the coefficients of a capacitance matrix*, Am. J. Phys. 56 (1988) 565.
C. Donolato, *Approximate evaluation of capacitances by means of Green’s reciprocal theorem*, Am. J. Phys. 64 (1996) 1049-1054.
V. A. Erma, *Perturbation Approach to the Electrostatic Problem for Irregularly Shaped Conductors*, J. Math. Phys. 4 (1963) 1517-1526.
S. Ghosh and A. Chakrabarty, *Estimation of capacitance of different conducting bodies by the method of rectangular subareas*, J. Electrostat. 66 (2008) 142-146.
H. J. Wintle, *A note on capacitors with wide electrode separation*, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 25 (1992) L639-L642.
E. Bodegom and P. T. Leung, *A surprising twist to a simple capacitor problem*, Eur. J. Phys. 14 (1993) 57-58.
B. N. Das, S. Das, and Debashis Parida, *Capacitance of Transmission Line of Parallel Cylinders with Variable Radial Width. *IEEE Transactions on electromagnetic compatibility, Vol. 40, \# 4, (NOV. 1998). Pages 325-330.
Shui-Ping Luo and Zheng-Fan Li, *An Efficient Method for Computing the Capacitance Matrix of Multiconductor Interconnects in Very High-speed Integrated Circuit Systems,* IEEE Transactions on microwave theory and techniques, Vol. 43, \#1. (JAN. 1995). Pages 225-227.
Y. Du and Q.B. Zhou, *Capacitance matrix of screened/insulated single-core cables of finite length*. IEE Proc.-Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 152, \#5, (Sept. 2005).
W. R. Smythe, *Charged Spheroid in Cylinder*, J. Math. Phys. 4 (1963) 833-837.
R. Cade, *Approximate capacities of some toroidal condensers*, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 13(1980) 333-346.
G. J. Sloggett, N. G. Barton and S. J. Spencer, *Fringing fields in disc capacitors*, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 19(1986) 2725-2736.
Y. Cui, *A simple and convenient calculation of the capacitance for an isolated conductor plate*, Eur. J. Phys. 17 (1996) 363-364.
G. P. Tong, *Electrostatics of two conducting spheres intersecting at angles*, Eur. J. Phys. 17 (1996) 244-249.
H. J. Wintle, *The capacitance of the cube and square plate by random walk methods*, Journal Electrostat. 62 (2004) 51-62.
D. Palaniappan, *Classical image treatment of a geometry composed of a circular conductor partially merged in a dielectric cylinder and related problems in electrostatics*, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38 (2005) 6253-6270.
Y. Xiang, *Further study on electrostatic capacitance of an inclined plate capacitor*, Journal Electrostat. 66 (2008) 366-368.
John Lekner, *Analytical expression for the electric field enhancement between two closely-spaced conducting spheres*. Journal of Electrostatics **68** (2010) 299-304.
John Lekner. *Capacitance coefficients of two spheres*. Journal of Electrostatics **69** \#1 (2011) 11-14
Omonowo D. Momoh, Matthew N. O. Sadiku, and Cajetan M. Akujuobi, *Analytical and numerical computation of prolate spheroidal shell capacitance*. Microwave and Optical Technology Letters Vol. 51, \#10, (Oct. 2009). Pages 2361-2365.
O. D. Momoh, M. N. O. Sadiku , and C. M. Akujuobi, *Numerical Computation of Capacitance of Oblate Spheroidal Conducting Shells*. Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium Proceedings, Cambridge, USA, July 5–8, (2010).
M. A. Nechaev, *Polarizability and Capacitance of a Conducting Ellipsoid*. Russian Physics Journal, Vol. 52, \#10, (2009) pages 1098-1110.
Chester L. Dawes, *Capacitance and Potential Gradients of Eccentric Cylindrical Condensers*. Physics (Updated name: Journal of Applied Physics) 4, 81 (1933); doi: 10.1063/1.1745162.
O. D. Momoh, M. N. O. Sadiku , and C. M. Akujuobi, *Numerical Method of Solving Singularity Problems on Potential Computation in Spheroidal Systems*. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 47, \#5, (MAY 2011), pages 1454-1457. DOI: 10.1109/TMAG.2010.2098853
J. Jain, C.-K. Koh, and V. Balakrishnan, *Exact and Numerically Stable Closed-Form Expressions for Potential Coefficients of Rectangular Conductors*. IEEE Transactions on circuits and systems—II: Express Briefs, Vol. 53, \#6, (JUNE 2006). DOI: 10.1109/TCSII.2006.870548
J.T. Chen, H.C. Shieh, Y.T. Lee , J.W. Lee, *Bipolar coordinates, image method and the method of fundamental solutions for Green’s functions of Laplace problems containing circular boundaries*. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements **35** (2011) 236-243.
J.-T. Chen, M.-H. Tsai, C.-S. Liu, *Conformal Mapping and Bipolar Coordinate for Eccentric Laplace Problems*. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. **17** (2009) 314-322. DOI: 10.1002/cae.20208
J.-T. Chen, H.-C. Shieh, Y.-T. Lee, J.-W. Lee *Image solutions for boundary value problems without sources*. Applied Mathematics and Computation **216** (2010) 1453–1468
J.-T. Chen, W.-C. Shen. *Null-Field Approach for Laplace Problems with Circular Boundaries Using Degenerate Kernels*. Numer. Methods Partial Differential Eq. **25** (2009) pages 63–86. DOI: 10.1002/num.20332
W. P. Calixto, et. al. *Electromagnetic Problems Solving by Conformal Mapping: A Mathematical Operator for Optimization*. Mathematical Problems in Engineering Vol. 2010, Article ID 742039, 19 pages. Doi:10.1155/2010/742039
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
[^4]: In practice, the ansatz of separation (\[eq:Ansatz2\]) holds in many systems of curvilinear coordinates.
[^5]: Note that $\bar{G}\left( r\right) =r^{2}$ and $\bar{H}\left( \theta \right)
=\sin \theta $ is also a solution. Both solutions are connected by setting $\kappa =-1$ and $\beta =0$ in Eqs. (\[gauges\]). We prefer solution ([Grsolminus]{}) to obtain a positive solution for $Z\left( u\right) $.
[^6]: We can choose negative values of $\tau $ such that the circles contain the focus $F_{1}$.
[^7]: Let us recall that even if the most interior conductor has a cavity, we can exclude its surface for calculations.
[^8]: Note in passing that the fact that only $f_{i}$ and $f_{i+1}$ are non-zero in $V_{i}$ could be understood with the boundary conditions on $V_{i}$. For instance, the boundary conditions on $V_{i}$ for $f_{i-1}$ would be $f_{i-1}\left( u_{i}^{\left( a\right) }\right) =0$ and $f_{i-1}\left(
u_{i+1}^{\left( b\right) }\right) =0$, by uniqueness the only solution within $V_{i}$ is $f_{i-1}\left( V_{i}\right) =0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A covering system of the integers is a finite collection of modular residue classes $\{a_m \bmod{m}\}_{m \in S}$ whose union is all integers. Given a finite set $S$ of moduli, it is often difficult to tell whether there is a choice of residues modulo elements of $S$ covering the integers. Hough has shown that if the smallest modulus in $S$ is at least $10^{16}$, then there is none. However, the question of whether there is a covering of the integers with all odd moduli remains open. We consider multiplicative restrictions on the set of moduli to generalize Hough’s negative solution to the minimum modulus problem. In particular, we find that every covering system of the integers has a modulus divisible by a prime number less than or equal to $19$. Hough and Nielsen have shown that every covering system has a modulus divisible by either $2$ or $3$.'
author:
- |
Jackson Hopper[^1]\
Department of Mathematics\
University of Georgia\
Athens, GA 30602
bibliography:
- 'thesis5.bib'
title: On covering systems of integers
---
Introduction
============
Covering systems were first introduced by Erdős in 1950 [@E50]. Romanoff had shown in [@R] that the numbers that can be written $2^k+p$ for some integer $k$ and prime $p$ have positive density, and asked whether the same is true for numbers without this property. Erdős described covering systems as a way to guarantee that for all $n$ in a specially constructed arithmetic progression, every number $n - 2^k$ has a small prime factor, settling the conjecture.
Since their introduction, covering systems have proved useful in number theory problems similar to those posed by Romanoff, as well as generalizations like the existence of digitally delicate numbers. See, for example, [@CS]. In addition to their number theory applications, they present interesting structural questions, and it is not always easy to tell whether a covering system with given properties exists.
This paper will consider two well-known conjectures about covering systems: the Minimum Modulus Problem and the Odd Covering Problem. In particular, Hough’s negative answer to the Minimum Modulus Problem [@H] is adapted to prove a weaker form of the Odd Covering Problem: every covering system has a modulus divisible by a prime $p \le 19$. In [@HN], Hough and Nielsen significantly improve the methods of Hough’s original paper, proving the stronger statement that every covering system contains a modulus divisible by either $2$ or $3$.
Covering Systems
================
A *residue system* $C$ is a collection of modular residue classes $$C = \{a_m \bmod{m}\}_{m \in S},$$ where $S \subset {\mathbb{N}}_{>1}$ is a finite collection of moduli; in this paper we do not consider repeated moduli. Then we call $C$ a *covering system*—or say that $C$ covers the integers, or is covering—if $${\mathbb{Z}}= \bigcup_{m \in S} a_m \bmod{m}.$$ The simplest covering system without repeated moduli is the system $$C = \{0 \bmod{2}, \ 0 \bmod{3}, \ 1 \bmod{4}, \ 1 \bmod{6}, \ 11 \bmod{12}\}.$$ Each of the moduli in $C$ divides $12$, so we can check that $C$ covers the integers by verifying that each residue class modulo $12$ is a subset of one of the residue classes in $C$.
If $C$ does not cover the integers, there is a nonempty subset $R \subset {\mathbb{Z}}$ of uncovered integers, namely $$R = \bigcap_{m \in S} (a_m \bmod{m})^c.$$ $R$ will always be a collection of residue classes modulo $Q$, where $Q = \operatorname{lcm}{\{m: m \in S\}}$.
Prior Work
==========
Like many areas of research, the study of covering systems of integers has been largely guided by conjectures of Erdős. In his original 1950 paper, he posed the Minimum Modulus Problem, and later offered a \$50 reward for a solution in either direction. He also posed the Odd Covering Problem, offering \$25 for a confirmation of his conjectured solution; Selfridge offered a significantly higher sum for a counterexample refuting it. Here the statements are presented as they have been conjectured by Erdős: positively for the Minimum Modulus Problem, and negatively for the Odd Covering Problem.
\[MinMod\] For all $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$ there is a covering system $C$ with minimum modulus $\inf{S} = m$.
Swift [@Sw], Churchhouse [@C], Krukenberg [@K], Choi [@Cho], Morikawa [@M], Gibson [@G], and Nielsen [@N] have steadily pushed up the largest known minimum modulus of a covering system since the problem was posed in 1950. The current best, due to Owens [@O], is $m = 42$, and closely resembles Nielsen’s covering with $m = 40$. Along the way, Krukenberg and Gibson developed notation that has proven invaluable in constructing complex covering systems, allowing Nielsen and Owens to describe covering systems with well over $10^{50}$ distinct moduli.
It would seem intuitively that when disallowing small moduli in a residue system, their effect can be recovered using moduli, suggesting Erdős’ conjecture was correct. However, the required number of moduli in a covering system grows quickly with the minimum modulus. Additionally, structural theorems due to Filaseta et al. in [@FFKPY] imply that some natural approaches to finding a positive answer to the Minimum Modulus Problem are insufficient. Accordingly, Hough proved in [@H] that there is a maximum minimum modulus of coverings, $M \le 10^{16}$, solving Conjecture \[MinMod\]. The proof is considered in more detail below.
\[Odd\] No covering system consists of only residue classes of odd moduli $m > 1$.
In contrast to the minimum modulus problem, research on this conjecture has been characterized from early on by necessary conditions for the existence of an odd covering system. Berger et al. [@BFF], Simpson and Zeilberger [@SZ], and Guo and Sun [@GS] have described conditions for odd covers implying that odd squarefree covers must have many distinct prime factors dividing the moduli. The current best such result, due to Guo and Sun, implies there is no odd squarefree cover with less than $22$ primes dividing its moduli.
Again [@FFKPY] was critical in our current understanding of this problem. Nielsen also argues convincingly that an odd covering system should not exist by systematically trying to construct one and by posing some conservative hypotheticals in [@N].
In [@HN], Nielsen and Hough adapted and optimized the techniques of [@H] as well as a technique directly from [@FFKPY] to prove that every covering system has a modulus that is either even or divisible by $3$. Their result is stronger than the one proven in this paper (every covering system has a modulus divisible by a prime $p \le 19$), which more closely follows the techniques used in Hough’s original paper.
A common feature of these conjectures is a focus on constraints on the set of moduli. Thus, we can treat covering as a property of an underlying superset ${\mathscr{M}}\supset S$. We can ask of any set ${\mathscr{M}}\subset {\mathbb{N}}_{>1}$ whether there is any finite subcollection of moduli $S \subset {\mathscr{M}}$ to which a choice of residues $C$ can be made to cover the integers. If there is, we say ${\mathscr{M}}$ *has a covering*.
Additionally, to account for structural restrictions on ${\mathscr{M}}$, it is often useful to consider a multiplicative *base* ${\mathscr{P}}\subset {\mathbb{N}}_{>1}$, a collection of pairwise coprime natural numbers. ${\mathscr{P}}$ is said to *factorize* an integer $m$ if $m$ can be written $$m = \prod_{q \in {\mathscr{P}}} q^v,$$ and factorize a set ${\mathscr{M}}$ if it factorizes all $m \in {\mathscr{M}}$. It need not be the case ${\mathscr{P}}\subset {\mathscr{M}}$, and in many cases ${\mathscr{P}}$ is not unique with respect to ${\mathscr{M}}$. Note however that since elements of ${\mathscr{P}}$ are pairwise coprime, the factorization of $m$ is unique with respect to ${\mathscr{P}}$. For a given base element $q \in {\mathscr{P}}$, if there is an integer $v$ such that $q^{v + 1} \nmid{m}$ for all $m \in {\mathscr{M}}$, we call the smallest such integer $v_q = v_q({\mathscr{M}})$. Otherwise we say $v_q = \infty$.
If there is a covering system $C$ whose moduli are factorized by ${\mathscr{P}}$, we say ${\mathscr{P}}$ factorizes a covering. Now we are ready for a statement of this paper’s main result.
\[main\] Let ${\mathscr{P}}= \{p \text{ prime} : p > q_0\}$ be a multiplicative base. If $q_0 \ge 19$, then ${\mathscr{P}}$ does not factorize a covering.
Proof of Theorem \[main\]
=========================
In [@H], Hough solved Conjecture \[MinMod\] in the negative with a proof fully incorporating the probabilistic method and relying explicitly on a theorem of probability, the Lovász Local Lemma. Hough’s theorem is presented, then we trace the proof to justify a more general statement which may be stronger in the case ${\mathscr{M}}$ is factorized by a set other than the primes. Finally, this statement is applied to prove Theorem \[main\].
\[delta\] There are constants $P_0 \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $\delta \in (0, 1)$ such that if ${\mathscr{M}}\subset {\mathbb{N}}_{>1}$ and the set ${\mathscr{M}}_0 = \{m \in {\mathscr{M}}: p \mid{m} \Rightarrow p \le P_0\}$ satisfies $$\sum_{m \in {\mathscr{M}}_0} \frac{1}{m} < \delta,$$ then ${\mathscr{M}}$ does not have a covering.
Then, given that $$\sum_{m: p \mid{m} \Rightarrow p \le P_0} \frac{1}{m} < \infty,$$ we have as an immediate corollary that if $M$ is large enough, ${\mathscr{M}}= [M, \infty)$ has no covering. In particular, Hough takes $P_0 = e^{11}$ and $\delta = 0.86$ and finds $M = 10^{16}$ is sufficiently large that ${\mathscr{M}}$ has no covering.
Taking Hough’s values for $P_0$ and $\delta$, we can immediately prove a statement in the direction of Theorem \[main\]. Suppose $q_1 \ge 353$ and let the base ${\mathscr{P}}' = \{p \text{ prime} : p > 353\}$ factorize a set ${\mathscr{M}}'$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m \in {\mathscr{M}}'_0} \frac{1}{m} &\le \prod_{q_1 < p \le P_0}\left(1 + \frac{1}{p-1}\right) - 1 \\
&\le \prod_{353 < p \le e^{11}}\left(1 + \frac{1}{p-1}\right) - 1 \\
&< \delta,\end{aligned}$$ so ${\mathscr{M}}'$ does not have a covering. This calculation is carried out in Sagemath.
We now follow Hough’s proof to show how it can be applied more carefully, proving Theorem \[main\].
Overview
--------
This proof proceeds in steps; at each step we incorporate moduli factorized by progressively larger base elements from ${\mathscr{P}}$. We find sufficient conditions at each step to guarantee that no residue system drawing from the collection of moduli available at the next step forms a cover.
Let $C_i$ be a residue system corresponding to the ${i^{\text{th}}}$ step, and suppose $C_i$ has some favorable qualities and does not cover the integers. The favorable qualities are specified explicitly in (\[good\]) and (\[wd\]). We consider $R_i^*$, a “good” subset of the uncovered set $R_i$ (nested so that $R_i^* \subset R_{i-1}^*$); after sieving out by the moduli from the ${(i+1)^{\text{th}}}$ step, the density of the uncovered portion in $R_i$ satisfies a uniform lower bound according to a natural weight on elements of $R_i$. That is to say, at each step $$\frac{\mu_i(R_i^*)}{\mu_i(R_i)} \ge \pi_{\text{good}},$$ where $\mu_i$ is a measure with support contained in $R_i$ and $\pi_{\text{good}}$ is a parameter. A testable condition can then ensure that $C_{i+1}$ has those same favorable qualities. The Lovász Local Lemma is essential in proving the good portion of the uncovered set is not covered in the transition from $i$ to $i+1$, and that our favorable qualities are preserved for the next step.
Preliminaries
-------------
Before getting much deeper, we will need more notation.
Let ${\mathscr{M}}\subset {\mathbb{N}}_{>1}$ be factorized by a base ${\mathscr{P}}$. The steps guiding the proof are delineated by the decomposition of ${\mathscr{P}}$ as $${\mathscr{P}}= \bigcup_{i=0}^{\infty} {\mathscr{P}}_i$$ where ${\mathscr{P}}_i = {\mathscr{P}}\cap (P_{i-1}, P_i]$, with $P_{-1} = 1$ and $\{P_i\}_{i=0}^{\infty}$ a sequence in ${\mathbb{R}}_{\ge 1}$ increasing to $\infty$. Corresponding to ${\mathscr{P}}_i$, we have $${\mathscr{M}}= \bigcup_{i=0}^{\infty} {\mathscr{M}}_i$$ where ${\mathscr{M}}_i$ is the maximal subset of ${\mathscr{M}}$ factorized by $\bigcup_{j=0}^i {\mathscr{P}}_j$. It will also be useful to consider the collections of *new factors* at each step: ${\mathscr{N}}_i$ is the maximal subset of ${\mathscr{M}}$ factorized by ${\mathscr{P}}_i$ alone.
Some variables depend on specific choices of residue systems. Typically residue classes $(a_m \bmod{m}) \in C$ will be treated in the worst case or else inherited by induction. We have intermediate LCMs $Q_i := \operatorname{lcm}{\{m: m \in S \cap {\mathscr{M}}_i\}}$ and a sequence of sets of uncovered integers $\{R_i\}_i$, where at each step $$R_i = \bigcap_{m \in S \cap {\mathscr{M}}_i} (a_m \bmod{m})^c.$$
We now discuss two closely related notions of what it means for a residue class to be “good”, both defined relative to a positive real parameter $\lambda$. For explicit definitions, see (\[good\]) and (\[wd\]).
An uncovered residue class $(r \bmod{Q_i}) \in R_i$, considered as a fiber in ${\mathbb{Z}/Q_{i+1}\mathbb{Z}}$, is $\lambda$-good if for each base element $q \in {\mathscr{P}}_{i+1}$, the portion sieved out by moduli in ${\mathscr{M}}_{i+1} \setminus {\mathscr{M}}_i$ divisible by $q$ is small. In proving a set ${\mathscr{M}}$ does not have a cover, we hope always to be able to find a large subset of $R_i$ to be $\lambda$-good. A sufficiently large subset $T \subset R_i$ whose fibers are all $\lambda$-good is then designated $R_i^* = T$. Showing that ${\mathscr{M}}$ does not have a covering will depend on guaranteeing at each step that such a set exists. In the base case $R_0^* = R_0$.
A residue class $(r \bmod{Q_i}) \in R_i$ is $\lambda$-well-distributed if it meets two conditions. First, its fiber in ${\mathbb{Z}/Q_{i+1}\mathbb{Z}}$ is not entirely covered after the introduction of new factors, i.e. $r \cap R_{i+1}$ is not empty. Second, the fiber meets the uniformity property that for each new factor $n \in {\mathscr{N}}_{i+1}$ the concentration of uncovered residues $(b \bmod{n}) \cap R_{i+1}$ intersecting with $r$ is not much bigger than average.
It turns out that a $\lambda$-good fiber is also $\lambda$-well-distributed. Additionally, having enough well-distributed fibers controls the growth of a related statistic measuring bias, which in turn will help insure many of the fibers $(r' \bmod{Q_{i+1}}) \in R_i^* \cap R_{i+1}$ are themselves $\lambda$-good.
When we say a large subset of $R_i$, we are referring specifically a measure on ${\mathbb{Z}/Q_i\mathbb{Z}}$, which we define inductively as one in a sequence of measures. Let $$\mu_0 (r) = \frac{1}{|R_0 \bmod{Q_0}|}$$ if $r \in R_0 \bmod{Q_0}$, and $\mu_0(r) = 0$ otherwise. Let $$\pi_{\text{good}}(i) = \frac{\mu_i(R_i^*)}{\mu_i(R_{i-1}^* \cap R_i)}$$ be the the proportion of good fibers in $R_i$ lying over the good fibers in $R_{i-1}$. Then if $r \in R_i^* \cap R_{i+1} \bmod{Q_{i+1}}$, $$\mu_{i+1}(r) = \frac{\mu_i(r \bmod{Q_i})}{|R_{i+1} \cap (r \bmod{Q_i}) \bmod{Q_{i+1}}|},$$ and $\mu_{i+1}(r) = 0$ otherwise. Note that there is a related parameter $\pi_{\text{good}} \le \pi_{\text{good}}(i)$ which will serve as a lower bound. As shown in Lemma 2 in [@H], $\mu_{i+1}({\mathbb{Z}/Q_{i+1}\mathbb{Z}}) = \pi_{\text{good}}(i)\mu_i({\mathbb{Z}/Q_i\mathbb{Z}})$ for all $i \ge 1$, and of course $\mu_0({\mathbb{Z}/Q_0\mathbb{Z}}) = 1$.
The primary advantage of the methods in this paper over those in [@H] come from a modified definition for the “bias statistic” which can more accurately account for the effect of considering a restricted base ${\mathscr{P}}$.
Consider the function $\l'_k(m)$, the number of $k$-tuples of natural numbers factorized by ${\mathscr{P}}$ with LCM $m$. This contrasts with $\l_k$ found in [@H] which counts all $k$-tuples with LCM $m$, and has $\l'_k(m) \le \l_k(m)$ for all $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$. Powers of base elements $q \in {\mathscr{P}}$ take the value $$\l'_k(q^j) = (j+1)^k - j^k,$$ and if $m$ and $n$ are coprime integers factorized by ${\mathscr{P}}$ we have $\l'_k(mn) = \l'_k(m)\l'_k(n)$. Thus $\l'_k$ is *multiplicative with respect to* ${\mathscr{P}}$. If $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$ is not factorized by ${\mathscr{P}}$, then let $\l'_k(m) = 0$. $\l'_k$ is multiplicative if and only if ${\mathscr{P}}$ consists entirely of powers of primes.
Let $$(\beta'_k(i))^k = \sum_{m \mid{Q_i}} \l'_k(m) \max_{b \bmod{m}} \mu_i(b \bmod{m}).$$ Note that the difference between $\beta'_k$ and $\beta_k$ found in [@H] is the use of $\l'_k$ rather than $\l_k$. This smaller bias turns out to be useful in lowering the final value of $q_0$ in Theorem \[main\].
Inductive Criterion
-------------------
Now we are ready for an inductive statement generalizing Theorem 2 of [@H]. We will then fill in a few remaining specifics and examine a consequence of this generality.
\[T2\] Let ${\mathscr{M}}\subset {\mathbb{N}}_{>1}$ and let $i \ge 0$. Suppose ${\mathscr{P}}$ factorizes ${\mathscr{M}}$ and that the parameters $\pi_{\text{good}}$, $\lambda$, and $\{P_j\}_{j=0}^{i+1}$ have been set. Suppose for all $j \le i$ that $C_j$ is a system of residues and that for all $j < i$, the uncovered set $R_j^* \subset R_{j-1}^* \cap R_j$ has $$\frac{\mu_j(R_j^*)}{\mu_j(R_{j-1}^* \cap R_j)} \ge \pi_{\text{good}}.$$ If, for some $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $$\label{C1}
\prod_{q \in {\mathscr{P}}_{i+1}} \left(1 + e^{\lambda}\sum_{j=1}^{v_q}\frac{1}{q^j}\right) \le \frac{1 - e^{-\lambda}}{e^{\lambda}} \cdot \frac{(1 - \pi_{\text{good}})^{\frac{1}{k}}}{\beta'_k(i)} \left(\sum_{q \in {\mathscr{P}}_{i+1}} \left(\sum_{j=1}^{v_q} \frac{1}{q^j}\right)^k\right)^{-\frac{1}{k}},$$ then $R_i^* \subset R_{i-1}^* \cap R_i$ exists and has $$\frac{\mu_i(R_i^*)}{\mu_i(R_{i-1}^* \cap R_i)} \ge \pi_{\text{good}}.$$ Further, regardless of choices of residues for $C_{i+1}$, for all good residues $r \in R_i^*$, the fiber $(r \bmod{Q_i}) \cap R_{i+1}$ is nonempty, and for all $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $$\label{betabound}
\left(\frac{\beta'_k(i+1)}{\beta'_k(i)}\right)^k \le \frac{1}{\pi_{\text{good}}} \prod_{q \in {\mathscr{P}}_{i+1}} \left(1 + e^{\lambda}\sum_{j=1}^{v_q} \frac{(j+1)^k - j^k}{q^j}\right).$$
Base Case
---------
In the base case, we record the initial bias, $\beta'_k(0)$. Let $$\delta \ge \sum_{m \in {\mathscr{M}}_0} \frac{1}{m},$$ so $\delta$ is an upper bound for the density of ${\mathbb{Z}}\setminus R_0$. We have $$Q_0(1 - \delta) \ge |R_0 \bmod{Q_0}|,$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
(\beta'_k(0))^k =& \sum_{m \mid{Q_0}} \l'_k(m) \max_{b \bmod{m}} \frac{\mu_0(b \bmod{m})}{\mu_0({\mathbb{Z}/Q_0\mathbb{Z}})}\\
=& \sum_{m \mid{Q_0}} \l'_k(m) \max_{b \bmod{m}} \frac{|R_0 \cap (b \bmod{m}) \bmod{Q_0}|}{|R_0 \bmod{Q_0}|} \\
\le & \sum_{m \mid{Q_0}} \l'_k(m) \frac{|(b \bmod{m}) \bmod{Q_0}|}{Q_0(1 - \delta)} \\
&= \frac{1}{1 - \delta} \sum_{m \mid{Q_0}} \frac{\l'_k(m)}{m} \\
&\le \frac{1}{1 - \delta} \prod_{q \in {\mathscr{P}}_0} \left(\sum_{j = 0}^{v_q} \frac{(j+1)^k - j^k}{q^j}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Inductive Lemma
---------------
If $C_{i+1}$ is a residue system and $(r \bmod{Q_i}) \in R_i$ is a residue class not covered by $C_i$, then for given $n \in {\mathscr{N}}_{i+1}$, the set $\mathbf{a}_{n,r} \subset (r \bmod{Q_i})$ is the portion of the fiber over $r$ sieved out by $C_{i+1}$. Explicitly, $$\mathbf{a}_{n,r} = (r \bmod{Q_i}) \cap \bigcup_{\substack{m \mid{Q_i} \\ mn \in {\mathscr{M}}_{i+1}}} (a_{mn} \bmod{mn}).$$ The boldface notation follows [@HN] and is intended to invoke a collection of residues modulo $n$. The fiber $(r \bmod{Q_i}) \subset {\mathbb{Z}/nQ_i\mathbb{Z}}$ can be shifted by $-r$ and then projected onto ${\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}$; in this setting $\mathbf{a}_{n,r}$ resembles a collection of residues modulo $n$, rather than modulo $nQ_i$.
Now we have the vocabulary to see why $\beta'_k(i)$ is useful as a uniform bound. Suppose $nQ_i$ is factorized by ${\mathscr{P}}$. Then, following Lemma 4 of [@H], $\beta'_k(i)$ controls the ${k^{\text{th}}}$ moment of the random variable $\mu_i(r)|\mathbf{a}_{n,r} \bmod{nQ_i}|$, where $n$ is treated as fixed and $r$ varies: $$\frac{1}{\mu_i(R_{i-1}^* \cap R_i)} \sum_{r \in R_{i-1}^* \cap R_i \bmod{Q_i}} \mu_i(r)|\mathbf{a}_{n,r} \bmod{nQ_i}|^k \le (\beta'_k(i))^k.$$ Note that this bound is uniform with respect to $n \in {\mathscr{N}}_{i+1}$ and with respect to choice of residues in $C_{i+1}$.
Let us explicitly define good and well-distributed fibers so that we can apply the bias bound and find good residue classes lying in them. First let us define $\omega'$ dependent on ${\mathscr{P}}$, related to the additive function $\omega$. For an integer $m$ factorized by ${\mathscr{P}}$, $\omega'(m)$ is the number of distinct base elements $q \in {\mathscr{P}}$ dividing $m$. This function is not defined if $m$ is not factorized by ${\mathscr{P}}$.
A residue class $(r \bmod{Q_i}) \in R_i$ is $\lambda$*-good* if for each $q \in {\mathscr{P}}_{i+1}$, the sieved-out subsets of its fiber in ${\mathbb{Z}/Q_{i+1}\mathbb{Z}}$ are under control. Precisely, for all $q \in {\mathscr{P}}_{i+1}$, $$\label{good}
\sum_{\substack{n \in {\mathscr{N}}_{i+1} \\ q \mid{n}}} \frac{|\mathbf{a}_{n,r} \bmod{nQ_i}|e^{\lambda\omega'(n)}}{n} \le 1 - e^{-\lambda}.$$
We can also say $r$ is $\lambda$*-well-distributed* if $(r \bmod{Q_i}) \cap R_{i+1}$ is not empty and if residues new factors are bounded (i.e. evenly distributed) as they intersect with $r \cap R_{i+1}$. Precisely, for all $n \in {\mathscr{N}}_{i+1}$, $$\label{wd}
\max_{b \bmod{n}} \frac{|(b \bmod{n}) \cap R_{i+1} \cap (r \bmod{Q_i}) \bmod{Q_{i+1}}|}{|R_{i+1} \cap (r \bmod{Q_i}) \bmod{Q_{i+1}}|} \le \frac{e^{\lambda\omega'(n)}}{n}.$$
That $\lambda$-goodness implies $\lambda$-well-distributedness is a consequence of the Lovász Local Lemma; see Proposition 1 in [@H]. (For background on the Lovász Local Lemma and its application to number theory see [@ESp].) Then, as illustrated by the inequality proved in Lemma 5 of [@H], the bias statistics $\beta'_k$ control the proportion of good fibers at the next step. For all $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and all $q \in {\mathscr{P}}_{i+1}$, we have $$\frac{1}{\mu_i(R_{i-1}^* \cap R_i)} \mu_i(\{r \in R_{i-1}^* \cap R_i: r \text{ not } \lambda \text{-good w.r.t. } q\}) \le \left( \frac{\beta'_k(i)}{1 - e^{-\lambda}} \sum_{\substack{n \in {\mathscr{N}}_{i+1} \\ q \mid{n}}} \frac{e^{\lambda\omega'(n)}}{n}\right)^k.$$ The requirement that $\pi_{\text{good}}(i) \ge \pi_{\text{good}}$ then implies $$1 - \pi_{\text{good}} \ge \min_k \left(\beta'_k(i) \frac{e^{\lambda}}{1 - e^{-\lambda}} \prod_{q \in {\mathscr{P}}_{i+1}} \left(1 + e^{\lambda}\sum_{j=1}^{v_q} \frac{1}{q^j}\right)\right)^k \sum_{q \in {\mathscr{P}}_{i+1}} \left(\sum_{j=1}^{v_q} \frac{1}{q^j}\right)^k,$$ which is equivalent to condition (\[C1\]).
By Proposition 3 of [@H], the existence of $R_i^*$ implies that for all $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ the growth of $\beta'_k(i)$ is controlled by $\pi_{\text{good}}(i)$: $$\left(\frac{\beta'_k(i+1)}{\beta'_k(i)}\right)^k \le \frac{1}{\pi_{\text{good}}(i)} \prod_{q \in {\mathscr{P}}_{i+1}} \left(1 + e^{\lambda} \sum_{j=1}^{v_q} \frac{(j+1)^k - j^k}{q^j}\right).$$
Calculation
-----------
In this section we select parameters to prove Theorem \[main\]. Unless otherwise specified, all numerical estimates are calculated in Sagemath.
Let $\pi_{\text{good}} = 1/2$, let $e^{\lambda} = 2$, and let $P_i = e^{6+i}$ for all $i \ge 0$. We will focus on the third moment $k = 3$. Thus for given $i$, condition (\[C1\]) is satisfied when $$\begin{aligned}
\beta'_3(i) \le& \frac{1-e^{-\lambda}}{e^{\lambda}} (1 - \pi_{\text{good}})^{\frac{1}{3}} \left(\sum_{q \in {\mathscr{P}}_{i+1}} \frac{1}{(p-1)^3}\right)^{-\frac{1}{3}} \prod_{q \in {\mathscr{P}}_{i+1}} \left(1 + \frac{e^{\lambda}}{p-1}\right)^{-1} \\
&= \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}} \left(\sum_{e^{6+i} < p \le e^{7+i}} \frac{1}{(p-1)^3}\right)^{-\frac{1}{3}} \prod_{e^{6+i} < p \le e^{7+i}} \left(1 + \frac{2}{p-1}\right)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $$A_3(i) = \left(\sum_{e^{6+i} < p \le e^{7+i}} \frac{1}{(p-1)^3}\right)^{-\frac{1}{3}},$$ and let $$B_3(i) = \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}} \prod_{e^{6+i} < p \le e^{7+i}} \left(1 + \frac{2}{p-1}\right)^{-1} \cdot A_3(i).$$ For all $i \ge 0$, $$\prod_{e^{6+i} < p \le e^{7+i}} \left(1 + \frac{2}{p-1}\right) < 1.36.$$ In the case $i > 8$, see [@H] for proof.
We directly verify the first few cases. For $\beta'_3(0)$ and $\beta'_3(1)$ see the exact statements verified in Sagemath as examples. $$\begin{aligned}
\beta'_3(0) &\le \left(\left(1 - \sum_{m \in {\mathscr{M}}_0} \frac{1}{m}\right)^{-1} \prod_{q \in {\mathscr{P}}_0} \left(\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{(j+1)^3-j^3}{q^j}\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{3}} \\
&\le \left(\left(2 - \prod_{19 < p \le e^6} \left(1 + \frac{1}{p-1}\right)\right)^{-1} \prod_{19 < p \le e^6} \left(1 + \frac{7}{p-3}\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{3}} \\
&< 7.54,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\beta'_3(1) &\le \frac{\beta'_3(0)}{(\pi_{\text{good}})^{\frac{1}{3}}} \prod_{e^6 < p \le e^7} \left(1 + 2\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \frac{(j+1)^3 - j^3}{p^j}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}} \\
&< \frac{7.54}{(0.5)^{\frac{1}{3}}} \prod_{e^6 < p \le e^7} \left(1 + \frac{14}{p-3}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}} \\
&< 19.15.\end{aligned}$$
Table \[tab1\] is a list of upper bound for $\beta'_3(i)$ and lower bounds for $B_3(i)$, for $i \le 8$. Note that, since $\beta'_3(i) < B_3(i)$ for each $i$ by Theorem \[T2\], the estimate for $\beta'_3$ holds at each step.
$i$ $\beta'_3(i)$ $B_3(i)$
----- --------------- ----------
$0$ $7.54$ $19$
$1$ $19.15$ $40$
$2$ $44.47$ $81$
$3$ $96.26$ $164$
$4$ $197.82$ $330$
$5$ $388.80$ $664$
$6$ $764.15$ $1329$
$7$ $1501.85$ $2657$
$8$ $2951.72$ $5303$
: For each $i \le 8$, an upper bound for $\beta'_3(i)$ and a lower bound for $B_3(i)$ are given
\[tab1\]
Then it is verified in [@H] that for $i > 8$ we have $$\frac{A_3(i+1)}{A_3(i)} > \frac{\beta'_3(i+1)}{\beta'_3(i)},$$ and thus $B_3$ grows faster than $\beta'_3$ as well. Therefore for all $i \in {\mathbb{N}}$, Condition \[C1\] is met and the set of primes greater than $19$ does not factorize a covering.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to thank Paul Pollack, the thesis director, and Noah Lebowitz-Lockard, the thesis reader, for their detailed comments and suggestions. This paper is completed as an Honors Thesis for the University of Georgia.
[^1]: `[email protected]`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- |
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138\
[(October 12, 1999)]{}
-
author:
- 'Stefan Kehrein [@leave]'
title: |
Flow equation solution for the weak to strong–coupling\
crossover in the sine–Gordon model
---
Perturbative scaling arguments play an important role for analyzing a large variety of physical systems with many degrees of freedom. For strong–coupling problems, however, the perturbative renormalization group (RG) equations lead to divergences in the running coupling constants and the perturbative RG–approach becomes invalid. In condensed matter theory the well–known paradigm for this kind of behavior is the Kondo model: The perturbative scaling equations still allow one to identify the low–energy scale of the Kondo model, but by themselves they do not lead to an understanding of the physical behavior associated with this energy scale. Wilson’s numerical RG [@kondo] could remedy this problem, but an analytical RG–like approach that links weak to strong–coupling behavior in an expansion that can be systematically improved would still be desirable for many strong–coupling problems.
In this Letter it will be shown exemplary how Wegner’s [*flow equations*]{} [@Wegner94] can provide such an analytical description for a weak to strong–coupling behavior crossover. In the flow equation approach a continuous sequence of infinitesimal unitary transformations is employed to make a Hamiltonian successively more diagonal. Large energy differences are decoupled before smaller energy differences, which makes the method similar to the conventional RG approach. However, degrees of freedom are not integrated out as in the RG but instead diagonalized. A similar framework that contains Wegner’s flow equations as a special case has independently been developed by G[ł]{}azek and Wilson ([*similarity renormalization scheme*]{}) [@GlazekWilson].
The model under investigation in this Letter is the $1+1d$ quantum sine–Gordon model [@rev_sinegordon] $$H=\int dx\, \left( \frac{1}{2}\Pi(x)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}\right)^2
+u \tau^{-2} \cos\left[\beta\phi(x)\right] \right)$$ with the commutator $[\Pi(x),\phi(x')]=-i\delta(x-x')$. Regularization with a UV–momentum cutoff $\Lambda\propto\tau^{-1}$ is implied and $u,\beta>0$ are dimensionless parameters. The sine–Gordon model is one of the best studied integrable models and it has been solved using the inverse scattering method [@Faddeev75]. This model is therefore a good test case for studying the new approach. We will be interested in the universal low–energy properties ($E\ll\Lambda$) for small coupling constants $u$. It should be emphasized that the integrable structure underlying the inverse scattering solution will [*not*]{} be used in the approximate flow equation solution; the new method can also be used when non–integrable perturbations are added.
The phase diagram of the sine–Gordon model consists of a gapped phase for $\beta^2\lesssim 8\pi$ with massive soliton excitations and a gapless phase for $\beta^2\gtrsim 8\pi$ with massless solitons [@rev_sinegordon]. The phase transition between these two phases for $\beta^2/8\pi= 1+O(u)$ is of the Kosterlitz–Thouless type. In the massive phase the perturbative scaling equations [@Wiegmann] lead to an unphysical strong–coupling divergence of the running coupling constant $u$. The inverse scattering solution [@Faddeev75] furthermore shows the existence of bound soliton states (breathers) in the spectrum for $\beta^2<4\pi$ while such bound states are absent for $\beta^2>4\pi$. For $\beta^2=4\pi$ the sine–Gordon model can be mapped to a noninteracting massive Thirring model [@Coleman], which in turn can be diagonalized easily leading to the identification of the massive solitons with the Thirring fermions [@Mandelstam]. The sine–Gordon model is also related to a variety of other models like the spin-$1/2$ X-Y-Z chain, a $1d$ Fermi system with backward scattering and the $2d$ Coulomb gas with temperature $T=\beta^{-2}$ and fugacity $z\propto u$, the IR–unstable fixed point corresponds to $T=1/8\pi$ [@Solyom].
It will be shown that the flow equation approach generates a diagonalization of the sine–Gordon Hamiltonian both in the weak–coupling and in the strong–coupling phase in a systematic expansion that can be successively improved: No divergences of the running couplings are encountered in the strong–coupling regime for $\beta^2>2\pi$. The soliton mass is found to be in very good agreement with the inverse scattering solution. The crossover from weak– to strong–coupling behavior can be described and using this the soliton dispersion relation for example can be analyzed on all energy scales.
For the purposes of this Letter it will be more convenient not to use a regularization of the sine–Gordon model with an explicit momentum cutoff, but instead to “smear out” the interaction term $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&\int dx\, \Bigg( \frac{1}{2}\Pi(x)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}\right)^2
\label{sineGordon} \\
&&\qquad +\frac{u}{\pi a^2} \cos\left[\beta \int dy\, c(y)\,\phi(x+y) \right] \Bigg) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with the Lorentzian $c(y)=a/(2\pi y^2+\pi a^2/2)\: \stackrel{a\rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow}\; \delta(y)$ [@regularization]. This does not affect the universal properties for small energies $E\ll\Lambda\propto a^{-1}$. We expand the fields in normal modes $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(x)&=&-\frac{i}{\sqrt{4\pi}} {\sum_{k\neq 0}} \,\frac{\sqrt{|k|}}{k}\, e^{-ikx}
\left(\sigma_1(k)+\sigma_2(k)\right) \nonumber \\
\Pi(x)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}}{\sum_{k\neq 0}}\,\sqrt{|k|}\, e^{-ikx}
\left(\sigma_1(k)-\sigma_2(k)\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where ${\sum_k}\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\frac{2\pi}{L}\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty$ with $k=2\pi n/L$. $L$ is the system size. The basic commutators are ($k,k'>0$) $[\sigma_1(-k),\sigma_1(k')]=[\sigma_2(k),\sigma_2(-k')]=\delta_{kk'}\, L/2\pi$, notice $\sigma_i^\dagger(-k)=\sigma_i^{\phantom\dagger}(k)$. The vacuum is defined by $\sigma_1(-k)|\Omega\rangle=\sigma_2(k)|\Omega\rangle=0$ for $k>0$.
The flow equation approach [@Wegner94] (see also [@rev_floweq]) generates a family of unitarily equivalent Hamiltonians $H(B)$ as a function of a flow parameter $B$ (with dimension (Energy)${}^{-2}$), where $H(B=0)$ is the initial Hamiltonian and $H(B=\infty)$ the final diagonal Hamiltonian. This flow is generated by the differential equation $$\frac{dH(B)}{dB}=[\eta(B),H(B)]
\label{flowequation}$$ with $\eta(B)=-\eta(B)^\dagger$ some antihermitean generator. Generically, Eq. (\[flowequation\]) leads to the generation of new interaction terms not contained in the initial Hamiltonian. We therefore write $H(B)=H_0+H_{\rm int}(B)+H_{\rm new}(B)$ with $$\begin{aligned}
H_0&=&{\sum_{p>0}} \, p\, \big(\sigma_1(p)\sigma_1(-p)+\sigma_2(-p)\sigma_2(p)\big) \nonumber \\
H_{\rm int}(B)&=&\int dx_1\,dx_2\:u(B;x_1-x_2)
\label{Hint} \\
&&\quad\times\big(V_1(\alpha;x_1)V_2(-\alpha;x_2)+{\rm h.c.}\big) \ .
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Here $V_j(\alpha;x)$ are normal ordered vertex operators with scaling dimension $\alpha(B)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\beta(B)/\sqrt{4\pi}$ $$V_j(\alpha;x)=\; :\exp\Big(\pm\alpha{\sum_{p\neq 0}}\frac{\sqrt{|p|}}{p}e^{-\frac{a}{2}|p|-ipx}
\sigma_j(p)\Big):$$ where $+$ (upper sign) for $j=1$ and $-$ (lower sign) for $j=2$. To avoid confusion the initial values of the couplings will from now on be denoted by $u_0, \beta_0$. $H(B=0)$ is identical to the sine–Gordon Hamiltonian (\[sineGordon\]) for $H_{\rm new}(B=0)=0$, $\alpha(B=0)=\beta_0/\sqrt{4\pi}$ and $u(B=0;x)=u_0\,\delta(x)\, (2\pi a/L)^{\alpha(B=0)^2}/2\pi a^2$.
Wegner’s idea for constructing a suitable generator $\eta$ is to choose $\eta(B)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}[H_0,H_{\rm int}(B)]$ [@Wegner94]. This gives $$\eta=-2i\int dx\,dy\,(\partial_y u(y))
\big(V_1(\alpha;x)V_2(-\alpha;x-y)+{\rm h.c.}\big) .$$ Using this generator, matrix elements connecting states with large energy differences are eliminated for small $B$, while matrix elements coupling more degenerate states are eliminated later for larger values of $B$.
First we evaluate $[\eta,H_0]$. This leads to $\partial u/\partial B=4\,\partial^2 u/\partial x^2$, which makes the interaction increasingly non–local along the flow due to the decoupling procedure. In Fourier components $u(B;x)={\sum_p}\, u_p(B)e^{-ipx}$ one finds $$u_p(B)=\frac{\tilde u(B)}{4\pi^2 a^2}\,
e^{-4p^2B} \left(\frac{2\pi a}{L}\right)^{\alpha^2} \ .$$ $\tilde u(B)$ will turn out to be the running coupling constant of the flow equation approach and remains finite also in the strong–coupling phase. $\tilde u(B)$ is dimensionless, initially $\tilde u(B=0)=u_0$. The term $[\eta,H_{\rm int}]$ leads to new interactions that have to be truncated to obtain a closed set of equations. The approximation used here is to take only operators with small scaling dimensions into account, i.e. to neglect more irrelevant operators. It is generated by truncating the operator product expansion (OPE) of two vertex operators in the following way $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ V_j(\alpha;x)V_j(-\alpha;y)=\left(\frac{L}{2\pi}\right)^{\alpha^2}
\frac{1}{\left[a\mp i(x-y)\right]^{\alpha^2}} }
\label{OPE} \\
&\times&\Big(1\mp i\alpha(x-y) {\sum_{p\neq 0}} \sqrt{|p|} \, e^{-\frac{a}{2}|p|-ipx}
\sigma_j(p) +\ldots\Big) \ . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The approximation can be systematically improved by going to higher orders in this OPE. The term $[\eta,H_{\rm int}]$ contains commutators with the structure $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{[V_1(\alpha;z_1)V_2(-\alpha;z_2),V_2(\alpha;z_2')V_1(-\alpha;z_1')]}
\label{etaHint} \\
&=&-\{V_1(\alpha;z_1),V_1(-\alpha;z_1')\}V_2(\alpha;z_2')V_2(-\alpha;z_2) \nonumber \\
&&+V_1(\alpha;z_1)V_1(-\alpha;z_1')\{V_2(\alpha;z_2'),V_2(-\alpha;z_2)\} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and terms where $\alpha\rightarrow -\alpha$ in one argument of the commutator (\[etaHint\]). After normal ordering, the latter terms lead to interactions $V_1(2\alpha;z_1)V_2(-2\alpha;z_2)$ with larger scaling dimensions. These will be neglected, but the terms generated by (\[etaHint\]) will be included.
For $\alpha=1$ ($\beta^2=4\pi$) the vertex operators describe fermions and the OPE (\[OPE\]) to all orders gives $\{V_j(-1;x),V_j(1;y)\}\stackrel{a\rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow} L\delta(x-y)$. Since this is a $c$–number, no higher order interactions are generated in (\[etaHint\]) and the flow equations [*close*]{}. The flow equations therefore recover the equivalence of a sine–Gordon model with $\beta_0^2=4\pi$ to a massive noninteracting Thirring model [@Coleman] and readily diagonalize the latter.
In general we evaluate (\[etaHint\]) using (\[OPE\]). The dominating contributions decaying most slowly with $B$ can be identified in closed form [@details]. Two structurally different interaction terms are generated: One term contributes to $H_{\rm new}$ and is discussed below (see Eq. (\[Hdiag\])). The other term has the structure $\sigma_1(k)\sigma_2(-k)$. Integrating it from $B$ to $B+dB$, one generates ${\sum_k} w_k |k| \sigma_1(k)\sigma_2(-k)$ with infinitesimal coefficients $w_k$. This new interaction can be removed by a further infinitesimal unitary transformation with the structure $e^{-U} H(B) e^{U}$, where $U=\frac{1}{2}{\sum_{k>0}} w_k ( \sigma_1(k)\sigma_2(-k)-{\rm h.c.})$. This new infinitesimal unitary transformation yields a modification of the scaling dimension of the vertex operators in $H_{\rm int}$ and a flow of the coupling constant $\tilde u(B)$. In terms of a logarithmic dimensionless flow parameter $\ell=\frac{1}{2}\ln\big(32B a^{-2}\big)$ one derives [@details] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\beta^2(\ell)}{d\ell}&=&-u_0^2\,
\frac{\beta^4(\ell)}{4\pi\,\Gamma\big(-1+\beta^2(\ell)/4\pi\big)}
\label{flowbeta2} \\
&&\quad\times\exp\left(4\ell-\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^\ell d\ell'\, \beta^2(\ell') \right) \nonumber \ .\end{aligned}$$ The running coupling constant flows according to $\tilde u(\ell)=u_0\, \exp\big(F(\ell)\big)$, where $$F(\ell)=\frac{1}{4\pi}\left( \ell\,\beta^2(\ell)
-\int_0^\ell d\ell'\,\beta^2(\ell') \right) \ .
\label{eq_F}$$ In the strong–coupling phase the flow terminates at $\beta^2(\infty)=4\pi$ due to the divergent $\Gamma$–function in (\[flowbeta2\]). In our approach $\beta^2=4\pi$ is therefore an [*attractive*]{} strong–coupling fixed point. For comparison with the RG–equations [@Wiegmann] one can introduce $u(\ell)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} u_0\,
\exp\left(2\ell-\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_0^\ell d\ell'\,\beta^2(\ell')\right)$ and rewrite (\[flowbeta2\]) as two coupled differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\beta^{-2}(\ell)}{d\ell}&=&\frac{1}{4\pi\,
\Gamma\big(-1+\beta^2(\ell)/4\pi\big)}\,u^2(\ell)
\label{compRG} \\
\frac{du(\ell)}{d\ell}&=&\left(2-\frac{\beta^2(\ell)}{4\pi}\right) u(\ell) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $\beta(\ell=0)=\beta_0, u(\ell=0)=u_0$. For $\beta_0^2=8\pi$ Eqs. (\[compRG\]) coincide with the two loop scaling equations [@Wiegmann]: Depending on the value of $u_0$, the sine–Gordon model for $\beta_0^2>8\pi$ flows to either $\beta^2(\infty)=4\pi$ ([*strong–coupling*]{}) or $\beta^2(\infty)\geq 8\pi$ ([*weak–coupling*]{}). Eqs. (\[compRG\]) therefore reproduce the Kosterlitz–Thouless phase diagram. Also the hidden SU(2)–symmetry in (\[sineGordon\]) for $\beta_0^2= 8\pi(1\pm u_0), u_0\ll 1$ is recovered although our approximation scheme does not manifestly respect this symmetry [@SU2].
In the strong–coupling phase a gap opens in the spectrum and the low–energy excitations are fermionic [@Faddeev75]. In our approach this follows most easily by approximating (\[Hint\]) for large $B$ (such that $|\beta^2(B)-4\pi|\ll 1$) as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm int}(B)&=&\int dx_1\,dx_2\, \frac{\tilde u(B)}{\pi a^2}
\:\frac{1}{\sqrt{16\pi B}}\exp\left(-\frac{(x_1-x_2)^2}{16B}\right) \nonumber \\
&\times&\left( \psi_1^\dagger(x_1) \psi_2^{{\phantom{\dagger}}}(x_2) + \psi_2^\dagger(x_2) \psi_1^{{\phantom{\dagger}}}(x_1) \right)
\label{Hint2}\end{aligned}$$ with fermions $\psi_j(x)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}V_j(-1;x)$. The running coupling constant $\tilde u(B)$ approaches a [*finite*]{} value in this limit [@divv]. The asymptotic value $\tilde u(\infty)$ can therefore be interpreted as the renormalized coupling constant parametrizing a quadratic Hamiltonian $H_0+H_{\rm int}(B)$ that describes the low–energy behavior of the initial sine–Gordon model. The RG strong–coupling divergence of the running coupling constant is avoided since the interaction (\[Hint2\]) in this effective low–energy Hamiltonian becomes increasingly non–local for $B\rightarrow\infty$. The gap $\Delta=2m$ in the spectrum is obtained in terms of the renormalized coupling constant $\tilde u(\infty)$ that sets the mass of the effective low–energy Thirring fermions with $m=\tilde u(\infty)/a$.
The soliton mass derived from Eqs. (\[eq\_F\]-\[compRG\]) can be compared with the predictions of perturbative scaling: E.g. for $\beta_0^2=8\pi(1-u_0)$ (corresponding to the hidden SU(2)–symmetry) one can show analytically $m\propto u_0^\tau \exp(-1/2u_0) /a$ for $u_0\downarrow 0$ with $\tau=(1+\gamma)/3\approx 0.526$ ($\gamma\approx 0.577$ is Euler’s constant). This agrees well with the third order RG result $\tau_{\rm RG}=1/2$ and the same exponential dependence [@Wiegmann; @alpha]. For smaller values of $\beta_0$ one finds the power law behavior $m\propto u_0^{1/(2-\beta_0^2/4\pi)}/a$ known from the inverse scattering solution [@rev_sinegordon]: This is very well confirmed by the numerical integration of the flow equations (Fig. 1). The proportionality constant depends only on $\beta_0$ for $u_0\downarrow 0$, in particular $m=u_0/a$ for $\beta_0^2=4\pi$ as known from the noninteracting Thirring model [@Coleman].
The flow equation solution not only provides the excitation gap, but one can also obtain information about the crossover, e.g. the full dispersion relation: The Hamiltonian for $B=\infty$ takes the form $H(\infty)=H_0+H_{\rm new}(\infty)$ since the interaction term $H_{\rm int}(B)$ is eliminated. One can verify that $H_{\rm new}(B)$ does not modify the flow of $\beta(B)$ and $\tilde u(B)$ as derived above [@details]. The new terms generated during the flow in $H_{\rm new}(\infty)$ can be split up as $H_{\rm new}(\infty)=H_{\rm diag}(\infty)+H_{\rm res}(\infty)$, where $H_{\rm diag}(\infty)$ contains the terms that follow in leading order of the OPE from $[\eta,H_{\rm int}]$ in (\[etaHint\]), while $H_{\rm res}(\infty)$ formally contains everything not taken into account in the present order of the OPE. Integration of the flow equations gives [@details] $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm diag}(\infty)&=&\sum_{p>0} \omega_p(\infty) \Big( P_1^\dagger(p) P_1^{\phantom\dagger}(p)
+ P_1^{\phantom\dagger}(-p) P_1^{\dagger}(-p)
\nonumber \\
&&\qquad + P_2^\dagger(-p) P_2^{\phantom\dagger}(-p)
+ P_2^{\phantom\dagger}(p) P_2^{\dagger}(p) \Big)
\label{Hdiag}\end{aligned}$$ with certain coefficients $\omega_p(\infty)$. Here $P_j(p)=\int dx\:e^{-ipx} V_j(-\alpha(B_p);x)$ and $B_p\stackrel{\rm def}{=}1/4p^2$. The spectrum can be analyzed easily since $[H_0,H_{\rm diag}(\infty)]=0$: In leading order the single–particle (soliton) excitations of $H_0+H_{\rm diag}(\infty)$ are $P_1^\dagger(k)|\Omega\rangle$ for $k>0$ and $P_2^\dagger(k)|\Omega\rangle$ for $k<0$. The single–hole (antisoliton) excitations are $P_1(k)|\Omega\rangle$ for $k<0$ and $P_2(k)|\Omega\rangle$ for $k>0$. In the strong–coupling phase for $\beta_0^2\geq 4\pi$ the resp. excitation energies are very accurately (but not exactly) described by $E_k^2=k^2+(\tilde u(\infty)/a)^2$ in the small coupling limit: There are $\beta_0$–dependent universal corrections in the crossover region $k=O(m)$ that vanish for $\beta_0^2\rightarrow 4\pi$ and reach at most of order $2\%$ for $\beta_0^2=8\pi$. The character of the excitations varies from scaling dimension $\alpha(B=0)$ to the low–energy Thirring fermions with $\alpha(B=\infty)=1$. In the weak–coupling phase the spectrum remains gapless and $E_k=|k|$ for $k\rightarrow 0$. Notice that the elementary excitations are expressed with respect to a transformed basis since $H(\infty)$ and $H(0)$ are related by a complicated unitary transformation.
For $\beta_0^2<2\pi$ the differential equations for $\omega_p(B)$ lead to divergences since then the $\cos(\beta_0\phi(x))$–perturbation is too relevant, limiting the approach to $\beta_0^2>2\pi$. For $2\pi<\beta_0^2<4\pi$ the single–particle spectrum is still well described by (\[Hdiag\]), our approximations become better as $\beta_0^2\uparrow 4\pi$. Higher orders in the OPE are nevertheless required to study the formation of bound states for $\beta_0^2<4\pi$ [@Faddeev75] due to residual interactions in $H_{\rm res}(\infty)$.
Summing up, we have applied a continuous sequence of infinitesimal unitary transformations, combined with an operator product expansion for vertex operators, to the quantum sine–Gordon model with $\beta^2\in(2\pi,\infty)$. The approximations are systematic since more terms in the OPE can successively be taken into account and will not endanger the stability of the strong–coupling fixed point. The results for the soliton mass in the strong–coupling phase agree with two loop scaling predictions for $\beta^2\approx 8\pi$ (approximate agreement was even found to three loop order) and exact methods [@rev_sinegordon] applicable for smaller $\beta^2$. The full dispersion relation could be obtained and the crossover from weak to strong–coupling behavior described. The method also allows one to study correlation functions [@KehreinMielke] and other strong–coupling problems that can be formulated in terms of vertex operators.
The author acknowledges many valuable discussions with K. Byczuk, T. Franosch, W. Hofstetter and particularly D. S. Fisher. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grants DMR 9630064 and DMR 9976621.
Leave of absence from Theoretische Physik III, Universit[ä]{}t Augsburg, 86135 Augsburg, Germany. K. G. Wilson, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**47**]{}, 773 (1975). F. Wegner, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) [**3**]{}, 77 (1994). S. D. G[ł]{}azek and K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 5863 (1993) and Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 4214 (1994). For a recent review see A. O. Gogolin, A. A. Nersesyan and A. M. Tsvelik, [*Bosonization and Strongly Correlated Systems*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998). E. K. Sklyanin, L. A. Takhtadzhyan and L. D. Faddeev, Teor. Mat. Fiz. [**40**]{}, 194 (1979); Theor. Math. Phys. [**40**]{}, 688 (1979). P. B. Wiegmann, J. Phys. C [**11**]{}, 1583 (1978). For higher order results see D. J. Amit, Y. Y. Goldschmidt and G. Grinstein, J. Phys. A [**13**]{}, 585 (1980). S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. Lett. D [**11**]{}, 2088 (1975); see also A. Luther and V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**33**]{}, 589 (1974). S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. D [**11**]{}, 3026 (1975). J. S[ó]{}lyom, Adv. Phys. [**28**]{}, 201 (1979). This regularization follows naturally when one derives the sine–Gordon Hamiltonian by bosonizing the $1d$ Fermi system with backward scattering: $a^{-1}$ sets the UV–cutoff for the momentum transfer of the fundamental fermions. S. Kehrein and A. Mielke, J. Stat. Phys. [**90**]{}, 889 (1998) and further references therein; see also S.D. G[ł]{}azek and K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 3558 (1998). Details of this calculation will be presented elsewhere. This hidden symmetry has its origin in the SU(2)–spin symmetry of a $1d$ Fermi system with backward scattering that can be mapped to the sine–Gordon model (\[sineGordon\]) with $\beta_0^2=8\pi(1\pm u_0)$, $u_0\ll 1$ [@Wiegmann; @Solyom]. In the strong–coupling phase $u(\ell)$ diverges according to Eqs. (\[compRG\]). But notice that $u(\ell)$ is [*not*]{} the expansion parameter of our approach and has only been defined for rewriting Eq. (\[flowbeta2\]): The real expansion parameter is $\tilde u(\ell)$. Higher orders in the OPE can modify $\tau$, therefore the already small difference to $\tau_{\rm RG}$ is remarkable. See, e.g., S. Kehrein and A. Mielke, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) [**6**]{}, 90 (1997) for the spin–boson model.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By introducing a predictive mechanism with small-world connections, we propose a new motion protocol for self-driven flocks. The small-world connections are implemented by randomly adding long-range interactions from the leader to a few distant agents, namely pseudo-leaders. The leader can directly affect the pseudo-leaders, thereby influencing all the other agents through them efficiently. Moreover, these pseudo-leaders are able to predict the leader’s motion several steps ahead and use this information in decision making towards coherent flocking with more stable formation. It is shown that drastic improvement can be achieved in terms of both the consensus performance and the communication cost. From the industrial engineering point of view, the current protocol allows for a significant improvement in the cohesion and rigidity of the formation at a fairly low cost of adding a few long-range links embedded with predictive capabilities. Significantly, this work uncovers an important feature of flocks that predictive capability and long-range links can compensate for the insufficiency of each other. These conclusions are valid for both the attractive/repulsive swarm model and the Vicsek model.'
author:
- 'Hai-Tao Zhang$^1$'
- 'Michael Z. Q. Chen$^{1,2,\dagger}$'
- 'Tao Zhou$^{3,4}$'
title: 'Predictive protocol of flocks with small-world connection pattern'
---
Introduction
============
Over the last decade, physicists have been looking for common, possibly universal, features of the collective behaviors of animals, bacteria, cells, molecular motors, as well as driven granular objects. The collective motion of a group of autonomous agents (or particles) is currently a subject of intensive research that has potential applications in biology, physics and engineering. One of the most remarkable characteristics of systems, such as flocks of birds, schools of fish, and swarms of locusts, is the emergence of collective states in which the agents move in the same direction, i.e., an ordered state [@vi95; @do06; @ch06; @he05; @gr04; @al07; @li08]. Moreover, this ordered state seeking problem for flocks/swarms/schools can be further generalized to consensus [@sa04], rendezvous, synchrony, cooperation and so on. From the application aspect, this kind of distributed collective dynamic systems has direct implications on sensor network data fusion, load balancing, unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), attitude alignment of satellite clusters, congestion control of communication networks, multi-agent formation control and global coordination for emergency [@ak02; @og04; @ar02; @he00].
The interaction pattern of the natural biological flocks/swarms are neither entirely regular nor entirely random. An individual of a flock usually knows its neighbors, but its circle of acquaintances may not be confined to those who live right next door. In 1998, in order to describe the transition from a regular lattice to a random graph, Watts and Strogatz (WS) introduced the concept of the small-world network [@wa98] by rewiring one end of a few connections to new nodes chosen at random from the whole network. With these few shortcuts, the average distance is decreased significantly without crucially changing the clustering property. The work on the WS small-world network has started an avalanche of research on complex networks, especially, the synchronizability of networks can be greatly enhanced by introducing a few long-range connections [@wa03; @zh06; @al03]. Thus, for better synchronization in a flock of neighboring-connected agents with a leader, it is advantageous to build a small-world-type network structure by randomly adding long-range connections from the leader to a few distant agents (namely *pseudo-leaders*), so that the leader can affect them, thereby influencing all the other agents through them, via fast communication and rapid control commands.
Although a lot of relevant works were focused on network structures, recently, more and more researchers are interested in finding the rules of the inter-connections present in abundant bio-groups. Extraction of these rules can help interpret why the bio-groups can demonstrate so many good characteristics such as synchronization, stabilisation, cohesion, etc. A fairly basic but popular flocking strategy can be traced back to the Reynolds Model [@re87], in which three elementary flocking protocols are prescribed, (i) *separation*: steer to avoid crowding and [collision;]{} (ii) *alignment*: steer towards the average [heading;]{} (iii) *cohesion*: steer to move towards the average position. These rules have been proven to be effective and thus become the basic rules for the design of bio-group dynamic models. In 2003, Gazi and Passino [@ga03] proposed an effective A/R (attractive/repulsive) swarm model in which the motion of each individual (autonomous agent or biological creature) is determined by two factors: (i) attraction to the other individuals on long distances; (ii) repulsion from the other individuals on short distances.
The Gazi and Passino A/R model [@ga03], embedded with a similar mechanism of the inter-molecular force, is derived from the biological flocks/swarms behaviors. Thus far, the general understanding is that the swarming behaviors result from an interplay between a long-range attraction and a short-range repulsion between the individuals [@br54; @wa91]. In [@br54], Breder suggested a simple model composed of a constant attraction term and a repulsion term which is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two members, whereas in [@wa91] Warburton and Lazarus studied the effects on cohesion of a family of attraction/repulsion functions. Moreover, in physics communiuty, a large volume of literature on systems with interactive particles have also adopted functions of attractive and repulsive forces to investigate the dynamics of the system [@le98; @be90; @we98; @ar07; @sc92; @me99; @oh93]. For instance, in [@le98; @be90], systems of particles interacting in a lattice are considered with attraction between particles located at different sites and repulsion between particles occupying the same site. It is discussed in [@we98] that, the structure of a nonuniform Lennard-Jones (LJ) liquid near a hard wall is approximated by that of a reference fluid with repulsive intermolecular forces in a self-consistently determined external mean field incorporating the effects of attractive forces.
With the A/R model [@ga03], Gazi and Passino proved that the individuals will form a bounded cohesive swarm in a finite time. One year later, by adding another factor, i.e., attraction to the more favorable regions (or repulsion from the unfavorable regions), they generalized their former model into a social foraging swarm model [@ga04]. Under some suitable circumstance, agents in this modified model are apt to move to the more favorable regions. The A/R model has been adopted by physicists and biologists to model self-driven particles and biological flocks [@sh06; @zi07; @do06; @ch07; @li07a; @li07b]. In 2004, Moreau [@mo04] presented a linearized model of flocks, and proved that the flock is uniformly and globally cohesive to a bounded circle if and only if there exists an agent (the “leader") connecting to all other agents, directly or indirectly, over an arbitrary time interval. Other than these kinds of A/R models [@ga03; @ga04; @mo04], another popular kind of model is that without leaders (say homogeneous), where a very representative one is the Vicsek Model [@vi95]. In each step, every agent updates its velocity according to the average direction of its neighbors. With the decrease of external noise or the increase of the particle density, the collective behavior of the flock undergoes a phase transition from the randomly distributed phase to the coherently moving phase. In 2003, Jadbabaie [*et al.*]{} provided the convergence condition of the noise-free Vicsek model, i.e., the individuals are linked in some intervals [@ja03].
\[0.40\][![ (Color online) Predictive vision in natural bio-groups. Each individual makes its motion decision based on not only the current status of the leader and its neighbors but also their future dynamics. []{data-label="fig: Predictive vision"}](Fig1.eps "fig:")]{}
Although most of the previous works on flock dynamics yield many advantages such as synchronization, stabilization, cohesion, and quick consensus, agents within the networks only know the information that is currently available to them. In this paper, we highlight another appealing phenomenon, i.e. the universal existence of predictive mechanism in various biological aggregated systems. A general physical picture behind this is illustrated in Fig. \[fig: Predictive vision\] and interpreted as follows: in widely-spread natural bio-groups composed of animals, bacteria, cells, etc., the decision on the next-step behavior of each individual is not solely based on the currently available state information (including position, velocity, etc.) of other (neighboring) agents inside the group but also on the predictions of future states. More precisely, taking a few past states of its leader and neighbors into account, an individual can estimate the corresponding future states several steps ahead and then make a decision.
Some experimental evidences have already been reported in the literature. In 1959, Woods implemented some experiments on bee swarms and found a certain predictive mechanism of electronic signals inside this bio-group [@wo59]. Also for bee swarms, in 2002, Montague [*et al.*]{} discovered that there exist some predictive protocols in the foraging process in uncertain environments [@mo00]. Apart from the investigation of the predictive mechanisms of locust swarming and foraging, more scholars focused on the predictive function of the optical and acoustical apparatuses of the individuals inside bio-groups [@go03; @su06; @me07], especially cortexes and retinae. For instance, based on intensive experiments on the bio-eyesight systems, they found that when an individual observer prepared to follow a displacement of the stimulus with the eyes, visual form adaptation was transferred from current fixation to the future gaze position. These investigations strongly support our conjecture of the existence of some predictive mechanisms inside abundant bio-groups.
Bearing in mind the plentiful examples of predictive protocols inside natural bio-groups, we incorporated some predictive functions into a few long-range links, and found that it is possible to significantly enhance the flocking performances at a fairly low cost of the additional predictive energy. More interestingly, proper prediction capability can help reduce the minimal number of the long-range links between the leader and the pseudo-leaders, thus effectively decrease the communication cost.
On the other hand, from the industrial application point of view, the phenomena and strategy reported in this paper may be applicable in some relevant prevailing engineering areas like autonomous robot formations, sensor networks and UAVs [@ak02; @og04; @ar02]. Typically, due to the limitation of the communication energy, only a few agents have the capability to communicate with the leader. The incorporation of a predictive mechanism into these pseudo-leaders can greatly improve the flocking performances.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec: model\], the small-world connection model with embedded predictive mechanism is presented. Then, in Section \[Sec: AR results\], its important role in improving flocking synchronization performances is extracted and analyzed by numerical simulations on the A/R model [@ga03]. Afterwards, in Section \[Sec: prediction Vicsek\], the generality of the virtues endowed by such predictive mechanism is validated on the Vicsek model [@vi95] as well. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section \[sec: conclusion\].
Model {#sec: model}
=====
It is well-known that a ring-shaped network structure is not a good one for efficient mutual communication and global control within a flock of agents, while the so-called small-world networking structure performs much better. By adding a few long-range connections, the average path length of the ring-shaped network will be abruptly decreased. This small-world effect is very desirable for fast communication and information transmission, efficient synchronization, and effective global control over the entire network [@zh06]. Thus, in a flock of neighboring-connected agents with a leader, for communication and control purposes, it is advantageous to build a small-world-type network by randomly adding long-range connections from the leader to a few distant agents (namely *pseudo-leaders*). As shown in Fig. \[fig:structure\], the leader can affect pseudo-leaders, thereby influencing all the other agents through them. To be clear, we call the non-special agents *followers*. Thus in our model, there are three different kinds of agents: leader (L), pseudo-leaders (P), and followers (F).
In this model, the flock is assumed to move in an $m$-dimensional space and the standard A/R function [@sa04; @ga03; @ga04] $$\label{eq: AR function} G(d_{pL})=-d_{pL}\left(a-b\cdot
\mbox{exp}(-\|d_{pL}\|_2^2/c)\right)$$ is used as long-range interaction from the leader (L) to each pseudo-leader (P), where $a$, $b$, $c$ are three free parameters, $d_{pL}$ is the $m$-dimensional vector pointing from the predicted location of leader $L$ to the current location of a pseudo-leader $p$, and $\|d_{pL}\|_2=\sqrt{d_{pL}^Td_{pL}}$ denotes the Euclidean distance between them. The force $G(d_{pL})$ is an $m$-dimensional vector whose direction is from the pseudo-leader to the leader. For simplicity, in our model, the motion of leader is given in advance, and will not be affected by any other agents. We assume every pseudo-leader has the same prediction horizon $H_p$, that is to say, a pseudo-leader will predict the leader’s location $H_p$ steps ahead.
On the other hand, a weaker A/R function, representing the short-range interaction between two arbitrary neighboring agents $i$ and $j$ is addressed as: $$\label{eq: AR function of followers}
g(d_{ij})=-d_{ij}\left(\tilde{a}-\tilde{b}\cdot
\mbox{exp}(-\|d_{ij}\|_2^2/\tilde{c})\right),$$ where $d_{ij}$ is the $m$-dimensional vector pointing from the individuals $j$ to $i$, and $\|d_{ij}\|_2=\sqrt{d_{ij}^Td_{ij}}$ denotes the Euclidean distance between them. The parameters $\tilde{a}$, $\tilde{b}$ and $\tilde{c}$ are much smaller than $a$, $b$, and $c$, respectively. The direction of vector $g(d_{ij})$ is from $i$ to $j$. Denote by $r$ the radius of neighboring area (see Fig. \[fig:structure\]). The neighboring A/R links could connect any two agents (F-F, P-P and L-F) within the Euclidean distance $r$ except the L-P interaction described in Eq. ([\[eq: AR function\]]{}). Note that the leader can influence other agents, but will not be influenced. In order to decrease the prediction cost, no predictive mechanism is incorporated into the neighboring A/R links. Bearing in mind the physical meaning of A/R function [@sa04], the positions of a pseudo-leader $z_p$ and a follower $z_i$ (both $z_p$ and $z_i$ are $m$-dimensional vectors) are determined by $$\label{eq: pseudo-leader dynamics}
\dot{z}_{p}(t)=\underbrace{G(d_{pL}(t+H_p))}_{long~link~to~the~
leader}+\underbrace{\sum_{j\neq L, d_{pj}(t)\leq
r}g(d_{pj}(t)),}_{neighboring~links}$$ and $$\label{eq: follower dynamics}
\dot{z}_i(t)=\underbrace{\sum_{j,d_{ij}(t)\leq
r}g(d_{ij}(t)),}_{neighboring~links}$$ respectively, where $t$ denotes the current time, and $d_{pL}(t+H_p)$ represents the $m$-dimensional vector pointing from the leader’s position $H_p$ steps ahead to the current position of a pseudo-leader. Although the rest of this paper concentrates on the motions in $2$-dimensional space, the present model can be directly applied in any finite dimensional space. In this way, unlike the routine flocking strategies [@mo04; @ga03; @ga04; @co05], a small-world interaction pattern is established with embedded predictive mechanism, which has the capability of predicting the future behavior (position, velocity, etc.) of the leader several steps ahead. Note that the structure of this interaction network will change in time since the location of each agent is varying.
The information communication process is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:influence\]. The farthest agent $i_1$ directly communicating with agent $i$ is among the ones at the rim of the circle with radius $r$ centered on agent $i$. Analogously, the farthest agent $i_2$ directly influenced by $i_1$ is also located at the rim of the circle centered on agent $i_1$, and so forth. Finally, the influence of agent $i$ reaches agent $j$ in $H_p$ steps. When agent $j$ receives the information from agent $i$ at time $t$, it is in fact a delayed information of agent $i$ at time step $t-H_p$. However, if agent $i$ acts as a pseudo-leader who can accurately predict the behavior of the leader $H_p$ steps ahead, then, at time step $t$, agent $j$’s motion is affected by the exact current location of the leader $z_L(t)$. In this way, although agent $j$ may not have direct connection with the leader, it could know some information of the leader’s current dynamics by agent $i$’s delayed information. Therefore, agent $j$ can adhere to the leader more tightly, the flock’s formation is more likely to be stable, and the coherence of the whole flock is thus improved effectively. Note that, the predictive mechanism is valid only if the leader’s motion is regular [@ex1]. If the leader moves in some random, chaotic or other irregular ways, such as random walk, it is, in principle, impossible for the pseudo-leaders to predict the leader’s further location. Fortunately, in the real biological world, the flock leader always moves in some predictable pattern. Therefore, the other agents have the opportunity to display their predicting ability, such as that used by a chameleon to capture a fly and by a dog to catch a frisbee.
Analysis and simulations {#Sec: AR results}
========================
To show the advantages of the predictive mechanism, we compare the performances of the two cases of flocking with and without the predictive mechanism by simulations over an $N$-agent flock moving in a two-dimensional space as shown in Fig. \[fig:final position with predictive mechanism\]. The parameters are set as follows: the neighboring circle $r=0.65$, the parameters of the A/R functions (see Eqs. (\[eq: AR function\]) and (\[eq: AR function of followers\])) of long-range links and neighboring links are set as $a=8$, $b=17.6$, $c=3.2$, and $\tilde{a}=1$, $\tilde{b}=2.2$, $\tilde{c}=0.2$, respectively. The former A/R function is much stronger in order to intensify the influence of the leader. As shown in Fig. \[fig:final position with predictive mechanism\]a, each agent starts from a position randomly selected in the square $[0,1]\times [0,1]$. The leader and the pseudo-leaders are selected randomly among these $N$ agents. The trajectory of the leader is set as $x_2=\sqrt{x_1}$, and the velocity of the leader is $v_{L_{x_1}}(t)=0.02,~v_{L_{x_2}}(t)=\sqrt{0.02(t+1)}-\sqrt{0.02t}$. In our simulations, the time label $t$ is a discrete number with step length being equal to $1$.
---------- ----------
[(a) ]{} [(b) ]{}
[(c) ]{} [(d) ]{}
---------- ----------
---------- ----------
[(a) ]{} [(b) ]{}
[(c) ]{} [(d) ]{}
---------- ----------
It can be seen from Figs. \[fig:final position with predictive mechanism\]b–\[fig:final position with predictive mechanism\]d that, with a proper $H_p$, the coherence of the flock will be improved remarkably. The followers will adhere to the leader much more tightly (see Fig. \[fig:final position with predictive mechanism\]c), and the flock formation will be more stable. More precisely, for the flocks with the predictive mechanism, the position error index $$\label{eq: position error index} J_p=\frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{i=1,i\neq L
}^{N}\|d_{iL}\|_2$$ converges to a constant after finite steps, indicating a stable state of the flock dynamics. Here, $J_p$ measures the cohesion performance of the flock, with $\|d_{iL}\|_2$ denoting the Euclidean distance between agent $i$ (F or P) and the leader. Meanwhile, as to the flock without this mechanism, as shown in Fig. \[fig:final position with predictive mechanism\]b, $J_p$ will keep increasing along with the elapse of time, making the flocking unstable. However, abusing the foresight, namely over-prediction (see Fig. \[fig:final position with predictive mechanism\]d), is also undesirable. That is because the pseudo-leaders are attracted/repelled by the leader position too many steps ahead and will probably escape the flock with a fairly high speed, and then lose influences on the followers. In this way, the flocking will be damaged after finite steps.
The circular formation of the followers in Figs. \[fig:final position with predictive mechanism\]b–\[fig:final position with predictive mechanism\]d is because of the particular form of the A/R function. To be clear, we give a more detailed explanation as follows: Actually, the biological flock dynamics is fairly complex. For example, fish uses sidetrack to sense the current variances, in this way, the fish schools are formed. On the other hand, in order to save flying energy for the rear individuals, wild geese flocks always form a ‘$\Lambda$’-like formation [@kr02]. In this case, the forming process of such flock is determined by aerodynamics. Our proposed model is based on the idea that an individual inside a bio-group can predict the trajectory of its leader(s), and this kind of intelligence can help the individual make more efficient decision to improve the flocking performance. This paper, however, does not aim at reproducing the detailed movement formations of any particular bio-groups.
In order to extract the role of $H_p$ and the number of pseudo-leaders denoted by $N_{pl}$, we display their influences on the position error index $J_p$ and velocity error index $J_v$ in Fig. 5, where $$\label{eq: velocity error index} J_v=\frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{i=1, i\neq L
}^{N}\|\overrightarrow{v_i}-\overrightarrow{v_L}\|_2.$$ Here, $J_v$ measures the formation performance of the flock, where $\overrightarrow{v_L}$ and $\overrightarrow{v_i}$ denote the velocity vectors of the leader and the $i$th agent (F or P). If $J_v\rightarrow 0$, the relative velocity of each pair of agents approaches zero, thus the flock formation is fixed. In Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]a, we fix $H_p$ and display the curves of $J_v$ with increasing $N_{pl}$, while Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]b, on the contrary, reports the curves of $J_v$ with increasing $H_p$ and fixed $N_{pl}$. It can be seen from Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]a that the curves fall sharply at the beginning and then more slowly until reaching a minimum, afterwards rising slowly as the increasing of $N_{pl}$. It implies that adding just very few pseudo-leaders (e.g. long-range links) to the leader, which transforms the flock topology from a strongly localized network into a small-world one, will improve the flocking performance greatly. However, when the number of pseudo-leaders reaches an optimum $N_{pl}^*$ corresponding to the minimal $J_v^*$, the flock formation performance will start to worsen and these extra pseudo-leaders become redundant. On the other hand, increasing $H_p$ can help reduce $J_v$ in two ways: (i) it depresses $J_v$ with the same $N_{pl}$; (ii) it reduces the optimal value of $N_{pl}^*$ corresponding to the minimal $J_v^*$. Compared with Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]a, the $J_v$ curves in Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]b fall more slowly at the beginning until reaching the minimum, afterwards $J_v$ increases all along and never reaching a stable platform. It implies that the flock formation performance can be remarkably improved with proper predictive capability, however, too much vision into the future, namely over-prediction, will even worsen the formation of flocking. On the other hand, more pseudo-leaders, i.e., larger $N_{pl}$ (as long as $N_{pl}\leq N_{pl}^*$), can also help yield more cohesive flocking with better formation.
An interesting phenomenon can be observed from Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]a that increasing the number of pseudo-leaders beyond some characteristic number makes the flocking performance worse, which seems counter-intuitive. This can be explained as follows. First, as shown in Eqs. (\[eq: pseudo-leader dynamics\]) and (\[eq: follower dynamics\]), the velocities of both the pseudo-leaders and the followers are solely determined by the relative positions. Indeed, as shown in Fig. \[fig:pseudo-leader\], if there is only one pseudo-leader A, then the follower C will head in the red dashed arrow towards A, and all the three individuals are nearly moving in the same direction, which is desirable. However, when another pseudo-leader B is added into this flock, the follower C will move towards a certain position between A and B (see the green arrow). Apparently, the velocity synchronization performance is worsened compared with the former case. Therefore, the observation in Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]a is reasonable. To give a more vivid and detailed explanation, we give further discussions in **Appendix A** for interested readers.
Next, we investigate the effects of $H_p$ and $N_{pl}$ for another important index $J_p$. It can be seen from Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]c that the curves fall sharply at the beginning and then asymptotically approach a stable value. The main difference between Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]a and Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]c is that the latter is monotonous and has no minimum, in other words, the increase of $N_{pl}$ always improves $J_p$. A special case explaining this phenomenon is that if all the followers serve as the pseudo-leaders, then they will be very cohesive to the leader. However, when $N_{pl}$ exceeds a certain value $\bar{N}_{pl}$, $J_p$ will increase so slowly that almost no substantial improvement can be achieved. Moreover, increasing $H_p$ can help reduce $J_p$, and the improvement shrinks along with increasing $H_p$, indicating a saturation effect that no remarkable improvement can be achieved by pushing $H_p$ to a very high value (which may cost too much). Compared with Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]c, the curves of Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]d decrease more slowly first and then reach the lowest values at a fairly large $H_p$, afterwards rise quickly. Thus, over-prediction is not preferred. Analogous to Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]b, more pseudo-leaders will help improve the cohesive flocking performance, however, this improvement also displays a saturation effect with increasing $N_{pl}$. Actually, when $N_{pl}$ exceeds a certain value, $J_p$ increases very slowly that almost no benefit can be gained by further increasing $N_{pl}$. In brief, suitable insight into the future and moderate number of pseudo-leaders are preferred.
A plausible physical rule behind the observed phenomena shown in Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\] is that, in order to achieve a fixed flocking performance, greater predictive capability and more pseudo-leaders can compensate the insufficiency of each other. Given a fixed-size flock, separately for formation performance $J_v$ and cohesive performance $J_p$, there exists an optimized combination of $H_p$ and $N_{pl}$. The conclusions achieved in this paper are not sensitive to the trajectory of the leader. In order to validate the generality of the conclusions, we have used another two different trajectories, i.e., parabolic and sinusoidal curves. The simulation results are shown in **Appendix B**, which suggest that our main conclusion, i.e., predictive capability and long-range links can compensate for the insufficiency of each other, also holds in those two cases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[![(Color online) With-noise case vs. noise-free case for a flock with $N=50$, $N_{pl}=9$, and $\eta=0.02$. The other parameters and the initial conditions are the same as those in Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]. Each point is an average over 1000 independent runs. The moderate external noise does not change the global behavior of the flock.[]{data-label="fig: A/R with noise"}](Fig7a.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"}]{} [![(Color online) With-noise case vs. noise-free case for a flock with $N=50$, $N_{pl}=9$, and $\eta=0.02$. The other parameters and the initial conditions are the same as those in Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]. Each point is an average over 1000 independent runs. The moderate external noise does not change the global behavior of the flock.[]{data-label="fig: A/R with noise"}](Fig7b.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"}]{}
[(a)]{} [(b)]{}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the practical point of view, external perturbations (noise) and internal modeling mismatch are always present in any realistic systems, which inevitably induces some prediction error for the pseudo-leaders. To examine the influence of such prediction errors, we now introduce the perturbation into Eqs. and by adding an external two-dimensional white noise term $\xi \in
[-\frac{1}{2}\eta,\frac{1}{2}\eta]\times
[-\frac{1}{2}\eta,\frac{1}{2}\eta]$ to the vector $d_{pL}$, i.e., $\hat{d}_{pL}={d}_{pL}+\xi$ and $G(\hat{d}_{pL})=-\hat{d}_{pL}\left(a-b\cdot
\mbox{exp}(-\|\hat{d}_{pL}\|_2^2/c)\right)$. The leader’s position is no longer perfectly known to the pseudo-leaders. From Fig. \[fig: A/R with noise\], one can observe that moderate external noises do not change the global behavior of the flock. The tendency of the curves $J_p$ and $J_v$ are almost the same as the noise-free case. Furthermore, to understand the capacity and robustness of our purposed predictive mechanism more deeply, we have also investigated the influences of stronger prediction errors $\xi$ with other kinds of leader trajectories including parabolic and sinusoidal curves in **Appendix C**. We found that the tolerance range of prediction error is large enough. In this way, the generality of the conclusions on the role of the predictive mechanism is thus further verified.
Predictive mechanisms in the Vicsek model {#Sec: prediction Vicsek}
=========================================
The role of predictive mechanisms highlighted in Section \[Sec: AR results\] is not merely confined to A/R flocks but quite general. To verify this, we now incorporate this predictive mechanism into another flocking model, i.e., the Vicsek model [@vi95], and compare the synchronization performance of the predictive small-world Vicsek model with the one of the standard Vicsek model.
[c]{}\
[(a)]{}\
\
[(b) ]{}
In this model, the velocities $v_i$ of the $N$ agents composing the group are determined simultaneously at each discrete-time instant, and the position of the $i$th agent is updated according to $$x_i (k+1)=x_i(k)+v_i(k),$$ where $v_i(k)$ denotes the velocity vector of agent $i$ at time $k$. For each agent the velocity vector, $v_i(k)$, is characterized by a constant magnitude $v$ and by a direction $\theta_i(k)$ whose dynamics is given by $$\theta_i (k+1)=\left<\theta_i\left(k\right)\right>_r+\Delta\theta_i,$$ where $\left<\theta_i\left(k\right)\right>_r$ denotes the average direction of all the agents’ velocity vectors within a circle of radius $r$ centered on agent $i$, i.e., $$\left<\theta_i\left(k\right)\right>_r=\left\{\begin{array}{l}\mbox{arctan}\left[\left<\sin\left(\theta_i\left(k\right)\right)\right>_r/
\left<\mbox{cos}\left(\theta_i\left(k\right)\right)\right>_r\right]\\
\quad \quad \mbox{if}~
\left<\mbox{cos}\left(\theta_i\left(k\right)\right)\right>_r\geq
0;\\\mbox{arctan}\left[\left<\sin\left(\theta_i\left(k\right)\right)\right>_r/
\left<\mbox{cos}\left(\theta_i\left(k\right)\right)\right>_r\right]+\pi\\
\quad \quad \mbox{otherwise},
\end{array}\right.$$ where $\left<\sin\left(\theta_i\left(k\right)\right)\right>_r$ and $\left<\mbox{cos}\left(\theta_i\left(k\right)\right)\right>_r$ denote the average sine and cosine values, and $\Delta\theta_i$ represents a random noise obeying a uniform distribution in the interval $[-\eta/2, \eta/2]$.
As shown in Fig. \[fig: the role of predictive mechanism\]a the particles are distributed in a square of dimension $[0,L]\times
[0,L]$. The trajectory of the leader, which is not affected by others, is a circle centered at $(L/2,L/2)$ with radius $R=L/6$ so that the direction of the leader changes constantly. The small-world predictive connection framework shown in Fig. \[fig:structure\] is used together with the Vicsek model. Hence, the $N_{pl}$ pseudo-leaders are always influenced by the leader’s velocity $H_p$ steps ahead together with its neighbors’ current velocities. It is shown in Fig. \[fig: the role of predictive mechanism\]b that drastic improvement of the velocity synchronization performance can be achieved with moderate prediction horizons. Similar to the results of the A/R model shown in Section \[Sec: AR results\], one can also conclude that suitable insight into the future and moderate number of pseudo-leaders is preferable.
Conclusion and discussion {#sec: conclusion}
=========================
Inspired by the predictive mechanisms that universally exist in abundant natural bio-groups, we incorporate a certain predictive protocol into flocks with small-world structure. The predictive mechanism embedded in the pseudo-leaders lets many neighboring-connected followers know the current or even future dynamics of the leader in time, thus each individual can make a decision based on timely information of the leader instead of the delayed information as in some traditional models. In this way, the followers become more cohesive to the leader and the flock formation becomes more stable. Note that, in our model, the leader’s motion governs the trajectory of the whole swarm. However, it is a general feature of real migration flocks. Actually, in [@co05], a changeable target known by a few leaders is used to guide the whole flock, in which only the target’s motion drives swarming behavior. Analogously, in this paper, a single leader is used to determine the general trajectory of the whole swarm. Therefore, the current leader-driven swarm is not unrealistic.
Simulation results led to the following conclusions: (i) Increasing the number of pseudo-leaders can always improve the cohesive flocking performance. Furthermore, it can improve the formation flocking performance when the pseudo-leader number has not exceeded a threshold, otherwise, the performance will be degraded. (ii) There exists a certain value of $H_p$ that optimizes the cohesive and the formation flocking performances, in other words, moderately increasing $H_p$ will improve the flocking performance, whereas predicting too many steps ahead will impair the flocking. (iii) Predictive capability and long-range links can compensate for the insufficiency of each other. It is worthwhile to emphasize the observed over-prediction phenomenon, which is of significance in practice.
Furthermore, to verify the generality of these conclusions, we have also applied the predictive mechanism to another popular flock model, the directed graph model with linear dynamics [@zh07; @zh08]. The corresponding results also strongly suggest that predictive protocols are beneficial to flocking dynamics when taking into consideration both the flocking performance and the communication cost. More importantly, with this mechanism, only a very small proportion of the followers are required to act as the pseudo-leaders to achieve a better flocking performance, as measured by $J_p$ and $J_v$. From the industrial application point of view, the value of this work is two-fold: (i) The flocking performance is significantly improved by injection of a suitable predictive mechanism into the pseudo-leaders; (ii) Moderately increasing the predictive capability can help remarkably decrease the required number of pseudo-leaders. The latter feature is fairly useful for networks with insufficient long-range communication links, which are routinely costly.
This work provides a starting point aimed at achieving better flocking performance by using a predictive mechanism, and we hope that it will open new avenues in this fascinating direction.
The authors acknowledge Prof. Guanrong Chen and Prof. Jan M. Maciejowski for their valuable and constructive suggestions. H.T.Z. acknowledges the support of National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSFC) under Grant No. 60704041, and the Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (RFDP) under Grant No. 20070487090. T.Z. acknowledges the support of NNSFC under Grant No. 10635040.
Appendix A: Supplemental illustration of Fig. \[fig:the roles of Hp and pseudo-leaders\]a {#appendix-a-supplemental-illustration-of-fig.figthe-roles-of-hp-and-pseudo-leadersa .unnumbered}
=========================================================================================
[c]{}\
[(a) ]{}\
\
[(b) ]{}
We take a 4-agent flock for instance. As shown in Fig. \[fig:pseudo-leader-sub\]a, all the individuals except the leader are pseudo-leaders. However, due to the repulsion between each couple of pseudo-leaders and the powerful attraction from the leader, the pseudo-leaders will keep certain distances between each other and form a section-like shape. Since all the pseudo-leaders always point to the leader’s predictive position $H_p$ steps ahead, the moving directions of all the individuals are obviously far from synchronized. By contrast, when one pseudo-leader C has been degraded into a follower as shown in Fig. \[fig:pseudo-leader-sub\]b, and take into consideration that the followers are always lagging behind the pseudo-leaders, the direction of follower C is aligned to approach the heading of the leader more or less. In this way, the velocity synchronization performance $J_v$ is improved. Thus, too many pseudo-leaders are not preferred. For more general cases with prediction errors, more long-range connections will introduce larger deviation, which partially neutralize the positive effect of pseudo-leaders on $J_v$, thus moderate pseudo-leaders are also desirable.
Appendix B: Effects of the predictive mechanism with different leader’s trajectories {#appendix-b-effects-of-the-predictive-mechanism-with-different-leaders-trajectories .unnumbered}
====================================================================================
---------- ----------
[(a) ]{} [(b) ]{}
[(c) ]{} [(d) ]{}
---------- ----------
---------- ----------
[(a) ]{} [(b) ]{}
[(c) ]{} [(d) ]{}
---------- ----------
The conclusions drawn in this paper are not sensitive to the trajectory of the leader. In order to validate the generality of the conclusions on the role of predictive mechanisms, we have used another two different trajectories, i.e., sinusoidal ($x_2=\sin(2x_1)+1$) and parabolic ($x_2=x_1^2$) curves. As shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, no matter what the leader’s trajectory is, the influences of $H_p$ and $N_{pl}$ on the principal tendencies of both $J_p$ and $J_v$ remain the same. Those simulations suggest that our main conclusion, i.e., predictive capability and long-range links can compensate for the insufficiency of each other, is also valid in those two cases.
Appendix C: Effects of prediction errors {#appendix-c-effects-of-prediction-errors .unnumbered}
========================================
---------- ----------
[(a) ]{} [(b) ]{}
[(c) ]{} [(d) ]{}
[(e) ]{} [(f) ]{}
---------- ----------
In realistic system models, mismatch and external perturbations which cause prediction errors are always present. For completeness, we hereby examine the effects of the prediction errors on synchronization behavior of the flock. As shown in Fig. \[fig:error effect\], we present curves of $J_v$ and $J_p$ with increasing noise magnitude $\eta=0,0.02,0.2,0.5$ for the cases of three different leader trajectories (square root, parabolic and sinusoidal curves), respectively. It is observed that moderate prediction error $\xi$ ($\xi\leq 0.2$, for example) can hardly change the synchronization tendency of the flock, which guarantees the feasibility and superiority of the current predictive mechanism. On the contrary, too large $\xi$ ($\xi\geq 0.5$, for example) will inevitably impair the advantages of this predictive mechanism. This observation is reasonable, since every method has its own limits and one can not expect a poor prediction capability to yield a superb guidance for the flock. Fortunately, the tolerance range of prediction error is satisfactorily large, which further verifies the generality of our proposed predictive mechanism. Note that the curve of $J_p$ is more robust than the curve of $J_v$, which roots in that the relative velocities can be more easily deviated by prediction error than the relative positions.
[99]{} Corresponding author, [email protected] M. Aldana, V. Dossetti, C. Huepe, V. M. Kenkre, and H. Larralde, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 095702 (2007). G. Grégoire and H. Chaté, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 025702 (2004). T. Vicsek, A. Czirók, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen and O. Shochet, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1226 (1995). M. R. D’Orsogna, Y. L. Chuang, A. L. Bertozzi and L. S. Chayes, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 104302 (2006). H. Chaté, F. Ginelli and R. Montagne, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 180602 (2006). J. P. Hernandez-Ortiz, C. G. Stoltz and M. D. Graham, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 204501 (2005). W. Li, H.-T. Zhang, M. Z. Q. Chen and T. Zhou, Phys. Rev. E [**77**]{}, 021920 (2008). R. Olfati-Saber and R. Murray, IEEE. Trans. Autom. Contr. [**49**]{}, 1520 (2004). I. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam and E. Cayirci, Computers Network [**38**]{}, 393 (2002). T. Arai, E. Pagello and L. E. Parker, IEEE Trans. Robotics and Automation [**18**]{}, 1292 (2002). D. Helbing, I. Farkas and T. Vicsek, Nature (London) [**407**]{}, 487 (2000). P. Ogren, E. Fiorelli and N. E. Leonard, IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr. [**49**]{}, 1292 (2004). D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature (London) [**393**]{}, 440 (1998). X. F. Wang, G. Chen, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I [**49**]{}, 54 (2002). T. Zhou, M. Zhao, and B. H. Wang, Phys. Rev. E [**73**]{}, 037101 (2006). M. Aldana and C. Huepe, J. Stat. Phys. [**112**]{}, 135 (2003). C. W. Reynolds, ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics [**21**]{}, 25 (1987). V. Gazi and K. M. Passino, IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr. [**48**]{}, 692 (2003). C. M. Breder, Ecology [**35**]{}, 361 (1954). K. Warburton and J. Lazarus, J. Theoret. Biolo. [**150**]{}, 473 (1991). B. I. Lev, Phys. Rev. E **58**, 2681 (1998). E. D. Belotskii and B. I. Lev, Phys. Lett. A **147**, 13 (1990). J. D. Weeks, K. Katsov and K. Vollmayr, Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 4400 (1998). A. J. Archer and N. B. Wilding, Phys. Rev. E **76**, 031501 (2007). P. Schlottmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. **68**, 1916 (1992). A. Melzer, V. A. Schweigert and A. Piel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 3194 (1999). F. Ohnesorge and G. Binnig, Science **260**, 1451 (1993). V. Gazi and K. M. Passino, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, and Cybernetics [**34**]{}, 539 (2004). H. Shi, L. Wang and T. Chu, Physica D [**213**]{}, 51 (2006). C. Zimmer, “From ants to people, an instinct to swarm,” *The New York Times*, November 13, 2007. Y. L. Chuang, M. R. D. Orsogna, D. Marthaler, A. L. Bertozzi, and L. S. Chayes, Physica D **232**, 33 (2007). X. Liu, J. Wang and L. Huang, Physica A **386**, 543 (2007). X. Liu, J. Wang and L. Huang, Physica A **383**, 733 (2007). L. Moreau, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control. [**50**]{}, 169 (2005). A. Jadbabaie, J. Lin and A. S. Morse, IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr. [**48**]{}, 988 (2003). E. F. Woods, Nature (London) [**184**]{}, 842 (1959). P. R. Montague, P. Dayan, C. Person and T. J. Sejnowski, Nature (London) [**377**]{}, 725 (2002). J. A. Gottfried, J. O. Doherty and R. J. Dolan, Science [**301**]{}, 1104 (2003). C. Summerfield, T. Egner, M. Greene, E. Koechlin, J. Mangles and J. Hirsch, Science [**314**]{}, 1311 (2006). D. Melcher, Nature Neuroscience [**10**]{}, 903 (2007). I. D. Couzin, J. Krause, N. R. Franks and S. A. Levin, Nature (London) [**433**]{}, 513 (2005). In this paper, a trajectory is considered to be “regular" if it preserves a continuous, differentiable curves, like parabolic, sinusoidal and circular waves, along with the increasing time variable $t$. Moreover, it should not contain any large fluctuation or some chaos-like movement so that its future tendency can be predicted by smoothing the historical sequence. For instance, when catching a frisbee, a dog will make prediction on its historical parabolic trajectory, and head for the predicted point of fall. In this case, the trajectory of the frisbee is “regular", and this kind of examples often happen in the real world. J. Krause and G. D. Ruxton, Living in Groups, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (2002). H. T. Zhang, G. B. Stan, M. Z. Q. Chen, J. M. Maciejowski and T. Zhou, arXiv: 0709.0172 (2007). H. T. Zhang, M. Z. Q. Chen, T. Zhou and G.-B. Stan, Europhys. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2008 (to appear).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Zhengjie Miao, Sudeepa Roy, and Jun Yang'
bibliography:
- 'grading\_main.bib'
title: Explaining Wrong Queries Using Small Examples
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper presents a Kernel Entity Salience Model (`KESM`) that improves text understanding and retrieval by better estimating entity salience (importance) in documents. KESM represents entities by knowledge enriched distributed representations, models the interactions between entities and words by kernels, and combines the kernel scores to estimate entity salience. The whole model is learned end-to-end using entity salience labels. The salience model also improves ad hoc search accuracy, providing effective ranking features by modeling the salience of query entities in candidate documents. Our experiments on two entity salience corpora and two TREC ad hoc search datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of `KESM` over frequency-based and feature-based methods. We also provide examples showing how `KESM` conveys its text understanding ability learned from entity salience to search.'
author:
- Chenyan Xiong
- Zhengzhong Liu
- Jamie Callan
- 'Tie-Yan Liu'
bibliography:
- 'citation.bib'
title: Towards Better Text Understanding and Retrieval through Kernel Entity Salience Modeling
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.